Sitting of 25 March 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BARNSLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL
    Read the Third time and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to respond to the Transport Committee's report on the Channel link.
    Mr. Ron Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to respond to the Transport Committee's report on the Channel link.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): I welcome the committee's report, but before responding to it I shall wish to study fully the various proposals that are being put to me by potential promoters. That will clearly take a little time. I hope to be able to reach decisions of principle before the end of this year.
    Mr. Whitehead: Has the Secretary of State noticed that the Committee broadly endorsed the principle of a single track rail tunnel along the lines of that proposed by the two railway organisations? Does he feel that he ought to publish a White Paper, as the Select Committee recommended, so that the House may draw its conclusions on the thinking that will lead him to that decision in principle?
    Mr. Fowler: We shall consider that proposal. I shall deal with that question in my response to the report. Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the general endorsement not only of the principle of the Channel tunnel, but of the Government's policy towards it.
    Mr. Lewis: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that British Rail's proposals are broadly in line with those of the Select Committee, but on a much smaller scale than that accepted in 1975? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall his statement in the House on that occasion, that the the BR proposal was viable and was the right scheme to speed up the cross-Channel link? Will he act quickly and approve the scheme?
    Mr. Fowler: We have eight schemes to consider, including the British Rail scheme. The hon. Gentleman
    908
    mentioned the Select Committee's endorsement of the BR approach, but the Select Committee has gone nearer the 7 metre scheme than the 6 metre scheme. There is clearly nothing between us in principle on the Channel tunnel or on its importance for the railway industry.
    Sir Albert Costain: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that those of my constituents who were against the first Channel tunnel scheme are mainly in favour of the British Rail proposal, but all of them want an early decision?
    Mr. Fowler: I shall take that on board. If we can find a commercially viable scheme there is no reason why that scheme should not go ahead, but with private capital.
    Mr. Prescott: Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is still his policy to finance the project by genuine risk capital, and not with Government guarantees? Do future Government guarantees extend to minimum earnings on the tunnel, because the bankers to whom he is talking wanted that on the last Channel tunnel project?
    Mr. Fowler: As I have just said, I confirm that we believe that there is a commercially viable scheme here. There is no reason why that should not be supported by private risk capital. I remind the hon. Gentleman that on the last occasion the Labour Government cancelled the project because of a lack of public finance. We were not prepared to leave it there. We are currently considering the eight schemes, and will shortly consider a ninth. I shall then be in a much better position to answer him more fully.
    Mr. Moate: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the private risk capital for such a venture will not be guaranteed by the Government? Can he confirm also that the investment will not involve any diversion of British Rail funds that would otherwise be used for other more important British Rail investment projects?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes. We are talking about private risk capital, as I have made clear from the beginning. The second part of my hon. Friend's question relates to one of the matters that we shall bear in mind when considering these schemes.

    Hastings and St. Leonards (Bypass)
    Mr. Warrenasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on discussions between his Department and. the East Sussex county council about possible bypass routes to enable A259 traffic to avoid the towns of Hastings and St. Leonards.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): There have been no recent discussions with the county council. Work on this scheme has been suspended, but it will be resumed when we can name a realistic date for its construction.
    Mr. Warren: I know that my hon. and learned Friend is aware of the lamentable state of funding for trunk route projects in the part of the country that I represent, but may I draw his attention to some simple solutions to his problems? Will he consult the county council and utilise the spine road funded by the Hastings borough council, because that would supply at least half the route of a bypass round this busy town area?
    Mr. Clarke: The spine road suggestion by the county council is interesting. We are always happy to consult the

    909
    council and to co-ordinate its plans with our own. I hope that there will be some ways in which we can help before we are able to resume work on the Bexhill and Hastings bypass.

    Drivers (Vehicle Insurance)
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now introduce legislation to make it compulsory to display on a vehicle a certificate stating that the necessary insurance has been paid; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I see no need to impose this obligation, which presents considerable practical difficulties. Insurance certificates are checked when licences are renewed and the police have powers to require drivers to produce them at any time.
    Mr. Dormand: Is the Under-Secretary aware of the great difficulties and distress caused to innocent people by accidents caused by uninsured drivers? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not exaggerating the administrative problems involved? Would it not be simple to fix an insurance certificate to windscreens, just as tax certificates are fixed on windscreens at present?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree that a great deal of distress is caused when uninsured drivers are involved in accidents. The difficulty is that there is no standard form of insurance, and a disc would not indicate the conditions of the insurance cover. In addition, most insurance is not tied to one vehicle. The hon. Gentleman has put forward an attractive idea, but I repeat that it appears to involve considerable practical difficulties.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is it not the case that between 7 and 8 per cent.—in some cases up to 10 per cent.—of drivers have no excise licence? When I first raised the matter 25 years ago I was told that such evasion was not prevalent. Now we are told that it is out of hand and cannot be dealt with. Would not drivers ignore an insurance disc, just as they ignore the excise licence?
    Mr. Clarke: We are having what we call blitz campaigns in co-operation with local police forces throughout the country. I am glad to say that they are producing good results. We are also closely examining our arrangements for enforcing vehicle excise duty, and I hope that we shall be able to produce better results with less use of manpower and at less administrative cost.

    M54 (Telford)
    Mr. Hawksleyasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the M54 motorway to Telford.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Tenders for the first two contracts were invited on 10 February and 9 March. I hope to invite tenders for the remaining two over the next three months. Construction work under the first contract should start about June. We hope to open the road in late 1983.
    Mr. Hawksley: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer, which will give great comfort to many of my constituents who are looking to the road to help the investment that is necessary in the new town of Telford. Is it possible, even at this late stage, to consider the representations of some local contractors that they should
    910
    be included in the contract list? There are some fairly large contractors in my constituency who would be able to provide many jobs if they were successful. They are asking whether they could be considered for the contracts.
    Mr. Clarke: I shall consider that point on the two contracts for which we still have to invite tenders. However, much as we like to help local employment, we must have a wide range of considerations in mind when deciding on the suitability of contractors to be invited to tender for such major projects. We will help if we can.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, whatever comfort may be brought to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), considerable annoyance will be caused to my constituents because the road will go through my constituency? Is my hon. and learned Friend further aware that my constituents believe that the project is a scandalous waste of public money and that an extra £20 million is being needlessly spent? Is he aware also that the motorway will provide a new and natural boundary for the conurbation and will destroy much fine agricultural and scenic land? All in all, it is the most despicable decision that the Government have ever made.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has pressed each of those points on me for as long as we have been considering the project. It was a difficult decision, and it was impossible to satisfy both my hon. Friends. The debate about the road had continued inconclusively since the early 1970s. Telford has the highest rate of unemployment in the West Midlands. Many industries went there because they were promised a new road, and they believe that their survival depends upon better communications. I believe that the motorway will be a valuable capital investment. Someone had to make a decision, and the time has come to get on with it.

    Railways (Electrification)
    Mr. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to give his response to the findings of the rail electrification review.
    Mr. Fowler: I hope to be able to make a statement on railway electrification in the next month or two, after I have completed my consideration of the findings of the review and the British Railways Board's corporate plan.
    Mr. Anderson: Is the Secretary of State aware of the clear acceptance in the joint review of the advantages of main line electrification and the growing consensus and bipartisan view agreed by the TUC and the CBI, of the beneficial effects of rail electrification on industrial production for home and export markets? Will the right hon. Gentleman take on board the fact that we expect a positive response from the Government on this important piece of public investment?
    Mr. Fowler: Of course I take that on board. We have had the report only since Christmas and we are talking, on the largest option, of expenditure of between £750 million and £775 million. We are justified in taking some weeks to consider the matter, but I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Dorrell: Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement of policy published by the British Railways Board this afternoon? Does he welcome it as a major

    911
    contribution to the development of rail policy during the 1980s, and does he recognise the important part that electrification will play in achieving the targets set out by the board in that statement?
    Mr. Fowler: I have only just seen that document. It is being published by British Rail at 2.45 pm. The timing may not be altogether coincidental. Obviously, I shall need some time to study it. I commend to the House the accompanying statement by Sir Peter Parker. It is right to emphasise that the future of the railways can be a good one, but it must be a future that is earned by the railways. It is not something that the Government can provide.
    Mr. Bradley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it will be impossible to embark on the electrification of some of the lines recommended in the report until some of the major, costly and time-consuming resignalling schemes have been completed? What consideration is he giving to that investment aspect of the problem?
    Mr. Fowler: That is why we are dealing with the consideration altogether and not seeking to treat electrification as a separate issue. We are dealing with the investment needs of British Rail over the next four or five years.
    Mr. Waller: Bearing in mind the excellent rate of return provided by rail electrification, will my right hon. Friend give careful consideration to Sir Peter Parker's call in the document published today for an easing of the annual self-financing limit of BR, by the injection of private capital in the way that Sir Peter requires?
    Mr. Fowler: We are concerned to develop any opportunities for genuine private investment in the railway system. I am sure that the Opposition will wish to endorse that.
    Mr. Stott: Does the Secretary of State recall that when he last answered questions in the House I drew his attention to the unanimous conclusion of the working party that an early decision on electrification was essential if British industry was to benefit from it? We hope that the right hon. Gentleman's decision will be made within a month rather than a "month or two". Can he indicate whether he has consulted his right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Industry to ascertain from them how many jobs would be created in the regions and how many companies throughout the country would benefit from an early decision on electrification if the Government went for the biggest option?
    Mr. Fowler: We hope to make the decision in the next two months. I have made that clear. We estimate that about 2,000 new jobs would be created in the railway manufacturing industry if the electrification project went ahead. That impact and the effect on the private sector railway industry are matters that we shall have closely in mind.

    Railways (Investment)
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total investment in British Railways for 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980, respectively; and what is the projected investment for 1981.
    Mr. Fowler: The figures for 1977 to 1980 are £215 million, £245 million, £301 million and £337 million
    912
    respectively. All figures are at outturn prices and exclude expenditure on continuous welded rail which was removed from the Railways Board's investment ceiling in February 1980. The current public expenditure White Paper shows the board's forecast for investment in 1981–82 as £382 million.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise that the railway unions and railway workers generally—I have riot had a chance to see the plan that has apparently emerged today—are watching the situation with great care? They are aware of the possibility of line closures and of a definite deterioration in the right of way. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that action should be taken to ensure the safety of the public and also to ensure that the work force of British Rail is retained, without the fear that many of them will lose their jobs almost overnight?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions. His basic inquiry is about future employment in the industry. I am sure that he agrees that the highest productivity possible is essential if the railway industry is to have a future. That is crucial to the report that has been produced by British Rail today.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In relation to the projected expenditure, will my right hon. Friend indicate what consideration has been given to British Rail's investment in part of the infrastructure of the Channel link, particularly at terminals in London and outside Folkestone? Does he agree that the best way for this excellent project to proceed, to the benefit of employment in the construction industry, would be through some form of co-operation between British Rail and the European Channel Tunnel Group, which has put forward an excellent proposal for the Channel link?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not wish to discuss individual projects. These are before the Government at the moment What is basic is that there must be the closest co-operation between British Rail, SNCF and the private sector in terms of building the tunnel.
    Mr. Walter Johnson: Is the Secretary of State aware that vital maintenance and repair work is being held up on British Rail by the lack of finance? A safety factor, therefore, comes into the consideration. It is time that the Government made up their mind about what sort of financial aid is to be available. The situation is urgent. Will the Minister make a statement?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not think that I can add to what I have said about the urgent consideration that is taking place on the finances of the railway industry generally. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of the industry, will confirm that the safety record of British Rail is extremely good. Last year, I believe, was the best on record.
    Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that much of the rolling stock in use in Scotland is reaching the end of its practical life. Although the railway unions and British Rail in Scotland admit that there is no risk in the use of that stock and that passengers are not at risk, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has proposals for replacing that rolling stock.
    Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The rolling stock requirements of British Rail in Scotland and

    913
    elsewhere are part of the whole discussion on the future of the railway industry. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

    Humber Bridge
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest estimated volume of traffic that will use the Humber bridge.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I understand that the traffic consultant to the Bridge Board has estimated that 4,000 vehicles a day will use the bridge on opening, rising to 14,000 in 10 years' time.
    Mr. Brotherton: Assuming those figures to be correct, will my hon. and learned Friend say what will be the outstanding debt, including borrowing charges, on the bridge in the year 2000? Will he say when he expects this, the most beautiful of all white elephants, to have finally paid for itself?
    Mr. Clarke: The Bridge Board assures me that it thinks the bridge will eventually pay for itself. I cannot give an estimate of the total outstanding debt at the turn of the century. The bridge has cost £88 million so far, so it ought to look good and do some good for someone on the north side of the Humber.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that much of the extra traffic generated by the bridge is likely to pass through the city of Lincoln? We therefore welcome the Government's decision to build a bypass round the city and urge the Minister to make sure that the project is completed as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Clarke: I hope to be able to announce that we shall publish the draft orders—the detailed design for the new road—within the next few days.

    Ayrshire Railway Lines (Electrification)
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he plans to have, and with what bodies, before decisions on progress on the proposed electrification of the Ayrshire lines are made.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The proposed electrification of the Ayrshire lines is a matter for Strathclyde regional council as part of its responsibility for local transport. It is in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about the scheme.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that because of the division of responsibility between the Strathclyde PTE, the Secretary of State for Scotland and British Rail, which has a responsibility, there is total confusion about this project? All are waltzing around in circles and no decision is being made. Will the Minister cut the Gordian knot and say how, by whom, and when a decision will be made, before the existing rolling stock falls apart?
    Mr. Clarke: British Rail agrees with the need for electrification. The responsibility for financing electrification lies with the Strathclyde PTE. The Government, I understand, have approved that as part of the capital allocation to Strathclyde district council. Consultations are taking place between Strathclyde regional council and the Secretary of State for Scotland on the details of financing, but the responsibility is that of the Strathclyde PTE.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the electrification programme south of Glasgow should be seen as a coherent whole, including the commuter lines in my constituency and elsewhere?
    Mr. Clarke: That is the responsibility of the PTE for the Strathclyde region. I hope that it will discharge its responsibility by looking at the overall transport needs of the area.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This question relates to Ayrshire.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: We have electricity on the Isle of Wight, too, Mr. Speaker. In all this prevarication about the future electrification of the railways, is it not important to come to a decision quickly before firms with the specialist knowledge to do the work go out of business? That is the view that I hear.
    Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend has confirmed that the Government will come to a decision in two months. This is one of the most critical decisions that the Government have to take for the future of the railways. The problem in Ayrshire is slightly different. It is a question of the Strathclyde PTE reaching conclusions on how to finance the electrification that is wanted.

    Public Service Obligation Grant
    Mr. Fosterasked the Secretary of State for Transport how the public service obligation grant is calculated; and how it is allocated to each branch line.
    Mr. Fowler: The public service obligation grant is assessed as the forecast shortfall between total passenger revenue and the total costs attributable to the passenger business. The grant is paid towards the passenger railway as a whole. It is not allocated to particular services or branch lines.
    Mr. Foster: Does the Secretary of State agree that the public service obligation grant is totally inadequate to avoid the closure of branch and rural lines? Will he explain how I can assure my constituents that the money provided to support the Bishop Auckland and Darlington line and other lines under threat in the North-East is spent for that purpose?
    Mr. Fowler: On the last question, the hon. Gentleman has been assured on a number of occasions. As for the inadequacy, as he claims, of the PSO grant, I remind him that the nation spends almost £2 million a day on direct passenger support. I do not regard that as inadequate.
    Mr. Anderson: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is some anxiety in South Wales that the area is not getting its fair share of the PSO grant? As the situation has altered since the 1974 Act, will he consider opening the books a little to permit proper debate about the allocation?
    Mr. Fowler: I am in favour of having the maximum amount of information published and divided down. I have put this point to British Rail over a number of years. The Railways Board has developed its avoidable cost concept. We shall have to see how far that gives us information. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the PSO grant is the best way of assessing the social cost of the railways?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes. I think that it is the best way. To go back to the previous question, it is possible to make

    915
    divisions in it to make it more comprehensible; in other words, not to have quite the same block grant method as at present. Any improvement that can be introduced to make British Rail and its units more accountable is something that we should pursue.

    Roads (Maintenance)
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effects on road maintenance of the proposed motorway and trunk road maintenance expenditure contained in the public expenditure White Paper—Cmnd. 8175.
    Mr. Fowler: Next year my Department plans to spend £118 million on maintaining trunk roads and motorways. This is the largest sum ever earmarked for this important service and is £16 million more than last year
    That increase will enable us to renew substantial lengths of our older motorways, many of which have already carried a larger tonnage of traffic than they were designed for 20 years ago.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the Secretary of State realise that many of those involved in road transport believe that insufficient money is being spent on motorway and trunk road maintenance? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that inflation reduces his increased figure by a large amount? Why has trunk road maintenance expenditure been reduced during the past two years from £61 million to £37 million? Is there not a possibility that the condition of the trunk roads is so bad that it may cause danger to traffic?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are spending more than has ever been spent before on maintaining trunk roads and motorways. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the national road maintenance condition survey for trunk roads which shows that there has not been the deterioration suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend tell me when I was last able to travel along the M1 and the M6 without being held up by extensive roadworks? Will he tell me when I shall next be able to travel along the motorways without being held up? Why does he not spend the additional £20 million that he is squandering in my constituency on improving the M1?
    Mr. Fowler: The new motorway will help my hon. Friend's mobility problems. He must face the fact that we are seeking to reconstruct the M1 because it has reached the end of its design life. It is sensible to do so. No one could criticise us for seeking to preserve the valuable investment that we have put into that motorway.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that one day the Government will make a U-turn and promote economic growth and stimulate the economy? Is he aware that that will result in a greater movement of goods by road and rail? Would it not be a good idea to increase investment now, both in road maintenance and road building, to prepare for that eventuality?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard my reply. The Government are spending more than any other Government have ever spent upon maintaining trunk roads and motorways. Surely that is proof of the commitment for which he is asking.

    Double Track Railway Lines
    Mr. Ernie Rossasked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest figure for the total mileage of double track railway line converted to single line over the past five years; and what are the main reasons for conversion.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I understand from the British Railways Board that 65 miles of double track railway line have been converted to single track during the past five years. The main reason is to reduce costs by bringing track capacity into line with traffic levels.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Minister accept that moving from double to single track will interfere with the frequency of the service? Does he agree that a fast, efficient and reliable train service is the best way to promote an increase in passenger and freight transport? That would be best served by double track.
    Mr. Clarke: I do not have great technical expertise in these areas. Whether it delays the services depends on the volume of traffic that wants to move along the double or single track. The reductions are part of a sensible process to ensure that we are investing in facilities that actually match the traffic demand and avoid wasteful expendture on over-provision of track.
    Mr. Lang: When my hon. and learned Friend considers the electrification of the Ayrshire lines, will he also consider electrifying the single track line to Stranraer as part of a coherent whole?
    Mr. Clarke: In the recent review of electrification proposals some account was taken of these local electrification schemes, which are primarily the responsibility of the Strathclyde PTE. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is anxious to hold discussions to ensure that the Strathclyde PTE can finance justifiable projects.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that the main criteria of both the single and double track service are that the service should be efficient and reasonably speedy so that it attracts and retains passengers? Has not investment in British Railways now reached a stage where the diesel multiple unit stock is no longer fast and efficient due to maintenance problems? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that because of the cost difficulties of maintaining the track British Railways are having to cut speeds so much in some areas that services cannot be maintained? Does he realise that, although we spend a great deal of money on Britsh Railways, rail transport is a good bargain and more money is needed to maintan services?
    Mr. Clarke: The Government have not reduced the investment ceiling for the British Railways Board. We have maintained it, and are continuing to discuss with British Railways their investment needs. There may be a need to renew the diesel multiple unit fleet, but British Railways have not completed their design for the new unit. Such problems must be overcome before we can talk in the terms adopted by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. John MacKay: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that one way to increase the efficiency of both double and single track railways would be to move to radio-controlled signalling, which would cut manpower and costs and greatly improve the efficiency of the train service?
    Mr. Clarke: British Railways have carried out a great deal of research on that aspect. I am persuaded that it would be a valuable way to cut costs, especially for some of the smaller rural railways. Experiments are under way and there is, for instance, an installation of radio signalling on the Bedford-St. Pancras electrification scheme. I am sure that British Railways will explore that method to reduce costs and to maintain services.

    Roads (Winter Maintenance)
    Mr. Sheermanasked the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to evaluate the effects of the decision to cut salting and winter maintenance of roads to ensure that people are not being killed or injured as a result.
    Mr. Fowler: There was no decision to cut salting this winter. My first concern is always the safety of those using our trunk roads and motorways but I am determined that we should get value for money from winter maintenance spending. I have, therefore, agreed with Sir Derek Rayner that these operations should be examined and I expect a report later this year on the scope for improving both safety and value for money.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government's decision to cut back overall maintenance which was conveyed to local authorities during September and October meant that local authorities had to make the cutback in that financial year? Is he further aware that it was too late to cut back in any area other than winter maintenance and gritting? Does he appreciate that West Yorkshire and other local authorities in the North found it difficult to make the savings, and had to cut back on the very areas that are being denied by the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Fowler: There has been an increase from £5½ million spent last winter to £6½ million spent this winter on maintenance. In other words, about the same level of expenditure has occurred in real terms. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we want to achieve the maximum efficiency in operations. That is why I have asked Sir Derek Rayner to consider the matter.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he should congratulate the men who, winter after winter, operate the clearing schemes on the Highland roads in Scotland? They keep open the roads in appalling conditions.
    Mr. Fowler: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The men carry out an extremely difficult job which, as my hon. Friend said, they do extremely well.
    Mr. Ron Lewis: Does the Secretary of State recall the correspondence from Cumbria county council about road maintenance and the severe cutbacks that the council experienced this winter? What does he intend to do about that matter?
    Mr. Fowler: I cannot add anything to my previous remarks. There has been no cut. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman checks with the Cumbria county council to see my reply.

    Road Signs
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to introduce any new road signs.
    Mr. Fowler: Yes. The revised traffic signs regulations, which I hope to lay before the House by Easter, will introduce some new signs and road markings.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: As it is the International Year of Disabled People, and as the Highway Code does not include any signs specifically for the disabled—for example, to warn motorists that they are approaching a crossing that is regularly used by the disabled—will my right hon. Friend include among the signs that he intends to promote one relating to the disabled?
    Mr. Fowler: We recognise, especially in this year, the needs of the disabled. The new signs will include a warning sign for a crossing point frequently used by the disabled. I hope that that will prove helpful.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Secretary of State look at clause 2 of the Disabled Persons Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) to determine whether he can give some power to local authorities to adopt legal rights to prevent members of the public deliberately parking on double yellow lines in areas reserved for the disabled?
    Mr. Fowler: That is something that the Government have suggested.
    Mr. McQuarrie: When my right hon. Friend is considering the new road signs, will he bear in mind the areas where certain languages—for example, Gaelic and Welsh—are spoken? In order to prevent vandalism, will he ensure that the new signs appear in both English and the language of the area?
    Mr. Fowler: I shall take that point on board when considering the matter.

    Stocksbridge (Bypass)
    Mr. Allen McKayasked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made towards the completion of the Stocksbridge bypass and associated road works.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We intend to complete the detailed design work and publish draft orders later this year. We hope to be ready to start construction in 1982–83, but this will depend on resources being available.
    Mr. McKay: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the closure of the Manchester to Sheffield line via Woodhead will cause a spur from British Steel, Stocksbridge to Sheffield 12 miles long? Is he aware that neither British Rail nor the BSC intends to maintain it, and that, therefore, the only way that steel can be moved from British Steel, Stocksbridge is by road, with all the problems that that will involve? Will he consider asking British Rail to delay that closure until the bypass is completed?
    Mr. Clarke: With some ingenuity, the hon. Member has got back to the subject of the closure of the Woodhead tunnel line. As he knows, that is the responsibility of the British Railways Board. It is a freight-only line, and it is for British Rail to decide the future of that line, which is losing a lot of money when the traffic can be carried on other lines.

    Road Construction (Expenditure)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on new road construction in the last three years; and how much he anticipates will be spent in 1980–81 at constant prices.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Expenditure on trunk and local road construction in England at 1980 survey prices was £660 million in 1977–78, £650 million in 1978–79, and £695 million in 1979–80. In 1980–81 I expect that the outturn for motorway and trunk road construction on the same price base will be about £320 million. It is too early to make a reliable forecast of the outturn for local roads for which the provision was £324 million.
    Mr. Knox: In view of the contribution that better roads can make to our industrial competitiveness, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that Government capital expenditure should be increased in this area more rapidly than has been the case?
    Mr. Clarke: At present we are maintaining spending on trunk road construction up to the cash limits, and as a result we are making good progress with our programme. There is not much slippage of major schemes. We are bearing in mind the need to maintain the Government's capital investment programmes, and we try to manage the road programme so that it makes its contribution.
    Mr. Booth: Does the figure that the Under-Secretary has just announced indicate that there has been a massive underspend on trunk road construction in England during 1980–81? If so, how does he reconcile the figure of £324 million with the statement made by his right hon. Friend on 23 July last when he claimed that the Government's expenditure on English trunk roads was higher than during the last two years of the Labour Administration? The figure he has given suggests that trunk road construction during 1980–81 will be lower than at any time during the past 15 years.
    Mr. Clarke: It is not an underspend in the sense that we are spending up to near our cash limit. The problem is the result of a technical revaluation of the figures to get them back to volume terms. We intend to adjust the cash limit for 1981–82 to compensate for that. We are not underspending the cash that is available to the Department, and we are maintaining full progress on the trunk road programme.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Could there be a reallocation between capital projects on new local roads and money available for the maintenance of local, non-trunk roads? What progress is being made on designating routes for heavy vehicles in rural areas, because many small local country lanes and roads are being severely damaged by heavy vehicles?
    Mr. Clarke: It is for local authorities to decide how to allocate their spending between local road construction and maintenance. They are free to use the money that we give them, for example, by way of transport supplementary grant as they judge best for local priorities. I like to see local authorities extending the areas that are free from heavy lorry traffic. I do not know of any recent spectacular extensions in rural areas, but a large part of North London has recently been made free of heavy lorries. That shows what can be achieved when the road system is improved to provide alternative routes.

    Rural Bus Services
    Mr. Iain Millsasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied 'with progress on the setting up of new rural small bus services under the provisions of the Transport Act 1980.
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. I am impressed by the efforts being made by local authorities, local bus operators and a range of voluntary organisations to improve transport services in rural areas.
    Mr. Mills: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in my constituency the Transport Act 1980 has allowed the setting up a small bus which travels in the Marston Green area twice a week, fitting in flexibly., in line with the Act? Will he join me in congratulating councillor Peter Kellie for arranging this rural bus service?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, certainly. More generally, the Act makes it easier for independent operators to obtain licences. I hope that the opportunities provided by the Act are more fully grasped.
    Mr. Prescott: While the 1980 Act may have produced "Kellie's bus" the evidence shows that more and more rural services are closing down all over the country. In view of the Budget decision to raise petrol prices by 20p, and since people in rural areas will be denied any services, will the right hon. Gentleman carry out a survey to discover the facts about transport facilities for people in rural areas?
    Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly consider such a survey. However, the hon. Gentleman will realise that the decline in rural bus services has taked place over the past 25 years, under the old licensing system. We have introduced new opportunities. I am glad to be able to tell the House that there are signs in places such as Exeter, Somerset, Dorset, Leicestershire, the Grimsby area and Bexhill of new services developing. I am sure that that is what needs to be done.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent increase in petrol prices will make it increasingly difficult for elderly people in rural areas to get out? Will he set up a committee to consider the establishment of a national scheme for concessionary fares for elderly people?
    Mr. Fowler: I shall not set up a committee to do that, but clearly one of the purposes of the Act is to provide new opportunities for providing transport for the aged and for all the people who live in country areas. I remind my hon. Friend that a national concessionary scheme would have serious implications for public expenditure.
    Mr. Skinner: Was not the Minister indulging in a bout of hypocrisy when he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) about the increased price of petrol and running down of rural bus services, particularly when the Tory Party, during the 1979 general election campaign, said over and again that it intended to remove all the past ills, set up rural bus services where none existed, and to improve bus services where they were weak? None of those things has been done. Why will not the Minister acknowledge that the Government must now reduce the prices of such items as petrol and increase subsidies in order to get these rural bus services on the move?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman's diagnosis is entirely incorrect. The Transport Act 1980 created new opportunities for licensing conditions. Whatever else may divide us, it is surely a matter of common sense not to put obstacles in the way of new bus services being set up.

    A1 (Northumberland)
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations his Department has received from the North Northumberland coroner about proposals for a dual carriageway on the A1 in Northumberland.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The coroner has written to my Department to suggest that the A1 between Alnwick and Berwick-upon-Tweed should be improved to dual carriageway standard. This followed an accident at a site which will be bypassed by stage 2 of the Alnwick bypass which is in our main trunk roadbuilding programme for 1982–83.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister realise that this is the second time that the North Northumberland coroner has made representations to his Department on that subject, and that there has been a series of fatal accidents on the A1 between Morpeth and Berwick? Does the Minister realise that the great weakness of the road, on which a lot of money has been spent on ill-advised works, is that it does not provide opportunities for safe overtaking? Will he ensure that the money spent on the A1 is used to make that road safer?
    Mr. Clarke: That is our intention. We use the moneys on improvements to eliminate danger spots and to allow proper overtaking opportunities for traffic. The second stage of the Alnwick bypass is important because it is a bad accident spot. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the European Commission today announced a fresh programme of payments to this country under supplementary measures proposals which includes express provision for improvements to the A1 north of Newcastle upon Tyne.

    Railways (Investment)
    Mr. John Evansasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Railways to discuss the future financing of the railways.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will meet the chairman of British Railways to discuss investment programmes.
    Mr. Fowler: I meet the chairman regularly to discuss a wide range of topics. I expect to meet him again shortly.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the advantages of electrification in terms of running costs, speed, environment and energy conservation, will the Government ensure that British Rail gets enough investment for an early go-ahead for the programme of electrification of lines, including lines in Scotland as far north as Stirling, Perth, Dundee and Aberdeen?
    Mr. Fowler: As I have already said, we are currently examining the whole question of electrification, and we would expect to reach conclusions in the next two months.
    Mr. Bagier: The right hon. Gentleman will surely have had time since 2.45 this afternoon to examine the
    922
    document that British Rail has issued. Does he appreciate that the schemes outlined by British Rail make sense in terms of the public transport system? Can he hold out any hope that the bulk of the requirements set out in that document by BR will be met by the Government?
    Mr. Fowler: I think that I would like to be able to direct a little more concerted attention to the plan than that which I have been able to give it since 2.45 this afternoon. Clearly we shall examine it, but I hope that the ever bigger bids that BR makes do not obscure the immediate needs, which is what we should be concentrating upon. I hope that the message will also go out that this is a question not just for Government, but for the whole railway industry. The highest premium must be placed upon maximum efficiency and productivity.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Pay
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in discussions with the Civil Service unions on establishing a formula for future regulation of salaries and wages within the Civil Service.
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister for the Civil Service if in future negotiations on Civil Service pay, the drop in numbers of non-industrial civil servants will be a factor in determining the increase in pay.
    The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President of the Council and I told the Civil Service unions on 23 February that the Government intend to review the present arrangements for determining the pay of non-industrial civil servants with the object of establishing as soon as practicable an agreed and ordered system. Further meetings have been held since then, and we have been able to assure the unions that the review will cover matters of concern to them such as independent fact finding, comparisons with outside terms and conditions, and arbitration, as well as all other relevant factors. Future arrangements for negotiating and determining non-industrial Civil Service pay will, of course, depend on the outcome of the review.
    Mr. Lewis: Since the Government have already increased the original offer to the Civil Service, does my hon. Friend recognise that it is important that this should be the final offer and that it should not be increased? Does he also recognise that the public do not appreciate strike action by civil servants? Will my right hon. and hon. Friends bring together the leaders of the unions and ask them to consider whether it is not in their interests, as well as those of the country, that they should have a new formula for next year and that they should accept that?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the 7 per cent. offer is the most that can be found from the Civil Service cash limit this year, and that the Government will stand clearly upon that figure. The unions have been told that there is no more money this year. Settlements generally in outside industry have been falling into single figures, and it is only right that the Civil Service should play its part in this general restraint. I do

    923
    not believe that there is public sympathy for the claim being made by the leaders of the Civil Service unions for a higher increase this year.
    Mr. Chapman: Has there been complete co-operation by civil servants in the Government's planned reduction in their numbers from 730,000 to 630,000 by 1984? Will my hon. Friend reaffirm that the pay of a civil servant ought to be based upon the skill and importance of the job and upon what the country can afford, and should in no way be measured by the numbers of people working in any particular Department?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Civil Service has been co-operating with the Government in reducing the numbers, both by finding more efficient ways of tackling work and by giving up work which is no longer necessary. Of course, my hon. Friend is right to say the pay of the Civil Service, as of others, should be commensurate, not with the numbers in a Department but with the work being done.
    Mr. Alan Williams: May we have a categoric assurance of the Government's intention to return to an agreed system of pay for the Civil Service for the next pay round? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the arbitrary and unilateral abandonment of the PRU was a major factor in making many civil servants decide to support a strike? In view of the damage being caused by the disruption, and in view of the Chancellor's appeal on Monday, is there not an appalling lack of urgency in coming forward with firm and specific proposals for an alternative system? Will the Minister confirm that there is within Whitehall a dilatory working party which is dawdling along meeting only once a week?
    Mr. Hayhoe: It comes extraordinarily ill from the right hon. Gentleman, sitting as he does on the Labour Benches, to criticise us for suspending the pay agreement. In the past 10 years that agreement has been operated on five occasions—four times under Conservative Governments, and only once under Labour. So we on the Conservative side will accept no criticisms or strictures from the Opposition on that matter. I can confirm that it is our intention to return to an ordered and agreed system as soon as practicable. I hope that it will be possible for 1982. The sooner there is a return to normal working the sooner discussions on these matters can proceed and the faster the new agreement can be made. There can, however, be no certainty at this stage that it would be available for 1982.
    Mr. Chris Patten: Are the Government prepared to discuss with the Civil Service unions the negotiation of "no-strike" agreements in return for indexed pensions and for an agreed form of arbitration backed by the force of law?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I have seen the extremely interesting letter from my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Mr. Patten) and Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) in The Times to-day, with the suggestion that they made. Certainly the subject of "no-strike" agreements and any possible linking is not excluded from the discussions which can be held.
    Mr. Woolmer: Does the Minister accept that in no sense are the civil servants indulging in a political strike? Is he aware that it is action by a large group of workers which is deeply and genuinely angry at the unilateral way in which the Government have acted as employer? Will he confirm that the unions would be prepared to go to
    924
    arbitration tomorrow, and that it is the Government who are refusing to do that? Does it not come ill from Conservative Members to suggest "no-strike" action and other ways of overcoming problems when the solution is in the hands of the Government, who have unilaterally broken the agreement?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I do not believe that this is a political strike. As far as I am aware, no one from the Conservative side has suggested that it is. What a sorry day it would be for the country if the civil servants or any other group indulged in industrial action purely for political ends. I hope that that would be condemned on the Labour Benches as firmly as it would be on the Conservative Benches.
    Mr. Cryerasked the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants receive pay which is below the national average wage.
    Mr. Hayhoe: About 356,000 or 67 per cent. of non-industrial civil servants are currently paid below the latest estimate of national average earnings for full-time adults of £120·80 per week for last November.
    Mr. Cryer: Does not that reply demonstrate the strength of the civil servants' case and the reason for their strong feelings about their wages? Is it not true that, in the wake of the miners' settlement, civil servants must take the view that the Government understand only the strength of industrial muscle which they now have to demonstrate in order to bring the Government to the negotiating table? What does the Minister feel about the example afforded to civil servants receiving less than the national average wage by the chairman of the National Westminster Bank who has been awarded a 31 per cent. increase? Will he condemn that increase in the private sector as well as condemning the civil servants' claim?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I shall instead point out to the hon. Gentleman that when his Government were in office a rather higher percentage of civil servants were receiving less than the average wage than are now doing so.
    Mr. Neubert: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be entirely appropriate to raise the question of "no-strike" agreements when determining the Civil Service pay? Can he give a more urgent response than the one he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) and remember the damage that was done at the time of the Post Office dispute when £100 million of public revenue was lost as a result of this kind of action?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I said in an earlier answer that the question of "no-strike" agreements was not excluded. However, the Civil Service unions have not said that such a proposal would meet with their approval.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Has the Minister seen the letter which was sent from the present Prime Minister's office during the election, in which it was said that the Conservative Party could
    "see no reason why the restored and revised research system should not continue to provide the basic data for pay settlement"
    in the Civil Service? Why was that commitment given when votes were needed and abandoned as soon as the votes were received?
    Mr. Hayhoe: That commitment was subject to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Employment, who, after approving the use of pay research, said:

    925
    "Naturally, we cannot give blanket approval in advance to the way the new Pay Research Unit is working, nor an unqualified promise to implement its future recommendations. No responsible Government or Opposition can make commitments of that kind."
    926
    We are implementing the statements which we made before the last election concerning Civil Service pay research.

European Council (Maastricht Meeting)
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the European Council meeting in Maastricht, which, together with my noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, I attended on Monday and Tuesday
The discussions at the meeting covered a wide range of issues—both Community issues and those relating to foreign policy co-operation. There was no formal communiqué but a number of statements were agreed and the Presidency, on its authority, drew certain conclusions. I have placed copies of all those texts in the Library of the House. The main themes of the meeting were the economic and social problems confronting the Community, fisheries, and Poland
On the first subject, all those present emphasised the need to continue the fight against inflation through the pursuit of sound monetary policies. We agreed on the need to encourage productive investment, particularly in the sectors of high technology and innovative enterprise. We all share the deep concern at the high and rising rate of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, in member countries. We determined to make the best possible use of existing funds and financial mechanisms, among other things, in providing advanced technological training and education for youth. The clear and unanimous view was expressed that short-term demand stimuli would be ineffective
On fisheries, there was an attempt to deal with outstanding agreements with Canada and the Faroes in isolation, but the measures to improve the fish marketing arrangements that were offered as a quid pro quo did not, in my view, provide sufficient protection to our industry. I insisted, and it was agreed, that it would be much better to deal with those external fisheries questions in the context of an overall fisheries settlement, as we have been trying to do for so long. It was therefore decided that the Fisheries Council should meet on Friday of this week to try to reach agreement
In our view, agreement on an overall settlement was close in the Fisheries Council last December. If each and every member now has a genuine willingness to settle, it should be possible to find solutions. For our part, we are seeking early agreement on a basis that will secure the vital interests of our own fishing industry. The Heads of State and Government decided unanimously to confirm the status quo in regard to the provisional places of work of the European institutions
The third main subject was Poland, where the events of the past few days had naturally caused us concern. Our message once again was that the problems of Poland are for the Polish people to resolve; any other attitude than this could have the gravest consequences for international relations in Europe and world-wide. We expressed the readiness of our Governments to continue, in conjunction with others and within the limits of our means, to contribute to the recovery of the Polish economy, thereby complementing the efforts of the Polish people themselves.
The Council adopted statements on a number of other political subjects. We took note of the progress registered so far by the Netherlands Presidency in following up the
928
Venice declaration of June 1980 on the Middle East. We endorsed the statement made last week by the President of the United Nations Security Council in support of the United Nations force in the Lebanon, to which some of our European partners contribute. We pledged our support for any initiative likely to contribute to the restoration of Afghanistan as an independent, non-aligned and neutral State. Finally, we congratulated the people of Spain on their defeat of the recent challenge to democracy in a country that, in due course, we look forward to welcoming as a member of the European Community.
This meeting enabled the Heads of Government to have a businesslike discussion and to reaffirm their determination to work together in tackling the major issues facing their Governments.
Mr. Michael Foot: The Opposition share the concern about the situation in Poland that was expressed at the summit meeting. We agree that that is a matter entirely for the Polish people to settle themselves. We trust that there will be no attempt from elsewhere to influence the decisions that they wish to reach.
I concur fully with what the right hon. Lady and others said about Spain at the summit meeting. We, too, congratulate the people of Spain on having rejected that challenge to their newly found democracy. I am sure that this country wishes to do everything in its power to sustain the democratic institutions that have been established there.
Fisheries questions played a big part in the meeting, according to the reports on the discussions. The Opposition reiterate what we have said on many occasions, namely, that so long as the Government sustain the legitimate interests of this country they will have our fullest support in the efforts that they make in that direction. We shall watch carefully to ensure that that occurs.
We were rather concerned about the interview on those matters that was given by one of the Government spokesmen earlier in the week. He seemed to suggest that the Government were in some way departing from the undertakings that they had given to the House. I hope that the right hon. Lady will reaffirm that the Government stand by what they confirmed to the House before and that there will be no departure from those undertakings when the meeting takes place on Friday. We entirely agree with what she has said to the House on many occasions, namely, that this matter should be dealt with on its merits and should be separate from any other question. We trust that that is the line that the Government will continue to take.
Other more general questions arose at the meeting. I listened to the right hon. Lady's statement and I have read the communiqués. Does not she think that, considering that the Heads of Government met to discuss those matters in the gravest economic situation that the Western world has had to face since 1945, her communiqué and statement today are pitifully inadequate to deal with a mass unemployment problem of this scale? Does not she recall that at the summit meeting that took place only a few months ago an undertaking was given that
"the institutions of the Community should examine ways of improving incentives to innovation"—[Official Report, 3 December 1980, Vol. 995, c. 399.]
and would continue to use the Community's instruments to reduce structural unemployment. Since that statement and previous summit statements were made the situation

929
has continued to deteriorate in an appalling manner. The deterioration has been worse in this country than in other countries. No doubt that put the right hon. Lady at some disadvantage in the meeting. However, does she now say that the Government and those whom she met at the summit have no more concrete measures than those to put before the country and the world? There has been a promise that there will be a meeting of Finance Ministers and others. That was one of the things that were arranged at the summit. What fresh proposals do the Government have for dealing with unemployment on this tragic scale?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support of the European Council's stand on Poland and Spain. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made a practice, which he will continue, of taking with him representatives of the fishing industry when he negotiates on a common fisheries agreement. That will ensure that he carries the fisheries industries with him at all stages of any agreement that may be concluded. It would not have been right for me to negotiate in detail on a common fisheries policy. My purpose was to prevent third party agreements being concluded in isolation from the main common fisheries policy. Had I agreed, it would have harmed our fishing industry, which is already suffering from imports without the risk of yet more. The conclusion of those agreements would inevitably have meant more imports.
We are all suffering from unemployment. Some EEC countries have a higher percentage of unemployment than we have. The meeting confirmed that the main course of action on which we are embarked is the correct one, and that short-lived stimuli are not effective. We must have longer-term policies. The conclusions were that we are suffering from, first, a world recession due to the rise in oil prices—which was $11 a barrel when I took office and which OPEC has now increased to about $36 a barrel—and, secondly, structural changes, as goods are produced in other countries that were once produced here. We must relieve the effects of those structural changes and concentrate investment on productive industries instead of always on the industries of yesterday. Those were wise conclusions.
Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady answer my last question, concerning the proposed meeting in June of Finance, Industry and Labour Ministers? When will she present to the House measures other than those that have caused a record increase in unemployent over the past year?
The Prime Minister: The "Jumbo" Council, as it is called, is expected to meet in June, and it is hoped that the Commission will make strenuous efforts to put proposals before it. The level of unemployment is higher in the Community than it was in the previous oil recession, when the average was 4½ per cent. It is now 7½ per cent. We are concerned to produce long-term solutions and not just short-term stimuli.
Mr. Iain Sproat: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a warm welcome in the fishing industry for her steadfast refusal to be pushed about by the French and the Germans? Will she lose no opportunity to remind our EEC partners that, given the
930
high percentage of fish that we contribute to EEC waters, our provisionally agreed quotas are extremely generous to our partners? Will she give a categorical assurance to the House and to industry that at no time did she come to a bargain in advance of Friday's meeting—no compromise, sell-out or trade-off—to the disadvantage of our fishing industry?
The Prime Minister: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. I spent most of my time on fisheries matters saying "No" vehemently. I reminded my colleagues at the Council that we contribute some 60 per cent. of the water and the fish to the Community, and that we required a square deal from the EEC.
Mr. Robert Hughes: What changes have there been that will make possible an agreement on Friday? If the French are unwilling to accept a system that would benefit our industry, how can there be agreement? Was the hope expressed not merely a way of passing the buck to avoid continual disagreement at the summit?
The Prime Minister: It was thought that we were close to agreement at the Fisheries Council in December. We were working hard, in accordance with the agreement of 30 May, to conclude a common fisheries agreement by the end of December. We were close to it when one nation abruptly terminated the negotiations, but that country now appears anxious to conclude an agreement and is ready to go back to a Common Fisheries Council.
Mr. Julian Amery: I welcome wholeheartedly the support given to constitutional government in Spain, but can my right hon. Friend assure us that she is asking the Foreign Secretary to make it clear to the Spanish Government that Spain's admission to the European Community or NATO depends on the blockade of Gibraltar being lifted?
The Prime Minister: My noble Friend had an arrangement with the Spanish Government about improving the situation between Gibraltar and Spain. I am sure that he will pursue it.
Mr. Donald Stewart: In view of the serious misgivings in the fishing industry arising from recent reports, will the Prime Minister reaffirm that there will be no surrender of the dominant preference in the 12 to 50-mile zone?
The Prime Minister: All detailed negotiation is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has carried the fishing industry with him at every stage in the negotiations. We could not conclude an agreement unless it was acceptable to the fishing industry.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In the discussions on the European economies, was mention made of the possibility of the United Kingdom joining the European monetary system, or will it be discussed later, among Finance Ministers?
The Prime Minister: At present there is no question of our discussing joining the EMS, which is suffering from the devaluation of the lira. Although we should ultimately like to join, it is not yet appropriate.
Mr. James Johnson: Does the Prime Minister accept that only a few weeks ago the French were the villains of the piece, and were in the

931
dock? What has happened in the meantime to make us the odd man out, so that we are being castigated by our EEC partners?
The Prime Minister: The other EEC members wished us to conclude two agreements with third countries—with Canada, which would have benefited German fishermen but would have harmed our industry, and with the Faroes, which would have benefited those fishermen and would again have harmed our industry. They wanted us to conclude those agreements separately from the common fisheries agreement. Both would have meant substantial imports for this country, directly or indirectly, of fish that might have displaced other fish in Europe. I could not possibly conclude those agreements without the establishment of a proper common fisheries policy to give our fishermen confidence in the future, so that they would know where they could fish, and would know that their income was assured. We were in the dock for not agreeing to conclude those third-party agreements.
Mr. Peter Emery: Was the question of the massive over-production of steel within the Community dealt with? While Italy, Germany and Belgium have increased steel production, Britain has massively reduced it. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that at the next ECSC discussions we will not be called on for further reductions?
The Prime Minister: In a brief discussion on steel, one Head of Government was critical of subsidies for steel, except those, such as we give, to try to change the structure of the industry and to get it into a competitive condition. The new quotas have not been agreed. For the time that quotas have been agreed, it is worrying to note that production appears to have outstripped by about 8 per cent. what was expected from adding all the quotas together, which means that some countries must have produced more. Our concern is to have quotas that everyone is seen to stick to firmly.
Mr. A. J. Beith: British fishermen will support the Prime Minister in her refusal to conclude an agreement on third country fishing rights in the absence of a common fisheries policy, but is she aware that there is concern about her publicly quoted statement about access and the Minister of State's interview with the press? Is she aware of the industry's fear that ground is being given on dominant preference and on areas within the 12-mile limit?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that I made many comments about access, although clearly we must have preferential access. My comments were that we have provisionally agreed quotas and we must be able to fish up to the quotas that we have agreed.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Given the way in which our fishermen helped to save the future of Europe at Dunkirk, would it not be right and proper for today's European leaders to accept the honourable proposals put forward by Her Majesty's Government to safeguard the rights of our fishermen today?
The Prime Minister: I tried very much, in the spirit of what my hon. Friend said, to point out the massive resources in fish that this country brought to the Community, which were even greater when we went out to a 200-mile fishing limit. But I think that it would have been better if, when the Hague agreement for a 200-mile
932
fishing limit for the seas around the European coasts was concluded, the Labour Government had achieved a better deal for this country.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: In case there is any confusion, will the right hon. Lady confirm, first, that we have not agreed to any third party agreements unless there is a common fishing agreement and, secondly, that that common fishing agreement will insist upon a 12-mile exclusive zone and a 50-mile dominant zone for British fishermen?
The Prime Minister: I shall explain to the hon. Gentleman precisely what took place. Two third party agreements—the EEC-Canada agreement and the EEC-Faroes agreement—were discussed. It was suggested that those should go ahead without a common fisheries policy. I refused to allow them to go ahead on that basis, and I understood that all other Heads of Government were also anxious to have a common fisheries policy. We therefore agreed that the Fisheries Council should meet on Friday. Nothing further was said or laid down about conditions.
Mr. Robert Hicks: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she made it clear to her European colleagues that any eventual fisheries agreement must include a phasing out of the historic rights of certain nations in the six to 12-mile band around the coasts of our islands?
The Prime Minister: I did not get involved in detailed negotiations on particular aspects of the fishing agreement, nor is it appropriate that Heads of Government should or could. For that, the Fisheries Ministers and their officials must be there, as well as representatives of the fishing industry. These detailed matters are not appropriate for Heads of Government.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Prime Minister aware that the House understands her position in relation to third party agreements on fisheries? Does she also understand that, in view of the questions from the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), the answers that she has given will only lead the interests concerned to the conclusion that the Government have now departed from the policy of the House and their own previous policy of giving dominant preference in the 12 to 50-mile band? Is she aware that unless and until that is denied, the House and everyone else must conclude that that is so?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is talking nonsense, and that undoubtedly suits his own purpose. I have made perfectly clear what happened, and have explained that at each and every stage we have taken representatives of the fishing industry with us. We cannot conclude an agreement unless it is satisfactory to the fishing industry.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her determination to stand firm on the question of any negotiation of a common fisheries policy and her continued statements that fishing will not be sold down the river by the Government in exchange for any other terms from the EEC? Will she confirm that it is right that the common fisheries policy should be negotiated by our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that in no way will he give way on any matter on which she stood firm in the

933
negotiations last week? Lastly, will she confirm that when her right hon. Friend goes to Brussels on Friday he will go in the knowledge that the House will not accept any common fisheries policy under duress from either the French or the Germans?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I endorse his confidence in the ability of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for fisheries to conclude a good deal for our fishing industry. Their task would have been much easier had the Labour Government done better in fisheries policy and negotiated a better agreement on fish when they agreed to extend the limit to 200 miles.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the Prime Minister explain what are the powers and status of this so-called Council, and what basis there is for it in the treaties? Is it not clear from the shambles of a meeting that took place that our membership of the EEC has not helped employment in this country, but rather the reverse? As we derive no benefit from membership, should not the right hon. Lady say "No" not only to the fishing policy but to our membership of the Common Market?
The Prime Minister: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that we have derived benefits from membership. If the democracies of Europe cannot stick together in a Community it augurs ill for the future of democracy in the world.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to let these questions run until 4 o'clock.
Mr. Alex Pollock: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her firm stand on fishing, which she has consistently pursued since the election campaign of 1979. Has she seen the report in today's Daily Mail, which suggests that the next meeting of Ministers has been brought forward to enable a climb-down by the British Government? Will she take this opportunity to confirm that there is no question of reaching a settlement involving a sell-out of the Scottish inshore fleet?
The Prime Minister: I refute what appeared in the Daily Mail, which I happened to see and at which I was astonished, in view of the fact that some of its representatives must have been in Holland, although they would not have been in on the meeting. I am happy that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will negotiate a good and acceptable settlement on fisheries. I can only point out that we have until the end of 1982, when certain other things would happen to the fishing industry if we failed. It is therefore vital to restore confidence in the future and to do it now.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the Prime Minister aware that while she was away a Bill was passed for the benefit of Lloyd's insurers, which gives massive legal immunities to those people? Does she accept that if those
934
immunities were granted to the British trade union movement it would become on a par with the Polish trade union movement, which she supports? Is she prepared to do that? Secondly, does she accept that her comments about the meeting on unemployment suggest that neither the British Government nor the other EEC Governments can cope with the rising tide of unemployment? Does she feel that our membership of the EEC has in any way helped to combat the high level of 2½ million unemployed that we now have?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that the first matter was not discussed at the summit. With regard to the latter subjects, I can only point out to him that those countries that have virtually beaten inflation have a far better record on unemployment than those that have not.
Mr. David Myles: I endorse the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). Indeed, I would have used them myself. Is my right hon. Friend aware that fishermen are becoming weary of waiting and that they want a suitable fisheries policy to be concluded?
The Prime Minister: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend said. I believe that we were within sight of an agreement in December. It was not our fault that an agreement was not concluded; it was the fault of another country, which withdrew from the negotiations. I believe that we now take up where we left off and 'that there is a good chance of reaching an agreement, which I believe all members of the Community wish to have.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Prime Minister recall that when the last Labour Prime Minister returned from these visits to the Common Market summits the right hon. Lady used to criticise him heavily for reading out what I considered then to be cliché-ridden statements and generalisations about the way in which the Common Market could resolve the problems of unemployment and inflation? Does she recall the occasions when she told my right hon. Friend that he was wasting time and Government money by trotting out to these various capitals? Apart from the fact that the lady is for turning, is not the truth of the matter that the Common Market is mainly responsible for the fact that 1 million people have been thrown out of work—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is advancing an argument rather than asking a question.
Mr. Skinner: You can bet your life I am.
The Prime Minister: I remember telling the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that discussion between Heads of Government, rather than what was contained in the communiqués, was one of the main values of such meetings. Everything that the hon. Gentleman said confirms me in that view. He spoke of economic policy clichés. There are certain fundamental truths in economics; it is just that people like the hon. Gentleman will not acknowledge that fact.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 10 APRIL
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. John Stokes

Mr. George Foulkes

Mr. Nigel Spearing.

Gaelic language
4.1 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to promote broadcasting in Gaelic, and to require local authorities in Gaelic-speaking areas to promote the use of Gaelic in drama and music.
The Gaelic language and culture are an important part of Scotland's history. They are a priceless treasure, which should be nurtured and protected from the ravages of time. The different parts of the United Kingdom—the old kingdoms—have each made a substantial contribution in many and varied ways to the art, music and literature of these islands. We who have inherited these treasures from our ancestors have a responsibility to ensure that our children and our children's children have access to the literary and cultural traditions of these islands.
It is right that from time to time we in this place should divert our attention away from the pressures of modern society and remind ourselves of our great and historic past. That is why I wish to draw attention to the need, as I see it, of promoting and protecting this proud and ancient literary treasure. I wish to do so in a non-partisan manner.
It is more than 1,000 years since Gaelic was the everyday language in the northern part of these islands. Up to the seventh century, the Gaelic language was spoken in many parts of Scotland as well as in Ireland and the Isle of Man. Yet this priceless treasure—an important part of Scotland's heritage—has survived.
Mr. A. J. Beith: No thanks to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Walker: Today the language is still in common use in the Western Isles, and can be described as a real living force in Argyll and Northern Scotland. It is taught in many schools throughout the Western Isles and Argyll and the northern parts of the Highlands. It is available for study in many of Scotland's universities. However, in the more populated areas of Scotland it is kept alive only through the activities of Gaelic societies and other voluntary groups or via television and radio programmes.
It is my belief that the most effective and efficient use of the media—used in a way which will not give offence to those who do not have an interest—is to monitor Gaelic broadcasting. If that is coupled with the encouragement of voluntary groups we shall ensure the survival and the development of the language.
As well as the language, there is a treasure trove of Gaelic songs. Last year the national Mod, which I attended, was held in my constituency—in Perth, the ancient capital of Scotland. Although not in the Highlands, the city of Perth is the gateway to the Highlands, and Perth has Gaelic societies and a Gaelic choir. Not surprisingly, the Mod was well supported.
If the Bill becomes law, it will not impose Gaelic or Gaelic culture—[Interruption.].
Mr. Anthony Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not normal to allow a Ten-Minute Bill to be presented without interruption? There has been a constant stream of interruption from the Liberal and Scottish National Benches.
Mr. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will recognise the unusual nature of this situation. The hon. Member for Perth and East

937
Perthshire (Mr. Walker) opposed a Bill which would have done some of the things to which he has referred, but is now seeking to introduce a totally ineffective means of achieving the same object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): That is a point of argument. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to oppose the Bill, that is a matter for him later. At the moment we are merely hearing what the Bill proposes.
Mr. Walker: I emphasise the fundamental difference between this Bill and the previous Bill. If my Bill becomes law it will in no way impose Gaelic or Gaelic culture on anyone who does not wish to participate. It cannot and should not give offence—that is vital and important—nor can it be used for narrow political purposes.
There is substantial evidence that, when assisted and encouraged, Gaelic societies and choirs have support in many parts of Scotland. In particular, there is strong support in those parts of Scotland where in earlier times the language was in everyday use. What greater priority can the Mother of Parliaments give than the priority to protect and preserve our native culture?
In a recent debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said:
"The Government take the view that the main instrument for developing Gaelic in every sense must be the strength and initiative of Gaelic speakers themselves, acting with external assistance and support where that is necessary and appropriate."—[Official Report, 13 February 1981, Vol. 998, c. 1115.]
I believe that my Bill will be seen in Scotland as a real attempt—within the general parameters of what the Government believe to be the best way—to protect and develop the Gaelic language. I hope that the House will acknowledge that and give me leave to bring in the Bill.
I now turn to the provisions of the Bill. The first part requires the Secretary of State for Scotland to set up a broadcasting committee consisting of members of the BBC and the IBA. I believe that it will be possible to establish such a committee in a way which will involve no cost to the public purse.
938
The Bill places a duty on the committee to co-ordinate and develop Gaelic television and radio; to comment and give guidance on the amount and balance of Gaelic broadcasting and scheduling; to monitor the extent to which Gaelic television and radio are watched and received by audiences; to report to the Secretary of State for Scotland; and to offer advice on matters within the committee's remit.
I have no wish to foist Gaelic on people who have no wish to listen to, or watch, the programmes. That is why I believe that such a committee will ensure a better balance in the broadcasting of the language.
The second part of the Bill places a duty on local authorities in Gaelic speaking areas, as defined in the Bill, to promote through voluntary bodies the use of Gaelic in drama, music, prose or poetry groups. Many people in Scotland look to the United Kingdom Parliament, the Parliament of the Union, to introduce sensible and modest measures to promote Scotland's culture and history. The purpose of my Bill is to introduce such measures to help ensure the survival and encourage expansion of the Scottish Gaelic language and culture.
This modest Bill, which is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, can make a positive contribution to the promotion and preservation of this important treasure—the Gaelic language and culture of Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Walker, Mr. Dick Douglas, Mr. Peter Fraser, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Michael Ancram, Mr. Allan Stewart, Mr. Ian Lang, Mr. John MacKay and Mr. Alex Pollock.

GAELIC LANGUAGE
Mr. Bill Walker accordingly presented a Bill to promote broadcasting in Gaelic, and to require local authorities in Gaelic-speaking areas to promote the use of Gaelic in drama and music: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 May and to be printed [Bill 100].
Orders of the Day
  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
    Clause 1

      POWER TO CHANGE YEAR OF REVALUATION
      4.13 pm
      Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 17, at end add—
      `(5) No order laid under subsection (3) above shall have the effect of postponing the valuation due to take place in 1983'.
      The purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government's intentions about the quinquennial revaluation, which is due to take place in Scotland in 1983. Will it go ahead? If the Minister cannot give an answer today, perhaps he can give an assurance that any announcement will be made in good time and will give the assessors' departments of local authorities adequate time to prepare.
      On Second Reading the Secretary of State said:
      "There is of course a strong case for regular revaluations of property to ensure a fair distribution of the rate burden".—[Official Report, 9 December 1980; Vol. 995, c. 1219.]
      Scotland has a very good record. There were revaluations in 1961, 1966 and 1971. There was then a postponement until 1978 because of local government reorganisation. However, compared with England the record is good. England managed a revaluation in 1963 but did not reach the starting gate again until 1973. It has already abandoned the 1982 revaluation.
      As a result, it may be thought that there is no need to worry about progress in Scotland. However, we have recently had winks, nods and nudges from the Minister, suggesting that Scottish rating law is on the brink of great things. In the long term, the abolition of domestic rating is a cherished Conservative aim. Indeed, it recently received the Prime Minister's imprimatur at Question Time. The last Conservative manifesto said that the abolition of domestic rating and rate reform would have to have a lower priority because high priority would be given to cuts in direct taxation. Given the success that the Government have had with their highest priority—as instanced in the Budget—we have reason to believe that the subject of rates may receive promotion in the near future.
      Hon. Members will note from column 26 of the Official Report of the First Scottish Standing Committee on 13 January that there is an internal review involving the Scottish Office. The imminence of a report is the main reason why the next quinquennial revaluation may be postponed. Perhaps I could draw the Minister's attention to the words that he uttered in Committee:
      "I do not wish to mislead the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends … I must say, without qualification, that no conclusions have yet been reached on the question of timing of the abolition of the domestic rating system."
      I hope that I have not drawn the wrong conclusions. I take it that the Government are committed to the abolition of
      940
      the domestic rating system, although it may not be possible in the next few years. Therefore, the background is unsettled.
      In column 8 the Minister admitted that two years was a reasonable period of notice to allow for the very heavy work load that falls on assessors' departments in the run-up to a revaluation. The Minister said:
      "We appreciate that the period of two years which the hon. Gentleman mentioned is a reasonable period for those required to undertake the work connected with a revaluation. It would therefore be the Government's intention to announce at a reasonably early stage whether there was to be a revaluation and, if so, whether it was to be a complete revaluation or only a partial one."
      The Minister will probably point out that the postponement of the 1978 revaluation was announced in May 1977. That announcement was made rather late in the day, and I am sure that the Minister would not want to follow that precedent. He has conceded that two years would be a reasonable time. Indeed, the Minister said:
      "I have to tell him that the Government have not yet made a decision on the question of revaluation for 1983. However, we recognise that it is necessary for us to come to a decision within the next few weeks or months, for the very reasons that the hon. Gentleman has indicated."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 13 January 1981, c. 8–28.]
      That was said on 13 January. The Minister spoke in terms of
      "the next few weeks or months."
      It is nearly the end of March. If we are not entitled to a firm indication whether the revaluation will take place we are at least entitled to know when we shall be told. In that spirit, I commend the amendment.
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, in Committee we rightly probed and criticised the Government. Given the time that has elapsed without any comment from the Government, the amendment is reasonable.
      I am deeply suspicious of the Government's motives. Their economic policy has failed. Their housing policy is non-existent. The chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland told us that there had been great wastage in the Lothian region because somebody had got two letters at the cost of 11½p each. That is the level to which the Government have been reduced. Given that things will probably become worse, I suspect that the Government will come up with a pre-election gimmick for the postponement of the revaluation.
      Therefore, we are at least entitled to a statement today. We were promised that a statement would be made in the near future. The near future has arrived. I understand that the Government are faced with pressing problems. Nothing that they touch seems to go right. However, they should come clean not only in the interests of ratepayers and of those who work in valuation departments but in the interests of the country's political health. The Government should make a statement as soon as possible. In the circumstances, this is a reasonable amendment.
      Mr. Russell Johnston: As we are politicians we should look at this issue in that light. Being realistic, does any hon. Member really think that there will be a revaluation in 1983? It is absurd to contemplate such a thing. The Government are already under a strain and they will not make even more difficulties for themselves by introducing a revaluation in the year of an election or in the year immediately preceding one.

      941
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out that work was beginning to get under way in assessors' departments all over Scotland in preparation for the revaluation. There is a statutory obligation to hold a revaluation. Until the Government say that it will not be held, assessors' departments must prepare. They have no alternative but to do so. The English revaluation has been cancelled. It is increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for assessors' departments to do any forward budgeting. They are still waiting for some revaluation appeals from 1978 to be heard. The situation is entirely unsatisfactory.
      The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to the statement made on 13 January, to the effect that we would be told about revaluation within weeks or months. For the well-being of local authorities, now is the time to clear the situation from the point of view of the assessors. If at the same time the Minister is able to say something about the Government's intentions in regard to the reform of the rating system, that would be welcomed by the House.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I was very interested in the rather cynical but somewhat realistic appraisal of the situation by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), who suggested that the Government would be unwilling to have a revaluation in a year in which we were close to a general election. However, occasionally Governments have to do unpopular things, such as allowing equity to be created. The object of a revaluation is to make sure that the rates for one property are in line with those for other properties and that any changes that have taken place in the intervening years are accounted for. If the revaluation does not go ahead there will be thrown up unfairness in what is a somewhat artificial system.
      All of us would like to see a large-scale change in the rating system. The problems that have appeared during the last year in particular may have encouraged the Government to think that perhaps they ought to do something about that as well, although the problems are largely self-inflicted, because they have deprived the local government system of adequate finance to carry out its work.
      In relation to revaluation the assessors will work out the median rents upon which they will base the valuations of domestic property. They will also assess and record the rents in the commercial sector in relation to shops, and so forth, on which they will base their final figures. It is a long and involved exercise, as those of us who have had experience of the valuation appeals system know full well.
      In England revaluations have frequently been postponed, and the only result is to increase the distortion within the system. In Scotland we have a fairly good background in keeping to regular revaluations, largely because these are done through the regional assessors and not, as in England, through the Inland Revenue, which was the position as I knew it at any rate until a few years ago.
      I also suggest to the Minister that the period of revaluation should be adhered to because, although it is something that people do not welcome, it is a matter of equity that properties have to be revalued in line with changing circumstances and changing values. I also point out to the Minister that one of the problems that assessors
      942
      are facing is that domestic properties upon which they have relied for their evidence of levels of rents, namely, the smaller flats, are largely being turned into owner-occupied properties. Therefore, the base of evidence available for a system that is structured on rental evidence is now very narrow.
      It may be that the Department will have to produce legislation that will seek to assess properties on the basis of capital value, since in many instances there may be more accurate evidence available. The Minister should also be aware that local authority properties are frequently valued on the basis of rents in the private sector. If the private rental sector continues to diminish, as it has been doing over the years, there will be less and less evidence on which the huge pyramid of revaluation can be constructed.
      Mr. David Lambie: I should like to intervene briefly in order to put to the Minister the questions that I put to him this morning in the Committee dealing with the statutory instrument on rating. He said at that time that I was out of order in asking them. I hope that I shall be in order this afternoon and that he will answer the questions.
      Unlike the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), I do not believe that regular revaluation evens out anomalies. The last revaluation in Scotland created anomalies for industrial and commercial premises in my area in the district councils of Kyle and Carrick and Cunninghame. Not only did it create anomalies for industrial and commercial premises; because the assessor in Strathclyde maintained a bias against the peripheral areas of Strathclyde and increased the valuations there out of all proportion to what they should have been, and out of all proportion to the valuations in other areas of central Strathclyde, my ratepayers were hammered. Unfortunately for the Secretary of State, some of my ratepayers are also his ratepayers.
      I put it to him that when we shared platforms and met the ratepayers not many years ago we were both on the same side, because we had a Labour Government. It is very easy to be a spokesman and to agree with irate ratepayers when one is in Opposition. I am in the fortunate position that where I see a Government discriminating against my ratepayers, whether they be a Labour or a Tory Government, I speak up. I am asking the Secretary of State for Scotland to speak up and to make the speeches that he made two years ago to the ratepayers of Ayr and Troon, when we were both together at the barricades defending the ratepayers against the assessor for Strathclyde regional council.
      I want the Secretary of State to do the same as the Secretary of State for the Environment did when the Tory Government took power. He went to a conference of the Tory Party with a notice of valuation and advised all the ratepayers in England and Wales to tear up their assessments. I am asking the Secretary of State for Scotland to advise the people in Scotland to tear up their assessments and to let us get back to first principles. Let us carry out Tory Party policy and do away with the rating system altogether.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Member for Central Ayreshire (Mr. Lambie) has for the third time this week

      943
      called upon the country and the public in Scotland to support Tory policies and to get a better deal by voting Conservative. We welcome that remark. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for being objective. He said quite correctly that he has been just as willing to oppose Labour Governments when they were wrong as he has been to oppose Conservative Governments. The fact that he appears to have voted more against his own Administration than he has against the Conservative Government is a pretty good indication of the objective truth of these issues.
      If the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) were accepted it would require the 1983 revaluation to go ahead, which would negate the purpose of clause 1. I appreciate from his remarks that he is really using this as an attempt to probe the Government's intentions and to see what the position is in terms of that revaluation.
      As the hon. Member and the House will be aware, under the Bill in its present form the Secretary of State has a choice, if he wishes to use it, either of cancelling the 1983 or any subsequent revaluation, or, as an alternative to allowing it to go ahead, of providing for a partial revaluation of certain classes of lands and heritages under the normal valuation system. I am not yet in a position to advise the House what my right hon. Friend has concluded. When he is in a position to make an announcement the House will be informed and will have the opportunity to pursue the matter at that time.
      The important point that I would make is that any decision by my right hon. Friend either to cancel the 1983 revaluation or to replace it by a partial revaluation has to be approved by the House. It is subject to an order-making procedure. Therefore, the House will have an opportunity to debate the matter and, if it comes to a different view, to decide against the wishes of the Government. That safeguard is written into the provisions—a fact that I know is welcome to the House.
      The other point that the hon. Gentleman raised—the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) made the same point—was that it takes a considerable time for those who have to carry out the revaluation, and therefore it is reasonable that they should have proper notice if a revaluation is not to go ahead. We are still more than two years from the date of the next revaluation. As I indicated in Committee, it is our intention that in the near future we shall be able to indicate our conclusions on the matter.
      4.30 pm
      I say again to the hon. Member for Garscadden and his hon. Friends that it is not bounden upon them to criticise the Government for not yet having come to a decision. I misled the hon. Gentleman this morning. I rebuked him and told him that the Labour Government had decided that the 1978 revaluation should go ahead a mere 11 months before it went ahead. I was wrong. I should have said 12 months. The hon. Member will appreciate that there was a short period before those who were responsible for the previous revaluation knew for certain that it was to happen. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that there will be a much longer period before the next revaluation, during which those responsible for it will know of the Government's conclusions.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Dewar: It has not been a particularly useful or illuminating debate. In view of the strong language used by the Minister in Committee I had hoped for something more definite on Report. I do not intend to push the matter to a Division. That would be totally inappropriate. I merely give the Minister notice that we shall be closely monitoring the situation and that we expect him to live up to his promise and produce news in the near future. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2

      POWER TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN LANDS AND HERITAGES FROM VALUATION OR REVALUATION
      Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move Government amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'any' and insert `every'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this is will be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
      Mr. Rifkind: The purpose of the amendment is to make it clear that an order requiring a partial revaluation—that is the revaluation of certain specified classes of land and heritages only—must apply in respect of every new valuation roll as regards the classes of property to be revalued. This will mean, for example, that an order could not provide for dwelling-houses to be revalued in Fife and not in Tayside. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will recall that when we discussed this issue in Committee I accepted in principle that partial revaluation orders should apply uniformly throughout Scotland in respect of the classes of property to which they applied. This simple amendment is intended to put the matter beyond doubt.
      Government amendments Nos. 3 and 4 give effect to an undertaking that I gave in Committee to bring forward a proposal to ensure that the method of adjusting the net annual value of property in a partial revaluation would be such as to preserve the ratios between the rateable values of the specified and unspecified lands and heritages as regards each valuation area and not, as the Bill stands, in respect of Scotland as a whole. The hon. Member for Garscadden will recall that when we discussed the issue in Committee I agreed that if the adjustment factor were calculated by reference to the all-Scotland ratio there could, in some areas, be significant shifts in the distribution of rate burdens between classes of ratepayers. That was not the intention of the clause and the amendments will avoid any such effect.
      Mr. Dewar: These amendments are not merely acceptable; they are welcome to the Opposition. They are technical, and I do not want to weary the House. They are an adequate response to the issues that were debated at length in Committee, on the initiative of my hon. Friends. Government amendment No. 4 makes it clear that ratios between valued and unvalued categories of property will be preserved when there is a partial revaluation. The fact that the ratios are to be kept constant within an assessment area, rather than in Scotland as a whole, is a substantial change. It was with some satisfaction that I read the terms of the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 3, in page 2, line 40, at end insert
      '; and the order may prescribe different such methods as regards different valuation areas.'.
      No. 4, in page 2, line 46, leave out 'Scotland as a whole' and insert 'each valuation area'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]
      Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 24, leave out `(6A)', and insert `6D)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
      Mr. Rifkind.: In Committee, in response to an amendment introduced by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), I undertook to reconsider the most appropriate form of parliamentary scrutiny for an order under clause 2(a)(i) requiring a partial revaluation. On reflection, I take the hon. Gentleman's point that such an order is sufficiently important to require the positive scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament. The amendments give effect to my reconsideration of the hon. Gentleman's arguments. The amendments do not affect the parliamentary procedures for orders under what will be section (6B), which prescribes the method of adjusting net annual values at a partial revaluation. Such orders will continue to be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
      Mr. Dewar: I welcome the amendments. They put into effect changes that were proposed by Labour Members in Committee. It seems eminently sensible that something as controversial as a decision to postpone partially a revaluation should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I am grateful to the Minister for his concession.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 6, in page 3, line 25, leave out from 'shall to 'have' in line 28.
      No. 7, in page 3, line 30, after 'Parliament' insert;
      (b) subsection (6A) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

    Clause 4

      POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO AMEND TABLE OF DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS ANNUAL VALUE
      Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 6, leave out 'in' and insert 'for'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 9.
      Mr. Rifkind: These amendments are, in a sense, the reverse of the previous group of amendments. The amendments give effect to an undertaking that I gave in Committee. Labour Members may recall that in responding to an Opposition amendment I agreed in principle that it would be more appropriate for an order under section 6 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 amending the table of deductions in schedule 1 to be subject to the negative rather than the affirmative resolution procedure of both Houses of Parliament. This seems to be a much more sensible way of dealing with a matter which, though important, is considerably less important than some of the other issues under consideration.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 9, in page 4, line 7, leave out from 'section' to end of line 12 and insert—
      `there shall be substituted the following subsection—
      "(7) Any order under subsection (6) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament". '.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

    Clause 10

      NEW CONSTITUTION OF SCOTTISH VALUATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
      Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 41, leave out from "Council)" to "for" in line 44.
      The amendment removes from the Bill the paragraph in clause 10 that seeks to increase the membership of the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council from 15 to 16. I agreed in Committee to reconsider whether such an increase was necessary. I am able to say that on further reflection I feel able to maintain the present overall size of the council without making any pro rata reduction in the number of members nominated by COSLA. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) for his suggestion that we should consider the matter again. I am glad to have been able to meet his argument.
      Mr. Dewar: This is a minor matter, but it is an interesting case of quango-bashing. The Scottish Valuation Advisory Council is undoubtedly a body of some use. In Committee we considered the rating system for hostels, and one of the reasons for inaction that was ingeniously produced by the Minister was that it would be necessary to take the advice of the council. There is no doubt that it has a useful life in front of it. I am curious to know why it has been decided to cut off the extra member before he gets to the starting gate.
      We were told in Committee, in column 164 of the Official Report of 27 January, that the cost of the council varied between £146 and £332 per year, depending upon its activity. I do not imagine that the Government have reached this decision on the ground of economy. We have seen a desirable expansion in its numbers cut back. We know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) complained bitterly about any increase in numbers as a general matter of principle. In a letter to me of 18 March the Minister claimed that he had responded positively to his hon. Friend's representations. I do not know whether one responds positively by retreating. In any event, the Minister gave no reason for his decision, and he has given no reason today.
      The Minister said in Committee that
      "a large majority—not an overriding majority"—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee; 27 January 1981, c. 166.]
      should be local authority members. That is an interesting use of language. It seems that we shall now have six local authority members in a council of 15 members. If that can be described as
      "a large majority—not an overriding majority",
      it is an interesting use of the English language by the Minister that I find novel and somewhat puzzling.
      It is a pity that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South is not in the Chamber to enjoy his triumph. However, I cannot think that he wants to go down in history as the

      947
      author of this major legislative change. When autobiographical fragments are written later in life, I do not think that he will want the reduction in the size of the council from 16 to 15 members to be recorded as his proudest moment. If it is merely to please the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South and give him the erroneous impression that his activities are useful, I shall be sorry. I hope that there is something a little more substantial behind this retreat, and the Minister owes us an explanation.
      Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman's kind invitation. He will recall that the main purpose of the clause which was considered and approved in Committee was to reduce the representation of the local authorities on the council from eight to six. The background was that until now local authorities have had a majority of the representation on the Valuation Advisory Council of eight members out of a total of 15.
      When the council was first created there was an argument for that because there were several different local authority organisations and there was no particular significance in the fact that they added up to an overall majority. Since local government reorganisation, however, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities represents all local authorities and it seems undesirable that any one organisation should have, by itself, a controlling power, even on an advisory council. Therefore, it seemed more sensible to have a figure of approximately six out of 15, which still allows COSLA the largest single representation, but does not leave it with a majority.
      It was the Government's original intention to increase the size of the council from 15 to 16 to allow as wide a spread as possible amongst the other interests that could be represented on the council. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram)) and other hon. Members pointed out that that might not be necessary, both because of the reduction in COSLA's representation and because the responsibilities of the council had been reduced rather than increased.
      We gave consideration to the representations, and they seemed to be valid. As I have occasionally been accepting amendments from the Opposition, there is no fundamental reason why I should not occasionally accept an amendment from one of my hon. Friends.
      Mr. Dewar: I remain totally unconvinced by that explanation. It is an interesting variation of the theory of fair shares for all, but I suppose we shall have to be satisfied with this rather thin argument. I think that the only reason why the amendment has been accepted is that when, in years to come, the grandchildren of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) ask him what he did in the great economic depression he will be able to point to the amendment as his life's work. It is an extraordinary gesture, but as it is not a matter of enormous importance I do not intend to divide the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should make it plain to the House that we are on Report and that hon. Members who wish to speak twice should seek the permission of the House, apart from the Minister and hon. Members who are moving amendments.

    Clause 12

      EFFECTS OF SECTIONS 4 TO 9
      Amendment made: No. 11, in page 6, line 7, after "9", insert
      "and (Valuation of underground railways)".—[Mr. Rifkind.]

    Clause 13

      REDUCTION OF RATE SUPPORT GRANT WHERE LOCAL AUTHORITY'S ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE
      Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 27, leave out `—(i)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
      Mr. Rifkind: The amendment proposed is a result of the consideration given to this part of the clause in Committee.
      The clause as drafted requires the Secretary of Stale, before being satisfied that planned expenses are excessive and unreasonable, to have regard to the financial and other relevant circumstances of the area of the authority and to the entire area of a joint board, inasmuch as the expenses relate to the functions of a joint board.
      In considering the contributions that were made in Committee the Government have concluded that there is a strong case for deleting the reference to joint boards. As drafted, the clause would require the Secretary of State to look at the entire area of the board, for example, the area of each constituent authority of the board, even if action were contemplated against only one. This could be burdensome and unnecessary, as joint board expenditure is unlikely to contribute materially to any estimated expenditure excess. Deletion of the reference to joint boards would not, however, preclude action under the provisions in respect of joint board expenditure if it were prima facie excessive and unreasonable. In that event the Secretary of State could subject joint board expenditure to examination as part of an examination of expenditure planned by the constituent authorities or as part of the Secretary of State's consideration of the financial circumstances.
      Amendment No. 15 is consequential upon amendment No. 13.
      I come now to amendment No. 16. When this part of the clause was examined in Committee I advised hon. Members that it would be the Secretary of State's intention in the first instance to look at total planned expenditure, but that if that seemed prima facie excessive and unreasonable he would need to consider planned expenditure on particular services. It is important in these circumstances that the Secretary of State should be able to compare expenditure on individual services as between authorities. That is a necessary step in making a comprehensive assessment. Accordingly, the removal of the definite article before the reference to "expenditure" or "estimated expenses" of other closely comparable authorities is to avoid restricting the Secretary of State to making comparisons on the basis of total expenditure.
      I commend the amendments to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 6, line 28, leave out 'the area of'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 26, in clause 14, page 7, line 36 leave out sub-paragraph (ii).
      Mr. Dewar: The amendments deal with the phraseology of the clause. We have little time for it. We find it a thoroughly unpleasant and unnecessary piece of tyranny. It is important that it should be put in the most respectable order possible, and the amendments are an attempt to do that.
      Amendment No. 14 refers to the phrase "the area of the authority. The House will remember that in considering whether expenditure is excessive or unreasonable the Secretary of State will have regard to the financial and other relevant circumstances of the area of the authority. We have long considered that it would be clearer and more flexible if the inhibiting phrase "the area of" were removed and merely the financial and other relevant circumstances of the authority had to be taken into account.
      The point was argued at length in Committee and has reappeared on Report because in Committee the Minister made fairly symphathetic noises and it seemed worth while to give him a chance to reconsider his position. He made it quite clear that he thought that there was an arguable case for the exclusion of the words. He said:
      "one could stretch a case to say that they are matters affecting an authority, which are more correctly problems affecting the area of the authority".
      The factors that he was thinking of were the sparsity of the population and the possibility of oil developments and other demographic factors of relevance. Those can easily be taken into account if the phrase is merely "the authority" and not
      "the area of the authority".
      Later, the Minister said:
      "I agree that that is by no means an evident proposition, because it could be argued that the phrase 'financial or other relevant circumstances' already covers these matters".—[Official Report, First Scottish, Standing Committee; 3 February 1981, c. 306.] Put shortly, we prefer that second view and it would be better if the words were removed.
      In his letter of 18 March, for which I thank him, the Minister said that he rejected the proposition on consideration because it would be unwise, as the criteria more accurately can be ascribed to the area. That is a statement of view and does not tell us why he came to that conclusion. Given the friendly noises that he made in Committee he owes us more of an explanation, or perhaps he will continue his recently established habit of retreat and concede the amendment.
      Amendment No. 26 refers not to the mandatory conditions which the Secretary of State must take into account but to the discretionary conditions in the clause. One factor of the new sub-paragraph (ii) of subsection (1A)(a) is the "general economic conditions". There are statutory precedents for certain phrases. No doubt the Minister will draw them to my attention again. My view is that the phrase "general economic conditions" means that the Minister will be able to call something excessive and unreasonable if it does not suit his policy.
      There will be many occasions when, in the view of the local authority and the people living in the area of that
      950
      local authority, there is a strong case for expenditure in terms of reflating the local economy and creating jobs. Given the present difficulties, it is an almost unanswerable case. I am suspicious of sub-paragraph (ii) because I fear the phrase will allow the Minister, as a loyal acolyte of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to fly in the face of local reality, of the judgment of local representatives, and merely say that something is excessive or unreasonable because he does not like it. I believe that all these—the mandatory criteria, the discretionary criteria, the whole thicket of words that has been gathered around what at the end of the day is a pretty naked power—
      Mr. Rifkind: There may be some confusion. The hon. Gentleman is speaking to amendment No. 26. He appears to be suggesting that it deals with the deletion of the words "the general economic conditions" in clause 13. But the amendment suggests that the hon. Gentleman wishes to leave out sub-paragraph (ii) in clause 14, which deals with the resources element.
      Mr. Dewar: I apologise. I do not mean to criticise anyone, but the confusion has arisen because of the rather strange grouping. The second amendment dips into a different clause for reasons that I do not understand. I had assumed—I accept that it was a mistaken assumption—that we were dealing with a group of amendments to clause 13 and not to clauses 13 and 14.
      The Minister is correct. However, my remarks were valid, and I shall hold to them without a blush. I retreat, even though my arguments are evidently sound. The phrase "the area of" is one to which the Minister should address his mind. Perhaps if he is feeling generous he will give me a crumb of comfort by conceding that.
      Amendment No. 26 dips into a different clause but it raises questions about which the Minister appreciates we feel strongly. Clause 14 deals with a local authority's estimated expenditure relevant factor in calculating the amount of resources element. Sub-paragraph (i) is merely a restatement of words already in the existing statute. Subparagraph (ii) imports, we believe unnecessarily, all the paraphernalia and arbitrary machinery involved in clause 13 where it is not needed.
      Our amendment asks simply that that should not be done, but that we should leave it as it is. We do not object to the original words, which were
      "of the opinion that the local authority have fixed an unnecessarily high rate".
      We do not object to that concept being restated, because it is not a new infringement of local authority independence. We are prepared to live with that. But to import the imperfections and the unsatisfactory paraphernalia from clause 13 into the subsequent paragraph in part II of schedule 1 of the 1966 Act is unnecessary. I hope that at this late stage the Minister will be prepared to reconsider.
      Mr. Rifkind: I shall deal first with amendment No. 14, which is concerned with the words
      "the area of the authority."
      That is essentially a drafting matter. In a sense, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is continuing his opposition to the wording in its present form. I should have thought that from the point of view of the local authorities the inclusion of the word "area" was an added protection to ensure that the relevant circumstances would be taken into account in a way that might be proper with the words

      951
      proposed by the hon. Gentleman but which would not necessarily be seen to be proper. By the use of the word "area" we are anxious to ensure that if there are factors such as sparsity of population there should be no confusion in anyone's mind that that is a relevant consideration for the Secretary of State to take into account when considering whether expenditure is excessive and unreasonable. That might be the conclusion if the wording were limited to references to the local authority itself, but there is doubt on the matter.
      There is a second factor that the hon. Gentleman might wish to bear in mind. The wording in the clause is consistent with the wording used in the 1966 Act from which those powers stem. Under the 1966 Act the Secretary of State had power to withdraw expenditure from a local authority whose spending was excessive and unreasonable. The reference in that Act is to the area of the authority. It seems reasonable that there should be consistency.
      The hon. Gentleman also spoke to amendment No. 26, which deals with the power of the Secretary of State to reduce the resources element going to an individual authority by substituting a notional rate poundage for the rate poundage fixed.
      The hon. Gentleman suggested that he believed that to be unfair and unnecessary. In the context of the general provisions of the Bill, I believe that clause 14 is eminently sensible and reasonable. At present, if a local authority fixes a high rate to fund its excessive spending, not only does it squeeze substantial sums out of the ratepayers but it automatically entitles itself to a greater amount of resources element in the rate support grant calculation. The more one local authority receives in resources element the less is available to others. Therefore, other local authorities suffer directly and inevitably as a consequence of a high rate poundage fixed by one authority to fund excessive spending.
      If the Secretary of State uses the powers available to him under clause 14 and substitutes a notional rate poundage for the rate poundage fixed by the local authority—although that local authority will receive less resources element than it otherwise would receive—that sum will not be a loss to local authorities. It will automatically be redistributed among other local authorities in Scotland. That is a fair and sensible provision. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman will accept that the provisions are sensible. We are seeking to ensure that anything that might be considered relevant to the expenditure of the authority is taken into account. While the hon. Gentleman may be correct to say that it is unnecessary to refer to the area of the authority, I assure him that by including that word we are giving at least the possibility of added protection to the local authority. There is no way in which a local authority can be better off by the deletion of that word. While the inclusion of it may have little practical effect, it may give greater certainty that all relevant considerations will be borne in mind by the Secretary of State.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made:No. 15 in page 6, line 28, leave out from `authority'; to end of line 33.
      No. 16 in page 7, line 7, leave out `the'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]
      Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 7, line 9, leave out
      952
      "are, in the opinion of''.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 18, 24, 25, and 27.
      Mr. Rifkind: The amendments are intended to change the wording of clauses 13 and 14 as suggested in Committee. As drafted, the clauses use the terms "satisfied that" and "in the opinion of', relative to various decisions by the Secretary of State. Both phrases are used at different stages.
      In Committee hon. Gentlemen argued for consistency, and I can see no compelling arguments for not meeting their point. I therefore propose to substitute the test of satisfaction for the test of opinion relative to selection of comparable authorities and in that way to use the same terminology in various parts of clauses 13 and 14. I am sure that the amendment will be acceptable to the House.
      Mr. Dewar: We are grateful to the Minister for agreeing to the point that came up in Committee and was argued by the Opposition. He was a little grudging when he suggested that he could not think of any reason for not being consistent, so he supposed that he had better be. I should have thought that he would be anxious to be consistent, for consistency can be a virtue. I have not gone through this in great detail, but the words "of the opinion" survive in brackets in clause 14, next to the word "multiplicand" and various other terms that we did not like in Committee.
      Before the Bill concludes its passage through Parliament I hope that the Minister will consider whether that outbreak of "opinion" can be curbed, in the interests of consistency. It is not a matter of great importance, but we thought that consistency would improve the Bill and we are grateful for the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 18, in page 7, line 10 after `State', insert 'is satisfied are'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]
      5 pm
      Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 7, line 16 leave out sub-paragraph (iii).
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 20 and amendment No. 21, in page 7, line 19, at end add—
      '(c) shall exclude estimated expenditure on public transport subsidies where such subsidies can be shown to promote energy conservation and to support an efficient public transport system.'.
      Mr. O'Neill: The amendments are concerned with the criteria on which unreasonable and excessive expenditure will be determined. We objected in Committee to subparagraph (iii) because we considered it to be too ague. The amendment seeks to delete the sub-paragraph, though we concede that in amendment No. 20 the Government have gone some way to meet our criticisms by introducing various adjectives in relation to the criteria. We do not wish to be churlish, but there are references to economic criteria in sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii). Perhaps the Under-Secretary will arrange to have one "economic" deleted in another place in order to avoid repetition.
      On amendment No. 21, we accept that expenditure resulting in an efficient and energy-conscious public transport system should be excluded from consideration of excessive and unreasonable expenditure. An efficient public transport system that is conscious of the

      953
      requirements of energy conservation will be of general benefit to the economy and, in many respects, of greater assistance than attempts to limit the public sector borrowing requirement in the simplistic way that the Government's monetarist philosophies entail.
      We shall not press amendment No. 19, but I should point out that if Government amendment No. 20 is accepted the word "economic" will appear in the criteria in sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii). That repetition is unnecessary, and we ask the Minister to suggest to his noble Friends in another place that they should delete one "economic". We are not fussy which one they choose.
      Mr. Gavin Strang: I wish to speak to amendment No. 21, which would require the Secretary of State to exclude public expenditure on providing an efficient public transport system from consideration when he is deciding whether a local authority is spending excessively. Such expenditure is desirable if it is supporting an efficient service. There will be a redistributive aspect to such spending. Those who benefit most from reduced fares are those on low incomes, though others, including visitors to a city such as Edinburgh, may also benefit.
      In addition, if bus fares are held down many workers will accept low-paid jobs, which they would otherwise not accept but would continue to live on benefit. That is an important consideration, which applies not only to some of my constituents but to some of those of the Under-Secretary in Westerhailes.
      There are other pragmatic reasons for supporting such a policy. It reduces traffic congestion in a major city such as Edinburgh and it can promote energy conservation.
      We in the Lothian region are proud of the Edinburgh bus service, which was shown in a recent national survey to be the most efficient in Britain. We believe that the benefit of subsidisation is that it increases the use of the service and the revenue from passengers. It is cost-effective expenditure.
      I do not expect the Government to produce a circular encouraging local authorities to pursue such a policy, but I hope that they will give the benefit of the doubt to authorities that are attempting that approach, so that we can make a proper analysis of the cost benefits of such an approach to transport policy.
      The constructive meeting that took place between the Scottish Transport Group and representatives of Lothian region yesterday about the proposal to cut fares on Eastern Scottish buses in the region will mean, I hope, that there will be an opportunity for that policy to be implemented and for equity to prevail in bus fares throughout the Lothian region.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) that Government intervention to cut off local authority subsidies of bus services is likely to be damaging to our public transport network and to energy conservation measures. Nowhere is that more relevant than in the rural areas of Scotland, such as my constituency.
      The Borders regional council transport policy and programme for 1981–82 states:
      "The Government's proposals to end New Bus Grant and to impose financial targets on Scottish Bus Group predicate against
      954
      any further reductions in public transport support over the next few years except by depriving many villages of their bus services."
      That view has been overtaken by events, because the Scottish Bus Group has already increased its demands on local authorities, including the Borders region, and the regional council has refused to pay the additional subsidy. A report in The Scotsman on 17 March revealed that Eastern Scottish would be compelled to reduce the bus fleet in the Borders from 98 vehicles to 76 and that 20 bus drivers were to be made redundant. It continued:
      "The bus company is also taking steps to recover the £140,000 which Borders Regional Council have refused to pay towards the company's profitability target."
      The report stated that the company had threatened further increases in fares and cuts in services in the region.
      The problem is that high fares and a low level of services bring about resistance among passengers. There is clear evidence that the number of passengers falls and public transport services come up against the law of diminishing returns when fares are increased. The areas that prove that the converse is true are South Yorkshire and the Lothian region. Reasonable fares attract passengers and lead to more efficient public transport.
      The only problem in the Lothian region is that since local government reorganisation fares in the city of Edinburgh and those in other parts of the region have not been in line. Bus fares are about 20 per cent. higher outside the city, and it could be argued that my constituents in East Lothian have been subsidising passengers in the city.
      To its credit, the regional council brought forward a policy to increase the subsidy to Eastern Scottish bus services outside the city in order to ensure that fares would be at a similar level. That would have required a subsidy of £3 million.
      At that stage, the Secretary of State intervened and prevented the Scottish Bus Group from accepting the additional subsidy. That is our worry, and explains why we are discussing this matter. The right hon. Gentleman's action ensures that an inequitable situation is preserved and that my constituents continue to have to pay unreasonably high fares compared with people in other parts of the region.
      This demonstrates that the Secretary of State's influence in the matter is not helpful. I support the move made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, which would prevent the Secretary of State from taking this kind of consideration into account when reducing rate support grant.
      Mr. Rifkind: The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) from the Opposition Front Bench deals with a different matter from the transport consideration. It proposes the deletion of the final part of clause 13, which relates to the discretion that the Secretary of State can use in considering whether proposed spending is excessive and unreasonable.
      The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends put forward in Committee the understandable proposition that the words
      "to such other criteria as he considers appropriate"
      were too wide and too dangerous and would not even guarantee that the factors taken into account were legitimate considerations from the point of view of local

      955
      government expenditure. The Government undertook to consider whether the wording was too wide and whether some amendment was desirable.
      Government amendment No. 200, which is being discussed with the amendment that has been moved, is our response. By referring specifically to
      "financial, economic, demographic, geographical and like criteria,"
      it will be impossible for the Secretary of State to take into account considerations that are patently irrelevant to a proper consideration of the aggregate of local government spending.
      The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was desirable to include the word "economic" in the amendment, because if it were there it would lead to its appearing in two different parts of the clause. I do not think that it does any harm. Indeed, I consider that it is positively desirable. The first mention of "economic" refers to general economic conditions. That means considering the totality of public spending by local authorities as a whole and the economic circumstances that the country faces at the time. The wording points to national economic considerations and to general economic conditions, and not necessarily to criteria which, although economic, are limited to the economic situation of the local authority in question. The use of the word "economic" in the amendment includes matters specifically local to the authority in question.
      The more substantive point to which the hon. Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) have drawn attention is that of the assistance that a local authority might wish to give to its transport undertakings. The amendment seeks to exclude any expenditure of that kind from any determination by the Secretary of State whether the proposed spending of an authority is to be considered excessive and unreasonable.
      The Government will not be terribly interested in the proposed spending of a local authority on any particular service if the aggregate of its spending does not appear to be prima facie excessive and unreasonable. The procedure that my right hon. Friend will carry out in relation to the powers is that he will first look at the budget of a local authority and then at the grand total of its proposed spending. If the grand total—the aggregate of proposed spending by the authority—does not appear to be prima facie excessive and unreasonable, he will not wish to look further at the budget.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister say what guidelines will be used to determine what is prima facie unreasonable expenditure?
      Mr. Rifkind: This matter was discussed at length in Committee. A whole series of considerations is spelt out in clause 13. It enables the Secretary of State to look at a whole series of factors, including the guidelines that have been laid down, any question of growth that the local authority may be building into its proposed spending, comparability of spending by that authority and other similar authorities, and questions of per capita expenditure of the authority compared with that of authorities in other parts of Scotland. A whole series of considerations can be looked at.
      If, and only if, the Secretary of State takes the view that on a prima facie basis the proposed spending of the authority is excessive and unreasonable will he wish to look further into what has brought about that situation. As
      956
      the Secretary of State is required, if he wishes to use his powers, to indicate both to the local authority and to Parliament his reasons for believing that the proposed spending is excessive and unreasonable, it would be impossible for him to fulfil that requirement unless he were able to look at specific items in a budget which he believed added up to aggregate spending that was clearly excessive and unreasonable.
      5.15 pm
      Even if, at the end of the day, the Secretary of State believes that a local authority's spending meets those criteria and rate support grant is withdrawn from it, there will be no question of my right hon. Friend's giving directions to a local authority about how it should make reductions in order to achieve a total level of spending acceptable both to the Secretary of State and to Parliament. That will be a matter for the local authority to decide. Equally, if a local authority wishes to spend far more on any one area of spending and can do so by making economies elsewhere, that is not a matter on which my right hon. Friend will wish to intervene. It is a matter properly within the discretion of the local authority.
      If the Lothian region or any other authority wished to spend more on transport than is the case in the rest of Scotland, but proposed to do so by making corresponding economies elsewhere so that its aggregate of spending was not excessive or unreasonable, that matter would not interest my right hon. Friend in any sense that is relevant to the powers in clause 13.
      The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian implied that if the amendment moved by his hon. Friend were to be approved by the House and become part of statute the Secretary of State would be unable to do in future what he did in respect of Lothian region's proposal to give an extra £3 million, I think, to the Scottish Transport Group. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. He misunderstands the basis on which the Scottish Transport Group was unable to accept the sum which the local authority in question wished to provide for it. It has nothing to do with clause 13 or the Bill as a whole. It is concerned with the question of the external finance limit of the Scottish Transport Group itself.
      A letter sent by my right hon. Friend to the chairman of the Scottish Transport Group illustrates the position. My right hon. Friend wrote:
      "An increase of the kind which was being proposed would have major implications for the Scottish Transport Group's external finance limit, which the Secretary of State announced in Parliament on 24 November last year was to be fixed at £17 million for the year 1981–82. Local authority bus support payments are one of the elements in the calculation of the EFL which, in turn, reflects, in relation to the Government's judgment of resource availability, the volume of external financial resources (in addition to direct income from customers of the service) which it is considered that the country can at any one time devote to the industry in question."
      In considering the total external finance limit of the Scottish Transport Group or any other public body of that kind account has to be taken of the sums received from outside sources. That includes the bus support grant received from a local authority. In the case of the Scottish Transport Group, the sum had been fixed at £17 million in respect of all its services throughout Scotland. This allowed for a substantial degree of bus support grant from various local authorities in Scotland. There was no way in which the Scottish Transport Group could have accepted the extra subsidy of about £3 million from Lothian region

      957
      within the EFL that had been laid down. That EFL was not laid down in order to prevent its accepting sums of this kind. The EFL had been fixed some time previously. It was the Scottish Transport Group's own judgment that there was no way in which it could accept this extra sum from Lothian region without breaching its external finance limit. It was on that basis that the Scottish Transport Group reached its decision.
      Mr. Home Robertson: We realise the limitations of the amendment. We are seeking to make it less easy for the Minister to be as obstructive as in the past.
      Mr. Rifkind: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to express himself in that way. He should appreciate that whatever the desirability or undesirability of spending large sums of money on subsidising public transport, what the Secretary of State and the Government are concerned about is not how much a local authority spends on transport, social work, education or other individual items, but total spending of that local authority. The best way for local authority to ensure that my right hon. Friend takes no interest in how much it spends on any one item is to ensure that the totality of its spending is not excessive and unreasonable.
      Mr. Strang: A few years ago the external finance limit for the Scottish Transport Group was calculated in a manner that excluded any subsidy from a local authority. Will the Minister confirm that had it been a private bus service the Secretary of State would not have been in a position to intervene?
      Mr. Rifkind: I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman's latter point. A private bus service does not have an external finance limit. We are dealing with public bodies that have external finance limits. No one can seriously question that the Scottish Transport Group must operate within its EFL.
      I cannot comment on the question whether such a sum would not have been included within the EFL some years ago. However, the change in the system was made some time ago. I know that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges the fact that that change was made by the Labour Government. We are operating a system that was introduced by the Labour Government. On that basis, there is no way in which the Scottish Transport Group can absorb an increase in subsidy of £3 million, which is a considerable sum, when its EFL for the whole of Scotland is £17 million. In those circumstances we took a necessary decision.
      On the general question of a transport subsidy, I repeat that if a local authority wishes to make that a priority for its expenditure and is able to do so within total expenditure that is not excessive and unreasonable, we shall not intervene by using the powers contained in the Bill. It will be free to make its judgment about priorities. That is a full response to the points that have been raised.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 20, in page 7, line 16, after `other', insert
      'financial, economic, demographic, geographical and like'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

    Clause 14

      LOCAL AUTHORITY'S ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE RELEVANT FACTOR IN CALCULATING AMOUNT OF RESOURCES ELEMENT PAYABLE TO THEM
      Amendments made: No. 24, in page 7, line 30, after `authority', insert 'satisfied'.
      No. 25, in page 7, line 31, leave out 'of the opinion'.
      No. 27, in page 7, line 36, leave out `satisfied'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

    Clause 15

      EFFECT OF SECTIONS 13 AND 14
      Amendment made: No. 29, in page 7, line 40, after `13', insert
      ', (Redetermination and lowering of regional, district or general rate)'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]
      Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 7, line 42, leave out '1981–82' and insert '1982–83'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 42, in clause 37, page 14, line 1, leave out `section 25' and insert `sections 15 and 25'.
      Mr. Dewar: Clause 15 makes it clear that clause 13 and the penal machinery contained in it should apply in the financial year 1981–82. We object to that. It is a mistake to bring the machinery into operation so quickly. Amendment No. 30 proposes that clause 13 should not take effect until 1982–83. It is a charitable attempt to save the proposed system from chaos, and to save the Minister from a degree of ridicule.
      It is common ground that clause 13 envisages a lengthy time scale and a complicated machinery. The theory is that the estimates will be examined in the February preceding the start of a financial year. There will be discussions between the Government and local authorities, and Ministers will decide whether estimates are excessive and unreasonable. No doubt there will be dickering backwards and forwards. For the purpose of the exercise we assume that no agreement will be reached. At that stage a report will be issued and subsequently there will be a debate in the House about an order. Only at that stage will it be possible for the Minister to claw back from that year's rate support grant the money that he intends to take out of the local authority's budget.
      In Committee the Minister said:
      "We hope that in the normal year the question of whether an order has to be presented to Parliament for the approval of Parliament can be put forward in about June or July of the year in question.'
      The Minister has an inbuilt tendency towards optimism when considering his stratagems and legislation. The estimate is for a normal year. It is not for the year 1981–82, but for subsequent years when the machinery is established and working to a normal routine and pattern.
      If in a normal year we look at estimates in February, and do not reach the point of clawback until June or July, that point will be reached at a much later stage for the year 1981–82. The process cannot begin until the Bill reaches the statute book. It not only has to conclude its passage—perhaps today—through the House, but it has to go to another place where it will no doubt be subjected to the rigorous and sceptical examination that it deserves. It

      959
      will be some time before we reach the process of judgment, negotiation, condemnation and an order in the House.
      The Minister has shown a tendency to disagree with that view. He may do so again. He said in Committee:
      "In any event, at this point we have no reason to believe that it should not be possible this year to submit an order to Parliament, if one is required, at approximately the same time as will apply in subsequent years."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee; 10 February 1981, c. 402–443.]
      The Minister may have thought that when he made his statement, but with somewhat maturer consideration he should realise that it was a preposterous claim. It is misconceived to assume that he can make an order and lay it in the House in June or July this year while recognising that he cannot begin the processes of consultation until the Bill has reached the statute book.
      In Committee on 10 February the Minister talked about October or November and said, rather weakly, that that was better than waiting until April, as was done under the 1966 Act machinery. Anyone reading his speech will realise that there is an implicit admission that it may be October or November before any clawback can be organised and before deductions are made from the weekly rate support grant payment.
      Our simple proposition is that if it is as late as October or November we shall be faced with the prospect of crushing into the fag end of the financial year substantial cuts that will be hard and painful enough to accommodate when phased over 12 months, but when phased over four or five months will become an insupportable burden. Whatever the disagreement about what may happen in a normal year when there is a whole financial year in which to operate, we shall run into the complications that my hon. Friends and I described when discussing the possibility of using the escape clause machinery that was added to the Bill in a new clause on Monday.
      The assessor of one major region said that if the escape clause came into operation as late as August it would be impossible to operate. I know that the Minister disagrees with that. However, he may accept that if we begin the machinery after the Bill has been passed we shall face considerable problems. Although he knows that we object root and branch to the whole concept of the Bill, that is not the point now. It would be more sensible to give the financial year 1981–82 a miss. The time scale is wrong because most of that year will be eaten up getting the Bill through the House.
      If the Government think that this is a valuable legislative initiative—which we do not—let it be for future years, when it will have a chance of operating in a civilized and orderly manner, starting the timetable in the preceding February, as envisaged.
      5.30 pm
      None of us has a duty to approve the proposals in clause 13, but every hon. Member has a vested interest in ensuring that machinery that reaches the statute book should be in good order and demonstrably workable. To proceed with clause 13 powers at a time that is likely to be halfway through the financial year before the process can be started is a recipe for disaster, and will reflect no credit upon the House. Moreover, it will place an insupportable burden on the local authorities, which will have to bear the consequences of the heat of the battle.
      I hope that the Minister will accept the reality of what I am saying. I know that he is anxious to have a few
      960
      sacrificial offerings in the coming financial year, but I hope that he will put that personal vendetta on one side and accept that in the interests of neat, tidy and workable government it is better to leave clause 13 for subsequent years, when it will be workable, if not desirable.
      Mr. Rifkind: I listened with interest, and perhaps a little amusement, to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). He would have us believe that his only interest in tabling the amendment is the serious, solemn and sober desire that the provisions should work in a straightforward and simple administrative way, and that he had not contemplated for one moment that the amendment, if accepted, would mean that local authorities, whose spending for 1981–82 was excessive and unreasonable, would lose their rate support grant.
      The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government made it clear some time ago that the provisions, if approved, would take effect for 1981–82. Local authorities., too, knew that when they fixed their budgets, and no doubt took it into account.
      In any event, I disagree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the time scale factors, He assumed that the process cannot begin until the Bill receives Royal Assent. My right hon. Friend, as happens most years, received the budgets from local authorities some time ago. Those budgets are being scrutinised at present, as happens in any event. By the time the Bill receives Royal Assent, my right hon. Friend will already be in a position to tell those local authorities whose proposed spending he considers excessive and unreasonable his conclusions in that respect. He will then be able to tell them the extent by which their spending is excessive and give his reasons for doing so.
      Mr. Peter Fraser: I am interested to know that the examination of local authority spending is already under way. When shall we be told the Secretary of State's decision? People in parts of my constituency in Dundee district will be anxious to know whether they are to be singled out for the treatment that they rightly deserve.
      Mr. Ernie Ross: Rubbish.
      Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Dundee West (Mr. Ross) says "Rubbish." He will agree, whether or not he likes what the Government are doing, that the people of Dundee will be waiting with great interest to see how they will be affected by the proposals.
      My right hon. Friend is empowered under existing statute to obtain and consider the budgets. Clearly he cannot say what conclusions he will reach. Nor can he carry out any of the specific powers given to him in the Bill until after Royal Assent. Then, after Royal Assent, he will be able to excercise those powers.
      Mr. Dewar: I accept that we shall be given no specific information about who is to be on the hit list at this stage, but the Minister seems to be saying that the matter is already being considered. He must therefore know what the objectives are. How will the system work? If it is decided that expenditure is excessive and unreasonable, and if it is decided that a specific sum is excessive, will that entire sum be clawed back in the rate support grant? Will there be a punitive penalty over and above, pour encourager les autres, as one might say, or will it be a token deduction? If it is to be pound for pound, how will the deduction be made?
      Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will have to await my right hon. Friend's decision. He knows perfectly well that my right hon. Friend's powers will be to ask Parliament to approve the withdrawal of rate support grant in respect of expenditure that is excessive and unreasonable.
      On the matter of procedure, my right hon. Friend, shortly after Royal Assent, will expect to be able to inform the affected authorities of his proposals. We do not expect to have weeks and months of consultation with an individual local authority. If there were weeks and months of consultation at the discretion of a local authority, not only this year but every year, a large part of the year would elapse before the consultations were concluded. My right hon. Friend will carry out his statutory obligations regarding consultation and will then put his proposals to the House.
      The hon. Gentleman is under another misapprehension. He says that if he is correct and we are wrong, and it were necessary to have weeks and months of consultation before the House approved an order, the local authority would know only in November or December what it would lose in rate support grant. Any local authority that acted in that way would be acting in a most irresponsible fashion. If it knew relatively early in the year the amount that the Secretary of State proposed to withdraw in rate support grant, it should take into account—if it were a responsible local authority—the fact that my right hon. Friend will not change his mind.
      Any sensible and responsible authority will take into account the sum that the Secretary of State proposes to withdraw when it decides on its spending pattern during the subsequent period. I fully accept that local authorities are not obliged to do that. I am simply expressing my opinion about what a responsible local authority would be likely to conclude at that stage. In any case, that all stems from the hon. Gentleman's assumption, which I do not accept, that a considerable period will elapse between the original intimation to a local authority and any decision by the Secretary of State to report to the House of Commons.
      Mr. Dewar: The Minister's answer is thoroughly unsatisfactory. He is being uncharacteristically coy about his right hon. Friend's intentions. He must know whether there is to be a pound-for-pound deduction and what the machinery will be. He owes it to the House to give us that information. In an attempt to disguise what is happening, he paid lip service to parliamentary scrutiny and the importance of Parliament's having to approve. He then had the cheek to say that Parliament will rubber stamp the prejudices of the Secretary of State. That will not do. Will the Minister give us a definition of the word "consultation", if it is as meaningless, as this form of words suggests?
      Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that I was being uncharacteristically coy. From him that is a supreme compliment, and I am grateful for it. There will, of course, be an opportunity, as statute will require—there is no question of discretion—for the Secretary of State to tell a local authority what he has in mind and why he considers its expenditure to be excessive and unreasonable, and the local authority will have an opportunity to comment. It is not a question of the local authority's being presented with a brand new set of statistics of which it is totally unaware and which comes upon it like a thunderbolt from the sky.
      962
      We are talking about information which the Secretary of State will have gleaned from the local authority's budget, and the authority should be familiar with that. It will know why particular items are included or why allowance has been made for particular forms of expenditure. Therefore, if a local authority wishes to make any response to the Secretary of State it should do so in a very short time. Assuming that it knows its original reasons for including items in its budget it will not need lengthy investigation before being able to indicate those reasons to my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: The procedure that the Under-Secretary is describing is utterly draconian. He confirms not only that it is but that it is intended to be, removing as it does considerable discretion from local authorities. If the local authority is to know whether the sanctions operating under clause 13 are to be introduced, presumably it will at least be advised in advance not only that its expenditure is regarded as unreasonable and excessive, but against what criteria the Secretary of State may have it in mind to act.
      Is the Under-Secretary saying that this whole operation is to be wrapped up in one communication to the local authority and that, ex post facto, it will have the whole draconian procedure visited upon it without opportunity to comment upon the criteria, and even before it can say whether the Secretary of State's requests can be met? Does the Secretary of State intend to publish the criteria separately and then apply them to particular cases?
      Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman says that the procedure is draconian, but it is the procedure set out in the Labour Government's 1966 Act. There is no reference in the Bill to procedure. The 1966 Act dealt with the Secretary of State imposing a similar penalty on a local authority. The only difference here is that the local authority will already have spent excessively rather than be proposing to do so.
      The hon. Gentleman asked whether the local authority would have the right to know, and whether the information would be published. He can rest assured that it will be. Under the 1966 Act procedure the report which the Government have to lay before the House in asking it to approve any intention to reduce rate support grant must include the reasons why the Secretary of State has reached that view, along with any comments that the local authority in question may have made in response. That may not be a satisfactory procedure to the hon. Gentleman, but it was used in the 1966 Act and we are happy to rest on that.
      Mr. Maclennan: Clause 13 introduces the words
      "the Secretary of State…may…have regard…to such other criteria as he considers appropriate".
      That is an innovation. Unless the right hon. Gentleman intends to publish the criteria in advance of seeking to visit the draconian clause 13 sanctions upon the luckless authority, he will not give it a proper opportunity to consider whether its expenditure is excessive and unreasonable, decided against the new and, so far, undisclosed criteria.
      Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is introducing a new factor. His previous intervention was about procedure. All of us understand that "procedure" means the steps that the Secretary of State or the local authority must take. The procedure is specified in the 1966 Act, and is in no way

      963
      altered by the Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman is now referring to the criteria that my right hon. Friend must take into account in determining whether to initiate that procedure. If he applies those criteria he is obliged to inform the local authority and the House of his reasons for doing so.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Will the Minister confirm what he said earlier? We are dealing here with a question of confrontation. He knows—we warned him—that he is about to take on authorities over unreasonable and excessive expenditure. That is the whole purpose of the exercise. Does he think that such authorities will work within the law or will not wait until Parliament has approved the order that he is to put before the House? He has indicated that he expects them to jump the gun. What is the purpose of all these orders and resolutions? He might just get another "Aberdeenshire, East rebel", because other Conservative Members will have to win their spurs as well. The hon. Gentleman should not take Parliament for granted.
      Mr. Rifkind: I am not taking Parliament for granted. I am not saying that an authority would be required to reduce its spending instantly. Only on Monday, however, the Opposition agreed with a Government new clause which allowed a local authority, from the moment the Secretary of State informed it that he was proposing to reduce its rate support grant, the right to reduce its rates as an alternative. If it is acceptable for the local authority to reduce its rates in that way, it is not unreasonable for me to say that even if it does not wish to use that facility it may nevertheless wish to reduce its spending from that date. It is not compulsory, but a responsible authority, knowing that it might be about to lose rate support grant, would wish to make a precautionary move. Nothing that I have said indicates that it would be compelled to do so. However, the position that I have outlined is no worse than that applying under the new clause that the Opposition accepted on Monday.
      There has never been any doubt that the Government intend that the provisions should apply in the current year. We believe that in any event it will be possible, well before the time scale to which the hon. Member for Garscadden referred, for the proposals to be implemented and for the House to consider them. It is on that basis that I believe that the clause and its date of commencement are acceptable.
      Mr. Maclennan rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendment proposed, page 7 line 42—
      Mr. Maclennan: Did you overlook me, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is this a point of order?
      Mr. Maclennan: I thought that you might have overlooked me when I rose to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is the Report stage and the hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak.
      Mr. Maclennan: I have not made a speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely intervened in the speech of the Under-Secretary. I therefore did not think that it was necessary to seek the leave of the House to speak again.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that his intervention was a speech. Does he wish to speak now?
      Mr. Maclennan: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I need not detain the House at great length, but it is important that I should deal with the point that the Minister was seeking to make in answer to me. I was raising a substantive, not a procedural, point. I submit that this is a matter of procedure. If the Secretary of State is simply proposing to announce to the local authority in one move that its expenditure is excessive and unreasonable, that is one procedural step. If he proposes, however, to publish the general criteria against which he proposes to test local authority expenditure as being unreasonable or excessive, and then to apply those criteria to the local authority, that will constitute two procedural steps. It will make a considerable difference to the amount of time taken in giving effect to the Secretary of State's determination. That is highly germane to the amendment. If this is to be done properly, with due process and with proper regard to rules of natural justice, widely conceived, it will take much longer than the Minister says.
      If, however, the Minister is saying that the whole process is to be wrapped up in one confrontation and that the criteria will be disclosed to an authority only when it is deemed by the Secretary of State to have transgressed, that is different.
      Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman may have been absent from the Chamber when the Government amendment was accepted by the House. The part of the Bill to which he referred contains the phrase
      "such other criteria as he considers appropriate."
      The Government amendment that was accepted by the House a few minutes ago specifically replaces that by referring to economic, demographic and other named criteria.
      The procedure with which my right hon. Friend will comply is the procedure under statute, as laid down in the 1966 Act. That requires him to intimate his proposals; to a local authority and to give it an opportunity to make comments and representations to him on those proposals, Only after he has given it an opportunity to do so—whether it uses that opportunity is up to it—is he enabled to lay a report before the House. That procedure is laid down in the 1966 Act and is adopted for the purposes of the Bill.
      Amendment negatived

    Clause 31

      PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND CONSIDERATION OF THE NEEDS OF THE DISABLED
      Amendments made:No. 37, in page 12, line 28 leave out first 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.
      No. 38, in Page 12, line 36, after 'duty', insert
      'and of the provisions of the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings.
      (4B) In subsection (4A) above "the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings' means the British Standards Institution code of practice referred to as BS 5810: 1979; but the Secretary of State may by order amend that definition'

    Clause 37

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCMENT AND EXTENT
      Amendment made: No. 41, in page 13, line 36, after '9', insert
      'and (Valuation of underground railways)'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

    Schedule 1

      POWERS OF COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION IN SCOTLAND
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 15, line 10, at end add—
      'In section 25, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      "(2) A complaint shall be entertained under this Part of this Act if it is made in writing to the Commissioner by the person aggrieved or with the consent of the person aggrieved by a person acting on his behalf with a request to investigate the complaint".'.
      The amendment's objective is simple. It relates to the system of local authority commissioners, which is dealt with in the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to allow members of the public to go direct to the local government commissioner if as aggrieved persons, they have an objection to or complaint against the actions of a local authority.
      When the local government commissioners were first introduced it was probably a fairly revolutionary step for United Kingdom administration. For the first time there was to be reference of a dispute with an elected or administrative body to an administrative official whose job it would be to investigate those complaints thoroughly and impartially, and to make a report which would be published thereafter. At the time, Members of Parliament were greatly worried. I was not a Member of Parliament at that time, so I cannot be too forceful about that matter. Councillors were also worried that their rights would be invaded by the change. In Scandinavia it is possible for citizens to take such complaints direct to the ombudsman, as the commissioner is known there. Here the complaints must be referred only through the Member of Parliament or a councillor in the authority concerned.
      The change was applied to local government in 1975. Many of the worries of Members of Parliament and councillors about that new system have long since disappeared. It is interesting that in one of his most recent reports the Parliamentary Commissioner has recommended that access to him should be direct, without going through a Member of Parliament. That recommendation has not been put before us in the form of legislation for implementation. Perhaps it is stacked up on the shelves of a Government Department.
      However, we now have before us a local government Bill which is not only couched as a Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill but deals with the powers of the Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland, contained in clause 21. Schedule 1 also deals with that.
      This change is fairly innocuous. It would fit in well with the Bill, which is a miscellaneous provisions Bill. We should take advantage of the experience which has been gained with the local authority commissioner system and the Parliamentary Commissioner. A change should be introduced to that system, which would allow aggrieved persons to go direct to the local authority ombudsman. I invite the House to accept my amendment.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I am at a loss to understand why the hon. Member's amendment has been tabled.
      I am a member of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Select Committee, together with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), who will confirm that the local government commissioner for Scotland comes to Parliament and reports to the Select Committee. He has on occasions drawn our attention to the fact that members of the public can, at his discretion, write and complain direct to him on matters of maladministration. that facility exists now, is used by members of the public and has been used by them.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: It is true that the local government commissioner is prepared to entertain a complaint from an aggrieved person if a councillor has refused to take up a case or if he said that he would take up the case, but has not done so. I am suggesting that the citizen should have the power to go direct to the ombudsman, who would then have the opportunity to make the necessary inquiries into the case without going through the elongated procedure at which the hon. Gentleman has hinted.
      Mr. Walker: I am interested in that intervention, because I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has studied in detail the reports of the local government commissioner or the Parliamentary Commissioner. If he had done so he would realise that the local government commissioner for Scotland had said that he was satisfied with the system. The Select Committee felt that the area concerning the Parliamemtary Commissioner could be looked at and added to. The amendment is unnecessary. My reading of the words on the Notice Paper is not in accordance with what the hon. Member has said.
      Mr. Maclennan: I was the first hon. Member to introduce a Bill to set up a Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland. I withdrew that Bill on an undertaking given by the then Labour Government that they would seek to bring forward such legislation. Therefore, I have retained ever since a parental interest in the development of the powers of the Commissioner for Local Administration.
      There is substance in the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). The position of the commissioner is different from that of the parliamentary ombudsman. It is correct that the parliamentary ombudsman should be approached by the Member of Parliament, the Member of Parliament having no part in the administration that is being investigated. The case in respect of local government is different. The councillor who is approached may have had some part in the direction of the administration, or in decision making, which led to the grievance that gave rise to the complaint. It is in part to protect the interests of the members of the local government that the proposed amendment commends itself to me. All too often such complaints are subject to delay—the circuitous route is blocked after some embarrassment. I shall support the hon. Member for Dundee, East if he presses his amendment to a vote.
      6 pm
      Mr. Russell Johnston: I have four points to make. First, I compliment the Government on approving the ombudsman procedure in general in the Bill. Secondly,

      967
      there is not much evidence that sifting matters through councillors improves efficiency. Thirdly, the citizen may be reluctant to go to a councillor and may not know that he can write to the ombudsman direct. We must never underestimate public ignorance. It must be made known that access can be direct. Access is generally thought to be only through a councillor. If the citizen is reluctant to go to a councillor he is unlikely to take advantage of the procedure mentioned by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker).
      Finally, if the complaint is frivolous or not well-founded, electoral pressures often cause the councillor to pass it on. That also applies to the Parliamentary Commissioner and Members of Parliament.
      The proposal is simple and would help individuals with genuine problems. I see no reason for the Government to reject it.
      Mr. Bruce Milan: I found the amendment difficult to understand. In addition, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) related it to the wrong section of the 1975 Act. It is directed to section 25 when it should relate to section 24, and would remove a necessary part of section 25, which covers a complaint when a potential complainant has died.
      I am interested in the Minister's views. At present, a complaint normally goes through a councillor, as an elected representative, which is a useful procedure and ensures that the officials and the authority can examine it. The procedure prevents complaints that can be dealt with effectively by the authority going to the commissioner. The authority should first have the opportunity to remedy the problem. A system that prevents that happening would not produce a better result; it would cause confusion and give more work to the authority and the commissioner, to no good purpose.
      Under the 1975 Act, if a councillor is not willing to take up a complaint and it can be demonstrated to the commissioner that he has been asked and has refused, the complaint can be made direct, so that a safeguard exists. If it is felt that the safeguard is not adequate, or is not working satisfactorily, I should be willing to improve the procedure in the interests of the complainant. I do not wish to diminish the necessity for an effective route for complaints to the commissioner, but I am not aware that the system is unsatisfactory. If it is unsatisfactory, I do not believe that the amendment provides the remedy.
      Mr. Rifkind: I compliment the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) on raising a legitimate issue, but one on which there can be a difference of opinion. We all wish to ensure that the public's interests are properly protected and grievances are investigated and remedied where necessary. As the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said, the hon. Gentleman has inadvertently addressed his amendment to the wrong part of the Act, but that should not stop us considering the idea.
      Should members of the public be able to ignore councillors when a problem arises out of a believed or alleged maladministration by the local authority? Dogma should not come into it, but it is, prima facie, undesirable to ignore elected members whose primary functions are to represent the interests of their constituents and to deal with problems that they may have as a result of local authority action. As the right hon. Member for Craigton said, we have to take into account not only the constitutional
      968
      principle of the role of the councillor in dealing with alleged problems of maladministration but the question whether the problems could be dealt with easily and simply by the councillor taking them up with the local authority and expeditiously producing a satisfactory response.
      When the local ombudsman, like the parliamentary ombudsman, was established, it was considered that recourse to him should be a last resort. One way to ensure that is by channelling grievances through the elected member and having the matter dealt with by the ombudsman only if the elected member feels it appropriate. The only reason for changing the arrangement arises if the councillor fails or refuses to pass on the complaint, so that he is not involved in considering the alleged maladministration. If that were a bar to the processing of the complaint there would be risk of injustice to members of the public, either because of malice or, more likely, incompetence by the councillor in failing to deal with the request. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) pointed out, the 1975 Act covers that possibility and allows discretion to the ombudsman where he is satisfied that the councillor has refused to pass the complaint to him, or has failed to do so. The position seems satisfactory.
      Like the right hon. Member for Craigton, I am not aware of dissatisfaction with the arrangements or evidence to show that they have led to injustice. The Government do not have a closed mind. If there were evidence that the system was unsatisfactory we should wish to discuss it with the Secretary of State for Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales in relation to other parts of the United Kingdom to see whether changes were appropriate.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I shall be brief in my final remarks on the amendment. First, my intention was not to detract from the valuable role of councillors. Nevertheless, there are occasions when citizens may be dissatisfied with the actions of councillors in relation to complaints, or, indeed, when they feel that the councillors are part of a group of people who would not be willing to take action. They are therefore disinclined to raise the matter with a councillor for submission to the ombudsman. As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker), the citizen has the right to take a complaint direct to the ombudsman if the councillor refuses to deal with it or procrastinates in his handling of it.
      I confess that it would have been helpful if I had addressed the amendment to the appropriate section of the Act. That is usually an advantage if one wishes to press an amendment. I had not intended, however, to press the matter to a Division, as I know that time is limited. I intended to test the temperature of the water to see whether the Government accepted my worries about the lack of openness in the system. Having raised the matter, I have gained the fairly mild assurance from the Minister that, should any evidence emerge, he is prepared at least to consult his right hon. Friends in other Departments throughout the United Kingdom. He spoke as though he had it in mind that some great constitutional change was involved, which I certainly did not have in mind myself.
      With those remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 3

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 44, in page 25, line 14, at end insert—
      'The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 (c. 43)
      O. In section 238(1) (fixing of dates for lodging and hearing appeals against rates), at the end there shall be added the following proviso—
      ": Provided that, if and in so far as required by virtue of a determination under section 108A(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, new such dates shall be so fixed.".'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]
      Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 27, line 43 at end insert—
      'The Post Office Act 1969 (c. 48)
      11A. In paragraph 93(1) (xxxiv) of Schedule 4 (Post Office deemed to be statutory undertakers and its undertaking a statutory undertaking for the purposes of certain provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972), after the words "205,", there shall be inserted the words "205A,",'.
      This is a technical amendment, consequential upon paragraph 14 of the schedule, which introduces a new section 205A to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. The amendment provides that the Post Office is a statutory undertaker for the purposes of that section, thus ensuring that permission for Post Office development requiring the authorisation of a Government Department can be sought concurrently with setting in motion the procedure for making stopping-up or diversion orders for highways in connection with the proposed development.
      I commend the amendment to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Norman Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 27, line 43, at end insert:
      "New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 (c.I6)
      11A. In Schedule 2 (Constitution and proceedings of development corporations), at end of paragraph 9 insert—
      '9A. For the purpose of securing the admission, so far as is practicable, of the public including the press, to all meetings of Development Corporations themselves, the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 shall have effect.'.".
      I refer to the speech of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), in Committee on 24 February, when I moved a similar amendment. At that time the Government appeared to be enthusiastic in their support for the idea. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State said:
      "We see the force of what the hon. Gentleman has said and the desirability of seeking some change in this direction."
      He continued:
      "I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will indicate to the chairmen of the new town development corporations the strength of feeling of this Committee and that the Government see no objection in principle to opening up these matters of obvious public interest that in the case of a local authority would clearly lead to access to the public and to the press. We can at this stage see no objection in principle to a similar right being provided for similar types of issue if they are being discussed by a new town development corporation."
      He concluded:
      "If the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw his amendment at this stage, my right hon. Friend is meeting the chairmen of the
      970
      new towns on 13 March, and it will be his intention to discuss this issue at that meeting."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 24 February 1981; c. 634–35.]
      6.15 pm
      In the light of what was clearly an assurance, I did not press the matter on that occasion, although it is a matter of immense importance to those who live in new towns and to my constituents in Cumbernauld in particular.
      I put down a parliamentary question to ask what progress had been made at that meeting with the chairmen of the new town corporations. I was told that the right hon. Gentleman had had a useful meeting with the chairmen on 13 March, that he was considering the matter further in the light of the views expressed, and that I would receive a letter in due course.
      I sincerely hope that the Government will take the opportunity today to accept the amendment, in view of the assurances that were given. There is no doubt that the citizens of a new town should have the opportunity to hear at first hand what is said at meetings of the development corporations. The corporations spend money. They make decisions about rents. They also make very important decisions about the environment and the attraction and location of industry within the town. For all those important reasons, the press and the public should have the opportunity to hear what is said and what is determined.
      I hope, therefore, that the Minister will tell the House that he has been able to secure the agreement of the chairmen of the new towns to make this perfectly reasonable arrangement. The amendment would do no more than bring the development corporation into line with Scottish local authorities, which, of course, admit the press and the public to their meetings. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
      Mr. Lambie: I intervene very briefly to support what has been said by my hon. Friend. I represent Irvine new town, which is unique among new towns in Scotland in that it was developed on existing communities. The Royal burgh of Irvine had a charter going back more than 600 years, while in the burgh of Kilwinning there is the long religious tradition of Kilwinning Abbey, and the centre for masonic lodges throughout the world, with masonic lodge No. 0. We therefore have two towns of great historical interest.
      Superimposed on them is an undemocratic body, the Irvine development corporation. Under local government reorganisation, local councils were abolished. Cunninghame district council and Strathclyde regional council are now the two local authorities involved, so that all local council meetings, including all sub-committee meetings both at district and regional level, are open to the public. Yet the new town corporation, which has overall control over people in the new town, and complete control in the areas in which the new town has developed outside the existing communities, holds its meetings in private. We do not know what goes on at those meetings. The unemployment rate is 21 per cent., yet we do not know what the corporation is doing about it, or whether it even discusses the matter. I have come to the conclusion that the board does not want its meetings to be open to the public because it does nothing.
      I point this out to the Minister responsible for the new towns. The board meets once a month. I believe that its members spend half an hour on pleasantries and then have a good drink and a good lunch. That disposes of the

      971
      business for the month. If minutes were taken of those meetings—I know that this would appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, with your traditions against drinking, and so on—and if the meetings were open to the public, it would be seen that the board members have no say at all in what happens. It is the managing director and the officials of Irvine development corporation who run the corporation.
      When I read the Under-Secretary's assurance in Committee that the Government agreed in principle that meetings should be open to the public, I thought that that was a breakthrough, but according to today's Irvine Times the managing director of Irvine development corporation has put out a statement of the meeting held between himself, the chairman and the Secretary of State on 13 March, saying that the Secretary of State listened to their point of view and to the arguments put forward and intends to reconsider the whole matter.
      The Minister should stick to the principle of opening these meetings to the public. He should make the new town development corporations democratic. He should not listen to the undemocratic arguments that have been put forward by both the chairman and the managing director of Irvine development corporation.
      Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg). However, I do not agree in every particular with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie). Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), I was responsible for many of the appointments to these boards. I have seen them in operation. I do not believe that the meetings last for half an hour or that the members have a nice lunch. These boards do a substantial job, for which we should be grateful.
      Mr. Norman Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend not accept that if we were to open the meetings and lunches to the press we should be able to confirm, or otherwise, the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie)?
      Mr. MacKenzie: I should not go that far. However, I believe that the meetings should be open to the public. For a long time there has been great fear about the number of people who have been appointed to these bodies. We appoint people to the boards of commercial organisations—such as the electricity boards—but they have watch dog committees, such as the electricity consultative committee and the gas consultative committee. That does not apply to the new town development corporations, and what my hon. Friend has suggested would be helpful.
      There are times when it may not be appropriate for such a board to admit the public—for example, discussions might take place with a group of companies—but my hon. Friend's amendment takes care of such matters. It says that
      "so far as is practicable"
      this right should apply. It would be good for both the towns people and the boards if there were better communication, and there is no better means of communicating than by the means suggested in my hon. Friend's amendment.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): I appreciate the points that have been made, as well as the strong feelings of hon. Members about the proceedings of new town development
      972
      corporation. In particular, I appreciate the feelings of the hon. Members for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) and of Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg) who have new towns in their constituencies. Nevertheless, I am sure that they will be the first to accept that there is a difference between an elected authority—such as a district or regional council—and a new town development corporation. The former consists of elected representatives who attend under a direct mandate from the electors, whereas members of the latter are nominated by the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is the major difference between the two types of organisation.
      As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State promised in Committee, my right hon. Friend and I have held discussions with the chairmen of the five new towns in Scotland about the admission of press and public to new town development corporation meetings. The new town chairmen are well aware of the principle of openness in government that underlies the amendment.
      Equally, it was clear from our discussions that there would be difficulties in making a change of the sort proposed. We have undertaken carefully to study the Government's response to the various conflicting considerations. As I indicated in my reply earlier this week to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East, my right hon. Friend will make his views known as soon as he has reached a decision. We shall not be tardy. My right hon. Friend will do that before the Bill is considered in another place, but I am unable to accept the amendment this
      evening.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 47, in Page 30, line 34, at end insert—
      '19A. In section 273—

      (a) in subsection (4) (power to make orders under certain sections to be exercisable by statutory instrument), after the words "21,", there shall be inserted the words "26 (4B),"; and

      (b) in subsection (5) (statutory instruments containing orders made under certain sections to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament)—

      (i) after the words "1 (3),", there shall be inserted the words "26 (4B),"; and

      (ii) for the words "18 (4) (a)" there shall be substituted the words "181 (4) (a)",'.

      No. 48, in page 31, line 3 at end insert—
      '21A. In section 108(1) (determination and levy of regional district and general rates), after the words "district rate; and" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to subsection 108A of this Act,".
      21B. In section 109(2) (intimation of district rate to rating authority), for the words "the district rate" there shall be substituted the words "such district rate as is".
      21C. In section 111(1) (regulations with respect to rates), at the end there shall be added the following paragraph—
      "; (f) providing, as regards a rate determined under section 108A(1) of this Act by a local authority—

      (i) for the repayment of sums paid in respect of a rate determined by them under section 108 thereof; and

      (ii) for the cost of levying and collecting to be borne by them.".'.

      No. 49, in page 31, line 26 at end insert—
      '26A. In section 8(3) (times at which instalments of rates are payable), for the word "the" where it occurs for the second time there shall be substituted the word "a".'.
      No. 50, in page 31, line 33, at end insert—
      '27A. In section 16 (which gives effect to a schedule relating to borrowing and lending by local authorities etc.), after the word "shall" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to section

      973
      (Prohibition of using sums from loans fund to offset reduction of rate support grant or diminution in amount of resources element) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1981,".
      27B. In Schedule 3 (the schedule mentioned in paragraph 27A, above)—

      (a) in paragraph 15(1), after the word "below" there shall be inserted the words "and to sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 above"; and

      (b) in paragraph 31, in the definition of "fixed period" after the words "case or" there shall be inserted the words ", from time to time, for any class of cases or".'.'—[Mr. Rifkindi]

      Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 32, line 34, leave out 'out'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 52.
      Mr. Rifkind: These are technical, drafting amendments to section 2(10) of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act, which provides that where a tenant chooses not to exercise his right to purchase he shall be deprived of the right to re-apply for 12 months starting from the last date on which he would have been entitled to serve a notice of acceptance.
      Some local authorities have expressed difficulty in understanding the provision as it is drafted, especially in identifying the starting date of the 12-month period. Any ambiguity in the original provision may have been exacerbated in the new proviso to be added to section 2(8) of the Act by paragraph 31(b) of schedule 3.
      In the circumstances, an amendment to clarify the meaning of the subsection is essential. The opportunity has been taken to recast subsection (10) more generally in the interests of the ease of interpretation. That substantive change is made in amendment No. 52. Amendment No. 51 is purely consequential. I commend both amendments to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 52, in page 32, line 46 at end insert
      '; and
      (c) for subsection (10) (restriction on tenant's reapplication to purchase dwellinghouse) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
      "(10) Where an offer to sell has been served on the tenant, he shall not be intitled to make an application to purchase under this this Part of the Act again until 12 months after the last date on which he has, under either of subsections (6) and (8) above, any entitlement to serve a relative notice of acceptance,".
      No. 53, in page 33, line 33 at beginning insert '—(a).
      No. 54, in page 33, line 33 leave out 'forthwith —(a)', and insert—(i)'.
      No. 55, in page 33, line 35 leave out `(b)' and insert'(ii)'.
      No. 56, in page 33, line 37 leave out from `tenancies' to second `any' in line 38 and insert
      ; and

      (b) to publish in accordance with subsections (2) and (2A) below,

      within 6 months of the coming into force of paragraph 36 of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland)
      Act 1981 and within 6 months of any alteration of the rules'.
      No. 57, in page 33, line 40 leave out from 'above' to end of line 43.
      No. 58, in page 33, line 45 at end insert ';
      974
      '(c) in subsection (2)—

      (i) after the word "times" there shall be inserted the words "—

      (i) in a case where the body is an islands or district council or a Development Corporation,"; and

      (ii) at the end there shall be added the words"; and

      (ii) in any other case, at its principal and other offices."; and

      (d) after subsection (2) there shall be added the following subsection—
      "(2A) Rules sent to a council in accordance with subsection (1A)(a)(ii) above shall be available for perusal at all reasonable times at its principal offices.".
      37. The following Schedule shall be inserted before Schedule 1—
      "SCHEDULE AI
      VESTING ORDER UNDER SECTION IA: MODIFICATION OF ENACTMENTS
      The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (c. 52)
      1. Paragraphs 1(2), 6 to 13 and 16 to 39 of Schedule 24 only shall apply and in them any reference to a general vesting declaration shall be treated as a referecnce to an order under section 1A of this Act.
      2. The references, in paragraphs 6, 7 and 37 of that Schedule, to the end of the period specified in a general vesting declaration shall be treated as references to the date on which such an order comes into force and the reference in paragraph 9 thereof to the acquiring authority having made a general vesting declaration shall be treated as a reference to such order having come into force.
      3. In paragraph 6 of that Schedule—

      (a) the reference to every person on whom, under section 17 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845, the acquiring authority could have served a notice to treat, shall be treated as a reference to every person whose interest in the land to which such order relates is vested by the order in the landlord; and

      (b) sub-paragraph (a) shall be omitted.

      4. The reference in paragraph 20(2) of that Schedule to the date on which the notice requred by paragraph 4 thereof is served on any person shall be treated as a reference to the date on which such order comes into force.
      5. In paragraph 29 of that Schedule—

      (a) sub-paragraph (1)(a) shall be omitted; and

      (b) the reference in sub-paragraph (1)(b) to the date on which a person first had knowledge of the execution of the general vesting declaration shall be treated as a reference to the date on which such order came into force

      The Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 (c. 51)
      6. Any reference to the date of service of a notice to treat shall be treated as a reference to the date on which an order under section 1A of this Act comes into force.
      7. Section 25(2) shall be treated as if for the words 'the authority proposing to acquire it have served a notice to treat in respect thereof, or an agreement has been made for the sake thereof to that authority' there were substituted the words 'an order under section 1A of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 vesting the land in which the interest subsists in the landlord has come into force, or an agreement has been made for the sale of the interest to the landlord'.
      8. In section 30—

      (a) subsection (2) shall be treated as if at the end of paragraph (c) there were added the words; or

      (d) where an order has been made under section 1A of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 vesting the land in which the interest subsists in the landlord.'; and

      (b) subsection (3) shall be treated as if in paragraph (a) the words 'or (d)' were inserted after the words 'subsection (2)(b)'.

      9. Any reference to a notice to treat in section 45(2) shall be treated as a reference to an order under the said section 1A.
      10. In Schedule 2, paragraph 1(2)(a) shall be treated as if the words 'or the coming into force of an order under section 1A of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 for the vesting of the land in the landlord' were inserted after the word 'land'.".'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]
      Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bruce Millan.
      Mr. Millan rose—
      Mr. Rifkind rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Mr. Malcolm Rifkind.
      6.26 pm
      Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I would have been happy to give way to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) had I been satisfied that he would have moved a similar motion. I suspect that that might have been an unrealistic expectation.
      This is a Bill which covers a substantial number of policy matters. However, the House has rightly been interested in the provisions relating to local government expenditure and to the powers available to the Secretary of State to withdraw rate support grant if a local authority proposes unreasonable and excessive expenditure in its budget.
      From the beginning my right hon. Friend has made it clear that he hopes to use these powers either never or, at the very most, rarely. It is our belief that in practice only one or two authorities at most will have to be proceeded against under the powers in the Bill. It has been suggested that the procedure which will be applied contains no safeguard for the local authorities. However, the procedure which was approved by Parliament in 1966 is similar to the procedure contained in the Bill.
      The new clause which was accepted on Monday is of considerable importance. It means that a local authority, faced with a prospective loss in rate support grant will, at its own initiative, be able to avoid such a loss if, as an alternative, it agrees to reduce its proposed spending and makes a reduction in its rate poundage, with a consequent benefit to the local community and ratepayers. Faced with that choice, it is likely that most local authorities will find that to be a preferable alternative because, if the House were to approve a reduction in rate support grant, a local authority would, in any event, be required to reduce its expenditure. If it finds that necessary, it is more sensible and appropriate from everyone's point of view that the local community should benefit as a consequence rather than the Treasury. In effect, that will be the alternative available to a local authority if the House approves an order under clause 13.
      I am sure that all hon. Members will accept that this is a major improvement in our law. For the first time in history, Scottish local authorities, having fixed their rates, will have an opportunity to reconsider their decisions in order to reduce the rate burden and benefit the local community as a consequence. I accept that if a local authority is required to reduce its spending it will have to reduce certain services. That is an inescapable consequence. But I am equally clear that given the circumstances in which these powers will be used, it will not affect any of that local authority's vital services. We are dealing only with expenditure that the Secretary of State believes and the House of Commons accepts to have been excessive and unreasonable.
      These powers represent a sensible and desirable improvement to our legislative framework. It is in everyone's interests that they are not used on other than infrequent occasions. However, I make it clear that my
      976
      right hon. Friend has every intention of using them if he judges that an authority's expenditure is excessive and unreasonable, and if the House accepts his judgment. Both in respect of these powers and the other clauses, I have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Millan: I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill. We are utterly opposed to it. Unfortunately, there is time for only a short Third Reading debate, because yesterday I promised that we would try to finish Third Reading by 7 o'clock. I wish to keep that promise. I shall speak for only a few minutes, although the Bill deserves much more than that.
      I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) and to those of my hon. Friends who served in Committee. They put in a considerable amount of work. I also pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friends did on Report. If the Bill has not been improved it is not because of lack of effort by my hon. Friends, but because of the Government's doctrinaire obsession for cutting local authority expenditure in Scotland. The Government have made no attempt to meet the reasonable objections that have been made.
      In the past few years the Government have been on a collision course with Scottish local authorities. It has inevitably produced confrontation, which is bad for both local government and ratepayers. I note that the Secretary of State is not in the Chamber. However, the Minister has had to bear the burden of the work. Despite all the efforts and despite the right hon. Gentleman's blustering, in the current year 1980–81 local rates in Scotland have been increased, on average, by 32 per cent. In 1981–82 there will be an average increase of no less than 34 per cent. If rates continue to increase in that way and if the Government do not come to their senses about the level of rate support grant and housing support grant the rating system in Scotland may collapse. The system cannot sustain such increases.
      If a Conservative Member were to believe that the Bill allowed for more than a very marginal reduction in overall rate increases in Scotland he would be mistaken. There may be no reduction. Indeed, even in the areas that the Government will try to tackle under the powers contained in clause 13 there will probably not be a reduction.
      It is typical of the Government's disingenuousness in dealing with clause 13 that, although they know which local authorities will be affected and have some idea about how the clause will be used, they have resolutely refused to give us any information. Indeed, less than an hour ago the Minister was given an opportunity to tell us. The provisions are not workable for 1981–82, and the position will be little altered, if at all.
      In principle, we are opposed to the Government's intentions. The Government have had to introduce more and more new clauses. Apart from clause 13 there is a provision that is meant to give local authorities a second chance, and a new clause that will prevent borrowing from the loans fund. Where the Government can use clause 13, they will determine local expenditure. But central Government are not competent to do the job. Once they begin to determine the expenditure of any local authority it will be the end of local government and of local

      977
      democracy. Despite all the warnings that the Government have received from Opposition Members and local authorities, the Government chose to set out on that road.
      I am apprehensive about my next suggestion, because the Government may take me up on it. However, we might just as well have a clause that states that every local authority should do everything that the Secretary of State says without question. That is what the Secretary of State wants. In some respects that is the effect of many of the Bill's provisions.
      If the Bill had contained amendments to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act—as we attempted to secure yesterday—there might have been something to be said for it. Nevertheless, we violently object to such disagreeable and wicked clauses as clause 13. Nothing in the Bill can be commended. That is why I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it in the Lobby. It is a wretched Bill. The sooner we see an end to the attempt by Government and the Secretary of State in particular to dictate to Scottish local authorities, the better.
      6.37 pm
      Mr. Alex Pollock: Before we vote on Third Reading I wish to raise two points that concern schedule 2. The first concerns paragaph 22 and tree preservation orders. It is proposed to withdraw the need for the Secretary of State to confirm any such order. Instead, the planning authority is to take the final decision and there will be no appeal. Private forestry interests, particularly in the Highland region, are worried because even the whiff of suspicion that such a tree preservation order might be applied by the local authority could have an adverse effect on contracts with timber merchants. In turn, that could have a major effect on timber sales programmes and could involve loss of revenue.
      I ask the Government to ensure that that is given consideration in the other place. I ask them to consider that it would be better to retain the Secretary of State's right. If that is not acceptable, perhaps firm guidelines could be issued to local authorities in order to minimise the risks.
      The other matter concerns the amendments to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which is covered in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the schedule. They involve the structure of community councils. If the Bill is accepted without amendment those councils will, in effect, come under the direct control of district councils. Of course, there are certain safeguards. There is a right to make representations. Nevertheless, the final decision lies in the hands of district councils, whom, on occasion, community councils are charged to criticise. What consultation took place before that part of the Bill was drafted? The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities was consulted. It has an obvious interest in providing the best that it can for district councils. However, the Scottish Council of Social Service—
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not an abuse of the House to raise detailed Committee points on Third Reading? The hon. Gentleman has had every opportunity to raise such points.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I have been listening very carefully. If the hon. Gentleman is addressing his remarks to provisions in the Bill, he may continue.
      Mr. Pollock: The provisions are contained in the Bill. My attention was drawn to these matters only at the weekend. I am concerned about the lack of consultation between the Government and the community councils. Again I would ask for a rethink by the Government before consideration of the Bill in another place is finished.
      6.40 pm
      Mr. Robert Hughes: This is a thoroughly bad Bill. Indeed, the Government have not even got the title right. The Bill is called the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. It should be called the Local Government (Prevention of) (Scotland) Bill, because that is precisely what the Government are doing—preventing local government from carrying out its responsibilities. The Bill introduces for the first time into legislation the language of George Orwell's 1984—the Newspeak language. The title of section 22 is
      "Relaxation of controls over local authorities".
      What absolute nonsense. The whole purpose of the Bill is to tighten the control by central Government over local authorities and to maintain a stranglehold on everything that they do. It is a wholly negative Bill. There is nothing in it that gives any encouragement to local authorities to use their initiative or good sense, or to have consultations with the people who live in the area on the provision of local government services.
      I confess that the impression is sometimes given that local government is about providing work for local government employees. I accept that that criticism is sometimes justified. The whole purpose of having local government is to provide local services that are locally determined. Local councillors, duly elected, should be able to decide for themselves, first, what priority they wish to give to different services and, secondly, how far they themselves are willing to top up over and above the Government grant.
      Because of the shortage of time I shall say nothing more except that the Government will rue the day that they centralised local government in this form. I think that they will find that even their own supporters in local government will rebel against it. They are building up resentment among local authorities and among local authority staff. Sometimes we do not give sufficient credit to the staff for the work that they do. I know that many people in local authorities do tremendous work because they are dedicated to the service. They are not in it just for the money. The Bill destroys the initiative of councillors and of local authority staff. At the end of the day it will lead to the destruction of local government. I shall go into the Lobby with my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill and express my disapproval.
      6.43 pm
      Mr. John Mackay: I should like to make two points. I am sure that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) would make one of them if he were called, namely, that having taken the power to delay the 1983 revaluation my right hon. Friend will exercise that power and delay indefinitely and perhaps for ever that revaluation.
      My right hon. Friend might also look at the tactics that assessors are employing even at the moment, in that, without the legislation, revaluation is going on. A certain class of subjects, namely, self-catering subjects, are being quietly reclassified by the assessor. They are receiving

      979
      thumping great assessments, which place their whole economic position in doubt. The assessor is attempting to relate their gross annual value to a percentage of their turnover. This is very serious. The assessor started off at 30–40 per cent., and that figure has been reduced on appeal to something like 20–25 per cent. The Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Tourist Board, having encouraged self-catering, are now going to have to watch the whole thing being destroyed by the actions of the assessor.
      The second power that I welcome is that given to the Secretary of State to do something about local authorities who take no account of the economic damage that they do not only to their domestic ratepayers but to their commercial and industrial ratepayers. A lot has been said and written about the damage that they do to their domestic ratepayers. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) has spoken much on this, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to the damage that they do to the commercial ratepayers.
      I have here a letter that has been sent to all local authorities in Scotland which have in their area a quarry or a plant run by Tilcon, the quarrying group. Every local authority should give a copy of this letter to all their members and they should look at it every time they decide to spend another penny of public money. The letter encapsulates the problem that has been caused in industry and therefore in employment by local authorities increasing their rates beyond anything that is fair and just. The letter states:
      "In the present economic climate, with the private sector under enormous pressure, it is totally unacceptable that local authorities should seek to levy rates which are not only in excess of the current level of wage awards, but in many cases grossly in excess of the Retail Price Index itself. In industry we have to live within our income. When our income decreases, then we have to cut our expenditure. Public bodies, including all the nationalised industries, react in a completely different way. They raise their income to meet whatever increase in expenditure they deem appropriate. Their accountability, in the case of local authorities, to the providers of a massive proportion of their income—namely industry, is precisely nil. During 1980, Tilcon has paid in total, rates amounting to over £1 million which is an increase of over 20 per cent. on the 1979 figure.
      The present parlous state of the economy is related in no small measure to the profligate spending of ratepayers' money without the salutary discipline of having to earn that money or to justify the amount of expense. We see no evidence whatever of any serious attempt to really cut expenditure in the town halls as we have to in private industry. Tilcon were not able to increase their income in 1980 to the tune of 20 per cent. by which our rates increased. Against a background of ever increasing costs, of which by far the largest increase was in relation to rates and charges by nationalised industries, coupled with a sharp decline in demand for our products, Tilcon had to take the very regrettable decision during 1980 alone to make over 10 per cent. of our total workforce redundant. We would like some demonstration of the positive steps you have taken to reduce your expenditure on labour by cutting the numbers."
      The next sentence is very serious. It says:
      "We give you notice that during 1981, Tilcon will give serious consideration to its position in each community in which we operate. Those areas which show little or no restraint in their demand for rate increases will find that as a first step there will be plant closures or withdrawals and inevitably a total and permanent loss of rate income adding a further spiral of increase to the rate poundage."
      I have read that letter because it illustrates why it is essential for commerce and for employment that my right hon. Friend should take these powers to stop local authorities ignoring absolutely the economic damage that they do to their own areas and the way that they ride
      980
      roughshod over all those problems. They pay scant regard—nay, no regard at all—to the position of commerce and industry.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend will not have to use the powers. I hope that some sense will prevail in those local authorities that seem to think that money grows on trees and that basically the trees all grow on the properties of the commercial and industrial sector.
      6.48 pm
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I wish to make it clear that I regard this as an objectionable measure. When the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) was attacking local authorities for overspending he may have had a point in terms of authorities like the Dundee authority, on which the loony Left seems to have gone out of control. Even set against that, what the Bill strives to do is to cut the throat of local government itself. The essential feature of local government is that democraatic decisions are taken at local level. It is the electors who have elected the councillors to serve and take those decisions. The electors will have the chance, every four years or so, to record a different choice.
      What is important when we pass measures like this in order to cut down the Chancellor's public service borrowing requirement in any one year is that we have required him to hack the feel from under the whole system of democratic control at local level. I am shocked particularly by the hypocrisy of the Government, who strive to pretend that they have no part to play in the high rate increases that are taking place. Of course, one can criticise a specific decision taken by a local authority. Every hon. Member knows that the Government are acting in pursuit of overall economic objectives which I regard as misjudged and harmful, but these objectives have caused savage reductions in the level of housing support grant and in the level of rate support grant.
      It is appalling that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not been able to point out to the Treasury that Scotland should have been exempted from the increased cuts in public expenditure for the simple reason that this year Scotland is producing £4,000 million by way of oil revenue. The Shetland Isles this year are proposing to pay to their old folk something like £100, whereas in Strathclyde the charges for meals on wheels service will go up by 50 per cent. It is disgraceful that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not been willing to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Scotland deserves a better deal and a fairer share. He must take the blame not only for the cuts that are taking place but for the savage assault on the inherent democracy of our local government system.
      6.50 pm
      Mr. Russell Johnston: The Liberal position is that the Bill is an unacceptable piece of legislation. It extends still further the powers of the Secretary of State, and in ways that prevent his decisions being challenged. This is the wrong direction in which to proceed. It is the first time that Parliament has proceeded in this direction for at least a decade. It breaches the spirit that underlay the reform of local government, which was to strengthen the power of local authorities as against the Government and to enable local authorities to have greater discretion in determining its expenditure priorities within the parameters of national legislation. The Bill has been introduced and supported by

      981
      a Conservative Government and Conservative Members who in their own areas stress continually the importance of local independence and repeatedly condemn centralisation. We now know how much weight to give such declarations in future.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) is the Conservative Party's chairman in Scotland. I tell him that the god Janus, who had two faces, would seem a much more appropriate symbol for the Conservative Party than the wee arrow that it pinched from British European Airways.
      The Bill is two-faced in a real way. It claims to remove restrictions on local authorities when in reality it removes minor restrictions while imposing substantial new central control. The tone of the Bill suggests a profound lack of confidence in local government. It has aroused great hostility among local authorities and deserves the opposition of the House.
      6.52 pm
      Mr. Dewar: I say briefly to the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. McKay)—
      Mr. James Dempsey: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I to take it that we are now terminating the debate? I have been in my place for hours and I have been trying to catch your eye so that I might speak for about five minutes on clause 11, but I have failed to do so. Will I be in order in trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has made his speech?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not see the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) rising in his place. If he wants to participate, he can do so now.
      Mr. Dempsey: Clause 11 removes the right of creditors to confiscate goods that might be on hire to a debtor to whom a warrant for sales and possession is being applied. I welcome the action that the clause will take. It prevents television sets or any other goods, on hire from being acquired by the creditor. In the past that could apply even to someone who was looking after his grandfather's clock.
      I welcome the clause, but it is rather half-hearted. Surely we can dispense with warrant sales in general. It is an iniquitous method of recovering debt. There should be some control over the prices that the sheriff's officer sets. The officer can poind, seize, secure and sell at bargain basement prices. That is an unfair way of treating the debtor.
      I know of a small business that was supposed to owe £300 worth of rates. The value of all the goods in this little shop was totalled. Figures were put on different items that were disgracefully low. That seemed not to matter as long as the total came to £300. The same items were valued by an auctioneer, a man of experience, and the total real value was over £3,000. Will the Secretary of State consider adding a few words to clause 11 in another place to provide that when goods are being sold they should be sold at market value? I urge him to consider that suggestion sympathetically.
      6.54 pm
      Mr. Dewar: The 1979 Conservative Party manifesto laid great emphasis on local government and its freedoms.
      982
      It was claimed that they were means of bringing government closer to the people. The Conservative councillors who canvassed for the return of the Secretary of State for Scotland—the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger)—and his hon. Friends must be aghast at the consequences of that action. We have seen an assault on the essential freedoms of local government on a scale that is almost unprecedented.
      As a result of the Bill—this is only one feature of a wide-ranging series of infringements and encroachments on local government initiative—the powers of local government to determine the level of services and the level of rates will now be exercised only by the grace and favour of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Borrowing consent in the revenue account will now have to be obtained from the Secretary of State. If consent under section 94 of the 1973 Act is given, that cannot be relied upon. It can now be varied and withdrawn at the whim of the Secretary of State.
      The right hon. Gentleman has become a dictator in local government activity. Local authorities may propose a course, but the right hon. Gentleman will do the disposing. I fear that that strikes at the essence of a healthy local government structure. We have created an unnecessary and unpleasant dilemma for local authorities in Scotland. They will be told on the arbitrary opinion of the Secretary of State that they are excessive and unreasonable in their expectations and expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman has threatened a slashing reduction in the rate support grant this year.
      Late in the day, on Report, the Government produced a hurriedly cobbled-together series of clauses to allow at least some relief for hard-pressed ratepayers. The Government will try to represent those provisions as a triumph for the ratepayer, but they are not. The ratepayers will see school closures, nursery school closures, reduced facilities for the disabled and the physically handicapped and an incomplete programme of maintenance of the housing stock. The gamut of local authority services will be under attack in a higgledy-piggledy fashion by the force majeure of the Secretary of State's policies. We shall pay the price in deteriorating circumstances and higher unemployment as the knock-on and knock-off effects are seen throughout the economy.
      Outside the Chamber the Bill is totally friendless. The right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in uniting the entire Scottish local government world. That includes Conservative councillors throughout the length and breadth of Scotland. It is clear that COSLA is unanimous. The Bill is friendless because it is wrong-headed, misconceived and misguided.
      Ministers are creating conditions that will lead to confrontation. They are causing a serious crisis in local government, of a sort that we have never seen before. It is a bad day for the system when good responsible councillors on both sides of the political divide are saying after years of service "We are prepared no longer to be ciphers. We shall not be captives of policies that we deeply abhor and that we have no chance of influencing." It is a tragedy that that is being said, and said increasingly.
      I put on record our deep distress at the measures that are being introduced by means of the Bill and our deep opposition to the unfair and restrictive straitjacket to which local authorities and local democracy are being confined by the Government. The Bill is essentially undemocratic and, to add insult to injury, it is in many parts unworkable.

      983
      I know that it is difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to retreat and to admit that he is wrong. I can only recommend, if he has the interests of local government at heart, that he should think again and retreat from the brink before it is too late.
      7 pm
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): In finally commending the Bill to the House I compliment and thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of Sate for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), for the magnificent job he has done in piloting through this long measure. I think the whole House will appreciate that.
      I suppose it is inevitable that the speeches should have been dominated by the default powers contained in the Bill. I do not regret that, but I must confess that the farrago of nonsense put forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made me wonder whether he was referring to the Bill that is before us. As for his claim to speak for Conservative councillors, I can say that the Bill is warmly commended by all Conservative councillors, particularly those who are responsible for looking after the ratepayers' money.
      To suggest that the Bill represents an attack on local authority independence is to ignore that the only people affected by the default powers are local authorities who have been declared by the House to have been guilty of excessive and unreasonable expenditure. No other local authority, council or part of a council has anything to fear from the default powers.
      To talk about an attack on local authority independence is absurd and leads me to doubt what the hon. Member for Garscadden said about other aspects. That is not surprising, because Labour Members have not faced the fact that there is a large body of people who warmly applaud the Bill and expect it to be passed by the House tonight—the Scottish ratepayers.
      People living in some areas are feeling more beleaguered than they have felt for many years. If we ask by whom they are feeling beleaguered we can perhaps get a clue why the hon. Member for Garscadden spoke as he did. The facts are clear. The rate increases announced by Labour-controlled councils in Scotland average 38 per cent., whereas those announced by non-Labour-controlled authorities average only 23 per cent. The Labour-controlled districts are averaging increases of 40 per cent.—a truly terrifying figure—whereas non-Labour-controlled districts are averaging increases of 11 per cent.
      It is against that background that we must regard the hon. Member for Garscadden and his hon. Friends who are bemoaning the fate of the poor ratepayers. The only people the Scottish ratepayers have to fear are the over spenders on Labour-controlled authorities in Scotland—not even all the Labour-controlled authorities. The majority are being perfectly responsible and trying to keep expenditure under control in the national good. Only a small proportion of authorities have decided to overspend and they are threatening the peace of mind of ratepayers and threatening the national strategy. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) is extremely lucky that the Conservative-controlled authorities in 1976, 1977 and 1978 did not take that view when he was asking them to make economies in their expenditure. I am sure that he will not deny that they loyally helped him to do that although they did not agree with his political philosophy.
      984
      The default powers in the Bill are essential if the ratepayers living in the areas of a small number of Scottish authorities are to be protected from the depredations of Labour-controlled councils that have no regard to the ability of their ratepayers to pay. The ratepayers of Scotland will warmly welcome the Bill, and I hope the House will pass it.
      Question put, that the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 229.

      Division No. 123]

      [7.03 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Alexander, Richard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Dover, Denshore

      Ancram, Michael

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Arnold, Tom

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Durant, Tony

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Atkins, Robert (PrestonN,)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

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

      Eggar, Tim

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Elliott, SirWilliam

      Banks, Robert

      Emery, Peter

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthon y

      Eyre, Reginald

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Benyon, Thomas(A'don)

      Farr, John

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Fell, Anthon y

      Best, Keith

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Blackburn, John

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

      Blaker, Peter

      Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

      Body, Richard

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Forman, Nigel

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Fox, Marcus

      Bowden, Andrew

      Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Fry, Peter

      Bright, Graham

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Brinton, Tim

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Brittan, Leon

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Brotherton, Michael

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Brown, Michael (Brigg&Sc'n)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Gorst, John

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Gow, Ian

      Buck, Antony

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Budgen, Nick

      Gray, Hamish

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Greenway, Harry

      Burden, Sir Frederick

      Grieve, Percy

      Butcher, John

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

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Grist, Ian

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Grylls, Michael

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

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Churchill, W, S.

      Hannam, John

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

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Cockeram, Eric

      Heddle, John

      Colvin, Michael

      Henderson, Barry

      Cope, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hill, James

      Corrie, John

      Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Hooson, Tom

      Critchley, Julian

      Hordern, Peter

      Crouch, David

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

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

      985

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Proctor, K, Harvey

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Raison, Timothy

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Rathbone, Tim

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Renton, Tim

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Kaberry, SirDonald

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Kimball, Marcus

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Robert s, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Knox, David

      Robert s, Wyn (Conway)

      Lamont, Norman

      Rossi, Hugh

      Lang, Ian

      Rost, Peter

      Latham, Michael

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Lee, John

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Scott, Nicholas

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shelton, William(Streatham)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Loveridge, John

      Silvester, Fred

      Luce, Richard

      Sims, Roger

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      McCrindle, Robert

      Smith, Dudley

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Speed, Keith

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Speller, Tony

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Spence, John

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

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

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Sproat, Iain

      Madel, David

      Squire, Robin

      Major, John

      Stainton, Keith

      Marland, Paul

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Marlow, Tony

      Stanley, John

      Marshall, Michael(Arundel)

      Steen, Anthony

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Stevens, Martin

      Mather, Carol

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Mawby, Ray

      Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stokes, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Tapsell, Peter

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Thompson, Donald

      Monro, Hector

      Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Moore, John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Trippier, David

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Trotter, Neville

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Mudd, David

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Murphy, Christopher

      Viggers, Peter

      Myles, David

      Waddington, David

      Neale, Gerrard

      Wakeham, John

      Needham, Richard

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Nelson, Anthony

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W' cester)

      Neubert, Michael

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Newton, Tony

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Waller, Gary

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Walters, Dennis

      Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

      Ward, John

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Patten, Christopher(Bath)

      Watson, John

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Pawsey, James

      Wells, Bowen

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Wheeler, John

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Whitney, Raymond

      Pink, R, Bonner

      Wickenden, Keith

      Pollock, Alexander

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Porter, Barry

      Williams, D. (Montgomery)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Price, Sir David(Eastleigh)

      Wolfson, Mark

      986

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Younger, Rt Hon George

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

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

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

      Adams, Allen

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Allaun, Frank

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Alton, David Anderson, Donald

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Ginsburg, David

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Golding, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Graham, Ted

      Atkinson, N, (H'gey,)

      Grant, George(Morpeth)

      Bagier, Gordon A.T.

      Grant, John (IslingtonC)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Beith, A, J.

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

      Bennett, Andrew (St' kp'tN)

      Hardy, Peter

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

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

      Haynes, Frank

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Heffer, Eric S.

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

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

      B rown, Ro n (E'burgh, Leith)

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

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

      Home Robert son, John

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

      Homewood, William

      Campbell, Ian

      Hooley, Frank

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Horam, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Huckfield, Les

      Cant, R. B.

      Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hughes, Mark(Durham)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

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

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Coleman, Donald

      John, Brynmor

      Concannon, Rt Hon J, D.

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Cook, Robin F.

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Cowans, Harry

      Johnston, Russell(Inverness)

      Craigen, J. M.

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Crowther, J, S.

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cryer, Bob

      Kerr, Russell

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Lambie, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lamond, James

      Davidson, Arthur

      Lead bitter, Ted

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Leighton, Ronald

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

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

      Lewis, Hon (Carlisle)

      Deakins, Eric

      Litherland, Robert

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Dempsey, James

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf' d W)

      Dewar, Donald

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Dixon, Donald

      McCartney, Hugh

      Dormand, Jack

      McDonald, DrOonagh

      Douglas, Dick

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      McKelvey, William

      Dubs, Alfred

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Dunn, James A.

      McMahon, Andrew

      Dunnett, Jack

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      McTaggart, Robert

      Eadie, Alex

      McWilliam, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Magee, Bryan

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

      Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)

      English, Michael

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Mart 'M (G'gowS'burn)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Field, Frank

      Maxton, John

      Fitch, Alan

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Flannery, Martin

      Meacher, Michael

      Fletcher, Ted (Dartlington,)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Ford, Ben

      Mikardo, Ian

      Forrester, John

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Foster, Derek

      Mitchell, R, C. (Soton Itchen)

      Foulkes, George

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      987

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Mort on, George

      Stallard, A, W.

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Newens, Stanley

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Stoddart, David

      Ogden, Eric

      Stott, Roger

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Strang, Gavin

      O'Neill, Martin

      Straw, Jack

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Parker, John

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Pendry, Tom

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Prescott, John

      Tilley, John

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Torney, Tom

      Race, Reg

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Radice, Giles

      Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

      Richardson, Jo

      Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

      Robert s, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Watkins, David

      Robert s, Gwilym (Cannock,)

      Weetch, Ken

      Robert son, George

      Wellbeloved, James

      Rooker, J. W.

      Welsh, Michael

      Roper, John

      White, J. (G' gow Pollok)

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Whitlock, William

      Rowlands, Ted

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Ryman, John

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

      Sandelson, Neville

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Sever, John

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

      Sheerman, Barry

      Winnick, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Woodall, Alec

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Silverman, Julius

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. James Tinn.

      Snape, Peter

      Soley, Clive

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

  Ports (Financial Assistance) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the reasoned amendment.
  7.10 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill deals with our two biggest traditional general cargo ports, both of them of considerable national as well as regional importance. Both have been affected by containerisation and other changes in cargo handling. Both have particularly large labour surpluses. Each has a surplus of about 1,500 workers—1,000 registered dock workers and 500 others. This means a total of 3,000 or more surplus workers in the two ports and amounts to 25 per cent. of the work force of each port authority. That is the essential problem they face.
  By the end of last year severance applications from registered men had virtually dried up. The Government therefore decided that the best way of tackling the problem was by means of a special severance supplement for a limited period. Neither port authority had the money to pay for that themselves. If the Government had refused to help, both ports would have had to cease trading next week. That is the measure of the crisis both ports face and explains why we have to act urgently.
  This Bill is to provide the funds to pay for the special severance payments and to keep the two ports going while they are carrying through the rationalisation of facilities, rundown of manpower and improvement of working practices which they both need in order to survive.
  The history is that both ports suffered sudden and unexpected losses as a result of the drastic reduction in traffic which has hit all ports, but these two in particular. Last year both ports lost between 35 and 40 per cent., of their general cargo traffic with very little prospect of it ever coming back. The effect was dramatic in the second half of the year. That meant that although they had both been very successful up to then in reducing manpower—the PLA severed 2,000 workers last year, well above target, and Mersey severed almost 600—they both ended the year with substantial surpluses of men for whom there is no work now and will not be any work in the future. No one can gain from nursing the illusion that those ports can survive as employers while paying a work force which is much too large for the traffic.
  Just under a year ago when I introduced the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill which was later enacted to authorise assistance totalling £70 million for the Port of London Authority, I made clear the Government's general position on the ports industry. I pointed out that we had inherited an obligation from the Labour Government to help the PLA and we were honouring that and no more than that. I said that I believed that the Port of London could once again return to profitable operation, given the vigorous action that the PLA chairman, Victor Paige, and the management had shown their intention of taking, and given the co-operation that the work force had recently demonstrated so convincingly.
  Despite even bigger achievements in cutting costs and reducing manpower that were envisaged, the port is still

  989
  in crisis. That is the measure of the decline in the PLA's traffic since that time and of the seriousness of the problems that it faces.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Do not the points that my right hon. Friend has made about the PLA apply to many other parts of British industry? Do they not also face problems, find that they have too many workers and need to reduce their work force? Will my right hon. Friend explain why he suggests that those who work in the docks should get massive handouts of taxpayers' money while those who work in other industries in my constituencies get a much lower level of reward?
  Mr. Fowler: I have sought previously to explain the position to my hon. Friend. We had a long conversation, and I thought that I had explained the matter. We are dealing with an industry in which the dock work scheme applies, and it serves no one to pretend that it does not apply.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The right hon. Gentleman has had a letter from the chairman of the Manchester Ship Canal Company, and the managing director of the company has been in touch with hon. Members. There are important problems affecting that company. Will the Secretary of State say a brief word about the effect of what he is proposing on that company and its employees?
  Mr. Fowler: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue I shall come to that point. Not only have I had a letter from the chairman of the Manchester company; I met a delegation from the port employers.
  Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. My constituents and many others would be more satisfied if the money involved were being used to wind up the dock labour scheme, which gives to dockers privileges that others do not have. It will provide Government money to people in a privileged position in a privileged industry. Perhaps, with the other hand, my right hon. Friend could do something to make it fairer for the rest of the country.
  Mr. Fowler: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. The future of the dock work labour scheme is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but whatever divisions there may be and whatever our views on this scheme—clearly not everyone supports it or believes that it is the best way to go on—we have to consider the crisis facing the ports of Liverpool and London. It serves no interest to pretend that the crisis can magically be turned aside. Clearly, my hon. Friend will make a speech about the dock work scheme and what sould be done with it, and I shall listen to what he says.
  When we last discussed the ports industry, many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), urged me to provide similar assistance for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. At that stage the company was carrying out studies of its business in all its aspects and the financial improvements open to it, and was drawing up its new profitability plan. That plan was completed towards the end of last year and copies were deposited in the Library. It set out a decisive programme of action for a sizeable manpower rundown, improvements in working practices and many other steps
  990
  which are now being implemented by the company. The assistance provided for in the Bill is designed to help it carry on with this work and in particular with the rundown of 1,500 in manpower which is its initial target.
  The position that the Government faced at the end of last year was that these two major ports of national importance had suffered a dramatic loss of traffic and were substantially overmanned. Volunteers for severance were not coming forward and a substantial increase in severance payments was needed to make any impact on the problem. Neither of them—this is crucial—had the funds to foot the unavoidable bill for severances. There was no way in which they could carry on trading much beyond the first three months of this year without Government help, both to meet their severance payments and to enable them to continue operating while the manpower rundown and other measures were in progress.
  Both chairmen advised me that a substantial improvement in severance terms would be needed to enable both port authorities to make a sufficient impact on their surpluses of registered dock workers. I therefore decided, and announced on 17 February, that I should make funds available for special supplementary payments of up to £5,500 per man, which, when added to the payments available under the port industry's own national voluntary severance scheme, gives a maximum total payment of £16,000 per man for a man of—I emphasise this—20 years' service. To encourage the quickest possible response from men in the two ports and to minimise any repercussions on other ports, I also decided that the special offer should be limited to men who apply for severance between 1 March and the end of April.
  The appeal and success of the special severance scheme is essential to the future of the two port authorities. The House may be interested to know that—so far as our information goes at present—1,100 dock workers have accepted the offer—474 men in London and 623 men in Liverpool. This represents more than 8 per cent. of the registered work force in London, and nearly 14 per cent. in Liverpool.
  While it is obviously too early to judge whether the scheme will achieve its purpose of eliminating surplus labour in the interests of the survival of the ports, a good start has clearly been made. I very much hope that volunteers will continue to come forward at the current rate. I must emphasise that the very generous terms being offered now are available only for a two-month period. It is not our intention to repeat it or extend it to other ports.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Does the right hon. Gentleman really know what he is doing? Does he not realise that the national dock labour scheme was worked out after years of negotiations between the employers, the Government and trade unions and after a number of industrial disputes? One of the bases of the scheme was that all dockers in all ports should be treated alike. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he will be storing up a great deal of trouble for himself if he takes action for two ports and not for the others?
  Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman says that I am storing up a great deal of trouble, but I ask him to address himself to the problem. There is no doubt about the financial crisis that the two ports face. The hon. Gentleman may generalise, but the particular problem is that unless we get a Second Reading for the Bill and

  991
  provide the aid, the two ports will run out of money next week. That is why we are making a particular case of them.
  I am sure that hon. Members will want to make the case for an extension to other ports. We shall listen to that case, but I hope that they will bear in mind the immediate crisis facing the ports of London and Liverpool.
  The supplementary severence scheme is an exceptional measure for a limited period. Naturally, there has been concern in some other ports about the implications of these payments for their own operations. I recognise that the recession is having its effect on other British ports, and that in many of them a surplus of registered dock workers is one of their problems. But in no other port is the size of the surplus manpower problem as serious as in London or Liverpool. Nowhere else is it clear that massive severences are immediately needed for the port's survival. In no other ports is it the case that the only way of obtaining these severances is by means of additional payments funded by Government.
  I am glad to be able to tell the House that when the National Association of Port Employers wrote to me recently following my meeting with its representatives about the special scheme, it expressed the reservations that have been mentioned but it also recognised the nature of the problems in London and Liverpool and hoped that the manpower reductions needed would be achieved.
  The Bill involves the expenditure of £87 million of new money. The other £70 million is the money from last year's Bill and a £3 million overdraft guarantee for Mersey authorised in December. A major purpose of the new money is to pay for severances, in the first place, to pay for the special supplementary payments for registered dock workers, and secondly, to pay for about 1,000 severances of other employees in the two ports. The total provision for severances of all kinds within the £87 million is over £40 million, about half of the total of new money.
  A further £13 million or so of the new money will be for necessary capital investment, much of which would have been financed in the normal way by loans under the Harbours Act 1964 but which, in the present financial circumstances of both ports, I would need for the time being to finance by repayable grants rather than by loans. The remaining sum is largely for contingencies, although a relatively small part—in the region of 10 per cent. of the total new money—is to enable the two ports to keep operating while the manpower rundown and other measures are going on.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate the negative effect of his proposals on other ports? There is surplus labour, with redundancies anticipated, in certain other ports. When the dockers in these ports heard about the terms offered in Liverpool and London they said "No dice". They said that they would not be made redundant if there were any chance of their receiving the same treatment as that afforded to those in these two large ports.
  Mr. Fowler: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. There is, however, this particular, special and immediate crisis faced by these two ports at the moment. That is the problem.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: We know it.
  Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman may know it. I am glad that he knows it. He has to face it as well as know it. The Government recognise the problems but the special supplementary scheme we are setting out is for a limited period and comes to an end at the end of next month. That is one way in which we can limit the effect.
  Mr. John Prescott: Is the £13 million for capital investment an outright grant or is it to be given in loans? Why is it done in this manner rather than through the Harbours Act?
  Mr. Fowler: This cannot be done through loans because of the financial position of the two ports. Their financial position does not make it possible for the ports honestly to say that they could have loans of that kind. We have arranged to make a repayable grant rather than a loan. I shall ask my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State to go further into that matter if it concerns the hon. Gentleman.
  The Bill does not attempt a detailed breakdown of this money into these purposes or between the two ports. This is because I want to retain maximum flexibility and I certainly do not want to create the impression that either port can expect by right to draw the whole, or even part of these funds unless I see definite evidence of results. Such additional funds as are provided will be found from within the unallocated contingency reserve, and will not add to overall public expenditure totals or the PSBR.
  The initial cash ceilings that I shall be giving to each port will only be sufficient to meet their minimum requirements, on the basis of their own forecasts, over the next two or three months. If the Government then decide, on the basis of the results achieved, to continue with assistance, each further cash ceiling will be for limited amounts and for limited periods and related to specific categories of forecast expenditure.
  I have now received interim proposals from the port authorities, for both ports, and reports from the accountants that I have appointed—from Price Waterhouse in the case of PLA and Peat Marwick in the case of the Mersey board. These set out the steps that need to be taken to improve the financial position of the PLA and Mersey. The figures in the present Bill for new money are based on the authorities' and the accountants' estimates of the maximum possible requirements that could arise over the next year or so, including substantial provision for contingencies.
  As I have already indicated, I am not committed to making anything like these sums available and I do not intend to provide any assistance except in limited amounts for proven needs for specific periods and against definite evidence of achievement.
  The position is this. Without substantial and rapid progress the two ports have no future. I have, therefore, made it quite clear to both chairmen that the Government's future attitude to their ports is entirely dependent on the progress that the authorities make over the next few months. While I accept that some immediate further financial assistance is necessary in each case, the Government are not committed to supporting the authorities beyond May, when the results of the special severance scheme are known, and we can then consider whether we would be justified in continuing to provide aid until the autumn, by which time I expect to have received firm plans for returning both ports to profitability. To this

  993
  end I am continuing to retain the services of Price Waterhouse and Peat Marwick, which will assist with the monitoring of the ports' financial position and comment on the steps needed to return to profitability.
  Mr. John Carlisle: In what has been a depressing sort of speech, my right hon. Friend mentioned £13 million capital investment. Will he assure the House that this investment will hold jobs and create employment? The impression of many hon. Members, particularly of the PLA, is that some of its facilities are being reduced. I speak particularly of the withdrawal of the rail services at the grain terminal. Will the money to be invested create, or at least hold, some jobs, or are we literally, as some hon. Members feel, putting good money after bad?
  Mr. Fowler: We are not putting good money after bad. It is to ensure that this does not happen that Price Waterhouse and Peat Marwick are reviewing the position. There is no question but that this is a difficult situation. I ask my hon. Friend to believe, however, that although it may be reassuring and nice to believe and to hope that we are not in the position that now exists, we are actually in this position. We must somehow, in my view, get out of it. I am seeking to try to put forward a progress plan which is checked at every stage along the way. The last thing that we want, and the last thing that anyone in the PLA or in Liverpool wants, is to put, using my hon. Friend's term, good money after bad. That is not our intention.
  At any successive stage I shall be prepared to provide assistance under the Bill only if the authorities can demonstrate substantial progress towards reducing manpower and eliminating restrictive working practices, and if I am convinced that all concerned are committed to making the changes that are needed.
  For the period during which the two ports are dependent on assistance under the Bill I intend to introduce suitable arrangements, agreed with the two boards, for regulating and safeguarding the outflow of public funds. Details of those arrangements are being discussed with both authorities and will, of course, need to be agreed before any payments under the Bill are made. In the case of the PLA, I shall require it to use the proceeds of disposals of assets—especially the compensation it is likely to receive in return for the substantial area of surplus land in the Isle of Dogs which may be transferred to the Docklands development corporation—to offset the assistance. A similar requirement will not be possible with Mersey, as the proceeds of land sales pass direct to the company's stockholders and it has no other disposable assets of any significant value.
  I turn to the specific provisions of the Bill. Clause 1(1) provides for financial assistance for measures taken by the authorities to reduce the number of persons employed in their ports, or adjacent ports, and for the carrying on of the undertaking while those measures are being taken.Those provisions parallel the ones in the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Act 1980, in particular, extending the special supplementary severance scheme to apply to the registered dock workers or private companies in London and Liverpool.
  Clause 1(2) enables financial assistance to be given in the form of grant, loan or guarantee, and also provides for the attachment of conditions, including conditions
  994
  requiring repayment when the authorities' financial position permits. Clause 1(3) sets a new limit, and clauses 1(4) and 1(5) provide for the inclusion within that limit of payments made under the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Act 1980, which is repealed under clause 1(7).
  Clause 2 concerns the limit on borrowing by the National Dock Labour Board. There are two points here. First, if the PLA and Mersey secure the numbers of severances of registered dock workers that they want, that will not only lead to the expenditure that I shall meet under clause 1 for the £5,500 topping-up payments, but will require payments for the basic amounts under the industry's national voluntary severance scheme.
  Secondly, the scheme also has to meet the cost of severances in other ports. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will need to provide further loans to the National Dock Labour Board to finance national voluntary severance scheme payments to registered dock workers—not only in London and Liverpool but in other scheme ports that have surplus labour problems. Those loans will be repayable from levies on all registered port employers.
  The present limit on borrowing by the National Dock Labour Board, under section 3 of the Dock Work Regulation Act 1976, is £30 million. Clause 2 proposes that that limit should be increased to £50 million, or such greater amount, not exceeding £90 million, as may be specified by order of the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment calculates that on the basis of present national voluntary severance scheme terms, the lower figure should accomodate both loans already made to the NDLB and those estimated to be needed during at least the next couple of years. As in the past, he considered it desirable to make provision for increasing that figure if in the longer term that proves necessary. He does not envisage that the higher figure will be needed in the foreseeable future but believes some flexibility is needed to respond to changing circumstances, if necessary without further main legislation. He will, of course, expect the industry to continue to make the maximum contribution possible towards meeting its needs through severance levies.
  I wish to say a word here about the Opposition amendment. If it were to be passed its only effect would be to deny Government assistance to the ports of London and Liverpool. It would not help any other port. A new Bill would be needed for such a wider purpose. The effect of the amendment would be that the ports of London and Liverpool would be in danger of ceasing to trade on or shortly after Wednesday of next week. I hope that the Opposition will think again about pressing the amendment.
  I understand that there are differences between us. As I understand the Opposition's policy they favour a general subsidy. Their amendment would have that effect. I do not believe that that would be a proper use of the taxpayers' money. I also believe that it would be a recipe for waste and would merely enable the ports concerned to avoid facing the real problems confronting them and to avoid the real merits of greater efficiency.
  One option that we must rule out for any port is a permanently subsidised future. That would be a soft option for everybody but the taxpayer. That option was specifically rejected by the Labour Government. Our approach is that the ports should operate in full competition with one another and meet the normal tests of

  995
  commercial success. That is the clear aim for London and Liverpool. The only object of the Bill is to help them get as quickly as possible into a position where, having tackled their overmanning and structural problems, they can look forward to a soundly based future.
  That will be possible only if the management and work force continue building on the recent encouraging steps towards making the necessary changes. I emphasise that it remains for the ports and those who work in them to convince me that they can continue to justify such assistance.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Albert Booth: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which in making provisions for financial assistance to restore the profitability of port undertakings includes the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company but provides no assistance for this purpose for Tyne and Wear, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool, Hull and Goole, Grimsby and Immingham, Wash Ports, East Anglia, Medway and Swale, South Coast, Plymouth, Cornwall, Bristol and Severn, South Wales, Manchester, Fleetwood, Cumbria, Ayrshire, Clyde, Aberdeen, or East Scotland.'
  The House has listened in vain for some sign from the Secretary of State that he understands that the problems of London and Liverpool are not peculiar to two ports but are two examples of a most serious docks industry crisis. It is an industry-wide crisis, with certain highly specialised charateristics that are readily identifiable by those who know the industry. The first is the inability of so many ports to balance their financial accounts, which results in many of them being threatened with collapse.
  Another characteristic is the manpower surplus. If the Secretary of State has attempted to provide any justification for isolating London and Liverpool from the remainder of the ports industry, it has been on the basis of the manpower surplus, but the surpluses are by no means peculiar to the two ports. They exist to a greater degree in a number of other ports.
  I have taken the trouble to acquire the surplus figures for the fourth quarter of 1980, during which there was a 15 per cent. surplus in the PLA and a 17·5 per cent. surplus in Liverpool. In Bristol and Severn—no one can say that Bristol is without problems—there was a 19 per cent. surplus. In Hull and Goole, it was 22 per cent.; in the Clyde, including Greenock and Glasgow, it was 25 per cent., and in Manchester it was 36 per cent. If we were to pick the ports that should be supported by a Bill that isolates two or more of them on the bases of their labour surplus and the degree of problems that they face pro rata to the surplus, London and Liverpool would come a long way down the list.
  Yet another characteristic is the increasing burden of funding the severance scheme of the National Dock Labour Board.
  Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman has stated only half the position. The other half is that London and Liverpool are on the verge of bankruptcy; so much so that bankruptcy comes next week. That is something that he should also bear in mind.
  Mr. Booth: It is hard for me to take that advice from the Secretary of State. Nearly a year ago, when he brought forward the Port of London (Financial Assistance Bill), we
  996
  told him that other ports would be facing bankruptcy. I am well aware of what he says, and I shall deal with some of the financial difficulties that face the industry. When a port is facing bankruptcy and the right hon. Gentleman brings forward a Bill to put it right a fortnight before the receivers move in, he should be prepared to give the same assurance to other ports. I suspect that a number of them will be queuing up within the next 18 months for similar treatment.
  Mr. Fowler: There is no other port in the country that faces all these conditions and that does not have either the reserves or a place to which to go for further funds. That is the difference in this case.
  Mr. Booth: I do not accept that, and on looking around these Benches I see ports' representatives who could speak on the matter with greater knowledge than I can. However, I can give the Secretary of State examples of the financial crisis that is facing other ports and the extent of the increasing burden of funding financial severance and meeting the loans as they become due. It does not happen only in London and Liverpool. As the employers take on higher contributions under the present arrangements for severance payments, so their ability to charge at rates that will enable them to recover or even sustain trade is diminishing in a number of ports, including London and Liverpool.
  The most terrifying characteristic of the docks crisis is the lack of any strategic Government policy to enable British ports to take advantage of the technological revolution that has taken place in the industry and to deal with the challenge of some of the major changes that have taken place in the trade.
  Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I wish to support what my right hon. Friend is saying. What is happening in this country is quite unlike what is happening in France. I shall quote from the latest edition of The Port newspaper. An article on the ports of Dunkirk and Rouen is headed:
  "United Kingdom docks groan under the depression—but the French turn an exuberant face",
  and it says:
  "Dunkirk: State aid lets the expansion go on—and on".
  In the midst of the recession traffic in Dunkirk increased by 1 per cent. in 1980 compared with 1979, and in Rouen the increase was about 7 per cent. That shows the importance of State aid, and the lack of a proper Government policy of State intervention is the reason for the present serious financial difficulties of all our ports.
  Mr. Booth: I thank my hon. Friend for what she said. If the Secretary of State does the same for our ports as the French Government do for French ports, I shall not accuse him of a retreat to Dunkirk, and I shall welcome him with open arms.
  Two major factors are involved in the present crisis. The first, clearly, is the dramatic fall in trade through our key ports. The other is the decline in jobs that has occurred as a result of the container revolution. Here I am talking not just about the decline in absolute terms but about the movement of jobs away from the traditional points of the jetty and the quay. The container revolution has moved inland a number of jobs involved in handling cargo from factory to ship. Unless we change our dock scheme to take regard of that fact we shall face problems of increasing severance and of increasing severity.
  The measure of the rundown of registered dock workers is quite dramatic. In 1947 there were 80,000 registered

  997
  dock workers in this country. By 1967 the number was down to 59,000. By 1977 it had reached 29,000, and today there are fewer than 23,000 registered dock workers in the industry. It is forecast that the total labour force of the industry will decline to 55,000 by 1985.
  Such a rundown of registered dock workers would have been inconceivable, given the history of bad industrial relations in the past, had we not had a dock work severance scheme and a National Dock Labour Board that could maintain a continuing dialogue between the employers and unions in the industry to deal with the rundown on a civilised basis. When I was in office I was convinced that we should carry that approach a stage further and have a modern type of dock labour scheme, but that was rejected by the Government when they took office. I believe that the national dock labour scheme that we now have, the severance scheme and the promise of a new dock labour scheme have enabled the country to accomplish such a massive rundown of labour in an industry which, traditionally has feared the loss of job security, without virtually a day's loss of work in our docks.
  A major response is required from the Government. We need the new scheme now under the 1979 Act in order to restructure registered dock work. That Act, for which I had some responsibility, obliges the Secretary of State for Employment to lay a new scheme before the House. When will the right hon. Gentleman discharge his statutory duty, and when will we get a chance to look at the scheme that the Government feel should come into being for registered dock workers in British ports?
  We also need loan funds on a basis that will provide for worthwhile developments and sustain some of our ports through the present conditions, because they are unquestionably not viable. We should also consider some central regulation of investment and pricing policies for our ports. The Government have failed to come to terms with the scale and nature of the crisis in our ports. They are indulging in an ad hoc, piecemeal approach to a problem that can be solved only by a national plan. I do not believe that there is any other way to deal with our ports crisis.
  It is interesting to hear the Secretary of State insist tonight that there is an immediate crisis in two ports. A year ago he denied that fact. Even some of his hon. Friends tried to change his mind. I remember the right hon. Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) telling him that he would deal with Liverpool, but the Secretary of State disagreed. I suppose that we could have some sort of arithmetical progression. Next year the Secretary of State could say that the problem is affecting only four ports, and the year after it could be eight ports, but by that time our ports industry could have gone down the drain. We cannot deal with the problem only when ports are on the brink of bankruptcy.
  Let me give an example of another port that is in immediate and serious financial trouble. What does the Secretary of State think of the ability of the port of Bristol to survive for a further 12 months under the financial regime of the Government? In addition to the Secretary of State refusing to aid the port as he is aiding London and Liverpool, the Secretary of State for the Environment is refusing to allow the local authority to sustain it at this difficult time.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if nothing is done for Bristol soon half the rates in the city will go to support that port?
  Mr. Booth: I have the gravest of reservations in responding to my hon. Friend's suggestion. He certainly knows the rates position in Bristol much better than I do, but, as I understand the policy of the Secretary of State for the Environment, it is imposing stringent limits on the ability of local authorities to adopt policies that would mean a massive increase in their expenditure, even where they believe that it is essential to sustain such expenditure.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Do not the Government have a special responsibility in respect of Bristol, since all those who are familiar with the ports industry in the Bristol Channel warned them in the 1960s that by allowing the Portbury scheme to proceed they would be creating a white elephant because of the surplus capacity that would be provided?
  Mr. Booth: That is why the Government should have been more keenly aware of the problem. However, they have made it more difficult to be warned of uch factors by their refusal to countenance having any body to look at the relative merits of port investment proposals.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House who made the decision to go ahead with the West dock at Bristol?
  Mr. Prescott: It was the Tory Government in 1972.
  Mr. Booth: I believe that the decision was made in 1972, but to be fair in terms of the full implications of the question I should explain that the proposal had been put to the National Ports Council before that, and it was initially rejected. It went back to the NPC again, and the council agreed to a limited and later development. However, it is part of the contention of the people of the port of Bristol and the local authority there that had they been allowed to devolop the facilities sooner they would have made a lot of money on them. The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the decision was made by the Government in 1972.
  The Secretary of State is now destroying the only remaining national body capable of giving him an assessment of the wider needs of ports or of the merits of investing in one port as opposed to another. I refer to this proposal in the Transport Bill to abolish the National Ports Council. He has created the position in which he turns to Price Waterhouse and Peat Marwick Mitchell to advise him on the problems of two ports in crisis. But he will have no body to look at the whole industry. The right hon. Gentleman may well go down in history as the man who engineered a boom for accountants at the cost of running down a major part of this country's port industry.
  The Bill shows the Government's complete inability to grasp what is happening in Britain's ports. It is inadequate as a response both to the national ports position and to the problems facing London and Liverpool. When he receives the full reports from the accountants, I believe that he will be able to conclude only that some substantial measure of financial reconstruction is needed for the Port of London. That conclusion could have been reached a year ago if the Secretary of State had been prepared to view what was happening in a wider context.
  The Bill creates an artificial distinction between London and Liverpool and the rest of the ports industry.

  999
  It poses problems for the operation of the severance scheme, and that can only be detrimental to a number of other ports. Although the Bill will provide for an additional £5,500 severance for every registered dock worker to leave London and Liverpool, for every such £5,500 the National Dock Labour Board severance scheme will have to find £10,500. The board will have to pay £2 for every £1 that it gets under the Bill. That will create a financial problem for the severance scheme. I predict that the board will be forced to borrow more money in order to meet the additional burden. If it is to receive loans under the Bill, how is it to pay the interest on them?
  Mr. Harry Cowans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill is designed to rob Peter to pay Paul, but will end up doing neither? The only way in which the board will raise money will be to increase the levy, and that will step up the pressure on the provincial ports. Within the next two or three months there will probably be another Bill to save other ports that, because of the increased levy, will be put in the same position as London and Liverpool.
  Mr. Booth: My hon. Friend raises a very serious problem that will be created by the Bill in respect of the operation of the National Dock Labour Board severance scheme. If the board is to borrow money to pay nearly twice as much in severance payments as the Bill will provide, it will face the problem of paying the interest. I understand that the levy currently brings in about £13 million a year. The figure is based on a percentage of the wages bill of the registered dock labour force. When severance takes place the number of registered workers falls. But a greater amount of money will have to be raised to meet the interest charges, and that will have to be based on a smaller number of employees. One can conclude only that it will not be long before the level of interest payments is such that that will swallow up the entire levy, leaving nothing to meet future redundancies under the scheme.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is not my right hon. Friend understating the case? The port of Hull, for example, carries a surplus of over 300 dockers. It will have to pay an additional levy, which means that the dues and fees for the port will have to go up in order to meet it. Employers in the port could be forced out of business and that would mean dockers standing around doing nothing. The employers would be unable to pay them severance, and that would lead the dockers to ask, quite rightly, why a Hull docker is not as good as a Liverpool docker.
  Mr. Booth: My hon. Friend raises another dimension of the problem. However, the contribution of levy is based on a flat rate of 3½ per cent. across all ports, plus an amount that varies between ports so that they bear the cost of severance in some relation to the extent to which they call upon the scheme as a means of running down their labour forces. Therefore, some of the ports that have already faced the biggest severance payments are paying the heaviest levy. I do not believe that they could meet the burden of having to pay additional severance.
  I am told by port employers that they regard a combined levy of about 10 per cent. as the maximum that they can meet in current conditions. If they are called upon to pay more their costs will be such that they will be unable to sustain their trade. If their trade runs down that will create
  1000
  further problems of severance. These major problems are created directly by the Bill for ports other than London and Liverpool. By introducing the Bill to help London and Liverpool the Secretary of State has effectively brought the severance plans of other ports to a halt. In other ports the port authorities cannot carry through their severance plans because their dockers ask why they should go out for less than a man receives if he goes out in London or Liverpool. Therefore, the problems of other ports are being compounded.
  I put it to the Secretary of State, with no pleasure, that he has created an inevitable pressure to raise the general level of severance pay in the industry at a time when it will be hard to fund it. It will also add to the problems of competition between the scheme and the non-scheme ports.
  The Bill is an attempt to sidestep a problem that cannot be dodged for much longer. The Government are being dragged reluctantly into an area where they should play a leading, major, strategic role. They have attempted to inject into the port industry a greater dose of public ownership and a greater measure of market economic force arrangements. They have done so by seeking to sell off the public interest in the British Transport Docks Board, and by assembling the ports owned by Sealink and Associated British Ports to put them into the hands of a private company.
  Mr. David Hunt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his words will be read carefully on Merseyside? There will be a great deal of concern. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the problems of Merseyside. Will he let us know whether he is in favour of the provisions as they apply to Merseyside, against the background of the serious financial crisis that our port faces?
  Mr. Booth: That will the be the last point to which I shall refer.
  The Government, instead of addressing themselves to the problems of Merseyside, have addressed themselves to how they can sell the public interest in the British Transport Docks Board and how they can assemble the ports owned by Sea link so that they can be put in the hands of a Companies Act company. That is the priority of the Government.
  An attempt at this time to inject a greater dose of private ownership and market discipline into our port industry when there is excess capacity and when there is cut-throat competition is doomed to fail and will do nothing but damage. The ports industry is essential, not only as a part of our transport system, but as a means of sustaining a great deal of our industry, which is based upon access to ports. The time has come for the Government to face the need for a realistic ports policy to deal with basic issues on which the future of the industry depends.
  Finally, I shall give the answer to the hon. Gentleman's problem. I cannot advise any of my hon. Friends or Conservative Members to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. Left with the desperate plight in Liverpool and Merseyside, we must allow the Bill to have its Second Reading. However, we should also call for maximum support for the reasoned amendment, which we have tabled as a protest against the Government's failure to deal with the true, wider and much deeper problem that faces the ports industry.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: The debate has been depressing so far. Although the Minister put forward his case with his usual ability and was able to answer all the questions, I have a sneaking feeling that, bearing in mind the inevitability of the problem, he might have been a little happier if he had been on the Opposition Benches, picking holes in the Bill and in the strategy behind it.
  The Minister faces an impossible problem, because the Port of London Authority is in a desperate financial situation. The inevitable problem that worries us when that arises, such as in the case of British Leyland and British Steel, is that there is an awful fear that we are putting in more money not to make the problem better but to pave the way for what happens next year or the year after.
  I agree that an acute problem is faced by the Minister. He suggested that there was no question of an open cheque or a blank cheque. He said that he would have periodic reviews to see what progress was being made, and that he would not provide further finance if the plan were not maintained. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what will happen if he is not satisfied and if the money has to be cut off. If the fears must be considered and if we must have a plan ahead of us, the Minister should spell out what happens if progress is not made. He said that the money was conditional on progress.
  The industry has many horrendous problems. There appears to be a certain injustice because London, which traditionally has had more problems and probably less co-operation than other ports, receives the extra prize of the high severance payment to buy itself out of those problems.
  I wish to point out to the Minister the problems of one group that could be a casualty in this crisis. The House knows from the register that I am the adviser to the Port of London Police Federation, and have been for many years. The Minister will know that the Port of London police force had no less than 400 members in 1971. At that time the force could offer a good career structure. The basis of payment was strictly related to the salaries paid to the Metropolitan force. Since then there has been a dramatic change, because of the repeated crisis that have occured in the Port of London.
  Last year, for the first time, the relationship with Metropolitan Police payments was broken, because of the serious crisis facing the docks and because of the implementation of the Wright report. A link of 37 years was broken. The police were given the same increased payment as other staff. That may seem reasonable and fair in normal circumstances. However, the police are now in a unique and unfavourable situation. Because they are a disciplined force they do not have the normal negotiation rights that all other groups have in that docks community. They are not registered dockers or staff men who can represent themselves in labour relations and in negotiations in wages. They must accept what is given to them by the management. That is unfair and unreasonable.
  Those who joined the police force did so on the expectation that there would be a reasonable career structure, but whereas there were 400 police officers in 1971 and 250 in 1978, there are now only 138.
  Hon. Members have rightly mentioned the substantial reduction in the number of registered dockers, but the position of the police force is unique, comprising only 138 members. I do not blame the Minister or his predecessor
  1002
  for the problem, which has arisen naturally from the contraction of the docks. However, as he will be virtually in control of PLA policies because of the periodic review linked to the increase in finance, will he look carefully at two issues?
  First, is it possible to have negotiating procedure to determine the wages of the PLA Police? The force has lost its link with the Metropolitan Police and would like to re-establish the relationship. If that is not possible, it would like a fair and reasonable negotiating procedure.
  Secondly, is the Minister willing to discuss with the PLA the question of establishing a career structure for the police through a relationship with the British Transport Police or a more direct relationship with the Metropolitan Police? It would be a good idea if the British Transport Police took over responsibility for policing the docks, and it might also save cash. It could be done on a contract basis and could add to the efficiency of the British Transport Police by giving it experienced and capable officers and by establishing a contract that could be remunerative. Will the Minister consider whether the proposal would save cash and provide a career structure for that small force?
  The PLA force has a superb record in providing security and in arresting and detaining criminals. Crime at ports is substantially increasing. It is more remunerative, because cargoes are more valuable. The job of the PLA force is important and has been well carried out for many years. I hope that the Minister will give consideration tonight and later, to this small group, which might suffer special casualties.
  8.21 pm>
  Mr. Eric Ogden: May I start by quietly asking the Under-Secretary of State some practical questions? Why is the title of the Bill "Ports (Financial Assistance) Bill", when a more accurate title would be "Port of London and Ports of the Mersey (Financial Assistance) Bill"? The explanatory memorandum states:
  "This Bill enables the Secretary of State…to give financial assistance to the Port of London Authority".
  Then, almost as an afterthought adds:
  "It also enables the Secretary of State…to give financial assistance to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company".
  The phrasing could have been more equitable. It is not even a two-part Bill. It is a Port of London and perhaps Merseyside Bill.
  The explanatory memorandum also states that the financial assistance will be:
  "for measures to reduce manpower"—
  not investment, not maintenance, not new equipment, not dredging, not conservancy, not security, not promotion of port facilities or sales abroad. The financial assistance is for redundancy payments. Had that been more clearly explained, the Bill would have been easier to understand, although we would not have avoided all the differences across the Floor of the House.
  The provisions in the Bill have a limited life. How does the Minister propose to extend them? There is a six-week life until May for the first limits on allowances, and then the possibility of extension for a further six months.
  Port severance payments are of special help for special employees in special areas. The principle of redundancy payments is fundamentally sound, but difficulties arise not because a man has lost his job but because he is employed by a particular employer or in a particular sector. Ports will

  1003
  be treated differently. A private sector steel worker will be treated differently from a public sector steel worker. People in the mines will he treated differently. It is the old problem, not of the disability or the redundancy payment, but of the employer. Dock workers are in a unique position with the guarantee—although limited—of employment. Overmanning in any port will be continued and they will have a job for the remainder of their working life. Very few other workers can claim that. In the main they have accepted their responsibilities.
  I ask the Minister to recognise, however, that it is a limited guarantee. The need will not exist in 10 years' time. I doubt whether the need will exist in five years' time. This is a limited guarantee, justified in the present circumstances. To put it bluntly, this is perhaps the price of industrial peace in the docks. This is not an open-ended commitment which will go on for ever.
  I ask the Minister to recognise that even the maximum payment of £16,000 tax-tree at the present time is not an overwhelming incentive for anyone below the age of 62, or possibly even 63, and certainly not for anyone aged 61 or 60 employed in the docks, to go for the redundancy scheme. I suggest that the Minister discusses this with his colleagues in the Departments of Employment and Social Services.
  If a person takes the £16,000, followed by six or 12 months' unemployment benefit, and then applies for supplementary benefit, he will be disadvantaged if he has saved some of the money. The practical advice to workers who take redundancy payments must, therefore, be to get rid of the money as quickly as possible, to buy a house, to go on holiday, or at any rate to spend it. They should not invest it, perhaps salt it away—give it to their sons, their daughters or their neighbours—because that is the only practical solution given in the conditions being imposed by the Government. If they keep the money in the bank for a rainy day, when their unemployment benefit runs out they will be denied the advantages which would come from social security be for which they would be eligible if they had spent the money. That is not what I want. I do not think that it is what the Minister wants. Buts it is a fact.
  Mr. Roger Moate: What is the hon. Gentleman's argument? Is he against redundancy schemes? The situation that he describes has always applied. The scheme has been carried out by successive Governments. Is he against capital payments for redundancy?
  Mr. Ogden: No, I am all in favour. But it is a two-edged weapon. It has advantages and disadvantages. It is a necessary evil. We are making it more complicated than need be. It is being used to buy out jobs, which was not the purpose of redundancy payments under the Labour Government. I am pointing out the practical objections in Merseyside and London to anyone jumping at the opportunities provided by the Bill. This is not as attractive to those for whom it is intended as it would be if the Minister considered some of my ideas.
  The main question facing me and other hon. Members tonight is whether to give or to deny a Second Reading to a Bill which provides at least the possibility of urgent financial help for the ports of London and Merseyside. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) has explained, and others of my hon. Friends will
  1004
  explain, the opposition to the way in which this measure has been introduced. The Opposition amendment, which proposes
  "That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which…provides no assistance"
  for any other British port, expresses sentiments which I entirely support. Every port in the United Kingdom needs help in one way or another and should have that help.
  The question is whether we should tonight deny a Second Reading to the Bill because it does not provide more. I agree with most of my right hon. Friend's comments. I certainly support action to provide financial help for other ports. But given the situation on Merseyside, with which I am most familiar, must I tonight accept the possibility that if the amendment is carried, that help will be denied, simply because help is not provided for other ports?
  I appreciate that my right hon. Friend gave me the opportunity to explain my objections at a meeting of interested Members at 11 o'clock this morning. I did not arrive back from Liverpool until 5 o'clock this morning, and even I need some sleep at some time. That is why I was not at the meeting. But the amendment was already on the Order Paper. There was nothing that I could have done about that at 11 o'clock this morning. I must therefore put it on record that the tactics being employed officially by the Opposition tonight are different from those that we employed on the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill some 12 months ago.
  Mr. Booth: I appreciate the reason why my hon. Friend could not be present at this morning's meeting. However, he should appreciate that the debating rules of the House require a reasoned amendment to be prefaced by the words
  "declines to give a Second Reading".
  That does not preclude an hon. Member from supporting a Second Reading subsequently.
  Mr. Ogden: With respect, I think that I have been in the House as long as my right hon. Friend, and I think that I know some of the rules, procedures and tactics which must be employed. I was making the point that the tactics that we adopted on the Port of London legislation were different from the tactics adopted now. Merseyside Members practically took over that debate. We did not say that we would oppose financial help for London simply because help was not given to Merseyside. We stated that we wanted equivalent help for Merseyside, but we did not oppose that legislation.
  Merseyside Members have asked successive Governments for help for at least 17 years. If robes are ever provided for Members of Parliament, Merseyside Members should be given saffron robes and begging bowls. That has been our prime occupation. We have constantly asked the Government for aid.
  All that I am saying is that if the amendment is a tactic, a better form of words might have been used. As it stands, my right hon. Friend is asking us to support his amendment knowing full well that it will be defeated.. Another approach could have been used.
  Mr. PrescottWill my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ogden: Not at the moment. A bitterness is creeping into Merseyside. I believe in Opposition solidarity, workers' solidarity and port solidarity, and no

  1005
  one can complain about lack of support from the members or ports of the Mersey. However, that kind of reciprocity has sometimes been missing in other industries.
  It was particularly noticeable that when Liverpool Roadline was closed down the work went to Manchester. It was also noticeable that when Standard Triumph at Speke closed the work went to Birmingham. In the last few weeks it has been bitterly noticed that when Tate and Lyle closes down Greenock and London will not say "There is no way in which we shall take the work from Merseyside."
  That is the background to the current feeling that Merseysiders will have to look after their own. My choice tonight is simple. I can go into the Opposition Lobby hoping that we shall be defeated. But let us suppose that the amendment is not defeated. We would then have to wait another 10 days before it could again be brought forward, if another Bill were brought forward. That is not a risk that I can take.
  Alternatively, I can abstain. However, the Bill provides the help for which we have been asking, although it is not as much as we would like. The help is desperately needed. Do not deny this to Merseyside simply because at present help is not available to others. Let us take what we can and continue to call for help for the other ports.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Barry Porter (Bebington and Elleswere Port): I am pleased to follow the sensible speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). It is the sort of speech that one expects from the hon. Gentleman.
  I do not understand what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) meant by "a reasoned amendment". There is nothing reasoned or, indeed, reasonable about it. The hon. Member for West Derby made that point, and it is not for me to intervene in the Opposition's internal rows. No doubt they can sort them out in some other place at some other time.
  Any Labour Member who has any thought of saving these two ports from imminent bankruptcy should not support the amendment, because it is always possible that hon. Members will be taken ill and that the place will fall down. One cannot guarantee that there will be enough Government supporters around to see the Bill through. I note with interest that the Social Democrats do not seem to show much interest in these two major ports.
  Mr. Ogden: Nor do the Liberals.
  Mr. Porter: Given the launch of the Social Democrats' great new party—as they like to think of it—they may have seen fit to think about the difficulties that real politicians face every day.
  I am probably the only hon. Member to make my living and to have been born, bred and educated in the port of Merseyside. When I first became aware of the port in the mid- to late 1940s, it was bustling. The great Cunard liners were there. I was there when the Queen Mother launched the "Ark Royal" in 1950. The whole of the South docks was thronged with men. The overhead railway took men throughout the port of Merseyside. Birkenhead had all the North American trade—the corn and flour. All that has changed. In this House and outside it the question why and how has often been debated. The port of Liverpool is still overmanned by 1,500 men.
  1006
  I listened with interest when the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness spoke about the percentages in other ports. However, those percentages are not relevant to Liverpool. The 3 per cent. that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in one port might be 20 per cent. in Liverpool. The 19 per cent. that he mentioned in another might be 40 per cent. in Liverpool. In Liverpool, 1,500 men are surplus to requirements. Many of us on Merseyside are bitter about the way in which we are treated by other parts of the country. To some extent we deserve it. There are many jokes about Merseysiders. For instance, there was the man who saw the Liverpool docker stamping on a tortoise. When he was asked why he was doing that, he said that it had been following him around all day. It is relevant that such jokes are made.
  Workers in the Liverpool docks, or their sons, know what it was like in the 1930s. We cannot altogether blame men when they indulge in restrictive practices if they fear a return to the 1930s. No one would want that. During the past decade the labour force has to some extent behaved better than before. The fear is going.
  It saddens me to think that the great port of the 1940s and 1950s has had to bring out the begging bowl once more. Over the years the port of Liverpool has received more assistance, in real terms, than has the port of London. The Opposition criticised the Secretary of State for saying that there would be nothing for Liverpool. My right hon. Friend pointed out how much Liverpool had received in the past decade. In those circumstances, how can anyone suggest that there should be opposition to giving the Bill a Second Reading. [Interruption.] The Opposition motion declines to give the Bill a Second Reading. [Interruption.]It may well be a hallowed formula. I do not think that hallowed formulae are going to go down too well with the lads on the docks in Liverpool. They do not go in much for hallowed formulae, except for working the welt. I am not going to explain that.
  The dockers of Liverpool and Merseyside generally want to see a serious attempt by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, by the Government and, they would hope, by the Opposition to make the port of Merseyside a viable and sensible employer of labour. The only way in which we are going to do that is by making it possible for the company to survive and for the dockers who remain in that port to have permanent, sensible and genuine jobs, so that the jokes about Merseyside dockers need never be repeated. Why should they be? Many of these men work hard. The ones who remain in a viable enterprise will need to have no fear and no requirement to indulge in restrictive practices.
  That is why I welcome the Bill. Rightly, a Government do not push out public money merely because somebody asks for it. It is given after careful, searching examination. This is the only way in which that major port can survive.
  8.42 pm
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I respond to the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) by saying that the parliamentary mechanism of a reasoned amendment is the only procedure that is open to us other than voting against the Second Reading. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) said that the Opposition would not vote against the Second Reading. If the reasoned amendment were carried, the Minister would be obliged

  1007
  to bring in tomorrow a Bill that, if he were responsive to the House after having been defeated, would include provisions in addition to those now in the Bill.
  I have been in the House of Commons for 25 years and I have seen the Conservative Party nationalise Rolls-Royce in one day following our parliamentary procedures. Let us have no nonsense to the effect that if the Minister lost the Bill tonight it would be lost for ever. It would be the volition of the Minister in defiance of the House if that were to happen. What we are trying to argue tonight—the reasoned amendment is a symbol of this—is that so far as the Bill goes it is acceptable, but it does not go far enough. It is a Bill of inequity. It is inequitable between man and man and between port and port. It is downright unfair to the British nation, because it suggests no comprehensible way to deal with the problems of our ports.
  I represent a good port—Clydeport-which has made profits for the last 14 years but which is about to declare a loss. It is seriously embarrassed by the Bill, inasmuch as part of the way in which it can avoid a continuing loss is to persuade some of its men, with great reluctance, to leave the industry. They will join a massive unemployed force on Clydeside. In my constituency we are inviting 27 dockers to leave to join an unemployment register for males of 16 per cent. Many of these are highly skilled men. That is asking a lot.
  I sympathise very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) in his dilemma and with his story of what happens to these men once they accept redundancy. The Minister has been told what happens on Clydeside. He must be close to Ethelred the Unready in terms of being a Minister if this is the way in which he is going to deal with the situation. Today it is London and Liverpool, but tomorrow it will be Clydeport, or somewhere else. That is what we are extremely worried about.
  We do not want these emergency, crisis Bills. A crisis Bill is brought in by a had Government, who treat their Ministers badly, by a bad Minister, who cannot comprehend what is happening, or by a bad Department, which does not inform its Ministers. It is one of these three things that is wrong with a crisis Bill, or perhaps it is all of them. I do not want any more crisis Bills; I want a comprehensive Bill, which will deal successfully with the situation.
  Before the Minister made his announcement Clydeport, in Glasgow, had managed to persuade 53 men to take severance pay; that was 53 out of the 60 that it wanted to leave. However, the moment this measure was announced the others would not agree. The next 60 men who were being asked to leave said "No. In no circumstances are we leaving when there is the enormous diffential of 50 per cent. between our proposed severance payments and the payments that will be made to those who work in the same jobs in London and Liverpool. If we work elsewhere we will not get this increase of £5,500".
  Men have a deep sense of injustice. That applies to dockers especially. They will not take this lying down. It is requested by Clydeport that 27 of the men in my constituency should accept redundancy payments. They will not accept those payments. They refuse to do so, on grounds or principle, pride, conviction and a sense of injustice. They say that the scheme is unfair and nonsensical. The Secretary of State has made a great mistake. If he had said that he would introduce such a scheme for any port that wanted to shed its labour and to
  1008
  make itself economic, that would be understood. Indeed, I would vote for such a scheme, without making the gesture that we feel it necessary to make tonight to persuade the Minister to change his mind.
  When the debate is over the crisis will not be over. The ports that are heading for trouble will not necessarily get out of trouble if the Bill is given a Second Reading. We are putting up a signal that will be important to the right hon. Gentleman's political career and to his reputation as a Minister. Is he to be the Minister who brings in all the crisis Bills one by one?
  Those of us who do not represent London or Liverpool constituencies feel that the Department does not give a damn for any of the other ports. That may be unjust, but that is the feeling. The Forth Port Authority is lucky in that it has a great carriage of oil traffic. It is in surplus, and I hope that it will continue to be in surplus for a long time. However, it has its internal problems. The Forth ports would be in trouble if the oil business were taken from them. That is mentioned in the last phrase of the reasoned amendment.
  There are many reasons why the ports are in difficulty. I accept that the Minister has no control over many of them. Let us suppose that the Minister or the Under-Secretary of State said "We shall consider this. We want you to let the Bill pass through the House because of the crisis next week. We shall seriously consider the impact on the other ports of increasing the redundancy payments to the figures set out in the Bill. We shall seriously consider the consequences for other ports that are in difficulty." If that were said, could the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port deny the justice of the case? I hope that he would not try to do so. If that were his argument, he would be as selfish as the Minister is in claiming my hon. Friends and I are in appearing to oppose the Bill.
  In essence we are not opposing the Bill. We are opposing the piecemeal and patchwork way in which the Minister has proceeded. We are condemning him for not regarding the industry through the eyes of the entire industry. We are condemning him for not considering the industry from a British point of view. It is clear that the French Government—a Conservative Government—are concerned about their ports. They are trying to maintain the structure of their ports system. Why cannot we follow suit?
  Mr. Porter: If the port that the right hon. Gentleman represents were in the same situation as Merseyside and if he advanced the same arguments as those advanced by my right hon. Friend, it would be totally inconsistent for me or any one else to deny the justice of his case. It seems not to be apparent to some Labour Members that Liverpool and London are on the verge of bankruptcy, within weeks.
  Dr. Mabon: I said that, and the Minister was rather annoyed. We know that there is a crisis. We have known that for a long time. We are distressed that the Minister has taken so long to recognise it. We are all worried that we shall be next. That is the essence of our argument. We can ask leave to withdraw the reasoned amendment only if there is an assurance from the Minister that London and Liverpool are not the end of the story. The effect of the amendment is that we are expressing dissatisfaction with the Minister for ignoring all the other ports.
  The Minister seriously contradicted himself. At one stage he said that the Government would not apply this

  1009
  provision to others. Later he said that he would listen carefully to the speeches made by hon. Members and then think what he might do. I hope that he will repudiate his remark that he will not apply the provision to others. He may have to in a mustle-bustle-Ethelred-the-Unready way.
  This measure makes the position on Clydeside worse. It hastens the day when we shall come cap-in-hand seeking a Bill to assist us to get back on our feet in Clydeside. We want the Minister to learn his lesson and to realise that the ports must be run in a comprehensive, understanding way, which does justice to each port, each docker and the country.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. William Waldegrave: Hon. Members who represent Bristol constituencies are grateful for the unusual interest which the affairs of Bristol have attracted. I only hope that it is not a transitory interest and that other aspects of our great city will also receive attention. I sometimes feel that we are being used as a pawn in a wider game.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done many things for Bristol during his term of office, one of which has been to halve the cost of bus fares between Bristol and London. That is one cost that has gone down.
  Mr. Prescott: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that because of a strike in that area Bristol has the highest bus fares in the country? This leads to disputes and to people not travelling on the buses.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to restrict himself to interventions about his own bus company, because he might get out of his depth in talking about others.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. We must all keep off buses.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I shall be delighted to keep off buses, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The problems facing the Port of Bristol Authority are fairly well known. On several occasions the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) and I have urged the Government to help us. Of course, Bristol must take the ultimate responsibility for its own development. It is no good going back over ancient history. It might have been better if the Labour Government in 1968 had given permission to start the development. We know from Crossman's diaries why they did not. In 1977 the Conservative Government gave us permission to go ahead with the West dock, but it is Bristol's money and Bristol must ultimately take responsibility.
  I pay tribute to the Labour council in Bristol, which is showing courage in looking for ways of putting the dock back into the private sector, where perhaps it should be. That is being done with no help from elements in Bristol further to the Left, who are being marshalled by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn).
  Mr. Palmer: The hon. Member was not in the House at the time, but it was a Private Bill.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that Bristol must ultimately take responsibility for its own development.
  The situation has been worsened for us, as for many other ports, by the action which, understandably, the
  1010
  Secretary of State feels he has to take for Liverpool and London. Bristol's problems are very severe. In February, for example, we had 600 dockers over requirement, which is a large number. I have been in close touch with the Secretary of State and the Port of Bristol Authority on this matter.
  An additional problem is that one of the last private stevedore companies in the port, which has to take its share of dock labour, has announced that it is forced to go out of business, giving as one of the reasons its inability to reduce its labour force sufficiently to meet the lower level of trade.
  The manager of the Port of Bristol Authority, Mr. Turner, has put it to me in the strongest terms that previous experience shows that it is impossible to create a port differential for voluntary severance payments. It is hardly surprising, as it is a national scheme, that the negotiations rapidly become national and that that has happened. I cannot resist quoting from a letter, one of several that Mr. Turner wrote to me. He expressed his fears that the dockers in Bristol would at once ask for the severance payments at the same level as those for dockers in Liverpool and London. In brackets added at the end of one paragraph he states:
  "In the course of dictating this letter I have just been informed that this has, in fact, happened today."
  That letter was dated 19 February. Thus, there has been a quick response on this matter.
  There is no doubt that voluntary redundancies have completely dried up in Bristol, as in other docks around the country. I sympathise with the Secreary of State and the other Ministers who are facing the terrible problems in th docks nationally. However, the Bristol dock is caught. I accept that ultimately Bristol must take the responsibility and find ways of lifting the burden off the rates. It is sensible of the council to introduce schemes to bring private money and private developments into the docks.
  Mr. Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Bristol city council has asked the British Transport Docks Board to take over responsibility for the port?
  Mr. Waldegrave: The Bristol city council has been talking to a much wider group than that. It would be willing to sell the dock to the hon. Member if he wished.
  It is not that the Port of Bristol Authority is facing bankruptcy. If the dock were a separate trading entity it would be bankrupt, I am sorry to say. I do not want to cause alarm and despondency, but I think that everyone in Bristol—certainly every ratepayer and every dock worker—knows the facts. Redundancies are urgently needed, but not only among registered dock workers. Part of the problem is that other workers in the docks, not registered dock workers, will ask for higher redundancy payments as well. That goes through the system.
  It is hard to imagine a dock facing a greater crisis than is the PBA. Bristol must ultimately take the responsibility for its own problems. It is a rich city, in a rich region, and it can do so. We took the risk. Perhaps it was a wrong risk ultimately. It is a fearsome prospect, but one day we may have to face the closure of the port. Goodness knows, we cannot go on for ever increasing the rates at the speed that we are doing at present.
  The situation has been made dramatically worse by a change in the rules. The change in the rules is the new subsidy. We knew that we would have to face the fact that we were not a development area. We know all the other

  1011
  problems that Bristol faces as a dock authority because it does not have special status, which most other docks do. This supplementary scheme—the special offer, as the Secretary of State calls it—is an additional hazard that we could not have predicted.
  The Secretary of State, with his usual courtesy, has written to me today outlining the arguments that he has made in his speech. He rests his argument on a sentence in his letter, which says:
  "Both ports"—
  meaning Liverpool and London—
  "are in fact on the verge of bankruptcy."
  I suggest that we are beyond the verge of bankruptcy. We are caught in the dilemma that while we are trying to find ways out, by new forms of ownership, new equity participation, and so on—we are ruling nothing out—the situation has been made dramatically worse for us by the supplementary scheme.
  The other side of the problem is that under the new block grant system the extra redundancy payments, which we shall undoubtedly be forced to pay, will not be eligible
  1012
  for grant from the Department of the Environment and we shall be caught on both sides by the Secretary of State for the Environment's new legislation. Thus, we are in a vicious circle. Those who run the port are not their own masters on redundancy payments and as a result of the new block grant system we shall suffer because of that.
  We are asking not that the Secretary of State should take responsibility for our risk, which may have failed, but that he should recognise that he has added an extra burden at a most critical time when we are trying to see ways out of our difficulties. He has dried up the source of voluntary redundancies in Bristol, and the problem has become acute.
  No one wishes to argue against the necessity of providing urgent help for Liverpool and London, but I am sure that all Bristol Members and ratepayers will back my request that the Secretary of State should return to the matter, perhaps at the end of the initial temporary period, and that if evidence shows that redundancies in Bristol and elsewhere have stopped he will think again about providing further help for the rest of us.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I have great sympathy for the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) in the difficulties that he is having with the Secretary of State for the Environment. That shows how illogical and unfair the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Act has proved to be.
  I shall not oppose the motion for a Second Reading, but I cannot pretend that it is welcome. No one pretends that. I understand the feelings of my hon. Friends who regret that it is not a national scheme. I shall support the procedural gesture, though, particularly for a reason that the Secretary of State will understand. I will not oppose the Bill, but I do not believe that it will achieve its end.
  Clause 1 refers to
  "measures taken with a view to restoring the profitability of their undertakings".
  The financial memorandum mentions measures
  "with a view to restoring the profitability of their undertaking and for the carrying on of their undertaking while such measures are being taken."
  The Long Title of the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Act 1980 contained the phrase:
  "to provide financial assistance for and in connection with, the measures taken by the Port of London Authority to restore the profitability of their undertaking by reducing the number of persons employed by them."
  I told the House, the Secretary of State and his advisers that that measure could not do the trick. I said that we would be back again—and here we are. London is being offered a big breakfast, much as the condemned man is given a big breakfast on the day of his execution. No one will refuse a breakfast, but the Secretary of State can ensure that the reprieve arrives between the breakfast and the gallows.
  The right hon. Gentleman may appear to be doing London a favour, but his formula for long-term success could bring failure even closer, because he misunderstands the nature and future prosperity of the port of London. I do not believe that the port can be restored by the restoration of profitability that the Secretary of State seeks. I take that view partly for reasons of which the right hon. Gentleman is aware and partly for reasons that he does not want to know about.
  On Second Reading of the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill a year ago I said that we needed a Select Committee to deal with the Bill. The Secretary of State refused an investigation of some of the charges that I made. I said that we must consider the legislation from the point of view of the long-term health of the port of London as a whole, which deals with four times as much tonnage as the PLA. In Committee I asked for a public inquiry and consultation with local authorities.
  All these were turned down. It is with great regret that we come to yet another Bill for the so-called reconstruction of the profitability of the PLA. I should like to mention some of the reasons why I do not think that this is possible, contrary to what the Secretary of State thinks. The first is Continental competition.
  Time after time, the Government have been challenged on the question of the Touche Ross report. The Government are keen on the Common Market and the concept of harmonisation, even to the extent of standardised water supplies for food manufacturers. This is the sort of harmonisation that the EEC pursues. Yet it
  1014
  does not examine the amount of public money available to ports. The Government appear oblivious to that situation. It would be easy for the Port of London Authority to attain financial viability. No doubt the accountants will so advise the Minister before long. He will be advised: "Sack all the men. Turn away all the ships. Turn it into an estate authority". The right hon. Gentleman can do so now that he has repealed the Community Land Act. There are assets and other operations involved that might just about pay their way.
  If the criterion is profitability, this means the end of the Port of London as it is known today, because the Port of London Authority was not set up to make a profit. It was set up in 1908 by the House to rescue the dock authorities, which had, through competing, put themselves into bankruptcy. That shows how much monetarism and private enterprise work. The private enterprise dock companies of the Port of London were bankrupt in 1908 and the House had to intervene. The structure then created was based on assumptions that are no longer true. One big assumption was the payment of interest on port stock where a profit was made on the operation.
  Frequently, the PLA makes a profit on its operation. The losses which the Department often trumpet to the world are those related to the paying of interest on capital. It cannot therefore be "profitable" in the sense of the account book. It is, however, fundamental to the economy of London. That is, perhaps, the reason why the Secretary of State brings forward the Bill. It is not simply the PLA and the people whom it employs who are being supported by the Bill. Those involved are the private firms along the river, private operations and manufacturers and other wharfingers. The curious aspect is that many of those who will perhaps accept redundancy are not employed by the PLA at all. It was never a large employer of labour in the old days. The PLA has become the residual legatee of those who are made redundant or those firms, many of them private, that have closed.
  Since the last Bill there has occurred an even more ominous development. The PLA took on labour from the firms that went bankrupt. One firm in my constituency went bankrupt overnight. Men arrived for work one day to find that the firm had closed. Those men did not have any recourse to the normal redundancy Acts. To this day, some of them have not been paid for the work that they did that week. That shows the lack of security for some people in the dock industry.
  Some installations along the river, which takes four-fifths of the tonnage in the real, large port of London, went bankrupt. Such was their importance for the economy of London and the economy of the port as a whole that the PLA has seen that these operations continue. It is right that they should continue. The health of the port of London as a whole is important. For that, no one except the Secretary of State has statutory responsibility.
  The Port of London Authority is an anachronism in function. It provides facilities for people who compete with its own dock operations. There are many anomalies in organisation and operation which have assisted and accelerated the authority's decline.
  I wish to turn to another trend which is perhaps even more disturbing. No single body apart from the Secretary of State, who does not know a great deal about it, or his advisers, is concerned with the health of the port of London at large. No one is specifically concerned with the co-ordination of the different parts of that complex

  1015
  organism. One of the most important parts has been lighterage traffic. The port is linked from the Medway to Tilbury to the Royal Docks and as far as Brentford by a flexible system of floating containers called lighters. They are now carrying new types of containers.
  The port of London is not concentrated, as is Liverpool or Bristol. It extends over 60 or 70 miles of river. It was built on lighterage at the time when ships were lightened in the river because they were too deep to pass over the shallows. That was the function of a lighter. But the PLA has been suspect in that regard. I have good reason to distrust its attitude towards lighterage. The lighterage traffic has been reducing.
  Not long ago the PLA rescued the installation at Dagenham. There are now reports—I put it no higher—that one major lighterage concern is approaching bankruptcy. I am not sure whether that report has been confirmed, but it is well founded. It is not a fly-by-night organisation, but one of the best equipped, forward looking and best organised firms. If that firm goes down there may be further work for other firms, but one of the best components in the flexible port of London will disappear. Capital assets will be distributed, up to 200, 300 or 400 lighters will be sold for scrap, and tugs will be distributed around the world. Tug engineers do not receive severance money under the ports labour scheme, only ordinary severance pay. Some thinning down may be necessary, but why should it involve the best component? Port lighterage is rather like the bloodstream of the body because it marries the remainder of the port functions.
  I heard that approaches were made to the Minister asking that the PLA should intervene as an operational body, as it did for the Dagenham dock and the fixed installation. I heard also that the Minister rejected that suggestion. I make that point based on some degree of speculation. It would be wrong to assert that those are facts. But faced with the current position in the port of London and the Bill before us tonight, it would be wrong not to mention the facts as I understand them. I hope that the Minister will say something about that point when he replies.
  The British Waterways Board has depots up the canals at Brentford and Enfield. The firm to which I refer runs the canal barges. Not many other firms run such barges because that firm took over other firms when they went down one by one. Will water transport—which the Government want to assist—and the depots up the canals cease to operate? Will more traffic be diverted to the roads? That could happen if the Minister does not permit the PLA to take the necessary co-ordinating and succouring action.
  I enter one caveat, which I should have made at the beginning of my speech. A number of tugs on the river bear my name. I have no financial relationship with them. As far as I am aware, other than many generations ago, I have no relationship with the firm that runs the tugs. I wish to make that clear because of my plea on behalf of the lighterage industry.
  I forecast that we would be back here again and that the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Act 1980 would not deal with the problem in London. I am not sure whether this Bill will deal with the problem in Liverpool either. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that all the matters that I raised during Second Reading and Report stage of the 1980
  1016
  Act are now considered. I do not believe that they were considered. He says that time is important, and that we must deal with the matter quickly. Very well.
  We now have a new procedure in the House, known as the Special Standing Committee. We can go into Committee upstairs and spend two days taking evidence on the Bill. If the Bill receives a Second Reading, it cannot deal with matters that are not in the Bill. The principle will have been achieved, and we shall concentrate on matters other than those which understandably affected and influenced the speeches that have been made by my hon. Friends this evening. Otherwise, the Minister is clearly not determined to get to the bottom of the problem, and we may find ourselves back here again. By then, the port of London may be absolutely beyond recall. That happened in the case of the River Thames shipbuilders, on which I had an Adjournment debate. In half an hour I sketched out the vicious circle that operates when redundancy money is paid to grease the slopes to oblivion. That is what happened to that firm.
  One cannot revive firms by doling out redundancy money. What happens is that one buys off trouble. so that jobs disappear for good. That is what happens with Bills of this kind. This country, London and, indeed, the British mercantile marine cannot afford to see the port of London disappear. I sincerely believe that, in their ignorance, the Government may permit that terrible and horrible prospect.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. David Hunt: I welcome the Bill. Indeed, it would be surprising if I did not, having fought so long and hard for it. I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) and Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who, with me, tried to put the case of our side of the Mersey for ensuring the future viability of Birkenhead docks and, in doing so, the future viability of the port of Liverpool as a whole.
  I join the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port in finding it difficult to understand how the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) could say to me, in response to an intervention that I made, that he did not intend to advise hon. Members to vote against the Second Reading, but that he intended to ask them to vote for an amendment that declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
  We were given various explanations for that. First, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that it was a hallowed formula. Then the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that it was a procedural gesture. The people of Merseyside are fed up with the use of tautological or quixotically chivalrous language or procedure to try to get round saying "Yes" to a Bill as vital as this.
  Mr. Anderson: If the hon. Gentleman's dockers do not understand the words "hallowed formula", would they accept "custom and practice"?
  Mr. Hunt: With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I should not find it easy to argue the case of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness in saying that he would not vote against Second Reading but would vote for an amendment that declines to give the Bill a Second

  1017
  Reading. Whatever the custom and practice, I find that a remarkably difficult matter to understand, particularly when one sees that the amendment is a wrecking amendment. It asks for financial assistance for more than 40 other ports, some of which are not asking for financial assistance and several of which are not trying to sever men at present. In my opinion, it is an irresponsible amendment.
  I cannot see why the Opposition cannot say that they believe that the Bill is a good one and wish it a speedy progress through the House, and then enter as many caveats as they wish about the need for a ports policy.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary, who form the best team that we have had at the Ministry of Transport. They inherited a most difficult position with considerable over-capacity in the ports at a time when there had been no ports policy under the previous Administration.
  Mr. Palmer: Further to the procedural points that the hon. Gentleman was making, does he agree that it would have been possible for the Government to introduce a Bill that sought to help Liverpool and London but was not confined to those two ports?
  Mr. Hunt: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has the interests of Bristol at heart and asks that question in the context of Bristol, but the immediacy of the financial crisis in Merseyside does not allow us to have a general ports Bill.
  One of the difficulties about the inheritance by my right hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend at the Ministry was that there had been no ports policy for years. I do not know whether anybody is leaping to defend the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers)—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) seems to be mouthing imprecations at me—
  Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman should read the 1979 report of the National Ports Council.
  Mr. Hunt: I have read that document, and I am still looking for a ports policy.
  It is salutary to see the hon. Gentleman defending the right hon. Member for Stockton, who is now forming another party and who preceded my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the Ministry of Transport. I never heard the right hon. Gentleman enunciate a ports policy when he was in office.
  Our Ministers inherited a difficult position and now, after a long and careful appraisal, having listened to the problems that we have described for Liverpool and Birkenhead, thay have given us the Bill. I warmly welcome it. On Merseyside we have considerable and long-standing problems. I would have been pleased if the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness had said something about them. I sat throughout his speech but I heard no analysis of the problems of Merseyside, although this Bill is all about them. I will not rehearse the details of the serious unemployment there, or the problems that could be caused by the potential closure of such firms as Tate and Lyle. I will not accept that closure until the final opportunity to save it has been lost, and I do not believe
  1018
  that it has. The Bill must surely be seen in the context of those unemployment problems, as well as of the other problems that have been described.
  In welcoming the Bill I do not wish to sound as depressed as did the hon. Member for Newham, South in speaking about the port of London. The Bill will enable Liverpool and Birkenhead to be restored to profitability.
  We do not see it as a permanent prop. For us it is a means of surmounting the considerable overmanning problems that are an integral and long-standing part of the Merseyside scene. The profitability study that was published last October showed that our port could achieve viability only if it were to shed about 1,500 men, improve working practices and concentrate activity in about three areas of the port. So the Bill will give us an opportunity of achieving just that.
  I see the Bill in the context of the future. Liverpool and Birkenhead have some of the finest facilities in the world. They cater for almost every type of trade—bulk, grain, containers, heavy lift, or whatever. They have some of the finest dockers in the world. We therefore have every opportunity, within the context of the Bill—having been given the financial security that it will bring to the port—of looking forward to a better future. I see a great future particularly for Birkenhead.
  Before I finish welcoming the Bill I want to praise the constructive attitude of the men in Birkenhead, because it is with those men rather than the men in Liverpool that I have been engaging in a dialogue. They have always adopted a constructive attitude. They have a number of ideas on the ways in which trade can be increased. I hope that the port will respond to those ideas.
  A little while ago the future of Birkenhead was said to be in jeopardy. It would be if the Bill were not to proceed quickly. That era is past. Provided that we can achieve the financial stability given by the Bill there will be an upturn of trade in Birkenhead. The men have shown not only a constructive attitude but a considerable understanding of the serious problems faced by our area and by the port.
  I welcome the Bill as a necessary lifeline. The hon. Member for Newham, South talked about a special Standing Committee, which would take evidence. I would not like to see that. We know the problems of London and of Merseyside. Perhaps one of the difficulties is that the problems have been aired too frequently and in too much detail. This quick solution, as long as the Bill speeds through the House, will give us the lifeline that we need and will enable us to look forward to longer-term prosperity, given the attitude of the men and of management in their determination to bring more trade to the port of Liverpool.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: First, I declare an interest, as I am a sponsored member of the Transport and General Workers Union. In the first part of my speech I shall try to state to the House the union's attitude to the Bill.
  The union's attitude is contained in the amendment. That applies also to the General and Municipal Workers Union, but I do not speak for that union. As a union, we welcome the assistance given to the ports of Liverpool and London. We welcome the additional severance pay that is being given, but why is it not being given to the other ports and docks? That is why the reasoned amendment has been tabled.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Is the hon. Member sure that that reflects the policy of the union? I am sure that it would like to see the Bill extended to other ports. The reasoned amendment declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill. As my right hon. Friend said, the effect of the amendment being carried would be to decline the emergency assistance to the two ports and give rise to the risk that both would close and cease trading, probably during next week. I do not believe that that is the policy of the TGWU. The Opposition are in a frightful muddle having put down their reasoned amendment, which does not reflect that policy.
  Mr. McNamara: That is not so. If the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary were beaten tonight, would they allow the two ports to become bankrupt, as they are threatening, or would they follow the direction of the House and introduce other help for other ports and dockers? The matter is not as simple as the hon. and learned Gentleman makes out.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
  Mr. McNamara: I have already given way to the Under-Secretary, who has made his point. I have made my reply. His hon. Friends have tried to get at my right hon. Friend about that matter too. We could spend much time debating the semantics of the situation, but other hon. Members wish to speak. Therefore, I shall not pursue that matter, but will consider other matters pertaining to what the Secretary of State has done.
  The Secretary of State has taken arbitrary action to cut across the relationship between the port employer and the port employee, as contained in the national voluntary severance scheme of the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry. He has taken that arbitrary action without going through the normal procedure and without reference to the unions concerned or the employers. Having taken his decision, he puts before them a fait accompli. That can only result in poor industrial relations. The concept of a differential between those two ports and the remainder of the scheme ports will create two levels of docker. The value of a docker's job will be less in Hull than in Liverpool or London. No union can accept that.
  In addition, by pursuing that policy the right hon. Gentleman is making it more difficult for ports that may wish to shed labour to do so. Following the last severance scheme in Hull, we still have vacancies. The latest agreement from the National Dock Labour Board is that we can shed a further 320 dockers. If dockers want to go, will they accept that they are worth only £10,000, when a Liverpool docker is worth £16,000? Of course they will not. They will hang on. First, they will not accept the equity of the Secretary of State's decision in setting one port against the other. Secondly, they will hang on because of unemployment. Once their jobs and security are gone, they will have a capital sum that will disappear in a few years, and no prospect of employment.
  The scheme will not be successful in Liverpool, and not necessarily so in London, either. The employees' side advises its members not to accept until there is equity between the ports. Even then, I doubt whether a dock worker will leave his job with no chance of other employment. When national severance pay was introduced and we got rid of the casual system, workers could give up their job in the docks and obtain other
  1020
  employment. We now see dockers in our surgeries, with active years ahead of them, wanting to get back in the docks because there is no employment elsewhere.
  There is an even greater problem. What will ports such as Hull do with a bill of £1·5 million a year to carry surplus dockers who will not leave—and I do not blame them? The port's high overheads continue, forcing up the cost of port dues and port facilities. The Minister talks of fair competition among the ports, but he is giving an unfair advantage to London and Liverpool. This is a serious matter. We need not piecemeal legislation but a national ports policy that recognises that ports are a national asset and uniformly treats them as such. That is the only basis on which the union believes that a proper scheme can be operated.
  One thing is certain. The axeing and buying out of dockers' jobs-100 last year, 300 this year and perhaps 200 on the next occasion—will not solve the problem of our docks. That is not the way to deal with the problem. The docks must be looked at as a unified whole. It is no use staggering from one crisis to the next. This must be the third, fourth or fifth time that we have had special legislation to help the port of London, and the second or third time that we have had special legislation to deal with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company.
  Mr. Ogden: No.
  Mr. McNamara: With great respect, when the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company became bankrupt, special Government help was provided to keep it going.
  Mr. Ogden: Bankrupting the port of Liverpool at that time was scarcely helping it. It is 11 years since there was a Bill concerned with the port of Mersey. That does not mean that it is the third time that we have had special legislation to help Merseyside.
  Mr. McNamara: If I have offended my hon. Friend. I willingly withdraw what I said. I have to do that, as I hope to have him with me in the Lobby later, when we can perhaps pursue the point. I think that I was born closer to a dock in Liverpool than was any other hon. Member. I therefore have much sympathy with the case that has been put for that port.
  My point is none the less valid. It is no good staggering from crisis to crisis in the industry. There must be a valid national ports policy. The problem was illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who spoke of the problem of the Port of London Authority's role as residual employer and the future of mercantile lighterage. I hope that the Minister will give us an answer on this. Is it true that the Port of London Authority was prevented from being the residual employer for mercantile lighterage because of objections by other private lighterage firms that wanted to take only the cream of the traffic but were not prepared to maintain the rest of the traffic between Brentford and the port, particularly with regard to British Waterways docks and British Waterways dock services?
  If the Minister has intervened and said that those private firms can take the cream of the work, he is compounding the heavy loss that the Port of London Authority is making on lighterage, when taking on that work would have reduced it considerably. My hon. Friend spoke of the contradiction of the port of London surrendering work to private concerns, subsidising them and providing facilities for them and then suffering the losses that accrue.
  Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that if, as the reports that are circulating suggest, the Minister has refused permission for the Port of London Authority to undertake this role without an undertaking that the existing lighterage organisations will fulfil all the services at present undertaken by the firm concerned, the Minister will be responsible for further reducing waterside services and the lighterage trade in the port of London and will be a party to cutting off some of its limbs with regard to the lighterage trade? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister has a responsibility to tell the House whether he has given that permission and whether he has intervened in the way that has been widely reported?
  Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend has made the point even more succinctly than I intended.
  I make one further point on this matter. I believe that it would be right for the Minister to meet representatives of the men employed and officials of their union to discuss this matter. It is a matter of considerable concern in that area of the Port of London Authority's work.
  Finally, in reply to a letter from Mr. Cronin, the national docks officer of the TGWU—the substance of which I have more or less covered in my speech—about the effect of the new scheme on severance pay and the suggestion that the Minister should do the same for other ports, the Minister said:
  "Although I appreciate your concern about the possible implications of these local payments in London and Liverpool for the operation of the National Voluntary Severance Scheme, this is primarily a matter for port employers and trade unions in the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry."
  If a joint approach is made by the port employers and the workers within the national joint council, will the Minister ensure that funds are made available to provide an equivalent severance scheme for all the other docks? By so doing, he can end the iniquity that now exists.
  Mr. Cronin warned that different treatment between dock and dock could lead to friction in the industry. If the Minister does not consider this matter more carefully, it could well lead to a serious docks stoppage—official or unofficial—that would be even more disastrous than what he is proposing.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I enter the debate with a certain amount of temerity and timidity—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—as is usually the case, surrounded as I am by so many experts on ports and recognising the fact that there are no ports in Northampton. However, Northampton does have an interest, in that the people there must pick up the tab for this measure, as do others in non-port constituencies.
  Every Government do not entirely succeed in what they are trying to do. If this Government have not succeeded it is because their main fault has been an inability to cut public expenditure. That has caused taxes to be higher than we would otherwise need, and interest rates to be above those that we would otherwise need. It has placed a great burden on industry and has been the cause of the unemployment from which we are currently suffering.
  My right hon. Friend is asking us to provide another £87 million, which I believe amounts to £5 for every family in the country. On other occasions, we have been asked for £5, £10, £20 or £30. To what end is every family being asked to contribute £5 tonight? It is to bail out the most notorious industry that this country has ever known. It has
  1022
  a record of restrictive practices and overmanning. Eight men are doing a job which could be done by two. It has a record of nepotism that is second to none. It is an industry with a history of extortionate practices which would make the Mafia green with envy.
  If my right hon. Friend is asking the House for this tranche of Danegeld tonight he should have the most compelling reasons for so doing. He has told us that without this money the ports of London and Liverpool would have no future. He owes the House a fuller explanation. Let us suppose that the money was not forthcoming. Would the sea disappear? Would the Mersey and the Thames dry up? Would the wharves fall into the docks? Would the cranes march down the quayside and disappear? Would the workers and their skills evaporate into the mists of the night?
  As my right hon. Friend knows, other industries have suffered financial crises. They have gone into receivership or liquidation. But people have bought the assets, got hold of the work force and have come back leaner, more efficient and more effective. As a result, those firms have been better places in which to work. My right hon. Friend should explain why that is not an option that we can pursue in this case.
  My right hon. Friend also said that the ports were suffering from a financial crisis. Why? I accept that part of the reason may arise from the recession. Although I do not have the same experience of the port industry as other hon. Members, I have in past jobs been involved with that industry. On one occasion I tried to negotiate the establishment of a grain-handling facility in one of our major ports. We wanted to employ our own men, but were told that it was not possible. When we eventually made the calculation we discovered that employing dock labour would cost eight times more than employing our own men.
  I accept that there is a recession. However, I believe that a far greater reason for the crisis in the dock industry is overmanning, greed and restrictive practices. My right hon. Friend is asking my constituents to pick up the tab for those bad habits and the practices of the past.
  Other businesses and industries face financial crises. Other businesses have records of high productivity, of moderation, of good labour relations and of co-operation. Other industries are suffering from a high pound—based on the value of our North Sea oil—and have to compete, without any tariffs or controls, with other European countries that do not have such high currencies. Other businesses have these temporary problems. If they were provided with some of this money they could survive and become much stronger.
  Opposition Members have spoken about injustice. The overriding injustice of this measure is that if someone happens to have his hand in the Government's back pocket he will get what he wants. If someone works for a nationalised industry or for a port, the Government will cough up. If someone works for private industry he will get hardly a penny.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, the worse one's behaviour the better the prize to be picked up. That is one hell of a moral to give to the nation.
  I sincerely appreciate the problems that my right hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend have with the national dock labour scheme. I appreciate that they inherited a situation that had been in being for some time. They have a difficult job to do. But why do they propose

  1023
  to give financial aid without attaching any strings? Perhaps I am being naive again, but why do we not get rid of an archaic system—unique save for the Civil Service—in which a registered docker has a job for life? Instead, why do we not try to give dockers a stake in their ports and in their industry so that they will wish to compete—port with port—and so that they will receive increasing benefits from their increased efficiency? That would be better than the situation that has existed for generations, whereby there has been a powerful effort to maintain the maximum number of jobs, no matter what the cost to the community.
  The measure is entirely negative and against the interests of my constituents who will have to pay for it. If there is a vote on the measure I shall have to oppose it.
  9.46 pm
  Mr. Ken Eastham: I was amazed by the speech made by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). He seemed to suggest that the ports could close. He may hate the ports and port workers, but if there are no ports, industries—including those in his town—will not be able to export their goods. That is a sobering thought.
  I do not wish to appear prejudiced against the docks in London and Liverpool. The Opposition recognise that the Minister is faced with a dilemma. He has spoken about labour surpluses. One hon. Member after another has said that all the ports suffer from a surplus of labour. Our protest is that the proposals are unfair because they refer to only two docks. This is a piecemeal Bill, which pays piecemeal attention to the problems. It does not deal with them comprehensively. As has been illustrated, other ports have difficulties.
  I shall refer to a port that has not received much mention, namely, that of Manchester. There have been great difficulties. If there should be a complete collapse resulting in closure, it could have a detrimental effect on the city. Its trade and commerce are dependent on the Manchester port, which over many years has helped the prosperity of the city. We all recognise, as has been conceded this evening, that there have been dramatic changes in transport methods. No one is blaming anyone for the changes in containerisation or the new handling methods, but we can put some blame on the Government for the devastating trade recession and its effect on the ports. When ports are no longer exporting there is a serious rundown.
  When the Minister is winding up I should like him to amplify on the aspects of consultation. There has been a lot of criticism of the Government because of the lack of consultation. I wish to quote an extract from a letter which was written by the chairman of the Manchester Ship Canal Company, Mr. Redford, to the Secretary of State for Transport:
  "I am indeed surprised to read of the action you are taking to assist the Port of London Authority, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and presumably private employers in the ports of London and Liverpool with special severance payments to dock workers who wish to take advantage of them. I understand that only one hour's notice of your action was given to the management committee of the National Association of Port Employers.
  What you propose can only result in continuing and worsening unfair competition for other ports who have attempted to run their own affairs, with varying degrees of success. Operating losses which my company incurred in 1980 were due in no small measure in having to find almost £1 million in attendance payments to dock workers for whom there was no
  1024
  work and who are not likely to have work in the future. The action which you have in mind to take will merely exacerbate this situation.
  I shall be grateful if you will be good enough to let me know why, so far as I am aware, there was no prior discussion with the industry and why the financial assistance cannot be offered generally to port employers, many of whom are in serious plight. You will appreciate that the chances of persuading dock workers to leave the industry on terms less than those to be offered to London and Liverpool men are slender indeed."
  Those are fair comments. The Minister owes it to the House to give some explanation as to why there has been a lack of consultation and respect for the other ports and organisations. I understand that a brief reply was given indicating that the Minister was willing to help only London and Liverpool and stating that such places as Manchester were not considered to be big enough or yet broke. Perhaps we have to wait until the patient bleeds to death. Then when we come along cap in hand to ask what the Government are going to do for Manchester, Hull, Glasgow or wherever, I wonder if the Minister will exercise expediency and determination to introduce a Bill to deal with the problems.
  The Minister may be interested to know that at one stage Manchester had more dock workers without work than Liverpool. It ran to 40 per cent. which is astronomical. That is the burden that was being carried by the port. Of course, Manchester is suffering its share of mass unemployment. I draw the Minister's attention to the figures published only yesterday for the North-West, and I remind him that that includes Manchester as well as Liverpool. The figures are horrific. They are higher in the North-West than in Scotland and only 1 per cent. less than in Wales.
  It is ridiculous to offer enhanced redundancy payments to Liverpool alone, apart from London, when the Manchester docks are only 30 miles along the ship canal and the Manchester dockers are being offered less favourable conditions for the same work. There will be resistance from the other dock workers. It is not likely that they will accept less favourable conditions than those that the Minister is proposing in the Bill.
  If the Bill is enacted, Liverpool and London will improve their position. It may be that they will become slightly more competitive, as they will carry less in overheads. The other docks will suffer from greater competition, which will take away their rightful share of the work and proportion of the trade. That is not fair and just. We ask the Minister to think again.
  Manchester dock workers are entitled to no less favourable conditions. Bearing in mind unemployment levels in the North-West, it is probable that those who leave the docks will never get a job again. For the reasons that I have advanced, they are entitled to the same consideration. The Bill should be rethought. We prophesy that it will not succeed as it stands. I ask the Minister urgently to reconsider it.
  9.57 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: It would be foolish not to acknowledge the validity of the argument of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham). When two ports are close alongside each other, the differential redundancy factor will cause an even greater sense of unfairness than already exists. Some right hon. and hon. Members have failed to recognise the acute sense of grievance and unfairness that already exists about various

  1025
  redundancy schemes. There are many employed in the ports who are not registered dock workers. The redundancy benefits that they receive are quite diffeent from those paid to registered dockers. Many who are not engaged in the docks do not receive such favourable payments. They have the same sense of grievance and unfairness.
  We know the historic reasons that have led to the dock industry workers receiving substantial redundancy payments whereas workers in other industries receive payments that are considerably less. It would not eliminate the sense of grievance and unfairness if we were to extend the scheme to other ports in the United Kingdom. To do so would merely accentuate that feeling in the minds of workers in other industries.
  The hon. Member for Blackley did not explain why he and his right hon. and hon. Friends will decline to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the Government are in a dilemma. The Opposition's response is to decline to vote for the Second Reading.
  The right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) used all his considerable eloquence and decibel level to try to justify the Opposition's position. His sole justification was that if the Opposition were to carry the matter on a Division, although he is relying upon Conservative Members not to allow that to happen, within the next day or two the Government would spirit up a new measure and the Treasury would produce hundreds of millions of pounds for a new scheme.
  The right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, who said that he had been in the House for 25 years, should know better than that. It is totally illogical. The right hon. Gentleman has had a distinguished medical career. He should recognise that we are proposing to give an urgently needed blood transfusion to ports in crisis. His proposal is that we should give a blood transfusion to all ports in the United Kingdom, whether or not they have problems. It is an extraordinary way to treat patients, if he goes round giving blood transfusions to everyone, be they healthy or sick.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Ports (Financial Assistance) Bill may be prodeeded with, though opposed, until Eleven o'clock. —[Mr. Cope.]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Moate: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, who has, I am sure, plastered many a broken leg, puts plasters on people without broken legs in case they break them later. Perhaps it is the Socialist belief in comprehensive treatment and the comprehensive handout of benefits on an unselective basis that has led to the whole country being on crutches today.
  As has been explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, if this money is not granted to the PLA and the port of Liverpool, those ports will be bankrupt. The measure is necessary to keep them alive, yet the Opposition are voting against it tonight. I hope that that message gets clearly across in the ports. I do not for a moment believe that the Opposition want to see port operations close; it is just ineptitude. The justification is that it is the only way the case can be argued for the wider
  1026
  treatment of all ports. Reference was made to last year's debate on the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill. There was no reasoned amendment then, but that did not prevent hon. Members from talking about Liverpool in a debate on a London Bill.
  The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) knows that he could have had an extensive debate tonight on the implications of the Bill for all the other ports without having to take a step which could result in the defeat of the Bill. That is a serious tactical error. The Opposition think that they will not win on their reasoned amendment, but many of my hon. Friends have been saying that presumably there will be no vote because the Opposition can hardly vote against this measure. They might have gone home. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will carry his amendment and endanger the financial position of London and Merseyside. The most courageous and honourable speech came from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), who understands the position clearly.
  Of course there is a problem for other ports. Even in the port of Medway, in my area, which is a highly successful, highly competitive and profitable port, there is surplus labour that it is felt should be dealt with on redundancy terms. The implication is that those dock workers will not now opt for redundancy, because they expect that there will be more Government support. I hope that my right hon. Friend made it clear that that will not be available.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not enjoy promoting the Bill, but one of its few merits is that it has a two-month limitation as a first step. It is for a limited period, for a limited purpose. It is not to bail out the ports. It is specifically to deal with surplus manpower.
  The defence of the Bill is that it is deemed to deal with the crisis for a short period and, specifically, to deal with surplus manpower.
  I have to deal with my final point so I cannot do justice to it. It is the question of the possible extension of the activities of the Port of London Authority into lighterage, which was extensively dealt with by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I do not know whether a decision has been made. Some of those services are operated jointly with the Medway, so I have an interest in the matter. At a time when the Port of London Authority is asking for more public assistance it is quite wrong for it to extend its activities into private enterprise and ake over the lighterage firms in the river. At the same time that would act as a disincentive to many workers who otherwise would apply for voluntary redundancy. I understand the difficulties of this extremely complex matter. I do not feel that it is right for the taxpayer to pay for the Port of London Authority to extend its activities at a time whem it should be reducing the scale of its activities. Above all, such a step would undermine the purpose of the Bill, which is to deal with the crisis in London and Liverpool and especially with surplus dock labour.
  10.7 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: That is surely the essence of our opposition to the Bill; it is an ad hoc response to a general problem. If the Secretary of State or the Minister is now prepared to give an undertaking in the terms suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon), that he will give

  1027
  parity of treatment to the other ports that are similarly affected, I shall resume my place and there will be no further problem.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke indicated dissent.
  Mr. Anderson: What is clear is that the Minister has not thought through the effects on the other ports of the ad hoc response to a particular crisis in two ports. Hence, he has apparently not discussed the matter with the major trade unions or with the port employers, who would have informed him of the consequences. They would have told him that it would create injustice between one port and another. It is likely to lead to disruption in labour relations and to go against the existing practices that have been built up in the industry, by discriminating in favour of two ports against other ports that are similarly affected. It needs a strong justification to break from precedent, and the Minister has not given that justification.
  Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman asserted that I had not consulted the port employers. That is incorrect. I had a special meeting with the National Association of Port Employers. It wrote to me on 13 March and said that it none the less recognised the nature of the problems and hoped that
  "the special supplement will succeed in bringing about the required reductions in these ports".
  Mr. Anderson: In response to that I quote from a document dated March 1981 from the National Association of Port Employers:
  "the Association regrets that it was not brought into consultation at an appropriate point in the discussions which led to the Secretary of State's announcement".
  So much for that point.
  The voluntary severance scheme was operated hitherto as a national scheme, with its terms uniformly applied. That precedent is bad for the industry and, after a period of relative industrial harmony in our ports, is likely to lead to disruption. The Minister will be responsible for that as a result of his individual response to particular problems in Merseyside and the port of London. He must know that there will be strong trade union opposition. I understand that a special dock workers' conference has already said that it would not accept the scheme unless it were extended to other affected ports. Over 100 of the 650 severances that have been authorised have been withdrawn. Hence, that will undermine the working of the current scheme, increase the costs on the ports and reduce the competitiveness of those ports, because they will be forced to retain men, surplus to their requirements, who would have been willing to leave the port industry. The Secretary of State will know that many ports are competing for comparatively little trade and, therefore, costs are critical.
  I wish to raise a point on the South Wales dimension. The recession has led to heavy under-employment in the South Wales ports, currently averaging two days a week. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) knows that the severance of 30 registered dock workers has been authorised at Newport, but there has been only limited success for the scheme because of the heavy local unemployment. No registered dock worker in South Wales will accept severance when he knows of the injustice of the present scheme compared with the proposed system for London and Liverpool and anticipates that there will be a further temporary ad hoc Bill from the Government to extend the provisions of the Bill before us. Ports such as Swansea will also face cost increases because of the levy.
  1028
  There has been age-old rivalry in the Bristol Channel. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) mentioned the financial problems of Bristol. In response to the South Wales Docks Board, the managing director of the British Transport Docks Board said:
  "Obviously we could not contemplate taking responsibility for Bristol's heavy financial losses, nor the future liabilities associated with Portbury and Avonmouth Docks. Nor would we contemplate any policy which could sustain traffic in the Bristol Docks at the expense of South Wales."
  The BTDB agreed to meet the Bristol city council, and the outcome of that was discussed at a recent meeting of the South Wales board.
  All the fears that those of us on the South Wales side of the Bristol Channel expressed in the late 1960s about the over-capacity in the channel—the over-capacity that would be created as a result of the Portbury decision—appear to be coming to fruition. The Western Mail stated that the BTDB will be under
  "Government pressure to shut down a couple of the older Welsh ports in the face of falling trade and profits"
  if it yields to the overtures of the Bristol city council to incorporate Bristol within the board. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me an assurance on that point.
  The extension of the advantages in the Bill to other ports will lead to a smooth development of severance in the national interest, but the current scheme will be seen to be unfair, will embitter relationships within our ports and, hence, will be disruptive. I urge the Government to think again about their ad hoc scheme.
  10.13 pm
  Mr. John Prescott: The debate has clearly shown that many hon. Members are concerned about the consequences of the policy enshrined in the Bill. There has been some controversy about the Opposition's amendment. I am advised by "Erskine May", and it appears to be so, that the reasoned amendment is a parliamentary procedure which has been well used by Oppositions of both parties to express a point of view.
  Our view is that the policy is likely to discriminate, for the first time ever, between groups of dockers on the question of redundancy payments. That is the point which the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) did not understand. Most of his speech was, therefore, devoted to matters that he had not got clear in his mind.
  The Bill is essentially different from the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Act 1980, which the hon. Member for Faversham supported. He said then that it was not a precedent. This is the first time that we have had first-class and second-class redundancy payment systems for the docks. This Bill is essentially different from any Bill previously brought before the House. I have consulted "Erskine May" on the reasoned amendment. The old practice apparently was to table a reasoned amendment, but even if it were carried the Government could continue with the Bill. The modern practice apparently is that, if one is defeated, one is defeated on the day and one can come again before the House. I do not have time to become involved in arguments over "Erskine May". I commend it to the Secretary of State if he cares to read it himself. We support the Bill as far as it goes.
  I was surprised to hear the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). As hon. Members will see, many names are attached to the amendment. My right hon. Friend and I went to a lot of trouble to collect them during the last two days. It is

  1029
  unfortunate that my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby was unable to attend in the last two days. I could not discuss the matter with him as I did with other hon. Members. I am more surprised by his approach when I see that he himself voted for a reasoned amendment to the Coal Industry Bill on 17 June which sought to do the same thing. My hon. Friend did not wish, as a member of the National Union of Mineworkers, to deny subsidies for the mining industry. He was prepared to vote for a reasoned amendment but did not vote against the Second Reading. Perhaps his arguments are peculiar to a Liverpool Bill. It is not a practice that he has avoided in the past. A few months ago, he followed it himself.
  Mr. Ogden: I do not interfere in my hon. Friend's relations with his union. He should not try to interfere in my relations with my union. The Coal Industry Bill is not the Ports (Financial Assistance) Bill. We, the Opposition, are treating this Bill differently from the way in which we approached the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill less than 12 months ago. That is the difference.
  Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend does not understand the Bill. This is a separate Bill. For the first time it differentiates between ports. The Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill did not do that. We supported my hon. Friend in his demands for Liverpool. The same argument applies now. As a sponsored Member myself, I understand the appeal to the National Union of Mineworkers. It is an act of solidarity. This amendment, too, is an act of solidarity with other ports—a solidarity that we showed last year in supporting Liverpool's case on the London Bill.
  Mr. Ogden rose—
  Mr. Prescott: No. I shall not give way.
  Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is making heavy weather of where I was. I was in Liverpool, being urged by Liverpool dockers to vote for the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Prescott: I was not questioning where my hon. Friend was. Each hon. Member has his own pressures of business. I did not reflect on where my hon. Friend was or what he was doing. I think that that will be shown by the record. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] Hon. Members should not tell me to get on with my speech. If hon. Members feel that I have made heavy weather of the issue, I would only say that I felt that it was important to put it before the House to justify the amendment. The essential factor is that the Bill is different from any past Bill. It seeks to differentiate between port workers in different ports. We know the reason. The Secretary of State says that the companies are bordering on bankruptcy. The Bill, however, interferes with the national dock labour scheme and differentiates between workers in different ports and employers who were not consulted but only informed what was happening. That is another broken procedure. It is an extremely controversial matter in the ports.
  Our criticisms are connected with the fact that the Bill fails to reflect any ports strategy. It relies on the market philosophy that ports should be profitable and that this
  1030
  should be the only reason for their survival. It reflects the policy of the Government's 1971 White Paper, "Financial Policy for Ports". Unfortunately, we seem to be about to see history repeating itself. The White Paper said:
  "The Government expects the ports to put themselves in a position where they can provide the services essential to the country's economic prosperity efficiently and profitably. They are expected, like other businesses, to be self-supporting and competitive".
  The White Paper said that the National Ports Council had a major part to play. The Government are abolishing it. A different policy is now being pursued on the central agency role.
  We are critical of the Bill because it is selective in its approach to certain ports. We made the same criticism of the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill. It is now being extended to the Mersey docks. We accept that that docks must receive aid, but other ports face similar problems. We are critical of the lack of a proper ports strategy. The selective approach will create more problems than it will solve.
  It has been common ground in past debates that many of the problems faced by the ports industry are brought about by excess capacity. Our ports have a capacity for about 1,000 million tonnes, but only 320 million tonnes are passing through them. We cannot simply close down the ports and public utilities. Traffic is not solely determined by price. There are technological changes relating to containerisation in Bristol, Liverpool, London and other ports. That has brought about changes in our ports. There has been a tremendous switch in our trading relationships from the West to the East, which has also affected the ports. We have seen the growth of the small to medium-sized ports at the expense of the large, deep-sea ports. One consequence of the imbalance in our trade is that it affects ports depending on where they are and what they trade in.
  Excess capacity has led to such a fall in prices that the ports have not been able to carry through a proper investment programme. The market philosophy followed to its logical conclusion was to get rid of excess capacity by allowing bankruptcies. If it were decided to eliminate excess capacity, as happened in the steel industry, that at least might be called a policy. It is a problem in the ports, and we shall not obtain enough traffic within the next 10 or 20 years to feed the surplus capacity. That leaves us with a major problem of planning for the ports industry. Whatever policy is pursued, there will always be ports that will never achieve a sufficient throughput to justify a number of their activities.
  Labour Party and Labour Government policy has been reasonably consistent. We believe that there should be a national ports authority. I do not have time to go into the arguments for that, but I developed them at some length in Committee. The Tory Party has been consistent only in the sense that it began with an ideological purpose—it was wedded to a marked philosophy—and has ended up with collapse and bankruptcies and has had to rush in with taxpayers' money.
  Let us consider what has happened. We are not witnessing a unique formula. What the Secretary of State is doing was done by a previous Tory Secretary of State in 1971, when the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board was in considerable difficulty and wanted to borrow £6 million. That is a small sum compared with the sort of money that is now floating around. It was decided that the board

  1031
  should stand on its feet because the market philosophy was to reign supreme and that if it was not commercially profitable it should go to the wall. That company went bankrupt. The capital was written down by 60 per cent., which caused many people to suffer. Problems were created by small wharfs, there were the national strikes of 1972, and the Jones-Aldington solution was implemented by a Conservative Government supported by a Labour Opposition. The Jones-Aldington solution was that money should be made available for excess labour. But that additional money was to be made available to all ports and their dockers. The solution did not pick out only one or two ports. If anyone doubts that it is not only in London and Liverpool that excess labour exists, I refer them to the National Docks Labour Board report which details surpluses in every port. The national average is about 12 per cent. Even allowing for the current depression in trade, excess capacity is a problem in many more ports than only London and Liverpool. We must address ourselves to that problem.
  In 1972 the Government introduced further legislation and loans, and there was a strengthening of the National Ports Council to monitor the position financially. To that extent there was a reversal to intervention. We told the Secretary of State in a previous debate on the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill 1980—indeed, every Opposition Member warned him—that the problems did not affect only London. I give credit to Liverpool Members who exerted powerful pressure on behalf of the Liverpool docks. My hon. Friend the Member for West Derby said that it was more of a Liverpool debate than a London debate.
  The point was eventually driven home, though it took time. The Secretary of State was still flush with his free market philosophy. He came to office in May 1979, but it has been said tonight that there are still not many plans for port development. In 1978 the then Secretary of State asked for a plan for the National Ports Council for the development of the future of the ports, and that plan was ready when the present Secretary of State took office. However, he decided to call for his own report. That is understandable, but the new report came up with the same conclusions as those that were contained in the 1978 report about the future problems of the ports.
  Hon. Members should consider those reports. They predicted what would happen to the ports of London, Liverpool and other towns. The information is all contained in the policy reports of 1978 and in the report given specifically to the Minister in October 1979. But what did the Minister do? He brought forward a Bill to abolish the National Ports Council and sell off the British Transport Docks Board.
  If any hon. Member wishes to know about the problems of our ports he should study those reports. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State rejected the advice that he was given there. Indeed, he went further, and abolished the body that gave him the advice, because he did not like the advice. He then gave us a series of statements about port policy. In The Port of Wednesday 2 April 1980 we read:
  "Fowler's message—`Do it yourself"—
  that was the new policy of the Conservative Party —
  "The Government will intervene less in the ports industry".
  We told him that that was nonsense. He said that the 1980 London Bill was not to be seen as a precedent, but we know very well that it was a precedent. Exactly the same circumstances were used in the Labour policy of 1978 for
  1032
  the Port of London Authority, namely, to lend money, put in accountants, and monitor the progress. That is exactly the policy to apply to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. The tragedy is that it was relevant 12 months ago and that we have had to wait all this time.
  The Minister says that the Bill is being brought forward now because the companies are bankrupt. He says "If we do not get the measure by a certain date, and because the companies are bankrupt, we have to provide money, I have a pistol at my head". That is no solution. Had he given the matter more thought he might have seen ahead and taken action. Unfortunately, he did not do that. He said that he was bringing forward the Port of London Bill because it was an obligation of the Labour Administration.
  There is another quote of 6 August 1980—"No aid for ports". That was the heading on an exclusive report given to the Journal of Commerce about the Secretary of State's attitude to the ports. It was that they must stand on their own feet.
  Tonight, however, we see that the Secretary of State's attitude has changed. Thai is to be welcomed, but it is tragic that we have had to wait 12 months. I do not imagine that the right hon. Gentleman is likely to change his attitude to a central agency, such as the National Ports Council or, as we would prefer, a national ports authority, but he is coming round. Like other Ministers, he is doing a U-turn.
  There is one matter that worries me. In the press statement about the Bill, dated 13 March, the Secretary of State said:
  "I should make it clear that the Bill does not commit the Government to supporting the two port authorities beyond May".
  I recall the "no precedent" claim of last year. In fact, I think that we shall have reason to quote it again, because surely no one believes that the problems of the ports of London and Liverpool will be solved by May, or even in a year.
  Perhaps I am being a little unfair to the Secretary of State. However, if he believes that he will not have to intervene again he is mistaken. His own accountants are advising him that a financial reconstruction is needed, certainly in London and possibly in Liverpool, and that something will have to be done about the problems. Having abolished the National Ports Council he is now putting accountants into the companies that have been set up. The accountants are costing a lot more than the National Ports Council. It was paid by a levy on industry, whereas the taxpayers are paying for all the accountants. I do not know who comes best out of deal.
  These are political points that it is natural for us to want to make. The great tragedy is that the Minister does not seem to have learnt. The various accountants' reports on London and Liverpool make it clear that traffic flow, upon which their future depends, is determined not only by price but by a variety of other factors—the geographical location, the type of investment, and so on. One of the most important factors revolves around the concentration of container facilities. Investment in excessive container capacity at Felixstowe will undoubtedly lead to Dart Line leaving Southampton, CPR leaving London, and Manchester Liners going from Liverpool. That will happen because they are part of a consortium that is investing in Felixstowe. It will add to the financial difficulties of the ports.
  The Minister will then be faced with deciding whether to close ports down. The ports will tell him that they

  1033
  cannot survive in conditions of declining trade and rising manpower surpluses, which impose such a liability on their earning capacity. Will he then say that the ports must go bankrupt? No Government have been prepared to say that yet.
  When he first came to office the Secretary of State bravely closed down Preston docks. But that was an easy one to deal with. Liverpool and London are different altogether. The consequences of closure for the communities and commerce in those areas would be considerable. In addition, the vast investment by society in roads and railways would be lost. The roads strategy is based upon serving the ports. But the future of the ports lies in the hands of the shipowners, playing one port off against another at a time of excess capacity.
  I presume that by bringing this Bill forward the Secretary of State is saying that he will not declare ports bankrupt. If so, he will have to find another criterion upon which to base his policy. The Financial Times of 24 March said of the Bill—
  "the question needs to be considered as to whether totally free competition between ports is in the country's best interests, or whether there should be some sort of national framework within which ports are allowed to develop. Ports are an integral part of the United Kingdom transport system and behave in many respects like public utilities. Even though inter-port competition is desirable they cannot be viewed as purely commercial concerns … A coherent ports policy, taking these factors into account, is overdue."
  The Secretary of State's contribution tonight reflected his failure to understand the difficulties of the ports industry, and it did not take us far towards a national ports policy.
  Last year we predicted that Liverpool would need help. We argued strongly for it. I now give the right hon. Gentleman another prediction. Within 12 months something will have to be done about the port of Bristol, whether that is the responsibility of the Department of Transport, the Department of the Environment or the Department of Employment. Manchester, too, it is clear, is not far from needing the same treatment.
  The Government cannot turn their backs on these problems. These ports are public utilities, and their failure would have consequences for the community that we simply cannot ignore. The Secretary of State would do well to consider how much less expensive it would have been to help Liverpool with £6 million in loans over the few years leading up to 1972. That was not done, and now the House is debating a Bill that involves grants and loans totalling about £250 million. What an approach to ports policy. It is the most expensive and the least efficient course to follow.
  Against this background, and against demands for a ports policy and some central agency to oversee it, the right hon. Gentleman is abolishing the National Ports Council. Instead, he turns to the accountants for advice. We appeal to him to rethink his approach to the ports, to reassess the possibility of making this enhanced scheme of redundancy available across the country. That would not cost a great deal more. We can argue about that in Committee, and suggest what the cost would be.
  The Secretary of State will have to consider limiting the further development of ports capacity. It is crazy for the community to spend more on developing port facilities when there is an excess of capacity already. The Government's piecemeal approach will create more
  1034
  problems. If cheap loans had been available to Liverpool in 1972 it would have been better off. Now, as a result of what happened then, the company cannot even sell its land, because it belongs to the shareholders. So, yet again, because of that Tory deal the taxpayers will have to foot the Bill.
  Liverpool may reach break-even point if it gets the 1,200 registered dockers. However, even in private stevedoring there are problems for the major employer. Vestey's is blackmailing the port of Liverpool by demanding an interest in the container sector. The company that refused to pay tax is threatening to shift the burden of its unemployment on to the port of Liverpool unless agreement is reached. London has a similar problem, as has been shown with Price Waterhouse and the capital reconstruction. I could give further details if the time was available.
  The competitive philosophy will eventually cost more money, and it does nothing to alleviate the problem. It also weakens the financial position of competitive ports. It puts a further burden on ports through extra levies for the National Dock Labour Board scheme. Moreover, there are surpluses not only in London and Liverpool but in Hull and Bristol, and so on.
  The National Dock Labour Board scheme has been agreed by both Governments, and redundancy schemes have been implemented. Between 1965 and 1980, manpower was run down by 60 per cent. The scheme has played a considerable part in the readjustment of the industry, although there have been tremendous problems. When the Government introduced extra money in 1972, it was for every port. This is the first time that the House has been asked to differentiate between ports in redundancy proposals. The NDLB will require more money than the Bill allows for. How will the money be raised? It will be by levies or loans, but loan levies greater than 10 per cent. cannot be supported at present. Is the Minister prepared to allow a moratorium on interest payments?
  The Bill deals only with a limited problem. It does not deal with port strategy. The problems were ignored in 1972. If we ignore them again in 1981 we shall have greater problems and even perhaps a national strike, because of the Bill. The Bill puts forward a bankrupt policy for bankrupt ports, for which we will continue to pay in the future.
  10.36 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The contributions of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) are always forceful and are usually clear. He came as near as anyone to clarifying the attractive but vague call for a national strategy for ports, which is used by some of his right hon. and hon. Friends as a slogan. It sounds appealing, but it is merely a substitute for a policy of tackling the real problems. We got an inkling of precisely what he means by a national plan for ports. We have listened to his speeches upstairs about a national dock authority. I have some idea of where at least he wants to go.
  However, I remain convinced that the policy that the hon. Gentleman is advocating could be carried out only at huge costs to the taxpayer. It would be likely to reduce the service to exporters and importers. It would lessen competition between ports and frustrate investment in small and medium-sized ports. The hon. Gentleman makes

  1035
  no secret of his hostility to investment in those ports which have been a success over the past 10 years. Had he had his way, the port of Felixstowe would scarcely have existed, let alone expanded to its present size. I also fear that his policy would tend to give rise to unreal hopes in the ports industry and among sections of the work force that they would be relieved from the pressures that changes in cargo handling and traffic are bound to bring to our traditional ports industry. I see what the hon. Gentleman means about a national strategy. No doubt it is also what the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) means, but it is not a realistic solution.
  Our policy remains the same as it was when we came to the House with the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill last year. The industry should serve the trading community by ports competing with each other in services, commercial pricing policy, and so on. Each port can cope with the difficulties by reducing and rationalising facilities, by rationalising manpower to fit the traffic which there is a realistic hope of gaining, by providing quality of service and by raising productivity to a level that can give secure jobs to the manpower in each port. To the extent that each port succeeds, its customers will benefit and the trading performance of this country will benefit.
  Some ports face very big transitional problems in adapting that policy, based on competition and choice for the trader, in view of the history of change that had taken place in their dock areas. The Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company are our two biggest traditional ports authorities. The House should therefore not have the difficulty that the Opposition seem to have in distinguishing between the situation facing the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and that of the huge list of ports, docks and quays contained in their reasoned amendment, which they say should have part of the same largesse because that is what they call a national ports policy.
  I do not believe that some Opposition Members, including some who have an interest in the ports, have entirely taken on board the depth of the crisis to which the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company have been reduced, principally by changes of trade, during the past year. There is no point in going too far back into history. We all know that the dramatic change in cargo-handling methods has hit the traditional ports particularly hard. The growth of container and roll-on/roll-off traffic has left installations such as the Royal docks in London and the deep water installations on the Mersey having to cope with very great changes. There are also difficulties because London is some way up an estuary in terms of the old closed docks, and Liverpool is on the West Coast whereas the growth of trade has been with European ports on the other side of the country, and so on.
  I concede, however, to those with interests in the two ports, that both have made dramatic attempts to adjust to the changed conditions over the past 10 years. Those efforts continued even after last year's legislation when the Government were adopting a policy towards London similar to that being adopted now. In 1980, for instance, the Port of London Authority, helped by the legislation, succeeded in shedding more than 1,900 men—more than 800 registered dock workers and more than 1,000 staff. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company last year shed 570 men-360 registered dock workers and 210 staff. But the loss of traffic that those ports suffered last year as a
  1036
  result of the level of trade and industrial activity in this country, as well as the disadvantages in which their own working practices still placed them compared with the more succesful and competitive ports, meant that over the last year their position deteriorated very seriously.
  Let us consider the situation which has led the Government to seek a Second Reading of the Bill as a matter of urgency. The Port of London Authority lost £11·1 million in 1979, and it is estimated to have lost £15 million in 1980. It has about 3,700 registered dock workers and 2,800 staff. But there is no work from day to day for about 1,500 of those men. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company lost £7.4 million in 1979 and probably lost £6.5 million in 1980. It has about 3,000 registered dock workers and 2,800 staff. Again, there is no work—and no likelihood of work—for 1,000 of its registered dock workers and 500 staff.
  Both ports therefore have about one-quarter of their manpower surplus to requirements and no work to offer those men. That is a continuing financial drain, which has led to enormous annual losses. These ports no longer even have the money to finance the severances that are a necessary to persuade that one-quarter of the work force to leave, which is putting them in a ruinous position at present. That is the situation. Those ports are bankrupt. If the House carries the Opposition's reasoned amendment, with which I shall deal in a moment, and denies a Second Reading to the Bill, those ports will cease trading within a matter of days.
  I appreciate that this causes concern to hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). I have considerable sympathy with the points that he made. Other British industries are in a critical condition. Industries such as textiles and footwear are facing desperate situations with surplus manpower and trying to sever their staff. We appreciate that. But I think that my hon. Friend accepts that the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, much though many hon. Members would like to think of them as analogous with companies in their own constituencies, are not analogous with ordinary private sector companies. They are great port authorities which carry out conservancy and other statutory duties in the estuaries. Both authorities, particularly the PLA, service other private sector industries.
  Receivership is a difficult course to follow in respect of these great public bodies in which the Government already appoint the board or have a substantial hand. They are vital installations for a large number of other private industries both in London and Liverpool. Given that they are facing a crisis, and given that in the near future we shall not move away from the registered dock workers scheme or the basis of the severance pay, it calls for emergency help of this kind.
  The form of help is a one-off crash programme, with severance as its central feature, to help those who apply for severance only in March and April this year, The Bill will enable the Government to supplement the severance pay of registered dock workers by an additional £5,500 over and above the national voluntary severance scheme level of £10,500.
  This is not a permanent move to two classes of severance. It is an emergency offer for two months only to two ports which will close unless something is done to help them through the present crisis.

  1037
  It is not a long-term guarantee. Here I must correct my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt), who seemed to think that this was guaranteed stability. If that severence is successful, and if, thereafter, plans can be produced which give the ports the opportunity to return to a profitable and competitive position, the Bill will enable my right hon. Friend to take further steps and to support them in some trading losses and essential investment while they continue to sever.
  Two other points were raised about what the PLA ought to be doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked about the Port of London police. I have great sympathy with what he said about their reduced pay—compared with other police forces—as well as their career prospects. My right hon. Friend is not stepping in to the day-to-day management of the PLA. The authority will remain responsible for the police force. Obviously, I shall make sure that my hon. Friend's remarks are drawn to the attention of the PLA. No doubt it will supply him with its up-to-date reaction to the problems of the police and how it proposes to deal with them.
  I understand that there have been some discussions about the possibility of an amalgamation of the Port of London police and the British Transport police. Unfortunately, practical objections have so far prevented that amalgamation from taking place. However, it will remain the responsibility of the PLA to deal with the future of the Port of London police.
  Mercantile Lighterage was mentioned. I understand that there is a prospect of that company ceasing to trade. My right hon. Friend has been sounded out about the Government's position. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), and confirm to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), that my right hon. Friend and the Government do not approve of the prospect of the PLA taking over a loss-making lighterage business, given its present situation.
  We are particularly concerned about the knock-on effect that the PLA's taking over a loss-making lighterage company will have on the other lighterage firms up and down the river, which will inevitably suffer from loss of trade and prospects as a result. It will merely jeopardise other businesses if the PLA steps in and tries to rescue that company.
  We are therefore suggesting an emergency measure for two ports where the scale of activity and crisis is far greater than in other ports. We are suggesting that the Government should put some money behind them to help them transform to perhaps much reduced but competitive and successful ports, which can thrive in the competitive atmosphere that is essential for the ports industry.
  Mr. Spearing: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the refusal of permission could—unless he makes conditions—sever lighterage traffic on rivers and canals which feed and maintain traffic in the port of London? Surely, the hon. Gentleman wishes to assist the port of London. Has he not got some responsibility?
  Mr. Clarke: There are other healthy lighterage companies on the river. If one goes out of business, the others will probable take over the traffic. The Port of London Authority has no experience of lighterage and has
  1038
  never been involved in it. It it were to take over a loss-making company, harm could result. In part reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, I should point out that should there be a closure those who work for private sector companies that get into difficulties in the immediate period will also be able to take advantage of the enhanced voluntary severance arrangements provided by the Bill. If a crisis must be faced, the Bill may come at a fortunate time, because registered dock workers will be able to take advantage of the Bill.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Clarke: Having given way to the hon. Member for Newham, South, I am sorry that I cannot give way to my hon. Friend. However, there are many points that remain unanswered.
  I have sketched what we are doing for London and Liverpool. We are entitled to ask the Opposition what their alternative is in the long term. I have described what their long-term alternative and national plan would lead to. I do not know what alternative they think they are giving the House. Despite the strictures of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), the Opposition are determined to refuse the Bill a Second Reading. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are clutching copies of "Erskine May." We have all read it. We can all see the terms of the Opposition's amendment. It means exactly what it says:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill".
  The Opposition's policy seems to be that they decline to give the Bill a Second Reading tonight, but they might give it one next week.
  Mr. Booth rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I may give way in a moment, but I wish to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman knows where he is. When I mentioned this point to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) he cheerily assumed that we could ignore everything and that my right hon. Friend could carry on paying out the money. My right hon. Friend and I cannot raise the few million pounds that the docks will need in the next few days out of our own resources.
  Despite the weaknesses of our parliamentary procedure we need the authority of a Second Reading before we can commit public expenditure on this scale, or anything like it. If the Bill is declined a Second Reading, both ports are likely to cease trading next Wednesday. The Opposition are being frivolous when they suggest that they might give the Bill a Second Reading later. Presumably it will be the same Bill. Perhaps they want to take it away and redraft it.
  I shall not dwell further on the Opposition's position, because the first five minutes of the speech made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East were taken up by an animated debate between the hon. Gentleman and another hon. Member. The Opposition have internal problems as regards deciding what to do. I do not understand it and neither do my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Booth: The hon. and learned Gentleman has just demonstrated, as he said, that he does not understand. Chapter 21, page 500 of "Erskine May" deals with the effect of carrying a reasoned amendment. If he were to study that page he would notice that it is for the Government to decide whether to amend a Bill if a

  1039
  reasoned amendment is carried. "Erskine May" makes it clear that the effect of a reasoned amendment being carried is that the Second Reading is delayed. The Government could present the same Bill tomorrow, when—as they know—we shall not oppose its Second Reading.
  Mr. Clarke: The streets of the Isle of Dogs and of Liverpool will be crowded with people reading "Erskine May." They will be reassured by the thought that a precedent was set in 1861 that suggests that it might be possible for the Government to go away, to redraft another Bill in three days, and to try to gain a Second Reading. I believe that not for the first time the Opposition transport team have got their tactics a little confused.
  We wish the Bill to obtain its Second Reading tonight. There will still be safeguards. A considerable sum of money is involved—£87 million potentially of new money. But it is not going to be issued just like that and there is no guarantee that it will ever be expended to the full. Initially my right hon. Friend will set ceilings which will carry these undertakings over the next two to three months. At the end of that time we will look at the success of the severance programme to decide what steps to take then. No doubt further funds would be released to enable them to continue to the autumn if the severance scheme had been reasonably successful. In the autumn, with the assessments of accountants, the two companies will come forward with their long-term strategies. Then we will have to decide to what extent the two ports have a future, how that is to be achieved, and whether further assistance under the Bill is justified by their performance and progress. That is the way in which we wish to deal with these two companies.
  A great deal of the debate has been taken up by other hon. Members who are not opposed to the assistance that the Government are giving to the port of London and the port of Liverpool but are fearful about the effects on other ports. I have left myself time only to draw the distinction between the scale of problems that I have just described in London and in Merseyside and that in some of the other ports that have been referred to. I understand constituency speeches—hon. Members saying "Why can my port not have some money as well?" With respect to some hon. Members, their ports are in a totally different position.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mahon) mentioned the Clyde. Of course, it has some problems of surplus manpower, but it has over £11 million worth of reserves. It is trying to sever only 60 people and it made £3 million profit in 1979. Clyde is not in the same critical situation. Neither is Manchester, which has £13·4 million worth of reserve. Even Bristol, which I will come on to in a moment because it is a little more complex, although it is making losses, has reserves of £2½ million.
  My right hon. Friend actually met the manager for Bristol, who explained that it is seeking to sever 50 registered dock workers; presumably it would like to have assistance with that. Liverpool and London are trying to sever one-quarter of their work force—3,000 people. It is ridiculous to suggest that somehow we are compromising ourselves by not offering the same assistance to the smaller ports. I do not want to dismiss the problems of these other ports, least of all Bristol. It has serious problems, which are falling on the local authority, but again I must underline, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) underlined, that in the end the responsibility lies with Bristol city council. When the then
  1040
  Minister for Transport gave permission for it to invest in Portbury, which is where the problems arise, he made it clear in his letter that responsibility, financial and otherwise, for the project lay solely with the Port of Bristol Authority. The authorisation letter did not commit the Government of the time in any way.
  I have no doubt that the city of Bristol is doing the same studies of the long-term future that had to be done in London and Liverpool to see how it can rationalise the port, how far the work force can be reduced, and what may remain open, to try to get it back on a sound footing. There is no way in which the Government will put pressure on the British Transport Docks Board or anybody else to step in in Bristol in such a way as to jeopardise the future of the South Wales ports, of which the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) was fearful. The British Transport Docks Board is meeting the city of Bristol. Let me make it clear that the Docks Board is free to make its own commercial decision about its involvement, if any, in the port of Bristol. There will be no Government pressure to make it step in in that port.
  There is no way in which the assistance under this Bill can be extended to Bristol or other ports. Distinctions can be drawn. We shall be ignoring the crisis of the moment and what can be achieved in London and Liverpool if we fritter the time this evening by voting on a rather strange reasoned amendment, which tries to draw in the quite different problems of a whole range of ports all round the coasts of this country.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:
  The House divided:Ayes 81, Noes 137.

  Division No. 124]

  [11.00 pm

  AYES

  Anderson, Donald

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Lamond, James

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Leighton, Ronald

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Cowans, Harry

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Cryer, Bob

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Dalyell, Tam

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dixon, Donald

  Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)

  Dormand, Jack

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dubs, Alfred

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Newens, Stanley

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Eadie, Alex

  Palmer, Arthur

  Eastham, Ken

  Parker, John

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

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Prescott, John

  Forrester, John

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Foster, Derek

  Rooker, J.W.

  Graham, Ted

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Grant, George(Morpeth)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Grant, John (IslingtonC)

  Sever, John

  Hamilton, James(Bothwell)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Silverman, Julius

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Haynes, Frank

  Snape, Peter

  Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)

  Soley, Clive

  HomeRobertson, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Homewood, William

  Stott, Roger

  Hooley, Frank

  Tinn, James

  Hughes, Mark(Durham)

  Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

  Hughes, Robert (AberdeenN)

  Welsh, Michael

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  1041

  Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Joseph Dean and Mr. George Morton.

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Dykes, Hugh

  Alton, David

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Arnold, Tom

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

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

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Gardiner, George(Reigate)

  Beith, A.J.

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Benyon, Thomas(A'don)

  Gow, Ian

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Gray, Hamish

  Best, Keith

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

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Blackburn, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Hicks, Robert

  Bright, Graham

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

  Brinton, Tim

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Brittan, Leon

  Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Brotherton, Michael

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Buck, Antony

  Lang, Ian

  Carlisle, John (LutonWest)

  LeMarchant, Spencer

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

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

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Luce, Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Churchill, W.S.

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

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

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Madel, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Cope, John

  Marshall, Michael(Arundel)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Crouch, David

  Mawhinney, DrBrian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Dover, Denshore

  Miller, Hal(B'grove)

  Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

  Mills, Iain(Meriden)

  1042

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Speller, Tony

  Moate, Roger

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Sproat, Iain

  Murphy, Christopher

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Myles, David

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Steen, Anthony

  Needham, Richard

  Stevens, Martin

  Neubert, Michael

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  Newton, Tony

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Ogden, Eric

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Patten, Christopher(Bath)

  Thompson, Donald

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Thorne, Neil(IlfordSouth)

  Penhaligon, David

  Townend, John(Bridlington)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B 'heath)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Trotter, Neville

  Renton, Tim

  Waddington, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wakeham, John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Waller, Gary

  Roberts,, Wyn (Conway)

  Ward, John

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Watson, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Wells, Bowen

  Sandelson, Neville

  Wheeler, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wickenden, Keith

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Williams, D. (Montgomery)

  Shelton, William(Streatham)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

  Silvester, Fred

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mr, Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Robert Boscawen.

  Smith, Dudley

  Speed, Keith

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 39 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading) and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second Time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  Ports (Financial Assistance) [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to provide financial assistance to the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and to increase the limit on sums borrowed by the National Dock Labour Board (`the Act'), it is expedient to authorize—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for giving financial assistance to the Authority and the Company for measures taken by them to restore the profitability of their undertakings and for the carrying on of their undertakings while such measures are being taken;

  (b) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided tinder any other other Act;

  (c) to the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Fowler.]

  11. 11 pm
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: I was unable to catch the eye of the Chair on the Second Reading of the Bill but I believe that I shall be in order if I make a number of financial points affecting the port of Bristol that are relevant to the money resolution. The financial structure of the port of Bristol is different from that of many of the other ports that we have been discussing. In the long run, the Bristol port is funded on the rates.
  About 10 or 12 years ago, Bristol did what Conservative Members often advise ports and many other enterprises to do; it modernised and rationalised. Part of that process was the building of a new deep-water dock, which is one of the finest in this country and probably one of the best in Western Europe. Bristol showed great courage, even allowing for the favourable conditions that existed at that time.
  The Royal Portbury project—it was originally called the West dock—was controversial, and its history should be of interest to the Conservative Party. The project was proposed in a Private Bill—a fact which seemed to be overlooked by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave); it came before the House in various forms at different times.
  Labour Ministers, including Barbara Castle and Richard Marsh, when each was Minister of Transport, advised against the project going ahead. Conservative Members, if anything, encouraged it, even though the Under-Secretary of State for Transport said earlier that it was made clear to Bristol that it was going ahead on its own responsibility. I voted for the Bill, as did all Bristol Members. he felt that we had an obligation to our own city. There were still opponents on the Labour Benches, especially the Welsh Members. They felt that it increased unfairly against them the total ports capacity of the Severn estuary.
  On that occasion, 10 or 12 years ago, there was a vote. It is interesting now to look at the Division list. I find that voting for Bristol going ahead with its new dock were the present Secretary of State for Transport, the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the present Secretary of State for the Environment, the present Minister of State, Department of the Environment and the present Prime Minister. It was stated austerely tonight that Bristol took this responsibility on its own shoulders following a disclaimer by the Government. That was not
  1044
  the general attitude of the Conservative Party at the time, or the attitude of Conservative spokesmen in Bristol during the 1970 election.
  I suggest to Conservative Members that they have a moral responsibility for the troubles that Bristol now finds by its enterprise in tune with the market economy 10 or 12 years ago. The port of Bristol has all the difficulties of other ports over redundancies, but its finances are founded on the security of the rates. Three years ago, the Bristol ratepayers were finding about £1·7 million towards the maintenance of the port, though it was always understood that that might be the case for a few years. The rate support grant at the same time amounted to £460,000.
  In 1980–81, the ratepayers are finding £6 million to support the port while the rate support grant has grown to £1·5 million. The rate poundage for Bristol has climbed from 3p three years ago to lop now, to support the port.
  Another menace approaches. The rate support grant system is to be replaced by a new block grant formula under new local government legislation. If the new system works out like the old, in money terms, the situation may not be too bad. It means that Bristol, under the formula of rate support grant that applied last year, would need to receive no less than £3 million.
  If the Government choose, as they have the opportunity to do under the new formula, to give Bristol considerably less than £3 million—I understand that the amount could be cut to almost nothing—the rate poundage to support the port could rise by another 6p. That would mean that the total contribution from the rates in Bristol for the support of the port would be no less than 16p in the pound. Indeed, half the money raised from the Bristol ratepayers would go towards compensating for the docks deficit. That is an intolerable burden on any city. I hear one or two Conservative Members saying that we should not have done it. We did it in the name of enterprise, and to modernise the port. We were encouraged by the Conservative Party.
  I understand that there will be a meeting next week between the Secretary of State and the leaders of both sides—the majority Labour and the minority Conservative—of the Bristol city council. It will not be the first such meeting. The hon. Member for Bristol, West knows that last year we met the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services. It was a hot afternoon in August. We talked for about two hours, and much hope for Bristol was expressed in that conversation. I recently received a note from the Minister that after all this delay nothing more could be done for Bristol.
  Bristol has suggested that the area around the new dock should be designated an enterprise zone. We do not like enterprise zones if they are a substitute for something better, but it is part of the Government's policy to create them. It would be possible to make an enterprise zone around the new Royal Portbury dock. We could then obtain assistance from the EEC, because it would be a special area, which I assume would rank for European grants.
  Money will flow out to two other ports which, no doubt, need it. Bristol has tried everything, and is continuing to do so, but whichever way it turns it is frustrated. I add my plea to that of the hon. Member for Bristol, West. The Minister was a little brief earlier on in his reference to Bristol. He did not deal with it until the last two minutes of his speech. The hon. Member for

  1045
  Bristol, West gave a number of facts and figures about the way in which the Bill would aggravate the problems of Bristol. It was negotiating a severance pay agreement which might involve considerably less than the £16,000 that will be paid to Liverpool and London dockers. We cannot blame Bristol dockers for thinking that if the Goverment can afford that much for other places they will have to afford it for Bristol. They do not want their severance pay—which is important to a man's future and to his family—to be less than that for London and Liverpool dockers.
  The Bill aggravates the problems at Bristol. I urge upon Ministers that when the leaders of both sides of the Bristol city council meet them once again they should do something to help this time. Bristol has never directly asked for money. All that we have asked for is that conditions should be created so that the intolerable burden now being placed upon the Bristol ratepayers will be lightened.
  This matter cannot be dismissed or brushed aside. I therefore again urge the Government to take seriously the points that have been made tonight and that will be made to them by the city council next week. Ministers must take the matter seriously and do something positive to assist Bristol.
  11.25 pm
  Mr. Don Dixon: It is getting a bit late now, and although I am sure that hon. Members who have sat here all evening, as I have, during the Second Reading debate, will have heard enough about ports, finance and severence pay, I wish to say a few words on the money resolution as it affects severance pay. There will be problems, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) pointed out that it could cause industrial disputes.
  First, I declare an interest in that I am a Member sponsored by the General and Municipal Workers Union, which organises the dockers on the river Tyne—one of the few ports, incidentally, where that union organises dockers. In company with my right hon. and hon. Friends, I believe that there is a case for financial assistance for the Port of London Authority and for the Mersey docks, but there is a case also for financial assistance for the other ports which face the same problems. They are not as urgent for us, perhaps, but we have the same problems of surplus labour and having to shed labour.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) said, negotiations are going on now between the trade unions and port authorities on voluntary redundancies, and the outcome will have an enormous effect. When the national voluntary severence scheme was introduced—and when the sum was revised in August last year from £8,500 to £10,500—it was a national scheme. It applied to everyone. There was no differentiation. This is where the problem arises.
  It is not only nonsense but it is grossly unfair that a docker in London or Merseyside who volunteers for redundancy should get £16,000 while a docker on the river Tyne or in any other port will have only £10,500.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), when referring to the various percentages of surplus labour in the other ports, omitted to mention the River Tyne. I know that it was not a
  1046
  deliberate omission on his part, because he has a great affinity with and good experience of the River Tyne. But the House should know that on the River Tyne at present our union is negotiating a reduction of almost 23 per cent. of the labour force by September of this year. For example, Newcastle quay is to close for general cargo handling. In future, it will be used only for grain shipments for the flour mills of Spillers and Rank. At present, 84 men are employed there.
  At Tyne dock there are 68 men working, and at Albert Edward docks we have 58 men. The union is trying to persuade the older dockers to take redundancy so that the younger dockers from Newcastle quay can be deployed at either Tyne dock or Albert Edward docks.
  How on earth shall we encourage or help a union official who is trying to get people to accept voluntary redundancy when he knows, and they know, that in Liverpool and London dockers who volunteer for redundancy can get £5,500 more than their counterparts can get on the river Tyne? It is just not on.
  The dockers on the River Tyne are as important as those in Liverpool or London, or any other port. The Secretary of State intervened in my right hon. Friend's speech to say that one of the problems in London, and especially in Liverpool, was unemployment. One has only to go to the Tyne and see some of the unemployment on both sides of the river to understand the problems there. Some areas have more than 20 per cent. male unemployment. Those on the River Tyne who volunteer for redundancy have virtually no chance of obtaining another job. Indeed, the northern region has the highest percentage of unemployment in Great Britain, and the second lowest number of vacancies.
  It is nonsense to say that we do not have the problems that Liverpool and London have. Most of the trouble is created by the present Government's industrial policy. We forced our amendment to a Division, and I am speaking in this short debate, because those on the River Tyne who volunteer for redundancy will not sell their livelihood for £5,500 less than the dockers in Liverpool and London will receive.
  11.31 pm
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The Minister said that we must approve the money resolution, because, if we do not, the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company will go broke. He said earlier that for the same reason the Bill must have its Second Reading. If that is so, why did the Minister wait until now to introduce the Bill? Why did he not introduce it a month ago? Surely he has not just found out the serious situation that those two organisations are in.
  The Secretary of State is trying to bulldoze the Bill through. He has also tried blackmail, saying that if we do not vote for it the authority and the company will go bankrupt next week. Why on earth did he not introduce it earlier?
  When answering criticisms from his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), the Under-Secretary kept giving him reassurance. He said "This is only a temporary measure. The redundancy is only for two months; it is not permanent." The hon. and learned Gentleman did not say what would happen is the severance scheme on which we are voting tonight did not work. He told his hon. Friend "We cannot let the company and the authority go into receivership, because that would mean

  1047
  all sorts of other things for other organisations." I entirely agree with the Under-Secretary, but if the severance proposals do not work what will he do? Will he introduce another money resolution in a month's time to give more money, or will he let the organisations go into receivership, which he told his hon. Friend was unthinkable and could not happen?
  The danger of the Bill and the money resolution is that by picking out two particular areas they will sour industrial relations in the whole ports industry. The employers in Southampton have told the National Dock Labour Board "We want to negotiate 200 redundancies with you." I know what the board will reply. It will say "Give us the same redundancy pay as Liverpool and London are getting, and we may talk to you. Otherwise, we shall not even talk to you about it."
  We spent years getting a national dock labour scheme built up. After years of bad industrial relations in the ports, we built it up, and it was agreed between employers, the Government and unions as a result of the Jones-Aldington report, but now the proposal before us will endanger the whole thing. I suspect that before long, if the Government are not careful, there will be other Bills relating to other ports, with other money resolutions. This could be only the beginning. It could do great harm to the industry as a whole.
  When I listened to the Secretary of State and his hon. and learned Friend I had the impression that they knew very little about the docks industry. They certainly did not know anything about the make-up and temperament of dockers. I did not recognise the people that they were referring to. Having had many years' experience, and having had some dockers in my own family, I know how they think.
  The dockers fought for years for a national scheme and now the Government are in danger of spoiling that scheme. We have no alternative but to vote for the money resolution. I object to this form of pressure being placed upon hon. Members.
  The Government have brought this Bill forward at the last minute, in such a way that it represents a threat of blackmail. They have said that if we do not vote in favour of the Bill these ports will go bust. I ask the Minister to go away and think seriously about a new redundancy scheme covering the entire port industry.
  11.35 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am glad that the money resolution has given us an opportunity to clear up the points relating to the ports of Bristol, Tyne and Southampton, particularly because the hon. Members in whose constituencies these ports lie were present throughout the last debate and were unable to speak. I apologise for not doing justice to Bristol in my winding-up speech earlier, mainly due to the limited amount of time available. I spent a high proportion of the time on London and Liverpool and on the general principles, and rather rushed my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldergrave).
  The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has had the opportunity of putting the case for Bristol more fully. I must clarify the distinction which exists between London and Liverpool, on the one hand, and Bristol on the other. London and Liverpool have got into their difficulties because they are our biggest and oldest
  1048
  traditional ports and because they have had considerable difficulty in coping with the change in trading conditions which has taken place over the last 10 years.
  Bristol's current problems are entirely the result of investment decisions fought for by the council against successive Governments. A major investment was embarked upon only comparatively recently. The investment was embarked upon against the background of Government approval under the powers of the Harbours Act and on very clear terms. The then Minister of Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), set out the Government's position very clearly in a letter of 17 November 1970 to the city of Bristol confirming that authorisation under the Harbours Act had been given. I shall quote again, more fully, from that letter:
  "I must also make it clear that the responsibility, financially and otherwise, for this project ties solely with the Port of Bristol Authority and that this letter does not commit the Government in any way."
  Successive Governments, as far as I am aware, have not moved from that position vis-à-vis Bristol. This was a major piece of capital investment by a local authority, sponsored by a Private Bill. It turned out to be speculative and, I am afraid, unsuccessful. It is now posing considerable difficulties for the city of Bristol and its ratepayers. Nevertheless, it is a responsibility of the local authority and certainly not of the Government. It is for the port authority and the city to deal with. There are not very good industrial relations at the port. The authorities must look to the future. No doubt they are getting the necessary reports on the likely financial prospects, considering 'what rationalisation may be needed and deciding what kind of labour force can permanently be sustained. They will be considering what kind of traffic is available to be won. It is for the local authority to do that since it is local authority capital spending.
  We have a lot of local authority wishful thinking, when authorities seek to go in for major capital investment. We cannot operate on the basis that speculative investment will be bailed out by the national taxpayer a few years later.
  Mr. Palmer: The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be saying something new—that the troubles are of Bristol's recent making. Fie seems to hint at poor management. Trade has gone and Bristol's ratepayers cannot escape the obligations upon them. They cannot close down the port. Even if they did, they would have to pay the interest on the loans.
  Mr. Clarke: I do not minimise the problem. The problem is that capital investment has been incurred and the loans still have to be serviced. Thus far, the investment has proved unsuccessful. The Port of Bristol Authority will presumably be engaging in the necessary studies to decide what can be done, at least to reduce trading losses and to see in what ways the three different docks in Bristol can be rationalised. That is for it, and not for the Government. It seems to me that in no way are Bristol's problems comparable to those of the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. I have no doubt that the matter will be explored in greater depth when representatives of the city of Bristol meet my right hon. Friend on 1 April.
  The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) complained about the impact on the port of Tyne and the redundancies

  1049
  that are necessary there, given the rationalisation that is happening of the arrangements that we have made for two months' topping up of severence payments for registered dock workers at London and Liverpool. The hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Mitchell) made the same point in respect of Southampton. There has been a predictable and swift reaction in various ports that dock workers there will not accept less for severence than the emergency sums that are on offer in London and Liverpool.
  However, that enhanced severance is available for a two-months period only. Only a few weeks are left in which the men can volunteer for severance and get the addition of up to £5,500. Thereafter, payments in London and Liverpool will revert to the level of the national voluntary severance scheme, which is currently £10,500. That two months, once-and-for-all offer is being made because of the drastic conditions in both those places where, including registered men and staff redundancies, a cut of 3,000 jobs is being sought because there is no longer work for the men.
  After the end of April, Liverpool and London will be back on the same footing as the other ports. I hope that the impact on the other ports will have been fairly minimal and will pass over. The other ports—Southampton, Tyne, Clyde, Manchester, Hull and the rest—do not have problems on anything like the scale of those afflicting London and Liverpool, and they have the resources to deal with their severence pay arrangements. I have no doubt that, in line with inflation, employers will in due course examine the levels of payments under the national voluntary severance scheme, but I think that the ordinary levels will suffice for redundancies in most parts of the country.
  Mr. Dixon: What does the hon. and learned gentleman intend to do if he does not secure the necessary number of volunteers during the two-months period? Is he seriously suggesting that those concerned will accept a scheme under which if a man goes on 29 April he will receive £16,000, whereas a man who goes on 2 May will get only £10,500? If he is, he has no idea of industrial relations.
  Mr. Clarke: That was the exactly the point raised by the hon. Member for Itchen. As the dockers in London and Liverpool know from the documents that they have, the offer is available only if they volunteer for severance in March and April. Severances in those ports after the end of April will revert to the national level and will be subject to the usual negotiations that go with the national voluntary severance scheme. That is why, although the Bill authorises new expenditure to a considerable extent—£87 million—my right hon. Friend will not make that money, or anything like it, readily available to the ports in the forseeable future. The first step will be to set cash limits which are in line with the minimum necessary for London and Liverpool to continue to trade during the period of the emergency severance programme.
  The cash limits will take both ports, on their own estimates, into May. In May, my right hon. Friend will review what has been achieved by the severance scheme and look again at the ports. He will probably then set cash limits to take them through to the autumn, by which time
  1050
  we shall have had reports from the companies and their accountants about whether they will return to profitability, and, if so, how.
  I shall not go in detail into the hypothesis of what happens if voluntary severance does not work. My right hon. Friend gave the figures. In both ports there has been a healthy response. Liverpool already has over 600 applications and I believe that London has over 400. There is a tendency to hang back with applications until the end, just in case more is offered, but that will not happen. We are expecting both ports to be near their targets, and then to move on to the severance of non-registered staff men as well.
  However, if the ports fail to get the severance that they require, as I am sure that everyone in London and Liverpool realises, they will be in a serious position. If by May each has over 1,000 men—25 per cent. of its work force, being paid every week, yet with nothing to do—we should look to the authority and to the company and seek their proposals to meet the situation. The Government would re-examine the policy in the light of the failure of the scheme. However, we are advised by the chairmen and by those who know both ports that the extra £5,500 should be sufficient at present to achieve the emergency severance of men. We believe that the scheme is going well and in May we will consider the prospects to take us to the autumn, when detailed studies will be made. Assuming that severance has worked and that the policy has gone through to that stage, in the autumn it will be possible to take a realistic view on the question whether the ports can return to profitability, and, if so, what rationalisation is required.
  I believe that I have dealt with the points raised. I apologise to he hon. Member for Itchen for the rush. As we have said, it is an emergency. Had the Opposition's vote been successful, the results would have been calamitous for both ports. It is likely that the PLA and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company would have had to cease trading next Wednesday. The timing has not helped the preparation of the Bill and the Government's parliamentary timetable.
  The problem was brought to a head by a catastrophic loss of trade in London and Mersey last year, the full impact of which was first reported to us towards the end of last year by the boards of the two bodies. Although it was clear that they were getting into difficulties, we had to make an extremely full appraisal. We needed information about the full extent of the difficulties to put together the policy. We had to have an idea of the figures for the rescue. The preparation of the Bill has not been in a leisurely manner, ending with the House being given only one night to make up its mind, with three days to go. The highest priority has been given to its preparation, against a background of late information and quick in-depth studies to see exactly what was needed. The Bill was brought forward at the first possible moment. Fortunately, it has had a Second Reading before the companies were forced to cease trading.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: How much, if any, money will be paid out under the provisions of the Bill before it becomes law?
  Mr. Clarke: I will give the hon. Gentleman a rough figure in writing. The PLA will need help on 1 April and I believe that both bodies will need more help next week.

  1051
  The convention is that now that the Bill has had a Second Reading, Ministers are authorised to expend moneys, although we shall continue to seek parliamentary approval in the later stages of the Bill. It would not have been possible to anticipate the legislation by spending moneys on the scale required without the Bill having had a Second Reading. That is the background. It reinforces the need for the money resolution, because the whole thing could be frustrated at this stage. I hope that the House will agree to the money resolution.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to provide financial assistance to the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and to increase the limit on sums borrowed by the National Dock Labour Board ('the Act'), it is expedient to authorize—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for givingfinancial assistance to the Authority and the Company for measures taken by them to resore the profitability of their undertakings and for the carrying on of their undertakings while such measures are being taken;

  (b) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act;

  (c) the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund.

  British Railways Board (Payments)
  11.50 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I beg to move,
  That the draft Transport Boards (Adjustment of Payments) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 3 March, be approved.
  The order establishes, for the rating year 1981–82 and subsequent years, the "standard amount", which determines the contribution in lieu of rates to be paid by the British Railways Board. The proposal would result in a decrease in British Rail's "standard amount" of £ 1 million as compared with 1979–80. It represents a small increase over 1980–81, but that was a transitional year, for reasons that I shall explain shortly. There is a need for permanent revision of British Rail's contribution in lieu of rates as a result of the recent change of status of the National Freight Corporation. The order introduces that.
  Instead of paying rates as such, on its operational property, British Rail pays an amount in lieu of rates, calculated in accordance with statutory provisions. The Secretary of State then distributes the money between rating authorities. BR's liability for any year depends on a prescribed "standard amount"—which this order would amend—and also on the average rate poundage set by local authorities in the previous year. This covers the railway network. In addition, British Rail pays rates, in the normal way, on non-operational property such as hotels, refreshment rooms and some offices.
  Prior to 1980–81 the National Freight Corporation was required to make British Rail a "fair" contribution in relation to premises that it occupied for the purposes of handling rail-related traffic. The amount of the NFL's contribution was a matter for agreement between the two boards. This obligation was devised when almost all of the corporation's traffic was carried by rail at some point on its journey. In recent years, however, as hon. Members will appreciate, an increasing proportion of the corporation's traffic has been carried by road. Since premises used for road traffic have been assessed for rating purposes by normal methods, an additional burden—a sort of "double rating"—ensued for the NFC. The unfairness of this burden was recognised in 1980–81, when British Rail's "standard amount" was reduced for that year by £573,000 as compensation for the element of double rating that had taken place since 1 April 1978.
  In addition, the 1980–81 reduction also took account of the intention to change the status of the NFC to a Companies Act company from an "appointed day. From that date, all NFC premises were to be rated by normal methods and the corporation, or its successor, would no longer be required to contribute towards British Rail's payment in lieu of rates. A reduction of £500,000 was agreed, in anticipation of the "appointed day" falling midway through the rating year, that is to say, on 1 October 1980. Taking account of these two elements, of £573,000 and £500,000, the Transport Boards (Adjustment of Payments) Order 1980, which the House agreed to last year, reduced British Rail's "standard amount" by £1,073,000.
  During consultation with interested parties and in debates both in this House and in another place on the 1980 order, the Government made it clear that a further order would be necessary in 1981 to make a once-and-for-all adjustment to British Rail's liability.

  1053
  This would reduce the "standard amount" for British Rail by £1 million permanently from the 1979–80 level and, if necessary, would compensate for any discrepancy between the date of the NFC's becoming a Companies Act company and 1 October 1980.
  The order before the House tonight is that order. It sets British Rail's "standard amount" for 1981–82 and subsequent years at £17,963,000, which is £1 million less than in 1979–80. Hon. Members will see that this figure is entirely in accordance with the proposals outlined last year, on which consultation took place prior to the making of the 1980 order. Both British Rail and the local authority associations were consulted about the proposals then, and recently they have been advised that this order was about to be introduced to complete the change.
  Hon. Members will also note that no further adjustment has been necessary to take account of the actual date of the change of status of the NFC. This is because, as envisaged, the "appointed day" fell on 1 October 1980.
  I commend the order to the House.
  11.54 pm
  Mr. Ted Graham: This should not take long, as there is no animus in the matter. Both the method and the changes have been agreed by the Opposition in both Houses whenever the matter has come forward.
  Perhaps the Minister would confirm what I surmise. It is really a question of whose side one is on—that of the transport board, British Rail, or the local authority. The net outcome will be that the standard amount, which is more or less the rateable value, will be multiplied by the average rate levied by local authorities.
  Last year the standard amount was £17,890,000, which was multiplied by the average rate. Let us assume that the average rate was 100p in the pound. This year there is a marginal increase in the standard amount, to £17,963,000. However, it is widely suggested that the average rate this year is likely to be not less than 10 per cent. higher, and could well be 20 per cent. higher. If that is the case, does it mean an increase of about £3,555,000 on top of the increased £17,963,000?
  In other words, does it mean that the sum that British Rail will have to pay to the Government, which is then distributed to local authorities, will be greater because of increased inflation and rates for which the Government must take a large part of the blame? Although the formula is accepted and understood, the net effect in cash terms will be that British Rail will have to pay about £3½ million more this year than last year.
  11.56 pm
  Mr. Giles Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The British Rail formula is affected by the average of the rate poundage in any year. The position for the coming year is affected by what occurred last year. It is certainly true that because of the mechanics of the system, British Rail's contribution goes up each year in line with the rate of increase in the previous year's rate poundage. The current increases will have their impact on British Rail next year.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved.
  That the draft Transport Boards (Adjustment of payments) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.

  BRD Factory (Newtown)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]
  11.57 pm
  Mr. Delwyn Williams: It is my sad duty to draw the attention of the House to the proposed closure of the BRD factory in Newtown, which is a subsidiary of the giant GKN group. We have become used to hearing of factory closures involving job losses of hundreds and even thousands. In Newtown, the staff involved at BRD numbers a mere 430—small by United Kingdom standards but large in the context of Newtown, which has a total work force of 5,000.
  BRD came to Newtown 18 years ago. At one time it had nearly 1,000 employees and in the main manufactured rear axle transmission units. According to BRD, it is now proposed to close that factory because of:

  "(a) The increasing proportion of smaller and lower powered cars using front wheel drive applications, incorporating C.V. Joints, for which we have no manufacturing capability.

  (b) The significant growth of imported cars into the U.K. market.

  (c) The fall in exports due to the strength of the pound.

  (d) The recession, which in the Automotive and Tractor Industries, is almost worldwide."

  I am proud to say that the factory at Newtown has a loyal work force, which has accepted 60p to 70p an hour less than the comparative rate for the job in Aldridge, in Staffordshire. Part of the problem arose during the period of the Socialist Government, when the work force was reduced from 750 to 430. Most of those lost were voluntary redundancies, but that reduced the viability of this outpost of the GKN group.
  The work force has been loyal and strike-free. There have been only three weeks on strike in 15 years. There are 100 skilled men there. I know that the company lost £750,000 in operations last year. Taken in isolation that is a lot of money, but it is chicken-feed compared with GKN's world-wide group profits. I accept that it has recently announced lower profits for the last commercial year than it would have liked.
  My work force has been discriminated against. Hardy Spicer—part of the group—has taken over much of its work. In the Midlands, Aldridge, which has a greater work force and which does the same sort of work, has been kept going. Justly, my constituents feel that they are being discriminated against by the management of GKN. The Government should use their influence at least to persuade GKN to lease the factory in Newtown to the Development Board for Rural Wales. There is great uncertainty about the future of this vast amount of factory space. GKN should give some indication of its plans.
  Other multinationals have seconded executive staff to development boards to help find alternative sources of employment. The GKN group, with all its multinational involvement, has treated my constituents very badly. The management should consider making finance available for a venture capital investment scheme in my constituency. That is the very least that I expect it to do.
  I call upon the Government to bring forward the review to development status. We are a special case, because when the Development Board for Rural Wales was set up, its aim was not only to create employment but to stem

  1055
  depopulation. That sets us apart from the rest of the United Kingdom. A special case can therefore be made for bringing that review forward without further ado.
  Our development board lost development area status about 18 months ago. Although it has done a tremendous job for the area it must now compete with areas that have kept their status. Soon, we shall have to compete with nearby special enterprise zones, particularly in South Wales. The Government have pumped in £48 million to help the steel and coal industries of South Wales. If the Government, in all conscience, cannot renew our development status prematurely, they should give more money to the development board so that it can set up alternative employment for those skilled and semi-skilled men.
  After all, the Government poured money into British Leyland, which hardly has a hard-working, strike-free or successful work force. A fraction of the money given to British Leyland would help my constituents through a very bad patch. The work force is loyal and skilful. With more money, alternative industries could be attracted to Mid-Wales. We have something to offer industrialists and working people. We can offer them fantastic scenery and an education for their children that is second to none. Even in these hard times Powys spends more on education per capita than any other part of the United Kingdom. That should give industrialists an incentive to come to my area. We have the sporting facilities of golf and fishing. There are good communications and housing costs are reasonable.
  We in Mid-Wales are not gloomy about the prospects. The Budget affects Wales as much as any other part of the United Kingdom. Let us look on the bright side. Everyone spells out the bad news, but there is also a lot of good news. Year on year inflation is down to 13 per cent. Over the past six months inflation has fallen to 7 per cent. Our trade surplus is on the right side. The savings ratio is very high, at 17 per cent. Pay settlements are realistic; 50 per cent. of the work force settled for pay settlements of under 10 per cent. Of the national work force, 33 per cent. settled for pay settlements of between 11 and 15 per cent. In the United Kingdom, employment offices placed 122,000 people in jobs in the last quarter of 1980. The value of retail sales in the United Kingdom is constant, despite rumours to the contrary.
  My constituents in BRD might blame the Government, but as soon as consideration is given to the company's excuse it becomes clear that it is not the Government who are to blame for the closure but the management of GKN. Any decent management would have foreseen that front-wheel drive was taking over and that rear-axle drive would be a thing of the past. Nevertheless, it did nothing to diversify or meet this eventuality.
  My area has been dealt a severe blow. One-tenth of the work force in a development area town has been destroyed. Despite that, Mid-Wales could, with help, have a great future. As at April 1980, £11·5 million spent by the Development Board for Rural Wales produced 141 factories and created 4,500 jobs. Reducing its budget and doing away with the development area status has been a severe blow. We cover 40 per cent. of the full land area of Wales. The total regional aid for Wales was £190 million. Yet between 1977 and 1980 only £1½ million of regional aid came to Mid-Wales, but we delivered the goods, we produced the jobs and we are going ahead.
  1056
  We need incentives. Dr. Ian Skewis, who does a magnificent job as the chief executive of our development board, analysed 111 cases of applicants for factory space. He found that 93 of those applicants were influenced by regional aid. So it is that I look to the Minister to give me some assurance that Mid-Wales will not be allowed to go back to the depopulated state that it was in some 10 to 15 years ago, before the Development Board was brought into being.
  We have the capacity, the will power, the men, the loyalty and the traditional skills. We must not allow the impetus that has been created over the last 10 years to disappear suddenly. It is in that sense of achievement, mitigated by some sense of grievance, that I look to the Minister to give me some assurance and, indeed, to give some hope to the work force of BRD in Newtown that although they may lose their jobs in the next six months in the near future they will have alternative employment to look forward to. This is not because we feel that we should be treated any differently from the rest of Europe; in fact, we do not feel that we should be treated differently in a general employment sense.
  The Government have already said that we are a special case because of rural depopulation. That trend of depopulation has not been helped by the recent Budget annoucement of an increase in the petrol tax. I accept that there might be a conservation element in the rise in the price of petrol, but it is stilt inflationary and a blight on rural people. Many of my constituents who are farm workers and factory workers have to travel up to 20 miles to work. To them the recent increase represents an extra cost of £100 a year. They are already earning less than the average wage. Some of them would be better off on the dole, but they are honourable men with dignity, who would prefer to work rather than skive and live off the State. This is why my appeal is all the more pertinent.
  I should have thought—I hope that the Minister will convey this to the Chancellor—that there were alternative ways of raising the money besides putting an increased petrol tax on rural areas. He could increase each dog licence by £5. He could increase the revenue from one-armed bandits and gaming machines. He could increase the duty on off-course betting by 1 per cent. He could tax towing caravans and non-residential static caravans. He could have a jewellery tax. All we look to the Chancellor for is more flair and imagination.
  I mention this tonight because some people must be dissuaded from coming to Mid-Wales by the fact that there is no public transport. That came about because of the bureaucratic approach of the last Government, who eliminated small bus companies and the small independent transport operators. That is why public transport is almost non-existent in Mid-Wales and why all of us there have to rely on private cars.
  Overall I have managed to get in a little attack on the Budget during this debate. I make no apology for that, because it is pertinent to the Mid-Wales situation. In that spirit I look to the Minister and to the Government to help the people of Mid-Wales and the men of BRD in particular and give them smile hope after all the loyalty and devotion, that they have shown to their work in the last 18 years in Newtown and Powys.
  12.9 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I fully appreciate the reason why my hon.

  1057
  Friend should want to raise this issue at the end of this fairly long day for Welsh Members. As you may know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Welsh Grand Committee met at 10.30 am and some of us were involved in it.
  The closure of the BRD factory is a matter of great concern to many of my hon. Friend's constituents in the Newtown area and, indeed, one of concern to all of us who understand and appreciate the problems posed by the closure of this factory for all those living in this predominantly rural area. This is all the more true because Newtown is an area that so far has experienced a rate of unemployment much lower than that in some of the more industrialised areas of Wales. The town has been the focus of the activities of the Development Board for Rural Wales and its predecessor in the area, the Mid-Wales Development Corporation.
  I have no intention of seeking to understate the seriousness of the blow for Newtown when about 430 employees are to lose their jobs in the next six months and when Mid-Wales is losing what has been one of its largest employers. It will be a major blow for employment in the area. Over many years the company has provided substantial and high-quality job opportunities, and these will be very difficult to replace. At the same time, when considering the future we must not forget what the board and its predecessor have achieved in Newtown.
  First, I should mention that my right hon. Friend has received a request from the chief executive of the Montgomery district council to meet a deputation—including my hon. Friend—to discuss the proposed closure and associated matters. Although the closure is not a matter in which the Government can intervene—it could not seek to impose a different solution on the company—my right hon. Friend considers that in view of the scale of the closure for the area there should be a meeting to hear at first hand the views of the local authority and others involved. We shall be taking into account what my hon. Friend said this evening.
  My hon. Friend placed great stress on the assisted area status of Mid-Wales in general and the Newtown travel-to-work area in particular. The decisions on assisted area status for Mid-Wales, which are due to be made next year, will take account of all the relevant factors set out in the Industry Act and all the representations that have been made. The effect of the job losses at BRD will be taken on board in the review. An important factor in the review will be an assessment of the relative positions of various areas. Consequently, it would not be appropriate to consider individual areas in isolation. Changes in assisted area status that have already taken place and those proposed have not been a factor in BRD's decision to cease production at Newtown. My hon. Friend should not, therefore, overestimate the role of regional policy in overcoming the problems of the area.
  My hon. Friend said something about the company's history in Newtown. It is part of the GKN group and is not one of the many firms that occupy a factory belonging to the Development Board for Rural Wales. It has, nevertheless, had a long association with Newtown and came there before the board and the Mid-Wales Development Corporation came into being. It was formed in 1940 and set up its subsidiary factory in Newtown as long ago as 1963, in what was an old war-time shadow
  1058
  factory. The premises comprise about 200,000 sq ft of floor space, which only a few years ago catered for about 700 employees. The property is owned by the company.
  There is no dispute of which I am aware about the circumstances that led to the company's decision to cease production. The company made this clear in the press statement which it issued on 27 February, which stated:
  "The severe effects of the current recession and a continuing reduction in demand for British-built cars, have caused a tremendous reduction in business activity at BRD Company Ltd.
  This has led to financial losses which totalled £750,000 in 1980 and which, under present conditions, would result in an even greater loss in 1981."
  The company went on to state that it foresaw no prospect of recovery in demand in the foreseeable future and therefore had decided to rationalise production on to one site at its headquarters in Aldridge, in the West Midlands. Employees at the subsidiary factory in Pool Road, Newtown were therefore advised that it would be impossible to continue production on that site after the end of August 1981. The closure will result in the loss of 430 jobs.
  The company's statement went on to say that
  "A close analysis of current order levels and forecast demand indicates that there is insufficient business to maintain two production centres. Therefore, without this urgent action to reduce costs and improve productivity, the future of the whole company would be put in jeopardy.
  The announcement has been made at the earliest possible time, to allow full discussions to take place with employees and their representatives on the phasing out of operations at Newtown and all other matters arising out of today's announcement.
  Every effort will be made by the company to assist employees in obtaining alternative employment."
  That was the end of the statement.
  There is in that statement no suggestion that labour relations in the factory or the rate of output of employees were factors influencing the company in reaching its decision, and I understand that the company has discussed its closure plans with the unions affected. I am sure that my hon. Friend would join me in paying tribute to the contribution that the company has made to the economy of Mid-Wales for nearly 20 years. It has made the reasons for its reluctant decision to close its Newtown operation entirely clear. It has not been arrived at lightly, but because it has no practicable alternative.
  My hon. Friend recognises that the decision to cease production at Newtown by the end of August 1981 was one for the company to take, on the basis of its commercial judgment of the future market position. Given the company's assessment, this is not a situation in which the Government can actively intervene. It is a matter for management, and management alone. The problems that the company have faced are shared by others whose business is to supply the needs of the United Kingdom vehicle industry.
  I need hardly remind the House that the car industry in Britain, France, the United States and elsewhere in the Western world is in recession and is struggling to survive severe financial losses. Consequently, component manufacturers are experiencing grave difficulties everywhere. Many are having to reduce their labour forces and to rationalise their operations to adjust to the situation and to improve their efficiency and productivity to compete and prosper when the car market revives.
  We have reason for deep regret when those painful realities result in closure of a plant that has served a

  1059
  company well and is of such vital importance to jobs in an area that has very few other large industrial employers. But we can hardly feel that it is altogether unexpected.
  Neither Mid-Wales nor any other area can be entirely isolated from the effects of the recession or exempted from the vulnerability of car component manufacturers and their imperatives of improving competitiveness and productivity by rationalisation.
  To attempt to persuade responsible industrialists to set aside their commercial judgment in favour of such a proposition would be no favour to anybody—and certainly not, in the long run, to Newtown, which has been successful not least because over the years it has faced economic change realistically and adaptably.
  The suggestion has been made in some quarters of indifference by the Government—a dogmatic rejection of intervention. That is a curious proposition in the context of the car component industry. But for the massive support being provided to British Leyland, car component companies throughout the country—including many providing major employment in Wales—would be facing a much bleaker future. The Government are backing BL—and thus the car component industry—to improve its efficiency. We are certainly not saying to BL "Improve your efficiency but do it without reducing your work force or rationalising your plants."
  Of course, we are concerned about the special problems of Mid-Wales and the serious effects of BRD's closure. As long ago as May 1980 the Welsh Office Industry Department discussed with the local management of the company the possibility of assistance under Section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 for any investment to safeguard employment, but the company was understandly not able to follow up that line.
  The Development Board for Rural Wales, as the agency responsible for the planned development of Newtown, reacted quickly to the firm's announcement of its closure plans. The chairman-designate of the board, together with his senior officers, met directors of the company on 3 March to hear in detail the reasons for the closure and to determine what scope there was for postponing or mitigating it. The company made it clear to the board that its decision would stand, but said that it was prepared to discuss the future of its premises in Newtown.
  If the company goes ahead with its closure plans, the board, with the other agencies, will take all the action open to it to meet the difficulties that are bound to be caused locally.
  At present the future use of the factory is a matter for BRD Ltd., since it owns the factory. If it decides to seek to sell or let it, the board will offer every assistance in helping to find suitable new industry to take it on.
  Meanwhile, the development board will continue to assist BRD Ltd. in finding alternative industrial uses for its factory. The board has also its normal programme of factory developments in Newtown. At present it has six factories, totalling 54,000 sq ft, completed and available
  1060
  for new industry, in addition to 78—of over 605,000 sq ft—already occupied and employing about 1,450 people. Five others, 15,000 sq ft in total, are under construction, and the possibility of another 12 units totalling 49,000 sq ft is under discussion.
  The board has maintained in Newtown a considerable programme of factory building and has succeeded in attracting a good range of industrial developments to set up there. Newtown has become a focus for the integrated development of employment, housing and social amenities in an area that has traditionally experienced depopulation from its rural communities. It has been, and continues to be, a growth point that is attractive to industry.
  As well as its other activities the board is in a position to offer advice to those seeking to set up business on their own account in the area. No doubt some of those unfortunately being made redundant will take advantage of that facility. The board, in addition, supports the training facilities of the area in a variety of ways.
  The facilities of the Welsh Office industry department are available in full measure to assist in the introduction of new employment into the area. I stress the determination of the department to do everything possible to help find an alternative occupier of the BRD factory if the premises become available for letting. My right hon. Friend will also make full use of section 7 assistance if that is deemed appropriate.
  The Manpower Services Commission has already made plans for a team of specialist advisers to be on hand during the period of rundown. They will be able to offer advice on prospects for employment and guidance on opportunities for retraining.
  Despite any special help and advice that the Government may be able to offer, I end by saying that the most important factor will be the state of the overall economy of Britain. We are determined that our policies to reduce inflation will be successful and provide the right climate for industrialists to invest in the future. It is essential to Mid-Wales, as it is to the rest of the United Kingdom, that these policies should succeed.
  In Committee earlier today we discussed the effects of the Budget and the measures that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced to help small businesses, and I will not go over the ground again now. My hon. Friend referred to the increase in petrol duty. We dealt with that matter in Committee, and it has also been dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We believe that we are creating the right conditions as a framework for industrial recovery and we all hope that Mid-Wales—as indeed the rest of Wales and the United Kingdom—will soon be able to move towards a period of more success and prosperity.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Twelve o'clock.

TRADE
  Norton Warburg
  Norton Warburg
  Companies House (Dispute)
  Companies House (Dispute)
  Anti-dumping Measures (White Goods)
  Anti-dumping Measures (White Goods)
  Royal Bank of Scotland (Merger)
  Royal Bank of Scotland (Merger)
  Exports
  Exports
  Statistical Information
  Statistical Information
  Seafarers (Deaths)
  Seafarers (Deaths)
  European Community (Anti-dumping)
  European Community (Anti-dumping)
  S. and W. Berisford Ltd. (Merger)
  S. and W. Berisford Ltd. (Merger)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mr. Albert Spanswick
  Mr. Albert Spanswick
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Community (Budget Refunds)
  European Community (Budget Refunds)
  American Textile Imports
  American Textile Imports
PRIME MINISTER
  Republic of Ireland (Joint Studies)
  Republic of Ireland (Joint Studies)
  Unemployment (Dundee)
  Unemployment (Dundee)
  Royal Wedding
  Royal Wedding
CIVIL SERVICE
  Bank of England
  Bank of England
  Supply of Information (Charges)
  Supply of Information (Charges)
  Re-employed Pensioners
  Re-employed Pensioners
  Pay Dispute
  Pay Dispute
  Manpower
  Manpower
  Civil Servants (Mileage Allowance)
  Civil Servants (Mileage Allowance)
TRANSPORT
  A42 (Castle Donnington)
  A42 (Castle Donnington)
  Heavy Lorries (Armitage Report)
  Heavy Lorries (Armitage Report)
  Rail Services (Cumbria)
  Rail Services (Cumbria)
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Railways (Southern Region)
  Railways (Southern Region)
  Railways (Safety)
  Railways (Safety)
  Traffic Offences (Fixed Penalties)
  Traffic Offences (Fixed Penalties)
  Railways (Electrification)
  Railways (Electrification)
  Leighton Linslade (Bypass)
  Leighton Linslade (Bypass)
  Road Construction (Expenditure)
  Road Construction (Expenditure)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Rural Areas (Petrol Prices)
  Rural Areas (Petrol Prices)
  British Railways
  British Railways
  British Railways (Corporate Plan)
  British Railways (Corporate Plan)
  Land Compensation Act 1973
  Land Compensation Act 1973
  Goods Vehicles (Taxation)
  Goods Vehicles (Taxation)
  Commuter Cycling
  Commuter Cycling
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Integrated Operations Experiment, Belfast
  Integrated Operations Experiment, Belfast
  Queen's University and New University
  Queen's University and New University
  Public Debt
  Public Debt
  Output and Productivity
  Output and Productivity
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Consolidated Fund
  Consolidated Fund
  Overseas Investment
  Overseas Investment
  Dry Dock (Londonderry)
  Dry Dock (Londonderry)
  Paediatric Consultants
  Paediatric Consultants
  De Lorean Motor Car
  De Lorean Motor Car
SCOTLAND
  Colleges of Education (Modern Studies)
  Colleges of Education (Modern Studies)
  Inverkip Power Station
  Inverkip Power Station
  Clydebank Enterprise Zone
  Clydebank Enterprise Zone
  Paediatric Consultants
  Paediatric Consultants
  Deputising General Practitoners
  Deputising General Practitoners
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Boundary Commissions
  Boundary Commissions
  Vietnamese Refugees (Hong Kong Visit)
  Vietnamese Refugees (Hong Kong Visit)
  Naturalisation
  Naturalisation
  Protection of Animals
  Protection of Animals
  Taxi Fares (Surcharge)
  Taxi Fares (Surcharge)
  British Nationality Bill
  British Nationality Bill
  Demonstration (Burton-on-Trent)
  Demonstration (Burton-on-Trent)
ENERGY
  Power Stations (Oil Consumption)
  Power Stations (Oil Consumption)
  Energy Prices
  Energy Prices
  Coal Industry Act 1980
  Coal Industry Act 1980
  Pit Closures
  Pit Closures
  Coal (Exports)
  Coal (Exports)
  Dutch Horticulturists (Gas Prices)
  Dutch Horticulturists (Gas Prices)
  Aluminium Smelters (Electricity Supply)
  Aluminium Smelters (Electricity Supply)
  Anthracite and Phurnacite
  Anthracite and Phurnacite
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
WALES
  Beef
  Beef
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Rates
  Rates
  Shorthold Tenancies (Rents)
  Shorthold Tenancies (Rents)
  Paediatric Consultants
  Paediatric Consultants
  Departmental Staff (Price Monitoring)
  Departmental Staff (Price Monitoring)
DEFENCE
  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital, Woolwich
  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital, Woolwich
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Northern Ireland Grand Committee
  Northern Ireland Grand Committee
  Member of Parliament (Mileage Allowance)
  Member of Parliament (Mileage Allowance)
INDUSTRY
  Redundancy Schemes
  Redundancy Schemes
  BAe146 Feeder Airliner
  BAe146 Feeder Airliner
EMPLOYMENT
  Training Opportunities Schemes
  Training Opportunities Schemes
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis (Compensation)
  Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis (Compensation)
  Wages Councils Act (Prosecutions)
  Wages Councils Act (Prosecutions)
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Deaf Persons
  Deaf Persons
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Drugs and Live Animals (Illegal Importation)
  Drugs and Live Animals (Illegal Importation)
  Beverages (Price Increases)
  Beverages (Price Increases)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  European Community (Price of Petrol)
  European Community (Price of Petrol)
  Scott Report
  Scott Report
  Nuclear Weapons Seminars (Fees)
  Nuclear Weapons Seminars (Fees)
  Company Car (Indexing of Value)
  Company Car (Indexing of Value)
  Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976
  Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Income Tax Payers
  Income Tax Payers
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Fuel Oil Duty
  Fuel Oil Duty
  Taxation
  Taxation
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Universities and Polytechnics (Cost)
  Universities and Polytechnics (Cost)
  Further Education Colleges (Catering)
  Further Education Colleges (Catering)
  School Curriculum
  School Curriculum
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  West Ham Football Club (Moscow Visit)
  West Ham Football Club (Moscow Visit)
  Passports
  Passports
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Vaccination
  Vaccination
  Royal National Institute for the Deaf
  Royal National Institute for the Deaf
  Paediatric Consultants
  Paediatric Consultants
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus
  Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus
  Perinatal and Neonatal Mortality
  Perinatal and Neonatal Mortality
  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Pregnancy (Drugs)
  Pregnancy (Drugs)
  Children Act 1975
  Children Act 1975
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fresh Foods (Cost)
  Fresh Foods (Cost)
  Dairy Cows
  Dairy Cows
  Milk
  Milk
  Milk Marketing Boards
  Milk Marketing Boards
  Dog Licences
  Dog Licences
  Badgers
  Badgers
ENVIRONMENT
  Government Cars
  Government Cars
  Council Tenants (Rent Subsidy)
  Council Tenants (Rent Subsidy)
  Rent Rebate
  Rent Rebate
  Leeds-Bradford Airport
  Leeds-Bradford Airport
  Hadrian's Wall
  Hadrian's Wall
  Racial Harassment
  Racial Harassment
  Housing Corporation
  Housing Corporation
  Broad Sanctuary (Conference Centre)
  Broad Sanctuary (Conference Centre)
ENERGY
  Home Insulation (Pensioner Households)
  Home Insulation (Pensioner Households)
TRANSPORT
  Armitage Report (Legislation)
  Armitage Report (Legislation)
  Bypass Programme
  Bypass Programme
  Double Track Railway Lines
  Double Track Railway Lines
  Night Driving
  Night Driving
  British Railways
  British Railways
  Public Transport (Expenditure)
  Public Transport (Expenditure)
  Energy Saving
  Energy Saving
  Integrated Transport System
  Integrated Transport System
  National Transport Planning Authority
  National Transport Planning Authority
  Provisional Licence Holders (Physical Handicaps)
  Provisional Licence Holders (Physical Handicaps)
  Alloy Wheels (Tests)
  Alloy Wheels (Tests)
  Nuclear Materials (Carriage by Rail)
  Nuclear Materials (Carriage by Rail)
  Members (Correspondence)
  Members (Correspondence)
  Passenger Railway Support
  Passenger Railway Support

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.
The Viscount Mackintosh of Halifax—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Housing Legislation: Shorthold Provisions
Baroness Dudley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps I should say that I have two flats which are now up to be sold.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider introducing legislation to extend the present law enabling short-term leases of flats and houses to be granted without conferring on the tenant security of tenure after the expiry of the lease.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, the shorthold provisions of the Housing Act 1980, which came into force on 28th November, already allow this. Under shorthold, landlords have an absolute right to regain possession at the end of the fixed term.
Baroness Dudley: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask this Question: I should like to know whether any help can be given to people who bought their houses some time ago and hoped to retire to them and who now find themselves with sitting tenants paying rents so small that in some cases the repairs cost more than the rents?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, we said in the manifesto that it was not the intention to make shorthold provisions retrospective, and I fear that we have to stay with that. I have great sympathy with the problem that my noble friend raises; but I see no way in which we can go back on that commitment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have been told that in Surrey the rent officer is working overtime to work out the fair rents under these shorthold tenancies, which not only shows that the demand is there—and it is a large demand—but also shows that there have been very satisfactory lets to the benefit of both sides?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his helpful comment. I know of the situation to which he refers.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although some such provisions as these shorthold tenancies are indeed necessary to put right
1158
many things which were wrong with the previous arrangements, many solicitors are advising their clients against parting with their properties on short-hold tenancies as there are in fact a great number of snags? Is there any hope that some amendments can be made to the arrangement so that these tenancies may become more popular?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am not aware of the snags to which the noble Viscount refers. Possibly the greatest concern of those who are contemplating making this kind of accommodation available is the fact that the Labour Party have said that they will do away with this form of tenancy. This is understandably a matter of concern for those who would make such accommodation available. It is very sad because it only denies rented accommodation to such people. Having said that, I think that there is also the whole matter of the fair rent regulations and laws that exist at the present time. It is a matter which is of much concern, because if we do not make this kind of accommodation available, what will happen to the future of the private rented sector?

Petrol Tax Increase: OPEC Prices
2.40 p.m.
Lord Glenkinglas: 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 the proposed budget increase of 20p on a gallon of petrol is likely to encourage the OPEC countries to believe in restraint in their demands for higher prices, and if so for what reason.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, we have no reason to believe that the 20p increase in duty on a United Kingdom gallon of petrol will influence OPEC prices. In real terms, the 20p increase has restored petrol duty to just under its November 1973 level.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that reply? May I ask him whether he is aware that during the past 10 years I have had to visit almost all the big oil-producing countries in one official capacity or another, and on almost every occasion I have been chided for the hypocrisy of succeeding Governments in blaming the OPEC countries for increasing the price of oil when most of the price was in fact increased by the Governments of the day in their own countries? Is my noble friend also aware that I have to visit Dubai on Friday and I was hoping for a helpful reply?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am always delighted to try to help my noble and extremely experienced friend with his travels. The fact remains that crude oil prices have risen by about 1,800 per cent. since 1973, and, as I have said, in real terms this duty increase has only restored petrol duty to the level it had reached before 1973.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is it not the case that the OPEC countries continually call for restraint in the use of oil by the industrialised countries? This 20p on a gallon of petrol ought to fit in with that demand and desire by the OPEC countries.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am sure that the OPEC countries will be pleased to see that the United Kingdom is moving towards economic pricing.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, were the figures stated in reply to the question a measure of the impact of inflation?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the figures I gave are the indications of the inflation that has occurred.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, since we are one of the world's largest oil producers, why are we not an OPEC country? Would it not be much nicer to decide to be an OPEC country instead of a Common Market one?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether the alliances of the United Kingdom in international diplomatic terms quite fall within the remit of the Question.

Somalia and Ethiopia: Refugee Problem
2.44 p.m.
The Marquess of Ailsa: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the simultaneous appeals from Somalia and Ethiopia, at a time of growing tension in the Gulf/Indian Ocean region, any initiative could be taken by Great Britain to promote talks between the Governments of Somalia and Ethiopia, aimed at resolving the refugee and other mutual problems which continue to destabilise the Horn of Africa.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Government are concerned at the continuing tensions between Ethiopia and Somalia and would welcome a return to stability in the Horn. We regard the Organisation of African Unity as the body best suited to resolve disputes between African states. We are anxious to see early progress in alleviating the region's tragic refugee problem, and will be represented at the International Conference on Assistance to Refugees in Africa, to be held in Geneva in April.
The Marquess of Ailsa: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply.
Lord Barnby: My Lords, while aid has been given in respect of refugees from Somalia, whose problem is very serious, would not the Minister feel that, in view of our long-standing responsibilities for Somalia, a larger amount of aid for the refugees from there would be more justified than aid which has been given in many other directions?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we have donated £1 million towards refugee relief in Somalia during 1980–81. That comprised 5,000 tonnes of food aid and the balance in cash. We have also recently decided to offer a further 11,000 tonnes of cereal worth over £1 million and some £30,000 to finance the Save the Children Fund medical team in Somalia. In addition there is, of course, our European Community commitment.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that there are in that part of Somalia bordering on the Ogaden, something in the neighbourhood of 1½ million refugees or displaced persons, Somalis, who represent a great problem both financially and materially to the Somali Government?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I can agree with my noble friend. We estimate there are about 800,000 Ethiopian refugees in camps in Somalia and up to another 600,000 outside the camps.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, the noble Minister has referred to the aid the Government have agreed should be sent to this stricken part of Africa. May I ask whether he feels that in all the circumstances the aid that is being sent is adequate, or anywhere near adequate, to the need?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we think it is a very sizeable contribution on our behalf. May I remind the noble Lord that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is introducing a debate later this evening on the same subject?

North-South Economic Relations: Mexico Summit
2.46 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the summit meeting on North-South economic relations has been postponed.
The Earl of Avon: Yes, my Lords. The co-sponsors of the proposed Mexico Summit meeting have postponed the meeting from June, the date originally suggested, until 22nd and 23rd October.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that this is due to the fact that President Reagan had declined to attend a meeting before the autumn and was supported in that by our Prime Minister? May I also ask: does not delay seriously prejudice the chances of success of the summit meeting?—because it was timed to take place in June before the meeting of the Western Heads of State in Canada in July, where its findings would have been the first item on the agenda. Without these preliminary discussions, is there not a danger that both sides may formulate conditions which will cause confrontation rather than co-operation?
The Earl of Avon: No, my Lords. We understand that the co-sponsors decided on postponement to meet the wishes of other participants to take part in substantive preparations for the summit, and to make it easier for the United States to attend. There will be a further preparatory meeting which will take place in Mexico at Foreign Minister level on 1st and 2nd August, and all the participants will be there.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, is the noble Earl able to confirm that Chancellor Kreisky of Austria has invited the Soviet Union to attend? Further, is the noble Earl aware of any reply to that invitation? Also, is it a fact that China has indicated a readiness to attend but will not be invited if the Soviet Union attends? Is it not very desirable that both these countries should be present?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the sponsors have indeed invited China and also the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. However, so far as the noble Lord's supplementary point is concerned—that one will not come if the other does—I have no advance knowledge.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that this conference was originally planned for this month, then postponed until June and has now been postponed until October? Is he further aware that the Brandt Report has now been published for 12 months, which would give any Government the opportunity of preparing itself to make a response, and does it not suggest that this postponement is yet another example of the lack of political will which killed the Pearson Report over 10 years ago?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord's last supposition. I think all noble Lords will agree that conferences of this nature take a long time to set up, and unless they are set up with good preparation they are liable to stumble anyway. Therefore it is much better to have preparation of this nature.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, the Minister has said that the conference will last for only two days. Within that period is it possible for a thorough discussion to take place, resulting in recommendations? Would the Government urge that there should be a continuing procedure of negotiations, so that practical results can be achieved?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I think I have tried to indicate already, the co-sponsors are working on the agenda and the preparatory work prior to the conference. The Foreign Secretaries' Meeting on 1st and 2nd August will greatly help on the road to preparation.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, apart from the meeting in August, which post-dates the meeting in June, may I ask the Minister to convey to his right honourable friend the feeling on both sides of the House that between now and June—if June is, in evitably, the date of this conference—there should be very close consultation with other participants in that meeting, particularly with the United States of America, whose presence and whose participation in such a
1162
conference, whenever it is held, is absolutely vital? May I repeat the point that between now and June there should be diplomatic and other close consultation with the prospective participants in the conference?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks on the subject, which know are very wise. I will indeed convey them to my right honourable friend, and I am sure that he will take note.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the continued postponement of this conference causes great concern to British industry, since the Brandt Report is concerned not simply with aid but with the development of trade between North and South? The continued postponement can have serious consequences for industrial regeneration in this country.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's remark.

European Council: Maastricht
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Carrington will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Council, Maastricht.
Allied Irish Banks Bill
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Agriculture
2.52 p.m.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough rose to call attention to the problems facing British agriculture; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be thought an appropriate time to discuss this Motion, as negotiations are at present in progress regarding CAP prices, and there has not been an agricultural debate in your Lordships' House for some time. I must draw attention to the fact that time allows for an average of only seven or eight minutes per speaker, if we are to get through the list for the debate in two and a half hours and to allow the Minister to reply. I must myself declare an interest as a farmer.
I know that the House will be particularly looking forward to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Elphinstone. He is well qualified to speak, having been trained at the Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, with its wide ranging and comprehensive agricultural courses. He is a successful arable farmer from the heartlands of Scotland and joins a lot of other Scottish farmers in your Lordships' House, such as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. But I advise him to pay no attention if he ever hears people calling for home rule for England! The House will listen with great interest to his speech.
Farming net income has declined by 50 per cent. over the last four years, having declined by 24 per cent. in real terms in 1980 alone. The fall has been quite simply because the prices of goods and services used by farmers have risen much faster than the prices which they have received for their products—14 per cent. against 6 per cent. The fall was most marked on cattle and sheep farms in the lowlands, as well as in the hill and upland areas. Without any improvement in prices, the ability of some farmers to continue to survive by increasing their level of production will soon be overtaken by the squeeze and output will start to suffer.
More and more farmers keep going only by borrowing from the bank and the 1980 level of overdrafts was some 30 per cent. above the 1979 level, which was 70 per cent. above the 1978 level. Farmers therefore now work largely for the banks. Little wonder that livestock breeding numbers have reduced in recent years, while European herds have been expanding, and thereby our productive base has been disappearing. Profits are inadequate or non-existent and, as money is not available, capital investment in fixed assets declined by 10 per cent. in 1980. There has been a corresponding sharp decline in applications for grants.
Investment in plant, machinery and vehicles fell by 23 per cent. in volume from 1979 levels. Consequently, unemployment in the agricultural machinery industry doubled, while that in the tractor industry rose by 150 per cent. The number of farms in the United Kingdom continued to decline, with 5 per cent. fewer than five years ago. Small farms can no longer support a family, and yet their land price on sale remains far above economic reality. There is also a situation where smaller farms cannot afford to employ labour, and the farmer has to work longer hours and receive less reward than any workers' union would allow for its members.
Dairying is the biggest farm enterprise and the Commission's proposals, that our dairy farmers should, in effect, have to pay for surpluses of milk abroad when France is giving illegal aids to its producers, are certainly not acceptable. The Commission's proposals appear to penalise our intensive and efficient milk units, while supporting the small and inefficient producers on the Continent—a totally wealth reducing exercise.
With regard to the hills, the value of output and average incomes have fallen markedly. This seems particularly so in the North in 1979–80, and the forecast for 1980–81 is further falls in net incomes overall. This seems to be in spite of the increase in the hill livestock compensatory allowances; though the sheep order, which was laid before the House on 28th November, provided a level of support that will certainly be of help to hill farmers and was a good bargain with the Community.
The cereals co-responsibility proposals are unacceptable. There are, after all, no abundant world supplies, nor evidence of an EEC structural surplus. Further, cereals store well and can easily be sold on world markets. The need for co-responsibility in oil seeds is doubtful and the standard quantity of 2·2 million tonnes is likely to be exceeded in 1981. Why should co-responsibility be appropriate for a
1164
crop of which the EEC is still a large importer? I hope that other noble Lords will take up the problem of individual commodities in more detail.
Continental farms are also suffering to some extent, but they have not had such a long period of poor results to cope with and the success of the present negotiations on price increases is vital if many British farms are to survive in cultivation. The original Commission proposal of 7½ per cent. went only halfway to meet the 15 per cent. price increase which was needed to sustain reasonable farm incomes in efficient farms on the Continent. But, allied to the proposal to reduce the MCAs by five points. 7½ per cent. would have resulted in an overall fall in real incomes averaging all crops for United Kingdom farms.
Our MCAs have already been reduced by six points, due to the recent adjustment in the European currency unit central rate, and yet the Commission still propose a further five points reduction. Such a green pound revaluation would act severely on our farms and would reduce the cost of living by only about ¼ per cent., and reduce our payments to the EEC budget by only about £12 million in 1981. Positive MCAs have emerged, not because of our trading strength but because of our oil strength. If sterling remains strong, only a reduced inflation rate compared with the EEC average could justify a revaluation of the green pound. The Minister must, therefore, continue to resist revaluation, if our competitive position to sell against European produce is not to be destroyed. However, there is hope in the Commission's latest thoughts of a 10 or 12 per cent. price increase, and perhaps the Government will be able to quantify the effect of such a figure on the farmers and on the housewife.
But farm price increases all have to be paid for. We must remember that the agreement to cut Britain's budget bill runs only for two years. There is no reason to suppose that Britain's problems of large food imports will have gone by then. Yet while reform of the CAP is called for by all, there are no signs of any positive proposals being put forward. The situation where France, one of the
richest of the EEC countries with 27 per cent. of EEC farm output, has its farm prices subsidised to a generous extent by British contribution, cannot be allowed to last for ever. If not before, the crunch; will come when the 1 per cent. VAT limit is reached. This could happen in 1982 or 1983. Whatever problems we have now will be as nothing when Spain as well as Portugal and Greece have joined the Market. Then there will be little hope of keeping to the 1 per cent. VAT rate. Meanwhile, the guidance fund to provide for farm modernisation has now shrunk from 30 per cent. to 5 per cent. of the EEC farm fund which has been overwhelmed by the size of the guarantee payments.
The biggest problem for the EEC is the support of small farms, and hill and marginal areas. Yet these small farms have to be maintained to preserve the population structure of the countryside. Also, the hill farms in Britain provide half our beef-cow herd and our breeding sheep flock. The problems of maintaining small farms will remain for ever and will get worse as larger farms for ever become more efficient. Last month in the forestry debate we heard of the desirability of integrating forestry with hill

1165
sheep farms, planting up the high and far-off land so that forestry should eventually provide an annual income for the sheep farmer in addition to his hill stock. Furthermore, the lesser but more concentrated acreage left for sheep would, as has been proved in areas like Dumfries, provide an equal or better output, and the need for subsidy would be reduced.
Is this not therefore the time for the Government to offer farmers the use of their work experience labour to plant up, with the farmers' help and labour, successive plantations so that the sheep farmer may eventually become an annual timber producer, needing less support from the CAP, providing much needed timber and making good use of the presently unemployed? Planting is labour-intensive and the work requires young trees, stakes and wire, the production of which itself is fairly labour-intensive.
But we must not just look to see what subsidies we can gain now and in the future. We must look to see what we can do to help ourselves. One of the most important yet most neglected aspects of farming, and in particular food production, is marketing. Many British producers have a high quality and grading discipline, but far too many do not. This point was well made by Sir John Sainsbury who said that there should be a greater penalty for growers who cheat the system by sloppy grading of their produce which then compares badly with the strictly graded imported produce. The success of Danish bacon, sold on reliability of quality, is a very good example. France and Germany both have central bodies to encourage good marketing for agricultural produce. Perhaps Britain should have a similar organisation. Such an organisation, it is claimed, would help to counter some of the inroads into this country of foreign produce and help sales of our produce abroad.
I hope we shall hear other positive ideas in this debate, for it is surely better to aim at self-help, where possible, than to argue about hand-outs. The benefits to Britain of membership of the Common Market are indisputable, but as a large importer of food we pay high prices, whether to featherbed the small continental farmer or to buy over the threshold from outside the Community. Along with Germany, we provide a large proportion of the CAP fund to bear 100 per cent. of the cost of propping up the farmers. The time has come for national exchequers to share the burden. This cost will concentrate the mind of national Governments to try to keep the rising costs of the CAP under better control. My Lords, I beg to move.
3.5 p.m.
Lord Peart: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity again to debate agriculture. I wish this debate had been a little later, when the Minister has returned from Europe and when we know what has or has not been achieved. Nevertheless, I am glad to have the opportunity to echo some of the difficulties which are affecting the farming community. I have here a document which was presented to me by the National Farmers' Union. It was partly quoted by the noble Lord opposite. It is an excellent document.
The NFU believe that agriculture is facing a crisis and that the decline of 24 per cent. in real terms in 1980 alone is endangering the future of British agriculture and of our domestic food supplies, and is
1166
creating serious problems in the industries which supply agriculture. All of the subsidiaries—for instance, the engineering sections of different firms—are affected. The crisis in our major industry is important, but I believe that in the end we shall triumph over the difficulties.
The package of EEC farm prices and related measures which was put forward for 1981–82 by the Commission on 18th February fails completely to meet the need for a substantial increase in United Kingdom farm prices. The adoption of the package would be disastrous for the industry. We must consider the importance of our industry. I have here some figures which show what can be achieved and what has been achieved over a long period of time. We produce more than most countries. Our agriculture is perhaps the most efficient in the world. Our scientific staff, who are important, are the envy of the world. I was at a reception the other evening for the President of Nigeria at which he emphasised the importance in agriculture of soil conservation. We, the British, must be proud of having given the lead in this and many other directions throughout the world. I hope that we shall continue to do so.
I am sorry to have to strike a sour note at this point. I have here an extract from Big Farm Weekly of 12th February 1981. The heading is, "New axe over ADAS". The report says:
"A significant step towards further staff cuts in ADAS and other departments is due to be taken by the Ministry of Agriculture's senior policy-making group, the Management Board, tomorrow (Friday).
"The cuts will be based on proposals drawn up last month by department heads as the first move in reducing staff numbers by almost 2,000 (one-sixth) by 1984. The cuts come on top of those already made within ADAS under the reorganisation of the regions and early retirements first reported in BFW Jan 1.
"A continuing fear in ADAS is that professional, scientific and technical staff are being excessively weakened in relation to the administrative and executive grades. With only three ADAS representatives on the twelve-man management board, and a proposal now before the Minister to reduce this to one, morale among ADAS staff in the regions is said to be lower than at any time since the reorganisation of the old NAAS into ADAS.
"'The cuts already made in research and development suggest that the advisory service always gets the brunt of the staff reductions ', an official ADAS staff representative said this week.
"Meanwhile the impression among advisers in regional offices that they are getting a raw deal relative to other Ministry departments seems to be growing, with some claiming that even their clerical staff are being taken away from them.
"However, a reduction of clerical services within ADAS relative to other departments was denied by a senior Ministry spokesman this week ".
I want the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to put this point to his Minister. There must be no cutting down on this major advisory service. I can remember when I was succeeded by a Conservative Minister—overnight part of the advisory service was affected. It is one of our great achievements to have created an organisation which emerged out of the war, certainly; but over a long period of time successive Ministers have always defended it. The noble Earl knows ADAS well and is always a good friend of agriculture. He must look at this sympathetically.
That is one example, but there is another problem which affects ADAS; that is, the reorganisation of the regions. For example, in the northern region, from which I come, and where we have a great centre in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, that body is to be cut out

1167
altogether and is to be transferred down to Leeds. At this time, when we need to stimulate activity in the regions, that is an action which is a tragedy. I cannot understand why MAFF are doing this. It does not just apply to a great agricultural organisation which is being transferred to Leeds in Yorkshire; the same thing is going to happen in Wales. Aberystwyth, which is the great centre of Welsh agriculture; their main activities are going to be taken to Cardiff. I believe that is wrong. Here is an organisation which again is the envy of the world. We all know about the grassland developments in that part—and indeed other matters. Here are two great areas which are of vital importance to agriculture. Why make these changes now? Why should the axe fall now on this great service which has done so much? That is really what I want to drive home today.
I pay tribute to what the Government are doing. I have here a press notice which says:
"Lord Ferrers urges United Kingdom industry to grasp opportunities offered by agricultural development in South-East Asia".
Who is going to do that? If we are going to approve a policy which the Ministry of Agriculture thinks is important, we should make certain that there is no cutting down on this fine advisory service which we have created over a long period. I am glad that the noble Lord has said that, as a result of what he heard on his tour abroad, in those countries there are developing great opportunities for British business. It is good policy for Britain to build up our resources, to show the world what we have done in agriculture and to show that our British technical and management expertise in agriculture, in processing, in marketing and in research can have a valuable role to play. That is why so many countries want our experts in order to improve the productivity of agriculture in the countries concerned.
If I may just quote some figures—and I will not take up too much time because this is a short debate. We must stress the importance of British farming because a lot of people are still critical of British farming. I do not know why. They object to what they call "subsidy payments", but I believe that successive policies over a long period of time have produced an industry which is second to none. Perhaps I may quote Richard Butler, who has done remarkably well, succeeding a distinguished father. He said:
"British farming is one of our nation's greatest assets. In the mid-1970s output from British farms was three times the turnover of the coal industry. Four times that of British Rail. We produce very much more food than Canada. We produce as much as Australia and New Zealand combined. Neither North Sea oil nor our coal reserves are our only hope of economic salvation. British agriculture is a resource of at least equal importance. The former are finite resources, whereas agriculture is a resource which should be perpetual. It is a question of priorities. We can survive without oil or coal; we cannot without food".
When I was first made a humble Parliamentary Private Secretary, I remember going back to my constituency. A miner said to me, "Fred, why are you taking an interest in agriculture? This is an industrial seat". My reply to him was, "Don't you eat?" There was nothing said after that. I believe that is something which all must think about. Britain has attained 70 per cent. self-sufficiency in a temperate
1168
type of food production. We can satisfy our consumer demands for eggs and fresh milk; five-sixths of our meat and most of our fresh vegetables. Yet, of course, we spend £2,500 million a year buying imported food which we can grow ourselves. I think that must be put right. The role of British farming as an import saver is highly significant, and yet it could be improved.
After all, our farming communities are large employers of labour. An expansion of home agriculture is good for the national economy and a sound investment, not only for the farmer but for all food consumers. As to the Market, I take the view that we cannot leave. I used to be very critical about the Community but I believe that in the present circumstances we should not contemplate leaving. Our role there is to see what we can achieve, and in all fairness to the Minister I believe that he is doing a very good job. So we must be as ruthless as our EEC partners, and occasionally even more ruthless than we have ever contemplated.
I believe that in this short debate we should highlight home production and our role in Europe. But I hope that at some later stage, three or four weeks from now when the Minister returns from Brussels, we shall be able to have a much bigger debate than we are having today. However, I have given my point of view and I hope that the speeches which will follow will be as brief as I have tried to make mine.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask him whether it would not be true to say that, when it comes to comparing it with the success of the EEC, we have played down the success of our own agriculture? We have lost out on that.
Lord Peart: My Lords, wherever I have been, even in the EEC, I have stood for British agriculture; there is no question about that. I know that the present Minister is doing so, and I believe that other Ministers have done it. Certainly it is one of our greatest industries.
3.18 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, for introducing this debate at this time, because I think it is useful for the Minister to have the support of this House in the battles ahead. I hate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Peart, but I think it is a very good time to have the debate because of that very fact, and I trust it will influence the Minister and support him in the very tough battle that he will have. I am particularly glad to speak in this debate just before the maiden speech of my noble neighbour, Lord Elphinstone, who farms down the Howe of Strathmore from me. It is excellent country and rather well farmed, much better than my land is; similarly, I am sure that his speech will be very much better than mine, and I look forward with enormous pleasure to hearing it.
I do not think that one can expand a great deal on what the noble Lord who opened the debate said about agriculture. One can only back it up. The fact is that agriculture is in an extraordinarily bad way. Even I myself started the last year rather complacent about what a clever chap I was, and in one account

1169
I actually had a little money, but I am afraid that at the present day that no longer applies. The last year has been a disastrous year for the good land, particularly for fruit farmers. But it is not of the good land and the reasonably sized farms that we should talk. We should be talking about the vast mass of production which comes from farmers throughout the country in units which are not necessarily large, or the best sized, but which have done a tremendous job. They are suffering and suffering really badly.
Recently I saw one extraordinary figure relating to Scottish agriculture which highlighted exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, said—that farmers are working for the banks. In fact, in Scotland the total amount paid in interest was two and a half times the net income last year. These are horrifying figures, and they show exactly the sort of thing that is happening to a very large number of farmers throughout Scotland, and England too. One of the worst features of the whole affair is that, with the high interest rates, the people who have been hardest hit have been the farmers who have been trying to modernise and have spent money bringing their farms up-to-date; they are now borrowing money to pay the interest which they have incurred from trying to be more efficient and developing their production to the benefit of the country.
There is also no doubt that the other great indicator is beginning to show in spite of the outside factors. By that I mean the price of land. The price of land is falling singnificantly in England, and more than significantly in the north of Scotland, where it has almost halved. The number of farms for sale is another indication of the general state of farming. It is one indication which people always ask about when they hear about the high prices being paid for farms. There is now no question but that those prices are coining down.
There is one thing I would like to do in this debate and that it is to dispel the idea that we are sitting in a world of plenty and that food for the population of these islands is to be had very easily by buying it from abroad. I was looking at some figures this morning and I thought them quite significant. They are from the Department of Agriculture in the United States, their figures for world production and consumption of cereals, and we are talking about total grains, including rice. In 1973–4 production was 1,370 million tonnes, which is a lot of grain. It rose in 1978–79 to 1,531 million tonnes, but consumption followed it, from 1,364 million tonnes in 1973–4 until six years later it was 1,487 million tonnes. That is 20 million tonnes a year by which consumption is increasing in the world. We all know that world reserves at the moment are nearly down from the 1973–4 level. I do not think we are sitting in a safe world, where Britain can buy her requirements at will, when in fact the consumption of grain in the world is going up by more than the total production of grain in the British Isles. The most we have produced is 19 million tonnes, and consumption is rising at 20 million tonnes a year. These are fantastic figures.
The other thing I should like to say is that the EEC, the CAP, has done a terrific job in making European agriculture make a contribution to the food of the world. There are one or two very interesting figures. I shall not quote many, but I do think it is significant
1170
that the total EEC production of grain in the last 20 years has increased by 61 per cent., and that off a slightly smaller acreage than we have today. This shows a tremendous increase in efficiency, and it also shows a tremendous confidence on the part of the farmers of Europe in the CAP. I have no doubt at all that, for all its faults, the CAP has done a remarkable job, not for the farmers but for the people of Europe as a whole.
I know that this is a short debate and I have calculated the period that everyone can speak, and mine is due to end in two minutes' time. So I must say what I think should be done. First of all, I think that the Government should pull out all the stops; in other words, bring in all the national subsidies they are allowed to pay under EEC rules to the hills and the marginal country. They are really suffering hard and we are going to lose a large number of communities unless they are helped. There is already the ability to double the suckler cow subsidy, and for expenditure of relatively little money the Government could preserve a very valuable source of the breeding stock which we require in farming in this country.
I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, mentioned the integration of forestry and agriculture, because again subsidies to integrate our forestry with hill farming, as he suggested, could be extremely valuable and get us a long-term asset that we badly need. The other thing that is absolutely vital—and the two go together and I do not believe that they differ—is that we really must have a further drop in interest rates. It is absolute nonsense that producers should constantly be paying out money to the rentiers: I do not believe that that is anything other than inflationery. It cannot be right that you hammer producers in order to pay money to the bankers. We have got to get interest rates down. And of course, along with this, we have got to get inflation down. I shall not go into matters of incomes policies and other things, but surely there must be methods other than the sledgehammer we appear to be using at the moment. But of course, inflation, interest rates and other things have done more harm to agriculture than any other single factor.
I end by saying that we have got to back the Minister in his efforts in Brussels all we can. At present, I understand, the Commission are proposing only about an 8 per cent. rise, and with it they are proposing a revaluation of the green pound, which would in fact wipe out any rise for British farmers. That is totally intolerable. I was very glad, at a meeting of the EEC sub-committee on agriculture the other day, to hear the Minister of Agriculture—who made an excellent job, I may say—catogorically say that he could not have a revaluation of the pound and that farming required the rise the Commission were proposing the very least. He said that he was backing the rise, and he appreciated that it meant that farmers were going to take another drop in income and contribute fodder to the fight against inflation. Nevertheless, I think some figure round about that, without any revaluation, is totally necessary for British farming.
I must mention one or two other things before I close. First of all, I do think the Minister should back the super levy—that is, the levy which will be placed on extra milk produced in the country where it was pro-

1171
duced. I think this is the only sensible levy, to place the responsibility for producing surplus on the area that produces it, and that without exception. If there is to be a levy, then there must be no exemptions, which would totally destroy its purpose.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is the noble Lord a dairy farmer?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: No, my Lords, I am happy to tell the noble Earl that I am not a dairy farmer. I gave that up 10 years ago because I was tired of pulling cows for 20 years and I was determined to die a decent fellow fattening beef! Therefore, I believe that we must back the Minister very hard in his fight.
There are many other things that we should do, one of which is that we should speed up the procedures in the EEC against, for example, surplus dumping. Scottish farmers—I am a fruit farmer—have suffered very much from the dumping of foreign pulp, especially the dumping of iron curtain country pulp in this country. My Lords, I have said enough.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Elphinstone: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for their very kind words. When I first joined your Lordships' House I was by far and away the youngest member. It has taken me, I regret, five years to pluck up the confidence to stand up in your Lordships' House and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me as I speak for the first time.
To declare my interest in this debate, I must begin by saying that I am, indeed, a farmer. Whether I am as successful as the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, has suggested I am not sure, but I rely for my daily bread upon the farming business. I speak today having made two assumptions which I hope are acceptable. The first is that the farming industry is little different from any of our other major national industries, and I feel that it is a mistake to treat is as a separate case. Secondly, I think we must accept that times are by no means easy in this industry which encompasses our nation. In common with many other situations, times are indeed hard.
I should like to suggest to your Lordships that two very different situations exist within the industry at present. These differences cut across the normal lines of demarcation between the arable and the stock farmer, between the hill and the low ground farmer, and between the large-scale and the small farmer.
We have in this country on the one hand the ordinary, traditional agriculturalist—a man cautious and conservative in his approach. As often as not he runs a family unit, employing a mixed farming system which varies little as the years go by. It is not within his business system to borrow money, and he is, therefore, rarely beholden to the moneylenders. He is a man, who, if the worst comes to the worst, can, so to speak, batten down the hatches and survive. On the other hand we have a counterpart to the traditionalist, whose outlook is very different. He has considered it his job to expand and intensify his enterprise, which he
1172
has been urged to do by successive Governments over the years. Recently, for example, we have had the two papers, Food from our Own Resources, which strongly persuaded farmers that, in their own and in the national interest, they must invest in improving their production.
A number of the more ambitious among the agricultural community have taken heed of these encouragements, and in order to expand they have borrowed both from the banks and from the longer term mortgagors. The banking community have not been hesitant to join in this dance, being only too happy to lend against ever increasing land values. Indeed, the figures, as has already been suggested, show agricultural borrowings having risen at 30 per cent. per annum steadily over the last three years. I think it needs no illustrations to suggest that this section of the community, who have responded to the call of Government to enlarge their production, are now finding themselves in a very vulnerable situation. As with other industries, they are being pinched unmercifully between rising costs, high interest rates and static product prices.
On top of this, it is now being suggested that, in order to cut EEC surpluses, co-responsibility levies be raised on some products—it seems that we are now being asked not to produce so much. This will cause added distress to a section of the industry which had faith in Government suggestions that they would be rewarded for following the expansionist line. By following this course, as it turns out, the enterprising farmer has, in some cases, put his business in jeopardy. I am not suggesting that the industry is heading for an imminent collapse; however, it will become increasingly difficult for Governments to enter into honest discussions with the farming industry regarding future requirements. Any further requests may well fall on deaf ears.
Confidence is at a low ebb; the future still looks bleak. The industry needs guidance as to the direction in which it should develop in the future. Can it afford to invest even more money with any certainty of a commercial return, or will this lead to further financial strain and added surpluses? We need answers to these and other questions, and, if the Government wish to restore the confidence of our industry in the future, now must be the time to ensure that the reward is given to those who placed their faith and their money behind the exhortations of Governments in the past.

European Council: Maastricht
3.36 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Carrington): My Lords, I hesitate to come between the admirable speech that my noble friend has just made, which I know your Lordships have greatly welcomed, and the proper congratulations which are due to him, but I would ask your Lordships' permission to repeat a Statement which the Prime Minister is making in another place and I shall do so in her own words. The Statement reads as follows:
"I will make a Statement about the European Council meeting in Maastricht which I attended on Monday and Tuesday.
"The discussions at the meeting covered a wide range of issues, both Community issues and those relating to foreign policy co-operation. There was no formal communiqué but a number of statements were agreed and the presidency on its authority drew certain conclusions. I have placed copies of all these texts in the Library of the House.
"The main themes of the meeting were the economic and social problems confronting the Community; fisheries; and Poland.
"On the first subject, all those present emphasised the need to continue the fight against inflation through the pursuit of sound monetary policies. We agreed on the need to encourage productive investment, particularly in the sectors of high technology and innovative enterprise. We all share the deep concern at the high and rising rate of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment in member countries. We determined to make the best possible use of existing funds and financial mechanisms, among other things, in providing advanced technological training and education for youth. The clear and unanimous view was expressed that short-term demand stimuli would be ineffective.
"On fisheries, there was an attempt to deal with outstanding agreements with Canada and the Faroes in isolation but the measures to improve the fish marketing arrangements which were offered as a quid pro quo did not in my view provide sufficient protection to our industry. I insisted and it was agreed that it would be much better to deal with these external fisheries questions in the context of an overall fisheries settlement, as we have been trying to do for so long. It was therefore decided that the Fisheries Council should meet on Friday of this week to try to reach agreement.
"In our view, agreement on an overall settlement was close in the Fisheries Council last December. If each and every member now has a genuine willingness to settle, it should be possible to find solutions. For our part, we are seeking early agreement on a basis which will secure the vital interests of our own fishing industry.
"The Heads of State and Government decided unanimously to confirm the status quo in regard to the provisional places of work of the European Institutions.
"The third main subject was Poland, where the events of the past few days had naturally caused us concern. Our message once again was that the problems of Poland are for the Polish people to resolve: any other attitude than this could have the gravest consequences for international relations in Europe and worldwide. So far as the economic situation in Poland is concerned, we expressed the readiness of our Governments to continue, in conjunction with others and within the limits of our means, to contribute to the recovery of the Polish economy thereby complementing the efforts of the Polish people itself.
"The Council adopted statements on a number of other political subjects. We took note of the progress registered so far by the Netherlands presidency in following up the Venice Declaration of June 1980 on the Middle East. We endorsed the statement made last week by the President of the
1174
UN Security Council in support of the United Nations force in the Lebanon, to which some of our European partners contribute. We pledged our support for any initiative likely to contribute to the restoration of Afghanistan as an independent, non-aligned and neutral state. And, finally, we congratulated the people of Spain on their defeat of the recent challenge to democracy in a country which in due course we look forward to welcoming as a member of the European Community.
"This meeting enabled the Heads of Government to have a businesslike discussion and to reaffirm their determination to work together in tackling the major issues facing their Governments".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary for this Statement. We find the paragraph on unemployment particularly among young people vague and disappointing. Apparently, no progress has been made since the last summit in fashioning new and effective policies to deal with this scourge which is afflicting all member states of the Community. This is most disquieting as some members of the Community more than others have reason to remember what mass unemployment, especially among young people, led to in Central Europe in the late 1930s.
On fisheries, we must of course await the outcome of the Fisheries Council on Friday, but we should be glad to know a little more about the Government's intentions on the fisheries question. Today the Prime Minister is reported to have mentioned the possibility of a compromise. If so, can we be assured that the fishing industry in this country has been consulted as to the nature of any compromise which will be advanced at the Fisheries Council by our representatives? This is a vital industry to us and feeling runs very deep on both sides of the fishing industry in Britain. This island may be surrounded by fish, but it seems that it is even more surrounded by French fishermen.
This leads me to the point that we join with the Government in their apparent intention to stand up for vital British interests, particularly in the fisheries field, and in rebutting the accusation that our fishermen—or, indeed, our Government—are guilty of intransigence on this matter. We hope that a firm and clear line will be taken on Friday, a line which has substantially been agreed beforehand with the industry. The dispute over fisheries has gone beyond the question of fisheries itself, as reports today indicate. We are rather disquieted, if not alarmed, by the words attributed to the German Chancellor in an article published in The Times today which says:
"The Federal Republic agreed to a financial deal"—
that is in regard to the budgetary adjustments in favour of this country last May—
"which caused enormous difficulties and higher taxation in Germany".
Herr Schmidt is reported to have continued:
"I was deceived and disappointed. There is no point in such an agreement if one side does not stick to it".
We should like to be assured that no pledge or commitment was made last May in regard to fisheries

1175
and fish as part of a deal over the budgetary adjustments. I myself do not believe that any pledge was given, but it would relieve our minds if the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary was able to give us that assurance. For our part, we repeat our assurance that we shall support every effort that the Government make next Friday and in succeeding Council meetings to safeguard legitimate British interests.
I turn to my final point. Those of us who, from the early days, have worked for—and many have fought for—the principle and the fact of European unity saw in political co-operation the main prize of such a unity. Is it not becoming increasingly clear from one summit to another that until we have a rational economic policy in Europe, the goal of political co-operation —the true objective of European unity—will elude us? I say this because part of the Statement refers to massively important questions, such as Southern Africa and the Middle East; they are mentioned as having been discussed, but not, I think, with the sense of urgency to which they are entitled. One has the feeling at the end of this particular summit that Europe must look at its economic arrangements in order to free itself from these repetitive disputes which keep it from its real objective of achieving effective political co-operation among the nations of Europe in the councils of the world.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we from these Benches should also like to thank the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary for repeating this very important Statement. We note the quite satisfactory nature of the discussions on various social questions and on Poland. On fish —and here I differ slightly in emphasis in what I shall say from the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Robert—salthough, of course, everyone is in favour of our trying to obtain the best possible deal for our fishermen (no one would dispute that), I think that the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary might perhaps agree that this is really not the right way to run a railway!
As it seems to me, the Community will not work if everybody, in effect, insists on what he or she wants to achieve, even if in a minority of one. Short of things which obviously affect the safety of these islands, I do not think that any such attitude should be adopted by reason of the possession of a national veto.
Will the noble Lord also not agree that the Community is only likely to work in the future either on the basis of major deals, such as Chancellor Schmidt thought he had concluded but now finds that he apparently did not—which seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable way of proceeding—or on the basis of majority voting, save of course in cases which actually affect vital national interests? Clearly, this would be in the general interest, including our own, because if in some cases we should not be able to get everything we want, in others, for instance, in the CAP, we might very well get considerable satisfaction if majority voting was adopted.
However, as things stand, we can only hope that some reasonable arrangement will be reached on Friday at the next meeting of the agricultural Ministers. I might perhaps add that, subject to some agreed quid pro quo, I would doubt the wisdom of holding up the Canadian deal simply for the purpose apparently
1176
of inducing the French to be, as we would think, more reasonable. In any case, I imagine that all would agree that if we really cannot reach agreement, all fishermen in the European Community, including our own fishermen, are likely—in the long run, at any rate—to be very much worse off than they are at present.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, says that this is not the way to run a railway. But the fact is that this is the way at present the railway is run, and if you are travelling on the railway, you had better operate according to how it happens to be run. I do not think that it is any good discussing that at the present time. May I make it clear—and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord GoronwyRoberts—that there is no reason for any assertion that we have been intransigent about fisheries. Very far from it. We have been very accommodating indeed about fisheries, but there comes a time—and the time has come—when every country has to look after its basic industries and its basic interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, asked me whether a commitment was made on 30th May last. The Council said that there should be an agreement on fish by the end of the year, and there would have been an agreement on fish by the end of the year had the French Government allowed it, because eight countries were prepared for the agreement to be made on the basis of the proposals which were made by Britain. So it was not we who blocked it. There very nearly was an agreement on 16th December.
I do not believe it to be impossible that there can be an agreement on Friday if everyone actually wants an agreement and seeks an agreement. There is no question of compromise in the sense in which the noble Lord spoke. The Prime Minister is saying that she believes a deal is possible which would be acceptable to everyone—to the French, ourselves and the other members of the Community. I feel sure that that is true. Of course, our fishing industry will be one of those who will have to be asked whether they, too, will accept it. There is no question about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is quite wrong when he said that we were unable to agree to the EEC-Canada fisheries agreement because we were putting pressure on the Germans in order to put pressure on the French. If the noble Lord looks at the situation he will see that if in isolation we had agreed on the EEC-Canada arrangement we would have had another very large tonnage of fish landed in this country, partly because of the strength of sterling at the present time. It would have been impossible for us to agree to any such arrangement unless the Commission were prepared to devise means whereby that fish did not come on the market, or at any rate there was a higher withdrawal price. This was not forthcoming and therefore it was not possible for the British Government to agree to it. I very much regret it, and I quite understand the disappointment that the Federal Chancellor has expressed. He has his political problems but so have we, and what we have to do is to find an overall settlement about fish which will be acceptable to everybody and which will get this out of the way for good and all.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, talked about majority voting, and the rest of it. I hardly think that this is

1177
the moment to go into that. I would only point out to him—and I imagine that he knows this better than I do—that there is something called "the Luxembourg compromise which, on the whole, works extremely well. It is going to be very difficult for countries of the Community to give up their vital interests unless there is some sort of compromise of that kind which reassures them on matters which are of real interest to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, was disappointed that there had been nothing very significant said about unemployment. There was a long discussion in the Council about unemployment. The social and regional funds of course already play a useful part in tackling unemployment—in a fairly minor way compared with the problem—and the Council has asked the Commission to give higher priority to measures to help advanced technological training and education for youth; and of course also for a co-ordinated effort to encourage the development of high technology which, in the end, is going to increase competitive strength in Europe and which will, although not in the short term, do a great deal for unemployment in Europe.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those of us who still have faith in the European idea are a little upset perhaps at the slightness of the economic side of the Statement that he has made this afternoon? We all agree that there must be a fight against inflation. We can all see that there could be dangers in short-term stimulus, but there used to be in the Community even two years ago an idea of a concerted effort to deal with recession. There was the idea of a concerted plan of growth. Have those ideas been posponed, or have they been abandoned?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is mistaken if he thinks that there was not a very significant discussion about the economic situation. This took up most of one of the days. I also think that one should recollect that the idea of the European Council was not to make decisions. The idea, which was originated by President Giscard, was that the Heads of Government in Europe should meet twice or three times a year so that they could reflect upon the problems of the Community and other problems outside the Community and not take decisions, and not to supersede the institutions of the Community. Therefore, I think it would be a mistake to think that decisions are going to come out of the European Council, and I do not think that that is what it is for.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that at the moment the whole fishing industry of this country is a stricken industry? Can he give us any assurance that on Friday Her Majesty's Government will stand absolutely firm on the basic essentials for its survival, which include the 12-mile limit in its entirety, and certain special areas in the Irish Sea and in the Minch?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I think that the Government have made plain what the noble Lord has said, that we understand very well the difficulty in which the fishing industry finds itself, and there are certain essentials for it. I do not want to go into what they
1178
are but there are obviously certain essentials. I would however say that I think it would be greatly to the benefit of the fishing industry of this country if we could come to an agreement, because there is at the moment enormous uncertainty. After the end of next year it is, strictly speaking, possible, according to some interpretations, for there to be no fishing agreement at all and for there to be a free-for-all in the North Sea with no conservation measures or anything of the kind. Therefore, a fishing agreement is really essential, but I of course give an undertaking to the noble Lord that the British fishing industry will not be abandoned. Of course not.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House and also the country will congratulate the Government on the firm stand that they have taken in defending the British fishing industry and its interests. But will the Government bear in mind in these crucial talks that while uncertainty is the enemy of all fishermen, and that all the fishermen in the EEC will want uncertainty to be ended, none the less the fishing areas, the fishing grounds round Britain, and particularly round Scotland, are the most prolific and fruitful ones because of conservation measures in the past, whereas the coastal areas off France, Belgium, and the other Continental countries have been more or less fished out? Therefore, there is a danger of the remaining fruitful areas round the coasts of Britain being fished out also unless there really is a satisfactory agreement.
Lord Carrington: Yes, my Lords, that of course is very much in the mind of the Government. Conservation is one of the issues which has very much been in the minds of all of us when we have been trying to negotiate this agreement. I agree with my noble friend. He will of course also accept that there are complications, like historic rights, which cannot be ignored.
Lord Pargiter: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what funds are likely to be available from the Community to deal with the problems arising from unemployment, having regard to the huge amounts required for the common agricultural policy?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, not, I am afraid, without notice; but the thrust of the noble Lord's question is clearly right, that if two-thirds of the available resources of the Community are employed on the common agricultural policy there is consequently less for anything else.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not also right to remember that it is much more difficult to run the Community when all of the Community is in a state of economic recession, and therefore vital interests of each individual country come more to the surface and produce perhaps more clashes than would be necessary in time of prosperity and rising employment and growth, and that really the Ministers, and especially my right honourable friend, should be congratulated on keeping the temperature as cool as even the press have allowed it to be?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, my noble friend is clearly right, that if there is nothing to quarrel about

1179
one does not quarrel about it, and that would be a very happy situation. I hope that gradually we are removing the areas of disagreement in the Community. I think it is a mistake to over-emphasise one particular issue and to ignore all the benefits which have accrued as a result of membership of the Community, some of which are extraordinarily difficult to quantify and to explain. But the fact remains that we have to get these irritants and difficulties, and in particular the fisheries policy, out of the way because it is of very great importance to this country and to our fishing industry.

Agriculture
Debate resumed.
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, after a most interesting discussion I think we can perhaps return to our debate on agriculture. It falls to me with enormous pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elphinstone, on his maiden speech. We have all enjoyed it very much. It is delightful to find someone young, energetic, and practical who is engaged in agriculture. I wish him the best of luck. I am sure he will do extremely well, and we shall all hope to hear him not only on agriculture but on other subjects. In any case, we should like to congratulate him on an admirable maiden speech.
We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, for this debate. As time is a vital element in a short debate, I shall be very short indeed. I speak as a hill farmer and as someone who is particularly interested in sheep and store cattle, and that is what I am going to speak about. I congratulate the Government on what they have done so far to help us in this section of the industry. We are faced with a real problem in that beef numbers have fallen for the fifth consecutive year, being 20 per cent. lower than they were in 1975, and it is believed—I hope this will not turn out to be true—that in 1981 there will be another drop of 5 per cent. All this happens not because we cannot sell beef but because we cannot make beef pay. That makes the beef premium intervention absolutely vital, and I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture has been so strong on that matter in view of the vital pal t it plays in this section of the industry. I also thank the Government for the increase in the suckler cow herd premium, which is most welcome.
On the subject of mutton, lamb and wool, all of which are part of hill farming, last year was absolutely disastrous, due partly to the weather and partly to EEC hesitations and postponements which kept prices very low, and when the new sheepmeat policy was agreed it was too late to do anything for the hill sheep farming industry. On that I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said. If this agricultural policy is to occur every year, which it will, it is vital that a decision is taken before the end of the year, because we are not dealing with a static industry but with one where the demands of nature are such that things have to be done at certain times, and if they are not done you lose the opportunity for another year. So I agree with what Lord Mackie said on this
1180
issue and I hope the Government will be very strong when they discuss the matter.
Last year we had the great problem of exporting lamb to the Continent. At that time the French market was opening and shutting and Her Majesty's Government were unable to do anything on that topic. However, the sheepmeat regime came in, followed by something known as the clawback. Although it is right in principle that exporters of lamb should not claim two sets of subsidies, it began by stopping completely the export trade; and although I am glad to say that the situation is better now, the Minister has himself said that further adjustments must be agreed on.
I also thank the Government for the hill ewe and sheep subsidies, which have been of great help by raising the overall limit on special areas for hill land. That is bound to be of help because the more assistance we can get at this difficult period the better it will be for the industry. And it is an industry which is vital agriculturally to the whole production of sheep and cattle in this country. We are the people who produce the store lambs and store cattle. People with farms where there is rich land, so they can fatten, get their animals from the hill farmers, so the hill farmer is vital. This is not a question of saying that something better could be done in these areas. Nothing better can be done than to provide the sheep, lambs and store cattle which turn into the meat which the consumer buys in the shops. It is therefore vital to keep the hill sheep and cattle remaining on the hills. That is where they are produced, so making the best use of that land.
In 1980, farming incomes declined by 10 per cent., about 24 per cent., in real terms, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said. We have heard about bank loans. Certainly the bankers have done best out of the decline in agriculture. I am glad the Budget has reduced the bank rate to some extent; that will be of great help to the farmer. Many EEC countries give enormous subsidies to their farmers. The French Government are subsidising French farmers to the tune of £450 million. That is out of all proportion to what we do or, in my opinion, to what should be done, and it falsifies the whole position in the EEC. However, I am hoping very much that out of the new policy, which is still being discussed, some of the anomalies will be dealt with.
All farmers in the EEC have suffered a drop in their incomes, but none as much as United Kingdom farmers. As with all industry, it is not only the drop in income but the difficulty of investing in new machinery and capital equipment, investment which is essential if we are to keep the farming industry up to date, and the fact that we have not had that amount of money to reinvest will, I am afraid, take a while to overcome. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that we are hoping that out of the new proposals and CAP prices some of that loss will be made up to us. In my view our Minister is doing a splendid job in speaking up for the British farmer in the EEC. We should back him up all we can for what he is trying to do, and I hope very much that he will be successful.
4.7 p.m.
Viscount Sidmouth: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, I congratulate the noble

1181
Lord, Lord Elphinstone, on his maiden speech, which was short and to the point. When necessary, this House can already muster a formidable amount of mud on its boots, including ex-presidents of the National Farmers' Union, and we hope the noble Lord will in the future speak on this and other subjects.
For the purpose of this debate, horticulture is deemed to be included within agriculture. Politically, growers are content to be part of an industry the size of which the noble Lord, Lord Peart, described, but we would not wish the size and importance of our section to be overlooked on that account. With a turnover of about £800 million, it is an important economic unit on its own account and its problems are in many ways different from those of agriculture. That is particularly so within the context of the European Community. Before Britain joined the Community, horticulture fell outside the price review system which at that time constituted Government policy towards agriculture. Instead, there was a system of tariffs which were protective towards certain sensitive commodities during the United Kingdom production season.
When we joined the Community it was clear from the start that the main plank of the common agricultural policy—that is, the target price system—would virtually not apply to British horticulture. It is true that eight commodities come within the intervention system, but, for various reasons, only apples have been significantly involved in that system in this country. Yet the Community right from its inception was in balance or in surplus in a wide range of horticultural products. That is confirmed by the fact that in 1978–79, 163,000 tonnes of tomatoes went into intervention in Italy, for example, while in 1979–80 22 per cent. of the Belgian apple crop did the same thing. Externally, there is therefore a system of common Community tariffs.
I have referred to the historical background because the problems of British horticulture today arise in the context of the CAP. It is of course a basic concept of the European Community that tariffs between member countries should be abolished. It so happens that two such countries—France and Holland—were, and are, strong competitors with British horticulture for our home market. Internal competition of this order, and the unimpeded flow of trade among member countries, is of the essence of the CAP, with the hopeful aim of encouraging efficiency in agriculture and reducing costs. British growers have always been well aware of that point, and many of them have spent the last 20 years gearing up to meet it, mostly with considerable success.
But the obverse of this part of the CAP is set out in Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome. Article 92 states that, except where otherwise provided for in the treaty,
"any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it [adversely] affects trade between Member States, [be deemed to] be incompatible with the common market".
Perfectly fair competition can probably never be achieved in a community comprising so many different nations, regions and climates. None the less, that is a very important article of the treaty, and currently many of the problems of British horticulture lie in that area. Both France and Holland have strong national
1182
policies for encouraging exports of horticultural produce, and national aids have undoubtedly been deployed towards that objective. An outstanding example is the very low price for gas enjoyed by 95 per cent. of the Dutch glasshouse industry, while in France there has been extensive Government aid, such as in the advertising of French apples in this country.
That sort of pressure is adversely affecting the viability of British horticulture and causing even more severe cutbacks in net income than is occurring on the farming side. There has been a progressive decline in the area of horticultural land, from 305,000 hectares in 1977 to 268,000 hectares in 1980. Both the Commission in Brussels and our own Government are aware of that situation, and I hope that in replying to the debate the Minister will confirm that something will be done about it. On the one hand, it is essential that all forms of national aids should be investigated, and anomalies such as the Dutch gas price eliminated. On the other hand, it is perfectly legal, and in accordance with the treaty, to give both short-term aid to correct anomalies and long-term support such as research and advice.
On the last point, the Minister will, I think, be aware that agricultural research in this country has been of a high order and that the record of the horticultural industry in the uptake of this research has been quite outstanding. Here I should very much like to support the point already made by the noble Lord, Lord Peart: that it would be folly of the highest order at this point to run down even further the advisory services. I think that the Minister should again look very hard at the cuts which are being made, or are contemplated in this area. In recent years there have been drastic reductions in staff, and the process cannot go any further without serious loss of efficiency.
Finally, my Lords, it seems that the present proposals from Brussels concerning co-responsibility could well be looked at closely in the context of horticulture, provided that they are applied in a way which will genuinely help to reduce surpluses. Of course there are political difficulties, but, so far as the British grower is concerned, in no way is he interested in growing for intervention; at the cost of his inputs, he simply cannot afford it.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those already extended to my noble friend Lord Elphinstone on a first-class maiden speech. My noble friend is a young man of wide interests, and I hope that we shall have the pleasure of listening to him on many occasions in the future. It is I believe evident that at the moment the farming industry in this country is really in the doldrums. There is certainly nothing very buoyant about it, and the outlook for the immediate future is not particularly bright, but I feel that there is hope that conditions will improve in the long term. The problem facing the industry at the moment is very simple, but incredibly difficult to solve. The problem is one of rapidly increasing costs with a more or less static return. As my noble friend Lord Gisborough said—and I feel that it cannot be emphasised too strongly—farming income has been falling every year since 1976, and in fact it fell by 23 per cent. in real terms in 1980.

1183
It is recognised that the industry has a superb record of productivity. This alone has enabled it to keep its head above water in the past few years, although indebtedness to the banks increased by, I think, £700 million last year to the rather astronomical figure of £3,200 million. The record of productivity cannot be sustained under these conditions. Numbers in livestock breeding herds are down, and capital investment of all types on plant, machinery, buildings, et cetera, is rapidly falling. Obviously that is due in part to lack of confidence, but I think even more so to lack of resources. That is serious because it must lead to loss of production with consequent probable future domestic food shortages. It will make the industry less competitive and the country more vulnerable to overseas pressures. It will undoubtedly also have serious repercussions on all the ancillary trades; and there are many of these entirely dependent for their viability upon a thriving and prosperous agriculture.
I now wish to turn to the Community Commission's farm price proposals. The proposed average price increase of 7½ per cent. is completely inadequate for doing much to help the United Kingdom farmers, whose costs have increased by so much more than average, but at least it will help. However, it is imperative that our green pound is not revalued by 6 per cent., as the Commission proposes. That would have the effect of lowering our price increases to between 1 and 2 per cent., which would create an impossible position with the current trend of ever-increasing costs. It would surely be grossly unfair that our farmers receive only a fraction of the increase received by other European farmers, thus making it impossible for them to compete; and the consequences would be dire indeed.
One has to acknowledge that a revaluation of the green pound could possibly be of slight benefit to the consumer. I understand that it would involve a reduction in the cost of living of about a quarter per cent. However, that would surely be entirely dependent upon the actions of the processors, wholesalers, and retailers, who could well decide that in the present recession it is necessary to improve their profit margin, rather than reduce prices; and who could blame them?
The common agricultural policy obviously has immense significance for the success of the Community, and the cost must be controlled. Therefore, I think that for that reason alone there would appear to be some logic in the co-responsibility measures in the cases of milk and sugar, which are in surplus at the present time. Indeed, I think it could well be argued that there could be a move towards rationalisation in those commodities, but it seems illogical to impose levies on other products that are not in surplus. That would lead to a further fall in the real income of our farmers, and this general measure must be resisted, for it is totally unacceptable.
What of the future? With the progressive fall in the inflation rate and the general increase (one trusts) in EEC product prices, one hopes that the present cost/price gap will narrow. There will undoubtedly be a reduction in the total area of land farmed, with fewer holdings, but an increase in their average size. That I think will lead to a trend towards even greater specialisation, which may well be advantageous.
1184
I consider that over the next few years we must take a long, hard look at our marketing structures. It seems imperative that we improve our marketing performance, and I feel that greater emphasis should be placed upon quality, rather than quantity. Our grading standards in certain commodities should certainly be improved, and I believe that producer boards should take due regard of this fact. If this can be achieved then I, for one, am reasonably optimistic regarding the long-term prospects for the agricultural industry.
4.20 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, first I, too, should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Elphinstone. Would it not be lovely if every speech in your Lordships' House went on for only four or five minutes! We would save an enormous amount of money on overtime. But I think I may overshoot his excellent example. One thing that I thought was very pointed in what he said was that we should not regard agriculture in isolation; and it is, after all, our most successful industry, and possibly our most important industry.
I have given notice to my noble friend Lord Ferrers on this particular question, and it is the topical one of, basically, deer and foot-and-mouth. What I should like to know is: if deer in the New Forest were to get this wretched and horrible disease, how is anybody to know that they have got it? The last outbreak took place in the West and the North of England, where there is a very small, almost non-existent indigenous deer herd. In the South of England there is a very large and rising herd of roe deer, and it is in much more wooded surroundings, where they can lie up and really not be found at all. If this virus can jump the Channel and land in the Isle of Wight, it can jump the Channel and land on a roebuck snugged-up in the New Forest as easily as anything, and we are not going to know about it. If that happens it is going to become endemic in this country, with all the ghastly consequences which that entails.
Agriculture, as has already been said by Lord Gisborough and by others, is having a very difficult time at the moment. Real income is down by 24 per cent. Agricultural wages, thankfully, have kept pace and have slightly overtaken the rate of inflation, but I would suggest to your Lordships that they are still too low for the standard of skill which we demand from our agricultural labour force. I would also suggest that they are a fairly small part of the gross farm turnover. However, the cost-squeeze has been vicious. In 1976 feed barley ex-combine cost £72 a tonne. In 1980 it fetched £89 a tonne—a difference of 24 per cent. However, the Kings of Morocco and Saudi Arabia have done very well, because they have put up their prices for nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers by nearer to 100 per cent. in five years. The example is that in 1976 Nitram was £59 a tonne, and it is now £113 a tonne. Sprays are up by 100 per cent. Fixed costs—rent, rates, electricity, et cetera—are all up by over 100 per cent.
This discrepancy has forced the farmer to grow more corn, and consequently the intervention stores are full. Farm investment in machinery is down, with its bad effect (as has already been said by at least one noble Lord) on employment in our farm machinery manufacturing

1185
industries. Farmers' incomes, though falling, are heavily subsidised by the increasingly unpopular CAP. The European butter and skimmed milk mountains, wine lakes, olive oil slicks and beef-bergs all confuse and worry the public and rightly so. France and Germany use the common agricultural policy for social reasons. Germany uses it to subsidise secondary occupation for Wolfsburg car-makers and other industrial workers. France keeps large numbers of peasant farmers in existence to avoid rural depoluation. I would certainly not wish to criticise either of these very worthy aims, but in the end it means subsidies for butter for Russia, which in turn releases Russian money for Russian guns with which to shoot Afghan peasants.
Rural depopulation also affects this country. The corn plains of East Anglia and Wiltshire-Hampshire produce efficiently with very little labour, all highly skilled, on very expensive machinery which consumes enormous energy. This rural depopulation in turn lessens demand for rural services and transport, et cetera, and consequently the vicious circle of falling demand followed by falling standards followed by falling demand becomes obvious. The population tends to age, and the youth goes away to the cities, with their unemployment problems.
Rural depopulation is shown at its most difficult in Wales, I would suggest to your Lordships; not because it is worse there but because there is a cultural and to a certain extent ethnic problem superimposed. The derelict Welsh cottages are bought up by retired people for holiday homes, the local people see around them good quality houses not occupied for most of the year, and this produces a jealousy—unattractive, yes, but I would suggest to your Lordships that it is understandable as well.
I do not want to reopen all the discussions that we had on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. I suspect that that could even be an impeachable offence. But farming has responded quite marvellously—with grant aid, of course—to the demands which, as my noble friend Lord Elphinstone said, the country and various Ministers have put upon it. They have grown more food; but I would suggest to your Lordships that the countryside is a less rich place than it was 40 years ago. Please do not think that I am blaming the Ministry, the farmers or the environmentalists; I am merely pointing out a situation which has arrived. I do not know what the solutions are, but I do think that we in the farming industry must not only look at our own immediate interests and at our own immediate problems, which are very severe, but have got to understand the interests of others. If not, we shall become isolated. A picture of overpriced food, of a prairie countryside with no hedges, factory farms, nil investment, enormous and growing surpluses and impoverished farmers in hock to the bank for much more than they can afford is, admittedly, a fairly exaggerated picture, but I suggest that there is enough truth in it to cause concern.
I do not honestly know what to do, but there must be a solution, and it must he a solution which does not sacrifice our fight against inflation; because, as has already been said, inflation is not only the worst enemy of the farmer, it is the worst enemy of a stable, ordered and progressive society. All can do is to hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers and my right honourable
1186
friend Mr. Walker can understand the situation as I see it and as I think a lot of others see it, can apply their minds to it and, please God!, can come up with some answers.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, perhaps I may also add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Elphin-stone. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that he made a number of points which I had down to make myself, so that has cut down the length of my speech. There is little doubt that there is great worry in the farming community at the current financial situation in British agriculture, and I cannot believe that at least some of the rumblings of the grave situation have not penetrated Government circles. As my noble friend Lord Gisborough has said, there was a drop last year of 24 per cent. in United Kingdom farm incomes; but the Government's own figures show that in Scotland the drop in that income was 52 per cent. It was down to £33 million in total, as opposed to £114 million in 1978. The total income of all Scottish farms was only one month of British Leyland losses.
There are 30,000 agricultural holdings in Scotland. Therefore, the average income per holding was only £1,100. I ask your Lordships: what other section of' the community in this country at the moment is working for £1,100? When our rates go rocketing up, is it surprising that the farmers are very much peeved when they see their senior officials getting a 20 per cent. increase in their salaries? If one considers the incomes of the rich lowlands and Angus farms, there must be many farms in Scotland last year which lost money. Is it surprising that, as we have already heard, bank borrowing is rocketing up? Even the banks are now worried at the situation.
Six out of 16 of my farm tenants have given up their holdings in the last 18 months. It must have been the 'thirties since this last happened. The writing is on the wall. What is one to do with these farms? If one relets them, one depreciates their capital value by 50 per cent. One of our most efficient industries is being strangled. If one is in debt to the bank and the income from assets is insufficient to meet the interest on the debt, there is no option but to sell off stock. This reduces the efficiency of the unit and the return from the unit. The circle is a vicious one. The United Kingdom beef herd (the breeding animals) has dropped 6 per cent., that is by nearly 100,000 cows, in the last two years. The projected drop for this year of beef and veal is over 8 per cent. But what is happening to our competitors? France increased its beef herd by 4·5 per cent. last year; the EEC is giving Irish farmers £25 million which, when topped up by the Irish Government, will be more than the Scottish farmers' total net income.
What is happening to milk? Our milk herd has been reduced but French milk production was up 5·5 per cent. in 1980. We are handing over our markets to our EEC partners. This must stop. The only stable commodities at the moment are grain and sheep production, but this follows two disastrous years for sheep and there still remains the clawback problem. We look like finishing the grain year with large unsold stocks, which bodes ill for next year's grain prices.

1187
What are the answers to these problems? The reduction in the minimum lending rate in the Budget is clearly to be welcomed, but what was given with one hand was taken away with the other. Fuel tax and the increase of vehicle registration costs were particularly heavy taxes on the rural community.
The Government are clearly reluctant to increase agricultural prices as this would increase food prices and thus inflation, but there are legal means within the EEC of helping farmers so that the industry is not damaged in the long run. Our EEC partners are giving massive help to their farmers—the French, the Dutch with fuel costs, and the Irish, as I have just mentioned —and none of these coutries has our rate of inflation and our rising costs. It is not surprising that our farmers ask how it happens that our Minister of Agriculture goes to Europe and stands out alone in resisting price rises to the farmers. The question must be posed: Can any one man act as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? How can he wear so many hats at once? I see that the noble Lord on the opposite Front Bench is laughing. He has tried it, but it is not a feasible operation. The consumer lobby will always be bigger than the agricultural lobby and therefore prices to the farmers are always likely to be kept down.
If we cannot pay the farmers more, is there no means of reducing costs to the farmers? Again, there are other proposals which will increase our costs. There is to be a new marketing organisation to be paid for by the producers. If it is felt that there is a need for a new organisation with compulsory levy powers, then let us look at the existing marketing organisations and see whether there is not room for cuts there which could pay for the new body. Do we need all the existing bodies, all the organisations that we have: BAC, BAEC, AOS and SAOS, the milk boards—five of them—the potato boards, the hop board, old Uncle Torn Cobbleigh and all? I could go on. I think there are about 20 organisations already dealing with marketing. The old grey mare of agriculture, she ain't what she used to be, she groans under the existing crew, but if Auntie Deta gets on her back as well, I think that the old mare will collapse. Will the new organisation be able to tell, for instance, the North of Scotland Milk Marketing Board how they can better sell milk in Achiltibuie? I doubt it.
There is talk of more levies. If these are to be implemented, then it should be on increased production only and not on herd size. The EEC "milk lake" is caused by increased production from France and Germany, and their farmers should pay for it. If there was a levy on herds of more than 15 cows, then 98 per cent. of the United Kingdom dairy farmers would be caught, but only 50 per cent. of French farmers. The milk surplus could be cut at a stroke by increasing health regulations. Our milk has to be cooled and kept cooled. The continental milk goes into churns and sits cooking in the sun. If the continental producers adopted our standards, then all the herds of 15 cows or less would go, as they have done here. The continental countries wish to keep the small farms in existence for social reasons.
During the Report stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill the Government were defeated on an amendment to give more help to the rural areas. We all
1188
want to keep the rural population but these social requirements should not be paid for from agricultural funds—as we do with the crofting finance at the moment. These social costs must be removed from the agricultural budget.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Woolley: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Elphinstone, and, like other speakers before me, welcome him to the small but diligent band of agriculturalists who from time to time, rarely in some cases, speak in this House. It was an interesting and delightfully delivered speech. We hope to have the pleasure of hearing him on many future occasions. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, for introducing this subject for debate. I think he covered the ground extraordinarily well and there is not all that much that I can add. I must declare an interest as a farmer. I have not yet been farming all my life but I hope to in the course of time. The noble Lord made a most comprehensive survey of the industry. I am afraid I shall have to repeat many points that other noble Lords have made but I hope not to take too long in doing so.
There is no doubt that the agricultural industry is having a bad time. There have been bad times and good times or (should I say?) bad times and less bad times, in the history of the industry. This is natural; but usually we have been able to see some sorts of solutions, difficult though they may have been to accomplish. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and I should like to join with him in the plea he made about the Agricultural Advisory Service, ADAS. I would underline everything he said about how valuable MAFF and ADAS have been to the agricultural industry. We know about economies and about how natural it is to say, "Everyone else but not us". I say that this has been of great value not only to agriculture but, through agriculture, to the economy of the country as a whole, and I hope that his words on that matter will be seriously considered.
The trouble is (and this has already been stated) that the costs are inflating at a far higher rate than the returns are increasing. Every farmer looking to his accounts finds that situation. I, personally, and, I am sure, the industry as a whole, support the Government in their determined attempts to conquer inflation. This is the pervading ill that affects us and certainly affects agriculture. Perhaps no single factor has been more significant in our financial difficulties at this time than the indebtedness and the payments we have to make to the banks, a matter which has been dealt with by the speakers who have preceded me. It is one thing for bank borrowings to be going up when production is going up and things are going in step and the ratio is being reasonably maintained, but it is quite another when production is going down and prices are going up.
I do not want to exaggerate the position. Certainly, the steam has evaporated. This is a dynamic industry. Its importance has been well stated. It was the noble Lord, Lord Peart, who quoted the president of the National Farmers' Union—and may I say how pleased I was to hear his tribute to him—about the production from agriculture. These were not new comparisons; they have been used on many occasions. But it is fundamentally true that this is the biggest single industry

1189
in this country. No country can afford not to have a healthy agriculture. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. Our agriculture is sick at this present time. We know that it is sick; the difficulty is to find the cure. We did have a system which, with all its difficulties, worked extremely well. I remember Mr. Macmillan, when he was Prime Minister, saying to me in May 1960 that whoever devised the agricultural system that we were then working, of guaranteed prices, production grants and the most liberal trading that it was possible to have, was a genius. Those were his words 21 years ago.
He was right in my judgment, because largely out of all the difficulty and experience of wartime had come the 1947 Agriculture Act. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, knows a great deal about that because he was involved in it with his friend Torn Williams. This did not make farming easy but it made it sound; it gave it a credit-worthiness. We were able to borrow finance and increase production. I have seen agriculture in the latter half of my lifetime almost revolutionised. This is a great achievement and one that we do not want to see slip away from us from a national point of view.
I believe that we have to look extremely seriously at the EEC. I fear that there is a tendency to close our eyes and to keep repeating in a magic way the virtues about the EEC: we have heard this this afternoon from the Foreign Secretary and many other speakers. I am not here to run down the EEC, but I believe we have to be more realistic about it. I believe that our Prime Minister is being realistic. She is not afraid to go in there and fight the corner of this country. In doing so, far from doing a disservice to the EEC and the concept, she is giving it the only chance that it can possibly have for survival. If we try to fool ourselves that we can indeed make work things that are unworkable, then we are only heading for ultimate disaster.
This is what has been happening to some extent. By all means let us keep the concept of a common agricultural policy, the overall objectives and a framework; but let us accept the hard fact of life that one cannot implement those objectives in exactly identical ways in all the varying countries that go to make up that Community. This I do not believe can be done. I believe the sooner we face this fact the better. It is being done progressively. We have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, refer to the £450 million of French aid. We have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth, about the subsidies from France for the export of their apples, and the various devices about the fuel subsidisation in Holland.
All these activities are going on. They are not supposed to go on, they are contrary to the Treaty of Rome, but they will go on—of course they will—because no country is going to abandon the interests of its own people and important sections of its own population. It will not do it. Therefore, I believe that if the Community is to continue, it will—and I believe that we should be working in this direction—have to try to loosen up the modus operandi so that there is a greater degree of responsibility and flexibility to different countries working within an overall policy. I know that is not easy of achievement; but the whole concept is not easy of achievement. We did this within our own country. It was not easy to reconcile
1190
the various interests within the United Kingdom. It is impossible to reconcile them all in a Community of 10 differing nations if the attempt is made to do this on one single pattern of operation.
I have said enough, my Lords. I have no panacea—I do not think any of us has a panacea—for the problems that face us. But if we are going to look to the future I think that we must try to grapple with the fundamental elements that face the agricultural industry at the present.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Digby: My Lords, as a signals officer I spent a great deal of time trying to communicate with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in the depths of the jungle. I hope that he gets the message loud and clear from this House today—certainly louder and clearer than I ever achieved. I think that everyone has been of one voice.
I am afraid that I am going to offend the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and perhaps be impeached. But I must remind your Lordships that we have spent many days and nights on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, and in general the arguments have ranged between the conservation lobby and the farming lobby with the Government acting, as they should, as a very firm umpire. The argument is between those who want to see, feel, hear and smell the countryside for recreational purposes, and those who obtain their livelihood, income and also their recreation from the land.
I hope that noble Lords most vociferous in the conservation lobby are here today because I can assure your Lordships that they would do more for conservation by advocating a viable rural economy than by forming any number of SSSIs or AONBs, valuable as all these are. I am reminded of a story that my mother used to tell. She was brought up in a Welsh mining valley. One day she fell into a hole on the hills caused by mining subsidence. She complained bitterly about the coalmines which had ruined her beautiful hills and valleys. Her father took her by the scruff of the neck down to the worst disused hovel that he could find. He said "Yes, my girl. This is how you would be living if it were not for industry and the coalmines". That is a lesson which we ignore at our peril. We must create the prosperity that will enable us to afford conservation.
My Lords, I suggest two ways of ensuring a beautiful countryside: the first is to subsidise partridge shooting; secondly, to ensure the profitability of livestock farming. My first solution is hardly likely to be adopted as it would offend the anti-blood sports lobby and blatantly favour rich farmers. However, that does not mean it would not be effective. The partridge needs hedges for shelter, nice weedy headlands to encourage grubs for food, and hedgerow timber to provide shade and security.
However, I must be a little more serious. The more acceptable solution would be to encourage livestock farming, which requires reasonable-sized fields with good stock-proof hedges and trees for shade and shelter. And, above all, it provides more rural employment. In the days when the drift from the land was encouraged this was not so important, but with today's unemployment and the migration of rural workers away from the villages, I suggest that a good

1191
source of agricultural employment is in the national interest.
I farm in an area of outstanding natural beauty and run a traditional dairy, beef and arable farm, employing 10 men and providing houses and a livelihood for 17 families. A neighbouring farm of the same size is all arable and employs only three men. I have no idea which is the more profitable, but I have no doubt that my stock farm is a bigger asset to society and the countryside as a whole. But could economics force me to change? First, I have already given up my single suckled beef herd, as every single field and area of downland on which they grazed is crossed by a right of way, and this precluded me from running a bull with them. However, if the Wildlife and Countryside Bill becomes law in its present form I shall be able to start up this herd again.
In the last year agricultural wages have gone up 28 per cent., which is more than keeping pace with inflation. That is good; but the price we get for our milk has gone up 8 per cent. while the price of calves, which are an important by-product of dairying, has gone down 50 per cent. You may say, "Good, we will get rid of the dairy mountain". But there is no butter mountain in Britain. We import butter and, by our own efforts within the industry, we have built up the best liquid milk interest in the world and we have the most efficient dairy industry.
Do you want me to follow my neighbour's example and keep no stock? If I did, doubtless I would now be watching cricket in the West Indies and I would have nothing to do in the winter. But what would the families in my village be doing? They would be watching the dole queue. And as I reduced my labour so the hedges would go, the hedgerow timber would go and the rural economy would suffer; so that the one vital thing that must be produced out of this economy is a viable livestock industry. I find that many people look at my valley and say, "What wonderful natural beauty"! Of course, that is nonsense. It is entirely man-made and I can tell your Lordships that unless farming is prosperous it will not be man-maintained.
I should like to turn to one other subject of which I have a slight knowledge; that is, county council smallholdings. These are small but highly productive farms, probably two or three times the size of small farms in Bavaria or France. They provide a chance for farmworkers to become self-employed farmers. It may well be that they and their wives work twice as hard as if they were dairymen, but they are their own masters with freedom to plan their own lives—except, of course, for the constraints of their bank manager and those of the cows, which have to be milked 365 days a year. They believe in that life, but I must warn your Lordships that, despite the fact that those smallholdings produce more per acre than any of the big farms around and are highly viable, the bank overdrafts of smallholders are rising and the profits out of which they must pay the bank charges are falling.
Farm profits halved in five years is serious for me, but for a small farmer, a smallholder, it can be disastrous. If the green pound is revalued, I fear for the demise of many smallholding businesses, and therefore I must congratulate the Minister on his firm stand on this subject. I would remind him of the years when the
1192
green pound was not devalued, so that the British farmer did not get the benefits that I saw farmers getting in the Irish Republic. Agriculture has responded to every call since 1939 and 2½ per cent. of the population produce 70 per cent. of our food. I am confident that the Minister will not underestimate our problems and will fight our battles with success.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to join those who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Elphinstone on a very remarkable maiden speech: certainly I think it was one of the best, if not the best, I have ever heard. It was not only thoughtful but thought provoking, and that is rare in a maiden speech—not to mention the fact that it was short! I hope I shall be able to follow that good example. I should like also to thank my noble friend Lord Gisborough for having introduced this debate on the most timely occasion.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peart. I am sorry he is not in his place to hear me say that, but I am sure he will be back shortly and perhaps my comment could be passed on to him. I do not agree with the noble Lord for two reasons. One is that it seems to me to be proper as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said, for this debate to take place before the Minister goes to Brussels at the end of the month and fights his battle; and also because, as will be known to those who are members of it, Sub-Committee D is busy writing a report and struggling manfully to produce it in time, on the whole question of the price review and indeed on what the Commission call their "reflections" on the common agricultural policy. That report was approved by the Committee today and should be available to your Lordships in about a fortnight's time, when we plan and hope to have another debate on the subject. We, being rather more pessimistic than others, feel that the agricultural Ministers will not reach a conclusion at the end of this month, and are very likely still to be debating the subject in April. We hope to be able to contribute at that stage, and that is an opportunity the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will have for a further debate on the subject after the Minister has returned at the end of this month.
Before going on to what principally I mean to say, and being encouraged to do so by my noble friend Lord Onslow, I feel I must make some mention of foot and mouth disease in the Isle of Wight, which I come from. It was only yesterday morning that I was treading on a chemically-impregnated mat before being allowed out of the Isle of Wight and to talk to your Lordships. It is a terribly tragic situation. I happened to be living in South Hampshire in the mid-1960s when we last had a nasty attack of this fell disease, and one remembers very well how much it hit the small farmers. It was not altogether a question of money—because of course they get compensation—but that they may often have spent years building up a herd which had to be destroyed overnight.
The particular farmer who this time has been hit so hard in the Isle of Wight—I admit I am not more up-to-date than midday yesterday—farmed on land belonging to a family connection of mine whom I know very well, and he has lost not only his herd of

1193
cows but also his collection (I do not know what the proper collective term is) of pigs which he was doing particularly well with. They, too, have had to be destroyed.
I must confess to not knowing the farmer as well as I perhaps should, but if he is, as my noble friend Lord Elphinstone said, of the conservative type, no doubt he will be able to grin and bear it and in due course build up for himself another herd. But if he is more of the entrepreneurial type described by my noble friend, perhaps he could be financially stricken in a very heavy way as well, nothwithstanding the compensation. I do hope that this particular fell disease does not spread further and hit the mainland. or indeed that it does not spread further within the Isle of Wight.
I am joining in this debate because, as I suspected —and it has been the case—the farmers among us have touted their wares with considerable skill and ability in the usual way, and have made their points with great enthusiasm. I would take issue with my noble friend Lord Burton, who implied that the poor little farmers never open their mouths and tend to be downtrodden: that was the general gist of what he was saying. That certainly is not my experience, either of serving on Sub-Committee D or of debates in your Lordships' House. It seems to me that farmers are among the best organised collective groups of people and, furthermore, that the National Farmers' Union are probably the best lobbyists outside this House that there are in the country. I say that wholly congratulatorily and not in any way in criticism. But it means that those of us who occupy a different position in what I like to call the food chain should also speak up for themselves.
I probably do not need to remind your Lordships that I have an interest to declare in being closely associated with the biscuit and cake manufacturing industries. Therefore, I shall find myself talking for that part of the food chain which processes the food that is produced by my noble friends who have spoken in this debate so far. Something like 70 per cent. of all the food that is eaten has first been processed, so it is an aspect of the farming picture as a whole which must not be disregarded when giving advice to Ministers, or, indeed, when seeking to get the balance right within the complicated arrangements of the common agricultural policy.
The recommendation of the Select Committee scrutinising the European Economic Community, in its report last year on the common agricultural policy, that it should be not just a common agricultural policy, but a common food and agricultural policy, was a very sound one and one that needs to be remembered and, indeed, implemented as soon as practicable. As a consequence of that, I suggest to your Lordships, while sympathising very much with all the points made earlier in this debate about how the price adjustments. year by year, should take full account of the requirements of the Treaty of Rome, let alone the needs of the farmers in practical life, that the balance must also reflect the position of the food processors in this total picture.
The food chain takes us all the way from the farm gate to the individual private kitchen, and we must not forget the retailers and wholesalers who are part of this process. They are often highly criticised, and
1194
everybody assumes that all the other people in this system are making much too much profit at the expense of the ones in whom he is particularly interested. But the fact of the matter, as I think some noble Lords have made clear, is that we are all struggling in these difficult days of high inflation and high interest rates. It does not make very much difference where you are in this picture, and one must not over-emphasise one interest if that turns out to be done at the expense of the other interests which are essential for delivering the food to the people who are going to eat it.
So I trust that my noble friend on the Front Bench, when he is conveying our thoughts to his right honourable colleague, will make this point that the common agricultural policy needs to be a common food and agricultural policy, and that the balance which he will seek to achieve should make sure that, so far as is practicable, all the interests concerned receive the proper concern for the contribution that they make towards the production of food for the individual.
Finally, I should like to say, as has been said earlier, that, when Mr. Peter Walker gave evidence to Sub-Committee D last week, he really impressed us—or, certainly, impressed me—not only with a wonderful grasp of the situation, but with a very clear picture of what ought to be done and how it can best be done in the interests of all concerned. I trust that he sticks to that when the time arrives at the end of the month.
5.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I would echo what many other noble Lords have said in thanking my noble friend Lord Gisborough for putting down this Motion, because it has given us an opportunity to discuss the problems of agriculture, and the problems relating to price fixing, before the price-fixing agreements have been arrived at. This is, in many respects, helpful and we shall certainly take note of what your Lordships have said. I am quite sure that your Lordships will understand if I do not seek to discuss every single item of the price-fixing negotiations in advance, because that would be totally inappropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said that he hoped this debate would influence and support the Minister. I can only tell him that it will give the greatest support to my right honourable friend and, where it seeks to influence him in the correct way, it will have achieved the ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie.
One of the greatest pleasures of this debate has been the remarkable speech of my noble friend Lord Elphinstone. It was a pleasure to hear him speak on a subject of which he has not only practical, but intellectual experience. His speech was short, concise and full of knowledge and it had that happy flavour of being one of genuine experience as well. I hope that we shall hear him on many other occasions. He said that confidence is at a low ebb and that agriculture needs guidance. Many people would wish to see the way through difficult problems. The whole country—indeed, the whole of the Western world—is facing very difficult problems, and agriculture is bound to be affected by them.
But may I give my noble friend this bit of help and encouragement? It is frightening to think that, since the jubilation at the end of the last war, the population

1195
of the world has doubled. It is alarming to think that in the next 19 years the population of the world is likely to increase by 50 per cent. Those people must be fed, and agriculture is the means by which they have to be fed. There are not many industries where you can see a total need for a product. It is our business to try to see that the immediate difficulties and problems are overcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Woolley, was right when he said that there is no panacea. It is a question of working through the difficulties and the problems in order to ensure that agriculture in this country, and within the Community, fulfils the required role. My noble friend Lord Digby chided me, and said that he was once a signals officer and hoped that he would get his message through to me today more clearly than he did some years ago when he was at the end of a wireless set. It is perfectly true. His message did get through better today, and the reason why it did not get through before was that he did not know how to work his machine.
Lord Peart: Perhaps he should have been court-martialled!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I could not court-martial a senior officer. Not surprisingly, we have heard a certain amount about the problems of agriculture. I agree with my noble friend Lord Gisborough that it is a matter of great concern that farming incomes have fallen in real terms by 50 per cent. since 1976. My noble friend Lord Burton said that he hoped that the rumblings had got through to the Government by now. I can tell him that the Government are very concerned that real incomes should have fallen by that amount.
The latest figures show borrowings of some £3,200 million, which is about double the level in February 1978—only three years ago. If these borrowings were for investment, that would not be so much of a worry. But, if they are simply to keep farm businesses afloat, then that is a matter of great concern. Of course, the 2 per cent. cut in minimum lending rate which was announced in the Budget has been a help and it implies a reduction in borrowing charges in the farming industry which, taken together with the other decreases which were announced last year, will result in a net reduction of some £140 million or £150 million.
We have to remember that farming in this country is not alone in facing these difficulties. There is a squeeze of varying force in the farming sector in the whole Community and that causes a dilemma. If the Community raises prices, presumably it adds to the cost of the common agricultural policy, which may well encourage further surpluses. But if the Community does not raise prices, then farmers are in the position of having constant prices but increased costs. That will seriously worsen the already declining farm income. This is a fact of life with which we are confronted.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise—I agree with him—said that the success of agriculture does not relate merely to the farming community; it is also of fundamental importance to many other industries. One thinks of industries like the fertiliser and agricultural engineering industries, both of which have suffered very severely because of the declining purchasing power
1196
of farmers, coupled with immense cost increases. They, like other industries, have suffered from the double vice-like grip of inflation on the one hand and recession on the other, which work together but against prosperity.
This is a problem which faces not just agriculture and its connected industries but the country as a whole. It is a major problem with which the Government of the day, whatever party happens to be in power, are presented. There are many other industries which depend upon a successful agricultural industry and which are affected by a downturn or an upturn in the future of agriculture. These industries are all those which are involved in the rural economy, right across the board from suppliers, through transport and leisure to tradesmen. The prosperity of agriculture is far greater therefore than just the immediate area of agriculture.
I am bound to say that the success of agriculture depends a great deal upon research and upon the communication of that research to farmers. The noble Lord,
Lord Peart, referred to ADAS. I am second to none in my support for ADAS, whose officers have done a remarkable job. The noble Lord said that he was concerned about the cuts which he thought were likely to be imposed. As the noble Lord knows full well, Government expenditure has been too large. The borrowings of the Government between 1974 and 1979 rose from £40,000 million to £80,000 million. The Government have got to stop this rise in expenditure. Right across the board this has had to be done. Everybody says, "Yes, but we mustn't cut schools, or the social services, or agriculture, or defence".
All I would say to the noble Lord is that agriculture, in common with everything else, has got to be prepared to accept some form of restriction. Our job in the Ministry of Agriculture is to streamline the activities of ADAS so as to ensure that we get the best value for money that we can afford, with the least distress, the least inconvenience and the least impact possible both on the recipients of the service and on the participants. No decision has yet been taken with regard to the problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Peart, referred.
My noble friends Lord Onslow and Lord Mottistone referred, quite rightly, to the problem of foot and mouth disease. As we all know, this is a terrible disease and I would extend my sympathy to those people whose animals have been slaughtered because of it. It is unfortunate that whenever my noble friend moves house the disease seems to crop up. He said he was living in Hampshire when the disease cropped up last time, and now that he is in the Isle of Wight it has cropped up there. I am sure that there is no connection between the two. One merely records the facts stated by my noble friend.
My noble friend Lord Onslow asked me about the deer in the New Forest. It is perfectly true that deer are able to get the disease. When animals are running wild it is very much less easy to determine whether they have got it than when they are in an enclosed community. But practical experience and scientific evidence confirm that deer are unlikely to be a factor in the transmission of viruses during an epidemic of foot and mouth disease in domestic livestock. We are

1197
bound to concentrate our efforts on the livestock population, which experience shows is the most likely population to contract foot and mouth disease. That is, of course, in the domestic situation. I can assure my noble friend that we shall take this point very seriously and do what we can to ensure that if the disease does affect wild animals we know about it.
We have heard quite a lot about the problems of agriculture. Perhaps we should look at some of the strengths and achievements of the farming community. Last year, agricultural production reached the highest level which had ever been known. A major factor was the record cereals harvest. It was the fourth successive year in which we had had a record cereals harvest, although growing conditions were variable. Scotland, as we have heard, was less fortunate than some other places. But the latest figures show that the areas planted to winter wheat and barley for 1981 are the highest ever recorded. In an intervention the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, said that we so often play down our successes. She is quite right. We do play down our successes. May I remind the noble Baroness of this little success: that in 1970 we in this country produced 60 per cent. of the food which we could produce and that 10 years later, in 1980, the figure had gone up from 60 per cent. to 75 per cent. This is a great and considerable achievement.
Of course it is true that there are difficulties in some of the livestock areas. My noble friend Lord Digby reflected the view that the shift of difficulties has been slightly greater in the livestock area than in the cereals area. However, the latest figures show that the recovery of the sheep breeding flock from the levels of the mid-1970s has continued. I have no doubt that a substantial part of that recovery is due to the agreed sheepmeat régime. This is encouraging. On the other hand, the cattle breeding herd was down by 2.6 per cent. at December, 1980, compared with a year earlier. That is a matter of great concern.
I have noted the difficulties faced by hill farmers, which have been mentioned. Both my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred to them. The hill farmers are an integral part of the agricultural scene. We want them to succeed in the best way that they can. They farm in difficult circumstances. This is acknowledged by the fact that in November 1979 we raised the hill livestock compensatory allowances by the biggest amount ever and, a year later, raised them yet again. We also introduced the beef supplement premium. I am not suggesting that this is an answer to the problem. All I say is that it is an indication of the fact that the Government are concerned about the hill farmers.
Another point which is of immense importance is investment. We have heard about the difficulties facing agriculture. Let me point out that 20 years ago the capital employed per man in agriculture was 60 per cent. of that which was employed per man in manufacturing industry. Today the figures are the same. Agriculture employs per man the same capital as does manufacturing industry. It is a remarkable achievement.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether this includes land values? If it does,
1198
it is a very different value than if it just means tenants capital.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I will write to my noble friend giving him details of exactly what those figures do relate to. It is an important point. However, the inference is correct: that however agriculture operates, at the moment it has to employ the same amount of cash per man as does industry.
One or two noble Lords have referred to the common agricultural policy. The noble Lord, Lord Woolley, considers it to be a problem. I regretted to hear that he is not very enamoured of it. Let us remember—the noble Lord, Lord Peart, made this point and I agree with him—that the United Kingdom is in the Community. We intend to stay in the Community. We intend also to do all in our power to make the Community succeed. Of course, the common agricultural policy, which affects all member states and all farmers within each member state, is not perfect. Nothing ever is. We wish its shortcomings to be improved. I am bound to say that there is not much point in referring to a common agricultural policy if some member states introduce the types of national aids which have been referred to this afternoon by, I think, my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, which totally distort competition.
Since last summer, for instance, the French have given additional national aids to their farmers amounting to about £430 million. They have given income subsidies to their farmers, for example, at a rate of 1 per cent. of the turnover for milk and poultry. Not only is this unfair, but it is against the spirit of the common agricultural policy, and of course it tends to lead to increased surpluses in the Community which others have to fund. My right honourable friend has made the strongest complaints about this to the Commission and they have opened proceedings against the French.
The noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth, referred to horticulture and the problems which relate to the supply of gas for horticulture. I recognise that there are severe problems which face the glasshouse industry. Again, there have been unfair subsidies given by Dutch competitors on energy costs. My right honourable friend has taken this up again with the Commission and the Commission have agreed that there is unfair subsidy and they have asked the Dutch to correct this position. I would only say to the noble Viscount that I accept and I recognise the difficulties which face the glasshouse industry but the right thing is to get the unfair distortion of trade corrected as opposed to everyone turning round and saying that, because one person is behaving incorrectly, therefore it is right for others to follow suit. The whole purpose of the common agricultural policy is that there should be fairness in competition, and where there is not my right honourable friend has taken that up most vigourously.
I was glad also to hear my noble friend Lord Wise refer to marketing and my noble friend Lord Mottistone refer to processing. It is absolutely fundamental that the marketing of agricultural products is one of the most important aspects of agriculture. It is one that my right honourable friend has pressed very strongly ever since he became Minister. In the

1199
old days, there was the feeling that agriculture could produce the food and there was the nation ready to eat it. Things have changed. Now the Community is our market and we have to market our agricultural produce. I am glad to see that there are many people —farmers, wholesalers, retailers—taking an active public interest in this problem.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone is absolutely right when he refers to processors. If I may give one example, 25 per cent. of the potato crop is taken up by processors. But if we do not provide in British agriculture the right type of potatoes of the right quality and with a continuity of supply at the right price, the processors will erect their firms in other parts of the Community and the United Kingdom will lose out twice on that score. First, by agriculture not providing that which it can provide, by not marketing it properly and also it will lose because of the employment which will go to other countries by virtue of them having the processing plants. So the marketing of agricultural products is absolutely vital.
I wish to refer to one last thing, because I know that a number of noble Lords mentioned it, including my noble friend Lord Gisborough. It is, that the Commission have proposed a revaluation of the green pound. The Government have been criticised from certain quarters for allowing the high positive MCAs. It is important to recognise that MCAs go up or down during the year in line with movements in the value of sterling. This does not affect the farm gate prices, but what does affect the farm gate prices is if, at the annual price fixing, the green pound is specifically altered. The Commission's proposal for a 6.2 per
cent. revaluation would therefore, so far as the United Kingdom producers are concerned, remove virtually all the benefit of the common price increases which the Commission are proposing.
At a time when we have been experiencing one of the highest levels of inflation within the Community, and a severe fall in farming incomes, it would be manifestly unfair to the United Kingdom and to our farmers, and the Government have made it perfectly clear that we cannot accept it. On the basis of the Commission's proposals there is no question of our agreeing to a revaluation of the green pound. With regard to prices, we are looking for restraint overall, but within the total we want to see more help given to the hard-pressed livestock sector. I am grateful for the views which your Lordships have expressed and we will certainly take note of them in the forthcoming review of the Community's agricultural prices.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I hope the House will agree that this has been a very useful debate. We have had some extremely interesting and well-informed speeches. I should particularly like to add to the congratulations to my noble friend Lord Elphinstone. He pointed out that farmers are presented with a problem as to whether to do very little and have no overdraft or to modernise and work for the bank. That was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, who pointed out the difference between borrowing in inflationary and deflationary times. I hope that
1200
we shall hear the noble Lord, Lord Elphinstone, many times again.
I should like to thank the Minister for answering many questions and I think that much that he said will be reassuring to the industry, particularly concerning the green pound. One very good thing about these two-and-a-half hour debates is that the shortness of the speeches that is necessary tends to concentrate the minds of speakers and that must be a good thing. Before I resume my seat, I should like to mention that there is a meeting tonight at 6.15 on foot and mouth disease, which may be of interest to certain noble Lords. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Closed Shop: Local Councils
5.27 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to call attention to the closed shop policies of a number of local authorities under which employees who entered their service when there was no requirement that they should be members of a trade union are being required to join a union with the threat of dismissal if they refuse; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion for Papers which stands in my name on the Order Paper. The issue I want to raise in the House this evening is the closed shop policy of a number of Labour-controlled local authorities. I propose to leave on one side tonight the question of whether or not a closed shop is desirable in itself; whether it is even in the interests of the trade union movement; whether it should be permitted to continue or whether it should be made unlawful. I have no doubt that others will want to discuss these questions, if not tonight, then next Wednesday on the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
I want to devote my speech tonight to one aspect of the closed shop which I, and I know many others, find entirely objectionable. That is the practice whereby an employer can introduce a retrospective requirement into employees' conditions of service that they should be members of a trade union.
That inevitably brings me to the case of Miss Joanna Harris. Miss Harris is—or was until 11th March of this year—a poultry inspector with the Sandwell district council. She enjoyed her job, and so far as I am aware, everyone agreed that she performed her duties with a high degree of competence. She was not a member of the National and Local Government Officers Association and when she joined the service of the Sandwell council there was no requirement that she should be a member of that—or, for that matter, any other—trade union. However, the majority Labour group on the council decided to introduce a closed shop policy and they determined that it should apply to everyone. Not just new employees—that I think would have been a defensible proposition. Certainly it would have been lawful. But they went a great deal further than that. The new policy, they decided, would cover everyone, including all those who had joined the service of the authority before the date upon which they made their decision to introduce the

1201
closed shop policy. Miss Harris and a number of other employees of the council decided that despite this ultimatum they were not prepared to join a trade union. The council then resolved to invoke procedures which have now brought about the dismissal of Miss Harris and will no doubt also cause the sacking of other employees of the council.
But the practice, of course, has not been applied exclusively in Sandwell. We have, we are told, the local authority in Walsall appearing to behave in precisely the same fashion. Here it has been applied to part-time employees of the authority, some earning £9 or £10 a week as part-time dinner ladies in schools. I have no doubt at all that the policy I have described will be extended after the forthcoming local government elections when, as is inevitably the case—or at least, I should say, invariably the case—when a Government are defending a large number of seats they won while in opposition, there will be a significant number of new Labour controlled authorities.
I do not propose, despite the obvious temptation, to discuss in any way this evening the present state of the Labour Party, but all I would say is this. They should, I think, pay some attention in your Lordships' House to the recent statement of the noble Lord, Lord Lever, in which he drew attention to a large number of sensible, moderate Labour councillors being removed by the extremists who now control many constituency Labour parties. I will, if I may, quote from Lord Lever's article on accountability which appeared in the London Review of Books:
"There is a local back-up to the undermining of Labour Members of Parliament which has received too little attention in the media. A similar process has been even more successfully and ruthlessly applied in the control of municipal offices. Hundreds of experienced councillors of high quality have been ousted in favour of the nominees of this alliance of left-wingers and recently arrived extremists. Even more outrageous demands for control over Council members have been organised and to a large extent accomplished in all the great cities which enjoy large Labour representation—such as London, Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham. The absence of these local figures further weakens the positions of moderate Members of Parliament as well as dangerously undermining local democracy".
That does not come, as is often suggested to be the case, from a source hostile to the Labour Party, but from a senior member of the Cabinets of Sir Harold Wilson and Mr. Callaghan. There can, it seems to me, be no doubt that, in the light of the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Lever, and many others, what we have seen in Sandwell may be repeated in forthcoming months in other local authorities, including some of the largest in the country.
What in these circumstances should be done about it? Before coming to the Government's position on this matter I will, if I may, deal first with two arguments which have been advanced from the official Opposition Benches to defend their colleagues in Sandwell. First, it has been said that there has been altogether too much publicity about these cases. Why, it has been asked, has the press—and by implication those who have raised the issue at all—not been equally concerned by the cases of men who have lost their jobs because of their efforts to introduce trade unionism into non-union companies? I must say I have absolutely no difficulty about answering that question. As someone who has been a member of a trade union since the age of 20, I would deplore the action of any
1202
employer who sacked an employee simply because of his trade union activities. So I think that argument can be put on one side.
We come to the second argument which has been put by two noble Lords in this House. It is argued that there must be a great deal to be said for the closed shop; otherwise, it is said, why do so many employers favour it? Well, the answer to that is this, again reminding the House that what we are discussing this evening is not the desirability or the morality of the closed shop in general, but the practice whereby employees' conditions of service are altered retrospectively and against their will: of course many employers have conceded a closed shop, sometimes, it has to be said, after immense pressure from some trade unions. But I find it a little odd hearing the view expressed from the Labour Benches that because an employer favours a particular policy then it is self-evidently right. Nor can it seriously be maintained that the introduction of a closed shop has led to improved industrial relations. Anyone who believes that particular view should examine the position of the national newspaper industry in this country, where the closed shop has existed for many years, and where labour relations have been utterly disastrous, as we all know.
I turn to the Government's position on the matter which I have put down for debate this evening. Certainly the Secretary of State for Employment cannot be accused in any way whatever of having adopted an ambiguous stance on these cases. He invited Miss Harris to meet him in London, and published a letter setting out his views in the most trenchant terms. In his letter of 4th February, which was released to the press, he said:
"I have already condemned Sandwell council's ruthless and inhuman closed shop policy and I have made it clear that I fully support Miss Harris in her refusal to be bullied into joining a trade union".
I share the right honourable gentleman's sentiments entirely—so I believe do the majority of Members of your Lordships' House.
But we cannot, I believe, possibly leave the matter there. It is, of course, true, as the Secretary of State has said in his letter, that Miss Harris can take her case to an industrial tribunal. That is perfectly correct. And indeed she may be given a substantial financial award. Again perfectly correct. But, as Miss Harris has consistently pointed out, it is not compensation she wants; it is her job that concerns her. She likes being a poultry inspector. I must put it to the Minister of State this evening quite bluntly: Why should Parliament not be in a position to insist that she and others like her get their jobs back? I would remind the Minister of State of what his right honourable friend said in his letter of 4th February. Mr. Prior wrote:
"It is quite clear that what Sandwell are proposing is unlawful under the terms of our recent Employment Act. The staff who have been threatened were already employed by the council before the closed shop was brought into effect. That fact alone is sufficient to make their dismissal unfair".
One could not possibly ask for a statement clearer than that. What Sandwell council has done he said, is not only wrong; it is unlawful. Yet, despite this, Miss Harris has lost her job.
As I have said, we cannot leave the matter at that. What action do the Government now propose to take to protect Miss Harris and others who are likely to be placed in a precisely similar position? I should like to ask, first of all—this matter has already been ventilated at Question Time—why the matter has not been referred already to the district auditor. If members of a local authority choose deliberately to flout the law, and a burden is thus unnecessarily imposed on the ratepayers, the councillors concerned can be required by the courts to repay the money involved as individuals. I still hope that we shall hear tonight that the Secretary of State for the Environment will himself direct the attention of the district auditor to the behaviour of the Sandwell and Walsall councils and, indeed, any other council that is involved in this highly disagreeable process. I believe that a reminder about the fate of the Clay Cross councillors might have a most valuable effect on some of even the most militant members of local authorities.
But even this procedure does, of course, take time. What we require here is, I believe, urgent action. As it is clear, on the basis of what has been said by the Secretary of State for Employment, that the behaviour of the Sandwell local authority is unlawful, is the Secretary of State prepared to consult the law officers of the Crown with a view to applying for injunctions to restrain the local authorities concerned from dismissing their employees, in deliberate defiance of the law of this country?
I think that I must say the following most emphatically to the Minister this evening. It will not be enough for him tonight to rely exclusively on the industrial tribunal argument in terms of compensation. That, as we all know perfectly well, may secure for those concerned financial compensation; but it will not get them their jobs back. And that is what they want. They do not want to find themselves given a cheque, a friendly pat on the back, and then dismissed to join the growing army of the unemployed. Indeed, I believe that it would be intolerable were that to be the outcome of these cases.
Miss Harris and her colleagues have—and I repeat again that we have been told this by the Secretary of State—been sacked unlawfully. Why then should they not receive the full protection of the law for the stand that they have taken? It is a matter of total irrelevance whether or not we, as individual Members of this House, think that people have in any particular case—in this case or, indeed, for that matter in any other case—behaved well or badly, or whether it is desirable or not that they should be a member of a trade union. There is only one issue of importance: Should we allow this grievous wrong to be done to these women, in this particular case, or to any others in other cases—that they should be sacked at a time of rising unemployment—when the law of Britain clearly states that employers are not to behave in this abominable manner?
When sitting some two years or so ago on the Government Front Bench in this House, I had the good fortune to listen to a number of speeches from the noble and learned Lord the present Lord Chancellor, then of course speaking for the Opposition. In a number of those speeches the noble and learned Lord, Lord
1204
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, drew attention to the fact that a number of Members of another place, and some local authorities, appeared to be contemptuous of the rule of law. They did not, he said, appear to like the courts; they seemed to harbour the deepest suspicions of the judiciary, and were increasingly inclined to support unconstitutional action in order to achieve their objectives. I agreed with his view when he expressed it. I still do so. Indeed, I believe that the threat to our society from these elements is a great deal more profound now than when he spoke from this side of the House.
That being so, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, occupying as he now does that great office of state of Lord Chancellor, will take the keenest personal interest over these cases. What is being done in Sandwell and Walsall represents an outrageous and, as we know from the Secretary of State, an unlawful assault on the civil liberties of a number of our fellow citizens. In my view it calls for immediate action from the Government to safeguard their position and to forestall an arbitrary and tyrannical abuse of power. I hope that we shall be assured by the Minister of State tonight that the Government are prepared to take such action. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for having introduced this Motion, but on behalf of my noble friends I should like to do more than just thank him for having done so. I believe that this is the first debate initiated in the House of Lords by someone who has declared himself a supporter of the Council for Social Democracy, which tomorrow is to become a new political party. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on having made a speech that was truly liberal—with a small "1"—in its advocacy of individual freedom. It augurs well for that close co-operation in Parliament which I fervently hope will lead eventually to the formulation of agreed policies and put a stop at last to the constant changes in economic direction which, for the past 30 years, have done so much damage to British industry.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, but I cannot let that last comment pass. The closeness of the present Government's economic policies to those of the previous Government has hardly been denied.
Lord Rochester: My Lords. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said at the start that he would leave on one side some of the wider issues affecting closed shops and I shall do my best to follow him, for we shall have an opportunity in the debate next week on trade union immunities generally, to discuss those other matters.
The noble Lord devoted his speech to what he called the indefensible practice whereby an employer can introduce into the conditions of service of his employees a retrospective requirement that they should be trade union members. I agree with him very strongly on that point. It is the same tyrannical practice which resulted in the dismissal in 1976 of people who had for years given faithful service to British Rail. Their

1205
case is now before the European Court and I shall not comment on it further, except to reaffirm the abhorrence that Liberals feel for the detestable thinking that underlies the imposition of closed shops in such a pitiless manner.
When three weeks ago the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked a Question about the closed shop policies of Sandwell and Walsall District Councils I said that those like me who have advised against the immediate abolition of closed shops on practical grounds, found that our position had been made more difficult to maintain. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, in reply very properly emphasised the need for laws to be enacted that had the overall consent of the public. I acknowledge that point. Indeed, I did so when the Employment Bill was debated in your Lordships' House last year and I do not depart now from the view which I then expressed.
In the case of Miss Joanna Harris I must also accept that, under the present law, now that she has lost her job she has no claim to reinstatement, but only to compensation for unfair dismissal. The question remains as to what the Government and the rest of us can do which will affect the immediate position. Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I shall await with interest what the Minister has to say in reply to Lord Harris's question as to whether the Secretary of State for the Environment will himself direct the attention of the district auditor to the behaviour of Sandwell Council. If the Minister does not feel able to take that course then I express the hope that, if Miss Harris puts her case before an industrial tribunal and obtains compensation for unfair dismissal, some Sandwell elector will then take action. That is because it is clear that the Sandwell Council has infringed the statutory rights of its employees under the Employment Act 1980, and it is therefore open to anyone to raise the matter with the district auditor, who may decide to investigate, with the result that individual councillors could be held responsible for expenditure that would otherwise fall on the ratepayers. I would further ask the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, whether, if the district auditor finds that some loss has been incurred through the wilful misconduct of councillors, the auditor may himself initiate action to recover the sum involved.
While I am at it, there are a few other questions to be asked about Sandwell Council. What is known about the circumstances under which any ballot of union members was held to approve the closed shop agreement?—which I understand was introduced last July, only a few weeks before the Employment Act became law. Were all the council's employees given an opportunity to vote? Are there any others, besides Miss Harris, who were not members of NALGO when the agreement was made, who have not since joined the union and who may, therefore, also be under threat of dismissal? If so, how many of them are there? I am sure that it is fitting for questions like these to be raised in Parliament so that the facts can be made known to as many people as possible.
I have said nothing about Walsall Council, for there is quite enough to be going on with at Sandwell, but I would hope that when the noble Earl replies he will tell us as much as he can about the position there and, indeed, in any other places where council employees
1206
are threatened with dismissal or, for that matter, with action short of dismissal.
There is one last specific question which I should like to ask the Minister. This is rather a different point. Is it true that certain local authorities, in particular Darlington Borough Council, are persisting in bringing pressure to bear on outside contractors to introduce closed shops by excluding from approved lists of tenderers contractors who do not operate a closed shop? If the allegation is true, what remedies are available to contractors subjected to that sort of pressure?
Having said all that, in the light of my industrial experience I still hope that it will not be necessary to introduce any further legislation relating to closed shops, for I very much doubt whether that would do anything positive to solve the problems of human relations in industry or in local government. But if there are not to be such further laws, I cannot stress too strongly that it is essential for employers and for trade unions to observe those laws that were enacted last year. Even as matters now stand, I suggest that there are certain positive steps that ordinary people can take which should affect the behaviour of those who are parties to closed shop agreements of the kind recently introduced at Sandwell; that is, trade union representatives and local councillors.
First, I take trade unions. I hope that the members concerned will move in concert to elect leaders who will act in accordance with the view that the great majority of trade unionists continue to express in opinion polls whenever questions involving closed shops are raised. It is my experience that in trade unions as much as in other organisations bullying is best stamped out by the general body of members combining together for that purpose.
In the case of local councils, electors likewise have a remedy. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to the large number of sensible, moderate Labour councillors now being removed by extremists who control many constituency Labour parties. I console myself with the thought that the more extreme the view of local Labour councillors, surely the more likely it is that the general body of electors will turn against them.
Understandably, members of the Social Democratic Party which is to be formed tomorrow may not be in a position to stand at the county council elections to be held in May. But I trust that it will not be thought mere electioneering on my part to point out that there will then be plenty of Liberal candidates in the field. It is for the voters to draw their conclusions. However, I very much hope that one result of the forthcoming elections will be that in places such as Sandwell, Wallsall, or any other places where the cap fits, district councillors will find themselves under increasing pressure to change their behaviour.
Finally, I should like simply to reaffirm that my noble friends and I are greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for calling the attention of the House to the issue of civil liberties that has been raised in this debate.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Brookes: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for having ventilated this noxious issue in your Lordships' House.

1207
West Bromwich, being part of Sandwell, the place of my birth and the place with which—with some permissible pride, I associate the formality of my title, it is a matter of great sorrow and shame to me that this should be a place prominent among local authorities which use public office and public money to trample upon human freedoms and deny the right to work other than conditionally.
I cannot be present in the House next week and it is difficult to discuss this subject without reference to the trade unions because, in truth, certainly in West Bromwich, if not indeed elsewhere, they have much on their conscience tonight. But because it would be unfair for me to be accused of union bashing or because it would be wrong for me to be felt unmindful of the great lives which have been dedicated to a great movement, let it be said for and on the record that in a lifetime in industry, including 10 years as chairman of Britain's largest engineering company, which then had approximately 80,000 people employed in the United Kingdom, I never knowingly conceded or tolerated a closed shop. I never found it necessary to do so and I enjoyed, and continue to enjoy, excellent relationships, friendships, trust and confidences with the leaders of the trade union movement at all levels.
However, I always knew the closed shop to be evil; I felt it to be part of my responsibility to deny it; I felt it to be my duty to my employees to accord to them the same equity, the same freedom, the same respect and the same respites as my shareholders and to rank in all respects equal with my shareholders, and I succeeded. Therefore, deplore the relatively modem trend in management whereby—on the fragile excuse that closed shops convenience industrial relations—employers press their employees beyond the bounds of freedom, and even make it a condition that unless you belong to a union, you may not have a job. So, in this matter, management does not have clean hands, and in my view does not have sensible hands.
The great tragedy, economic and social, of our time —the greatest in my lifetime—is that this great movement, the trade union movement, born necessarily and desirably of all the inequities and horrors of the Industrial Revolution, should have been misused; and that the ideals and the service of great men who have led it should have been misused by minorities to the point where it has become the greatest tyranny of our age; licensing and charging people to work; licensing employers to employ; and increasingly having the temerity to seek to license elected Governments to govern. I have too much written for the time available, so I shall pass on. I refer to a strange inconsistency again of our time; the kind of schizophrenia whereby we rightly condemn apartheid in South Africa and legislate for industrial apartheid in our own country, and they are both equally evil and tragic.
I come now to the indelicacies, the indecencies, or that which, if I were in another place, seeking your Lordships' pardon, I might even refer to as the stench of Sandwell, and in particular to the tragedy of the torture of Joanna Harris. I am well aware that by abstruse legal arguments a brilliant Front Bench can defend, or seek to defend, in good conscience or not, that which is indefensible. I am quite content to go
1208
down to defeat before the brilliance of debate, because that will never override truth or freedom. But some points are worth making about that which actually happened at Sandwell. I am briefed by people in the town, and if I make errors I apologise. I rely on information given to me.
It is abundantly and overwhelmingly clear that there was conspiracy, brilliant and rapid conspiracy, between a left-wing town hall and left-wing local executive committees of the unions concerned. In rapid succession, and in order to seek to circumvent the impending 1980 law and code of practice, they rushed through in three separate blocks three sets of closed shop agreements. These things are called UMAs, and that managed to make them sound a little more respectable. in the third of these came the NALGO union, but, prior to Block 3 of these hurried agreements, NALGO conducted a poll on the closed shop issue of its union members, not of all the people in the grades to which NALGO would normally relate itself.
The issue was, should there, or should there not, be a closed shop? The proposal was defeated. But, not to be deflected, and at great speed, the left-wing executive committee of the NALGO union organised another poll, again of NALGO members only, not all of whom received their paper in time to vote. On this second poll, 810 voted in favour, 671 against, out of what would have been an electorate of 3,600 of the appropriate grades under the law as it now stands, inadequate though I believe that present law to be. The votes were counted by
the president, the chairman, and the vice-chairman of the executive committee of NALGO. They were counted properly or improperly, and I have to say that because there was no audit of the count and there was no audit of the processess leading to the poll.
Such, then, is the sorry state, such then is the value, such is the worth of democracy in Sandwell, and such is the demonstrated worth of democracy in the trades union movement. I greatly dislike saying that because, I repeat, there are a great many in this House who have given their lives to that movement and they deserve a better reward, a more dignified status, and a more dignified contribution to our society than we are now getting from that to which they have given their lives.
As for poor Joanna Harris following these events, she went to inquisitions which have been described to me as being Star Chamber-like in nature. Thereafter, accompanied by a courageous local councillor, Mrs. Jones, hopefully or hopelessly—who shall know?—she went to see the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment. He, I am told, to receive this little girl was surrounded by a panoply of advisers. She must have been getting a little tired of officialdom. I know that she had great courtesy, but all that she had at the end was a procedural washing of hands and a useless reference to an industrial tribunal. I am ashamed to believe that any member of the party which I have served all my life should think that money will substitute for freedom or the right to work. This Government stand condemned, in my view, by the inadequacies of their own legislation because that legislation left the loopholes which have brought about the suffering of Joanna Harris and others.
Picking up one or two points that have been made, I believe that this council has already been legally

1209
advised that the district auditor will have no claims against them. I do not question the original or present integrity of intent of the Secretary of State for Employment. I would never question that. I believe him to be a well-motivated, good man who has sought to attract the right response from responsible trades unionists, but that his aspirations have been destroyed by
extremists. Thus, this Government have broken faith with their own manifesto; broken faith with the electorate; and allowed evil to occur for which there is in this House tonight no apparent remedy. In short, like Governments before them, they have not learned that no spoon is long enough to enable you safely to sup with the devil. I leave with a thought for the Minister of State: there is still time to remedy these injustices, to lift up the hearts of the people who elected them, by introducing—and I do not like it—reinforcing retrospective legislation to redress these evils. If they do not, then all I can say is God save freedom, God save England and God save us from the expediencies of politics!
6.10 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for taking up the case of our namesake from Sandwell, and I fully share the sense of outrage he expressed about the treatment of that courageous young lady. I was suitably impressed by the delicate courtship by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, as a social democrat. I was enormously impressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brookes, who I find it difficult to follow with credit, for Lord Brookes as a practised, enormously experienced industrialist, has given the lie to so much of what we heard in the debates on the Employment Act about the necessity for the closed shop, and he set an example of liberalism to those on the Liberal Benches who so often uphold individual freedom in principle and acquiesce time and again in its erosion in particular cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Brookes, told us how the closed shop came to be fastened on the workpeople in Sandwell and how, after two polls a few months apart, the closed shop was approved by fewer than one in four of the employees who would be affected, a large number having been disfranchised by not being allowed to vote on that issue. He omitted to deploy the point that the date chosen to enforce the closed shop by Sandwell Council was 1st August, chosen deliberately as two weeks ahead of the coming into effect of the Employment Act, which would have required an 80 per cent. affirmative vote of all the employees in order to create a new closed shop.
Since November, apart from Miss Joanna Harris, we have had evidence of the persecution of people like deputy matrons of old people's homes and ordained Baptist ministers of religion, and the majority have backed down. They backed down under the threat literally of a firing squad; they would be sacked if they did not back down. Miss Joanna Harris has not backed down, having explained:
"All I know is that I believe in freedom of choice and Sandwell Council is trying to take this away from me. I will not be pushed around".
1210
Most plaintively, she said:
"I still cannot believe that this is happening under English law".
The branch secretary of NALGO, a Mr. Eric Faux, as though replying to Miss Joanna Harris's plea, is quoted as saying:
"It may appear to be unfair, undemocratic and un-British, but it is not illegal".
That is the issue I put to the Minister today. I believe that in that last assertion by the branch secretary of NALGO, Mr. Eric Faux was correct, and therefore I believe the Secretary of State was wrong in the letter which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, quoted on 4th February, which was issued to the press and is therefore available to be checked, in which the Secretary of State used these words:
"It is quite clear that what Sandwell are proposing is unlawful under the terms of our recent Employment Act".
It is not a legal quibble but critically important that we should be clear once and for all if that statement is true. I claim that what Sandwell has done is not unlawful, however much it may be insensitive, highhanded, authoritarian or even shameful. This issue has been raised in two Starred Questions tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and each time there has been reference to the statutory rights of employees having clearly been infringed, but no clear statement about whether it is unlawful under the 1980 Act. I wrote to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, following the last Starred Question and asked this specific question: Was it unlawful? In his courteous answer, for which I thank him, he told me, again elaborately, about the statutory rights that had been infringed but he did not come specifically to the question whether what they had done was unlawful.
If Sandwell Council have broken the law, then noble Lords in all parts of the House might agree that they should be prosecuted. The important fact is that if Sandwell Council have not broken the law, then we can prevent a repetition of these sad events only by changing what has proved in practice to be an unsatisfactory or ineffective statute. As I am advised, the 1980 Act does not prevent any employer from acting exactly as Sandwell have acted. Section 7, which I remember well debating through its various stages in this House, specifically licenses an employer to dismiss an employee in precisely these circumstances; where there is a union membership agreement—that is, a closed shop, as there are covering perhaps 7 million employees at the present time—the employer can sack anyone who refuses to join.
The only question is whether hush money will be paid to the victims and, if so, how much. The lawful sacking of Joanna Harris may subsequently be judged to be fair or unfair—it was clearly unfair because the 1980 Act provided that it was an unfair practice to sack someone who was already working in a shop to which a union membership agreement applied—and if it is judged unfair, compensation must be paid. But there is no right for the victim to be reinstated. The victim may appeal to the employment appeal tribunal, which may order reinstatement, but the employer can refuse to reinstate, in which case the victim will simply get more hush money as compensation for loss of the job.

1211
It was because the employer was so often egged on by the trade union to refuse reinstatement or to sack a non-member of the union that the 1980 Act made one advance; namely, it provided employers with the right to join the union in the proceedings before an industrial tribunal. Then, if the tribunal finds that the dismissal of the employee was unfair, the tribunal can order the trade union to pay the employer up to the full amount of any compensation that may be awarded. Those possibilities lie in the future. It might be noted that Sandwell Council have announced a clear understanding with NALGO that the union will not be joined in any action of that kind, and that seems to be the only point where the district auditor could get a look in, because the council and the union conspire to say that the ratepayer shall be charged with any compensation.
But of course Miss Joanna Harris has not yet decided whether to appeal; she just wants her job back, and on that she has three months to decide whether to go to the industrial tribunal. The consideration in her mind is that if she goes to the industrial tribunal, which can be six months or a year away, that would leave her with further costs, and there is no provision for legal aid before the industrial tribunal.
We are often told, particularly from the Labour Benches, that you cannot make trade unionists work with non-members. Their case is that to outlaw the closed shop would not be effective because trade unionists will not work with non-members. But if the law quite explicitly prohibited the closed shop, as it does throughout Europe, then the effect of what is happening in Sandwell and elsewhere would be plainly to expose trade union funds to action for massive damages. That would provide a test as to whether ordinary trade union members think it is really worth paying large sums of money in order to indulge the preference for closed shops.
On this issue and many others that we are to see over the coming months it is no good trying to blame noble Lords on the Labour Benches for their advocacy of the closed shop. By a melancholy accident of history the Labour Party has to appear all the time as the partisans and protagonists of trade unions, though even they must be becoming increasingly uneasy about some of the examples of misuse of trade union power. We have to blame the Conservative Benches, because the Conservative Party came into power in 1979 with an overwhelming authority from the electorate to strike a decisive blow against what was seen to be trade union tyranny of just the kind that we have witnessed periodically ever since, and which the 1980 Act cannot stop. Well, Tories of a more philosophical bent often like—or used to like—to quote Burke. I would tonight remind them of his verdict on Hampden's refusal to pay ship money. Burke said:
"Would 20 shillings have ruined Mr. Hampden's fortune? No. But the payment of half of 20 shillings on the principle it was demanded would have made him a slave".
It was because Miss Joanna Harris would not be a slave that she has now been sacked. And that is the grim choice that confronts in total probably 7 million people in legal or informal closed shops, who are imprisoned, many of them involuntarily, in union membership. I believe that they are entitled to look to Parliament for early relief.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for providing the opportunity to ventilate this most important matter. As we expected, the noble Lord has given the House the benefit of his further studies into this affair that he raised in Question form in your Lordships' House on 13th February, as reported at column 405. The burden of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as I understood it, was that he was not going to discuss the merits or demerits of the closed shop as such. His prime point was that the actions of the Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council were unlawful. The noble Lord made that point in the course of his supplementary questions after the reply given to him on 13th February by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. Indeed, he purported to quote—I do not use the term "purported" in an at all abusive sense—from a letter written by the Secretary of State to Mr. McWhirter on 4th February, in which the Minister is quoted as saying, as reported at column 407 of the Official Report:
It is quite clear that what Sandwell are proposing is unlawful under the terms of our recent Employment Act".
It is true enough that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in the course of a reply to a later supplementary question, pointed out that it was possibly unwise not to go on to quote further passages from the letter. At least that is what the noble Lord implied. He said, as reported at column 407:
"I am always tempted when noble Lords quote from letters to say to them, 'Read on, read on', because very often such statements are taken out of context".
I am not accusing the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, of quoting out of context. Having listened to the noble Lord, I am quite convinced that he is firmly of the opinion that the actions taken by this particular council are unlawful, and it is on the record that the Government think so, too, if the quotation from a letter read out by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is accurate, as I have no doubt it is—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord since I have certainly drawn upon the letter today, but on 13th February it was in fact quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; but at any rate the letter was quoted. The burden of the noble Lord's complaint today—which he has accompanied by adjectives such as "inhuman", "abominable", "outrageous"—stems from his fundamental accusation of illegality. It is the duty of all parties, in government or in opposition, to see that the laws as they are passed are upheld. An accusation of illegality should not be lightly made. So I was particularly grateful when the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Peak, rose to his feet and proceeded to demonstrate—
A noble Lord: Lord Harris of High Cross.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am sorry, my Lords; I mean the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross.

1213
There are so many Harrises in this case that perhaps I may be forgiven for the slight confusion. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, rose to his feet and demonstrated, in my view quite conclusively, that of course the council had not at all acted illegally. In amplification of that point, may I cite to your Lordships the section of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 that deals with this aspect of the matter. Section 58(3) states:
"Dismissal of an employee by an employer shall be regarded as fair for the purposes of this part"—
that is this part of the Act—
"if—

(a) it is the practice, in accordance with a union membership agreement, for employees for the time being of the same class as the dismissed employee to belong to a specified independent trade union, or to one of a number of specified independent trade unions; and

(b) the reason for the dismissal was that the employee was not a member of the specified union or one of the specified unions, or had refused or proposed to refuse to become or remain a member of that union or one of those unions;".

If the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will forgive me, I should like to mention in parenthesis that that Act was passed by a Government of which he was
a member, and of which Mrs. Shirley Williams was a leading member. I cannot recall this question having been raised by the noble Lord or by Mrs. Shirley Williams in such passionate terms as have been addressed to the House today. As no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, will mention, it is quite true that that part of the 1978 Act has been modified by Section 7 of the Employment Act 1980. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, reminded us, Section 7 came into operation by means of a Statutory Instrument issued by the Department of Employment on 15th August. Thus, the agreement itself was not unlawful.
As to whether the Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council have acted unfairly,
this is another question altogether. It may well be that, if the procedures that are envisaged by the main Act are followed, the tribunal to which an appeal can be made under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 will decide in favour of the appellant, whoever he or she may be. There does not seem to be any reason why this appeal should not be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Many questions of dire hardship have been raised, and, as I say, strong adjectives have been used to describe the plight of Miss Joanna Harris. But if the injury is all that grievous, and even if in fact it merits only a part of the descriptions which fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Brookes, then surely she will be easily able to mitigate at any rate the hardship part by going through the normal appeals procedures, which are still open to her and which will in fact be open to her until 11th June.
Therefore, if Miss Harris thinks that she has been maltreated or unfairly dismissed, then the remedies are open to her. I do not share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Brookes, that the remedies in the Act itself are of no consequence. I do not think the noble Earl opposite would permit them to remain in existence if they were of no effect. The noble Earl shares with those of us on this side of the House the view that where an unfairness has been done to an individual then that unfairness should be rectified, more particularly if there is statutory provision for it; and I would
1214
hope that this would be done.
In so far as the agreement is concerned, I am bound to say this. There has been no particular haste by the union in this matter to get a closed shop agreement. It was mooted at one time, in 1977, and the branch considered it, but there was a ballot against it. It was raised again within the union itself in 1979, but then, once again, the union held a ballot and rejected it. It was in mid-1980 that the question was raised once again, and an offer was made to the union and to the other unions concerned by the Sandwell Borough Council. That offer they accepted, and the agreement was signed between the local authority and the union on 25th July 1980, to become effective on 1st August 1980.
Moreover, the form of the agreement itself, the general text of which I have in front of me, is in complete conformity with the Department of Employment's code of practice on this particular matter. It follows quite meticulously, so far as I can see, the guidelines that were laid down, either before the Minister came into office or afterwards, for the conduct of this type of operation. So there does not seem to be any reason why the agreement and the provisions under the agreement, which provide for appeals on specific grounds, should not have been followed out.
Miss Harris was first interviewed on this matter on 21st January 1981, which was some six weeks after the issue first arose—it could have been hastened—and she was seen again on 11th February. I am not in a position to deny what the noble Lord said about inquisitorial methods. Personally speaking, I would doubt it; and I would require the production of some evidence to know that that was in fact the case. When one is being questioned one tends to regard all questioning or interviews as inquisitorial, but I think that accounts conveyed second-hand on a hearsay basis should be treated with some reserve.
As to Miss Joanna Harris herself—who, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, pointed out, was a Sandwell Council poultry meat inspector—it would seem from the press reports that have appeared (and I would emphasise that these have not been provided to me by the parties concerned) that one of the chicken slaughter-houses where Miss Harris inspected poultry on behalf of the Sandwell Council was a family firm owned by her grandfather, in addition to her mother and uncle being directors of the firm. Also, before it became mandatory for local authorities to inspect white as well as red meat in accordance with the EEC meat hygiene regulations, it is understood that Miss Harris worked at her grandfather's firm as a direct employee.
I cannot vouch for the information—it is hearsay; it has only been in the press, and I do not assert it as a fact—but since there has been so much other hearsay bandied about it is perhaps necessary to say that it has also been released in the press that her grandfather had previously set up a trust fund for Joanna Harris, into which he makes a payment of approximately £600 with an increase of £200 a year to the firm which trades under the name of Ward's Poultry Limited.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? What on earth has this got to do with what we are discussing?
Lord Bruce of Donington: Yes, my Lords. The case has been made out, in very extravagant terms, of a very considerable amount of personal hardship to an individual. When considering whether or not a person has suffered material hardship, it is only right that one should take their circumstances, so far as they are known, into account. I pass no comment on them. They have merely, as I say, been released to the press, like so many other statements that have been made here this afternoon. Since the debate has been limited—
Lord Brookes: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Clearly I could not have been present—neither, for that matter, could the noble Lord opposite—at any examination or inquisition relating to Miss Joanna Harris; but I did not quote from newspapers, I did not quote from speculation and I did not quote from the spoken word. I quoted from information communicated to me by a highly respected member of the local authority concerned—and I named her.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I immediately accept that from the noble Lord, and I would not wish to impute anything to the contrary. However, one must always say—and I think most noble Lords would agree—that what is hearsay must be treated as hearsay, from whatever source it comes.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, deliberately did not raise the question of the desirability or otherwise of closed shops. However, while not seeking to detain the House on this matter, I am bound to say that it is always very easy for people who, owing to the activities of trade unions, achieve wages levels and conditions-of-work levels which have been the result of combined trade union effort to say, "We want no part of this"—but, at the same time, they continue to emjoy the benefits of the combined organisation for which they seem to have a somewhat fastidious distaste, knowing perfectly well that, regardless, they will continue to be employed and remunerated, in most cases, at levels determined by the trade union movement in negotiation with the employers.
Lord Robbins: My Lords, is the noble Lord asking the House to believe that the increase in the standard of life and of protection, which has been from time to time the consequence of the formation of trade unions, involves behaviour of the kind that we have heard described this evening?
Lord Bruce of Donington: No, my Lords, I am not inviting the House to reach any such conclusion. The remarks that I have made I trust are temperate and have avoided the use of some of the extravagant language that we have heard here this evening and which I, suggest to your Lordships is wholly inappropriate to the degree of personal injury or damage sustained.
A noble Lord: No!
Lord Bruce of Donington: And, my Lords, particularly in the light of the fact that the procedures which are laid down in the Act have not been followed. I recollect a case in which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was replying to me on a question of an alleged injury inflicted on someone at a party conference He did
1216
not argue to me about it at all. He merely said that no complaint had been received; and he regarded that as conclusive. In this case we are faced with the fact that there are procedures provided under the Act of which no advantage has been taken. The time has still not run out; it is still there until 15th May or, alternatively, 15th June. One hopes it will be invoked.
I trust that the House may bear in mind the observations which only yesterday fell from the lips of the right honourable gentleman Mr. Prior, the Secretary of State for Employment, when speaking at a meeting of the Institute of Directors. A report of the meeting reads:
"Mr. Prior, the opening speaker to the Institute's 2,000 delegates at the Albert Hall, gave examples of employers who, he said, were more determined than any trade union to maintain certain closed-shop arrangements".
It is precisely because both sides of industry see advantages in the closed shop that the closed shop and the introduction of the closed shop continues. There is no case for their abolition and the Government themselves, I feel, would not make a case for their abolition.
One would never condone—and we on this side of the House would never condone—unfair acts or unfair conduct under any Act. Our function at this time, and the most useful one we can perform, is to urge upon the Government to begin to create a social climate within which good industrial relations can be established; because ultimately the whole of the industrial relations field depends on complete cooperation between the management and the unions in order to ensure that both sides get a fair deal and to ensure that hardship is inflicted on no one. This is the way I feel that the Government, any Government, ought to proceed rather than by trying to legislate on matters which the Government themselves admit are not always susceptible to legislation.
6.46 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, this debate, which I welcome very much, has to some degree been about law and the interpretation of law. But principally it has been about people, people who, in the words of my noble friend Lord Brookes, use public office and public money to trample on human freedoms. The cases of this kind which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to in his brilliant opening speech are intolerable. Sandwell is the most notorious example, but there are others and very worryingly, as Lord Harris pointed out, there may be more in the pipeline.
May I go over what is agreed about the case of Sandwell? Last year a local authority, the Sandwell Borough Council, introduced closed shops: at first covering all the manual employees and then, last July, before the Act came into force, white collar staff. That included Miss Joanna Harris, who has been mentioned many times in this debate. Councillor John Edwards, the chairman of the council's works committee, claimed that his council had a mandate from the electorate to force union membership on all employees regardless of their wishes. The union in question is NALGO. So if in Sandwell Borough Council NALGO discovers that someone is employed by the Council but is not a paid-up member it has only

1217
to get in touch with an officer of the council, a Mr. Hodgetts, who is Sandwell's personnel director and who has instructions to investigate the individual concerned. This means in effect that the local NALGO official, a Mr. Faux, faces the council employees with the choice of joining the union or being sacked. Mr. Faux has himself said—and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross instanced this—that he has no conscience about doing so. By this process of employees having to join up or get out, those who object are weeded out or, in the case of Miss Joanna Harris, sacked for sticking to their guns.
In referring to Miss Harris, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that it really is not relevant what her personal circumstances are. Were she the principal legatee of the late Paul Getty she should have redress to the law in the Sandwell case. On the other point that the noble Lord raised—that it is easy for people to take benefits from unions without contributing to their terms and conditions—well, as we know, one of the very dubious benefits of increasing upward movements in wage pressures due to union monopoly and activity has been increased unemployment. That is not a benefit that should continue.
My Lords, as you know, the Government oppose the principle of closed shops, and we share the public concern over the way these local authorities have acted. It is quite right that this House should voice the widely held criticisms of the actions. Councillors, and those they purport to represent, should be aware of the concern that these intolerable policies can cause.
I really think that, by any normal ethical standards, Councillor Edwards, Mr. Hodgett, Mr. Faux and their associates in the Sandwell case are thoroughly bad men, and their actions thoroughly wicked. I hope that the electors of Sandwell are alert to the kinds of action which are being taken in their name.
Let me now look at the general background to this debate. Last year, a few local authorities pushed through union membership agreements shortly before the Employment Act took effect in August. The Act of course requires that new agreements should be approved by a secret ballot of employees if the agreement is to give the employer a defence in tribunal cases. But these councils did not want to put the agreements to the vote of the employees whom they were going to affect. And then—over a period of months—one or two councils have begun to put pressure on employees to become union members or face dismissal. In the case of Miss Harris, the council have actually dismissed her, as we know.
I do not think that on any general principles there is any case at all for closed shops within local authorities, whatever one may feel about closed shops elsewhere. Even the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, whose expertise on industrial relations we all acknowledge and whose book defends closed shops on the grounds that these are sometimes necessary for efficient collective bargaining, could find no need for them among local authority staff. Unions have for a long time been able to achieve high levels of membership within local authorities and to negotiate effectively without closed shops.
Indeed, one of the unusual features in the cases that we are discussing tonight is that it has been the employer
1218
—not the union—which has set the pace. Often in closed shops employers say that union pressure requires them to agree to a closed shop. But here there is no evidence of union pressure. Rather it is the ideology of the councillors which has been the motivating force. I am not saying that the unions are free from blame. I have mentioned the uncompromising attitude of the local NALGO official Mr. Eric Faux and the union's vigorous pursuit of dissenters, which shows their own contempt for the TUC's guidance on closed shops —a document which urges flexibility and tolerance. Not much flexibility and no tolerance at all has been shown to Miss Harris, my Lords.
There is another unusual feature about these cases. What these councils have apparently been doing is to force all existing employees—those in post before any agreement—to join or face dismissal. Even before our legislation most closed shop agreements exempted such employees from membership. But these local authorities—which profess concern for the job security of their staff—show no such restraint in their ideological pursuit of a 100 per cent. union membership.
Government action has not been confined to expressions of regret and sympathy. In 1980 we changed the law—as we said we would in our election manifesto. I must say to my noble friend Lord Brookes and to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, that we have not broken faith with our manifesto as my noble friend appeared to imply. We did not make a manifesto commitment to outlaw the closed shop. Perhaps we should have done so, and perhaps we shall still do so; but we did not do so at that time. We said we would change the law to seek to protect individuals who suffered under closed shops and who suffered under the greatly extended immunities for union activitity which the previous Government had brought about. That was the extent of our manifesto commitment in 1979.
Until last year, until the Employment Act became law, these councils would have been able to proceed, without any risk of legal action, to dismiss nonunionists—except in the very rare case of the person who objected on religious grounds to membership of any union whatsoever. But in the Employment Act we made it unfair in legal terms to dismiss employees who were not union members when a closed shop is introduced. Indeed, the Act provides a legal remedy against any action by an employer to compel such an employee to join a union. There is no question, in the 1980 Act, of this employee needing conscientious objections—the fact that he was an existing employee is enough.
I do not think, therefore, that we can argue that in this case there are difficult legal issues. It is a simple question of fact. Were the employees in their jobs before the closed shop was introduced and have they declined to join the union? in these circumstances, while of course it must be up to the individual to decide whether or not to use his new rights, I have little doubt as to what would be the outcome if he does. I urge anyone who is dismissed to take his case to an industrial tribunal as the law provides.
My Lords, it has been said that this case shows that the remedies provided by our law are not sufficient to deter employers and unions, or to recompense the employee. Legal remedies are often only a poor

1219
substitute for the enjoyment of a satisfying job without harrassment. We all recognise that. But this question of the adequacy of any remedy, where an individual's legal rights have been infringed, is a new one. It did not figure in our debates on the Employment Bill last year. What concerned the House then was how widely drawn the provisions should be. For example, should all dismissals for non-membership be unfair, or should dismissal law apply where closed shops had not been reviewed?
In many of the speeches then, it was taken for granted that the remedies which
the law provides in cases of unfair dismissal would be sufficient, these are not insignificant. The law provides for compensation and orders of reinstatement; and if an employer unreasonably refuses to comply with a reinstatement order then he can be penalised by an additional sum, up to a year's salary for the employee concerned. Certainly, employers generally do not find the dismissal remedies a matter of no significance—indeed, in the wider context of dismissals generally, they complain that they can be only too effective as deterrents. And in fact, while the particular examples which are the subject of
this debate are very shocking, I hope that they will remain isolated ones. We certainly have no evidence that they are reflecting the experience of industry, whether private or public sector industry, as distinct from cases where political motivation is involved.
The fact that these were local authorities—where councillors do not pick up the bill for their unjustifiable actions—is of course important. But I am glad to say that the district auditor can intervene if unreasonable decisions lead to unwarranted expenditure for the ratepayer, like compensation for obviously unfair dismissal. The local district auditor for Sandwell has said in the local paper:—
"If councillors have ignored advice and acted recklessly or irresponsibly then they can be taken to court to get the money due from them".
Quite bluntly, that means that, if the appropriate legal actions are taken, councillors like Councillor John Edwards could suffer the consequences of their own actions in their own pockets.
I am not suprised that these cases, even if they are exceptional, isolated or ideologically motivated, have revived demands to make the closed shop unlawful. I of course understand that demand. I must point out that making a closed shop void and unlawful might not be able to stop an employer like Sandwell which is already infringing employees' rights by forcing them to join a union, from bringing unfair pressures to bear or behaving wickedly.
Indeed, the whole problem connected with this issue of the closed shop. particularly so far as the present Administration is concerned, is that our experience in 1971 when closed shops were made unlawful indicated to us that this drove the practices underground. The fact that the practices were driven underground made it impossible to protect or compensate individuals who suffered under them. The whole difficulty of outlawing the closed shop is that you need the co-operation of the employers, and employers sometimes withhold that co-operation. It was the noble Lord,
1220
Lord Brookes, himself, who has been very critical of us, who said:
"In this matter management does not necessarily have clean hands".
I also understand the demand for a remedy of enforced reinstatement in closed shop cases. This is what Miss Joanna Harris wanted. She did not want money; she wanted her job back. But we have all recognised, I think, that in the last analysis in an open society it is very difficult to force people to work together by law. In a situation where union members refuse to work with a non-unionist—and the 1971 legislation did throw up such cases—the courts themselves have recognised that enforced reinstatement simply will not work. Indeed the law has never enforced the specific performance of a contract of employment. Damages have always been the traditional remedy, and that is why in this case the law provides the method of redress so that if an action is successfully brought the result is monetary compensation rather than prescribed reinstatement. That is why I again urge people to use any current remedies which do provide for reinstatement orders and for compensation if they are not applied. We want to see that these legal remedies are effective, and that includes their deterrent effect. We shall certainly want to bear cases like Sandwell in mind as we continue to review the law; and we are continuing to review it, publicly and in this House—for instance, in only a week's time, when we have a debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton on our Green Paper on trade union immunities.
Finally, may I turn to specific questions which were asked of me? The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked me about a ballot at Sandwell. Our understanding is that there was a ballot of union members, but the non-union members were not given a chance to vote and the union ballot was of course held before the 1980 Act came into effect. On the issue of whether other non-unionists have been affected, in February when my Secretary of State saw Miss Harris, he himself met two other non-unionists. According to press reports, it seems that about 50 others may have been involved. We are not sure how many of them may have joined since, but, so far as we know, none has been drummed out for non-membership other than Miss Harris. However, they may, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, pointed out, have felt themselves forced to yield to this very wicked pressure.
May I also turn to the case of the Darlington council, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester? That council is requiring contractors who wish to remain on its tendering list to sign a statement saying that it employs only union members. Without any qualification, we condemn that action as thoroughly immoral. We have expressed our concern about this type of practice before, and in this House we accepted an amendment to the Employment Act in the name of my noble friend Lord De La Warr which means that an employer who insists on such a requirement in a commercial contract can be made to reimburse to a contractor any compensation that contractor has had to pay to any of the employees dismissed as a result; and our code of practice makes that quite clear. Darlington is ignoring this advice. In the Government's view, what they are doing could well constitute an anti-competitive practice within the meaning of the

1221
Competition Act, which the Government also passed last year, because their action prevents firms which might otherwise have submitted tenders to the council from submitting those tenders. Indeed, as I understand the position, out of some 50 contractors who were originally on Darlington's tendering list for house building, fewer than five could meet the council's requirement.
When there is thought to be an anti-competitive practice, the Director General of Fair Trading may conduct an investigation and subsequently an order may be made prohibiting such practices. I know that the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors have had some involvement with what is going on in Darlington and I do urge them and all others with an interest in this matter to let the Director General of Fair Trading know of their concern if they have not already done so.
May I in ending say to my noble friend Lord Brookes as uncompromisingly as I can that I do not defend and never have defended the closed shop? The Government would much prefer there not to be closed shops, but we cannot just wish away an institution which has grown up during our history and which now covers in excess of 5 million employees. We are determined to try to see that any legislation we put on the statute book will actually be observed, but we shall want to bear in mind continuously cases of abuse of our own or of previous legislation, with a view to changing the law should that become necessary. I shall certainly want to bear in mind throughout the period of consultation on our Green Paper on trade union immunities the cases which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has made available to us in this debate. I am therefore most grateful to him for the opportunity he has given me and the House to consider those cases, and we shall take serious note of everything he and others have said today.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the characteristic thoroughness with which he has dealt with the issues I raised in my speech and which were raised by other noble Lords, to whom I should also like to tender my gratitude for having spoken.
I hope I will not appear unreasonable if I cavil slightly at some of the terms in the noble Earl's answer, particularly on two points. One of them I did not give him advance notice of, and therefore I am in no position to complain. But I believe that the question raised by the Secretary of State himself—namely, the question of unlawful conduct—should be referred to the Law Officers of the Crown for their view, because I believe (I have taken advice on this point) that there are certain ways in which decisions by local authorities could be challenged by way of an injunction.
What I think virtually everybody who has spoken, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has said is that it is simply not good enough to give Miss Harris and others in a similar position financial compensation. I think what we all feel—and I suspect this is also the view of many who have not spoken, and indeed perhaps of the overwhelming majority of your Lordships' House, and also, I suspect, the overwhelming majority of British public opinion—
1222
is that people should not be chucked out of their jobs like this by ideologically-motivated members of a union. Therefore, I would say to the noble Earl—and I hope he will bear this in mind in the consideration he and his right honourable friend are going to give to their Green Paper—that I entirely take notice of some part of the argument about enforced reinstatement; but I believe (I do not want to go into all sorts of complications in differentiating between different groups of employers, be they private employers or local authorities) that it is necessary to look at this in a rather new light.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brookes, has pointed out, and indeed it is fairly common ground and has been mentioned by the noble Earl himself, there has been no great demand from the employees of the Sandwell District Council that they should have a closed shop policy. There has been no pressure from them: the pressure quite clearly came from the members of the local authority. Therefore, if there was, let us say, a requirement that there should be enforced reinstatement there would be none of the attendant difficulties and problems of the kind which were perfectly reasonably outlined by the Minister of State at the end of his speech. However, I should be grateful if he would look into the point of the law officers, and, no doubt, we can be in correspondence on that.
If I may briefly touch on one or two of the other speeches, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, made a point of fundamental importance, that virtually every public opinion poll that we have seen in the last four or five years demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of trade unionists and their wives are as affronted by conduct of this kind as are all other elements of British public opinion. I have no doubt at all about that. The noble Lord Lord Brookes gave us an extremely disturbing account, based on his own knowledge of the situation in West Bromwich, of how these ballots were conducted. I think it raises exactly the kind of issue which was touched on by the Minister of State himself. There are grave questions about the behaviour both of the councillors and of some of the officials concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, who raised the question of whether this was, indeed, unlawful conduct, agreed that what was present there was unfair dismissal. All I would say about that is that, if a local authority consciously, deliberately, sets about dismissing someone unfairly, according to the law of this country, there is absolutely no doubt that if financial compensation is awarded the district auditor should have an interest in the case, and I very much hope that he will take a keen personal interest in what develops here.
Lastly, coming to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, all I would say to him is this. He had a difficult speech to make. He, not unreasonably, pointed out—and he was entirely right in what he said—that I was a Minister in the previous Government. In fact, he asked—he did not put the matter quite as abrasively as this, but perhaps I can do so on his behalf—why did I not resign if I felt quite as strongly as that. I would say to him that he has—
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for just a moment? I did not ask—the noble Lord will be able to ascertain this from

1223
Hansard—why did he not resign? I asked: why did he not protest at the time?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, so far as I am aware, I was never on a ministerial committee that considered this matter. That is the answer to the question. It affects Ministers of all Governments. It, no doubt, affected some of my former noble friends when they came into the Chamber to listen to me speaking on behalf of the Home Office. Ministers have to accept collective responsibility. Nevertheless, the fact is certainly clear that I was a member of a Government which did a number of things in the area of trade union reform, which I find, looking back on them, were highly distasteful, to put it at the very least. I must accept a measure of personal responsibility for having continued in office as a member of that Government.
The House will be relieved to know that I now come to my final point. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, did not put it in precisely these terms, but, basically, he asked: what, really, is all the fuss about? After all, hardship
can be dealt with by the industrial tribunal. He made some reference to the fact that Miss Harris had a grandfather who might have settled some money on her and, rather like the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, I find the relevance of that rather difficult to follow. Nevertheless, the answer to the noble Lord is this. I think that this House and Parliament should take an interest when a girl of 20 is hounded by a number of ideologically-motivated councillors and trade union officials and driven out of her job, as Miss Harris has been driven out of her job. It will be a sad day for British democracy when issues of this kind are not raised in Parliament and when redress is not demanded. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Marriage (Enabling) Bill [H.L.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Boston of Faversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Nugent of Guildford in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Marriage between relations by affinity not to be void]:
The Lord Bishop of Winchester The Lord Bishop of Winchester moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("affinity") insert ("except a marriage between that person and a relation of his by affinity, being a relation who has been accepted by that person as a child of his family").
The right reverend Prelate said: Over the last weekend I was, perhaps wrongly from the point of view of a
1224
Bishop, very closely involved with the production of a new musical Passion and Resurrection play in Winchester Cathedral, and tomorrow I make my way to chair, once again, the Doctrine Commission of the Church of England. One might say that in those two events I am doing what I regard as the primary duty of a Bishop; telling a story concerned with the Gospel, if you like, and looking after, and looking for, the truth and guarding it for the Church.
So that, pressed by both of those very demanding activities, I must confess that on my way up here from Winchester this afternoon I was asking whether my journey was really necessary, for I do not want it to be though that, because there are four bishops present in the House at this moment, we regard the matter of this Bill as of prior interest to the Church. It is not. in my view, an ecclesiastical concern, but I speak because I am convinced that it is a concern for society.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, whose absence this afternoon we deplore, because I believe it is on account of sickness, has promoted this Bill, as she has others, in the name of liberty and emancipation. But we have had experience in our past history of emancipation that misfires, and I venture to suggest to noble Lords that this could well be such a case. It often misfires because we do not appreciate the social function of negative safeguards—what in, the past, and in anthropological language, were called taboos. "Taboo" is an unpopular word. It is often laughed out of court as a matter of mere adherence to the past, to a meaningless tradition or even to a superstitition. But properly understood sociologically, a taboo is a fence to exclude certain fears, certain strains, certain anxieties and animosities from a particular relationship. It is a device to set the community free from anxiety, by making certain options unthinkable.
That is what lies behind the undoubtedly ancient taboos set there in the 18th chapter of the Book of Leviticus, which we know as the Table of Prohibited Degrees. They refer, of course, to an earlier tribal society when, as happens in many parts of Africa today, the whole of a village may be interrelated or consist of people who have married into that large, extended family, where there is a strict rule of exogamy, and where a young man or a young woman who seeks a marriage partner has to go outside the village, because any other course would disturb the equilibrium by introducing jealousies, fears or suspicions into that community's life.
In a large extended family society—you have to include grandmothers and all the rest—bishops of the Church of England are not today rushing in defence of innocent grandmothers fleeing from the lascivious advances of young men with odd proclivities. We are concerned with society as it exists today and the very much smaller family group—the household, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham called it in his speech at the Second Reading of this Bill, when he said
"To have conflicting marital interests within the household does, I submit, strike at the root of family life".
I believe that the family circle, whatever its size, must always be a charmed circle. Those who are within it are protected from certain possibilities in order that others may develop. In order that there can be the kind of total intimacy, total dependence upon one

1225
another, there must be removed the fear that this position could be exploited by somebody who began to feel other than familial desires within that circle.
Let us remember today that not everybody is as privileged as are most Members of this House in having perhaps two homes under our own name, or at least fairly reasonable houses where families can have room and space. I know only too many households where young marrieds must go on living in one or other of the parental homes for years before they can obtain a roof of their own. I know also of so many cases of divorce which invariably increase the number of children who are children of only one partner but who are adopted into that family circle and given exactly the same freedoms and securities of that sacrosanct family circle.
We say, as a joke, at our wedding parties, that we have lost a daughter but have gained a son. I believe it is possible that if this Bill goes through as it stands the mother, at least, or the father might feel that they had gained a potential rival: that the mother might wish to marry, if the daughter happened to die, the young man who was so attractive who had been accepted into that family circle. So we are concerned with the family. The executive director of the Board of Deputies of British Jews has expressed his belief that the Jewish community of this country is distressed by the prospect of this Bill and within its own law and custom has no intention of abandoning any part of the table of affinity that is set down in its ancient religion —again not an ecclesiastical concern but the time-honoured concern of the Jewish community for the family and its place in society.
The wording of this amendment, I believe, introduces a modest taboo that is appropriate to modern society. Where a man or woman has accepted a child or young person as a child of the family so as to be in loco parentis to that person, this amendment would preclude the possibility of marriage between them. It would not go further than that. People who had never been within that charmed circle together in a relationship of quasi parent and quasi child would be as free as the Bill would allow them to be. This would discourage a stepmother from considering the divorce of her husband because she found the stepson attractive, or a stepfather considering the possibility of marriage with a stepdaughter who had come to rely upon the openness of family relationship in perfect trust.
It may he argued that this is a difficult legal concept. I beg to differ. The concept of "child of the family" is not new to our law. The phrase has been used and defined in the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960. The interpretation given in Section 16 defines the phrase as:
"(a) any child of both parties;"—
that of course is certainly excluded from our considerations under the Bill—
"and (b) any other child of either party who has been accepted as one of the family by the other party".
A number of decided cases have been made on this point. Very briefly, I refer to Bowlas v. Bowlas in 1965, Dixon v. Dixon in 1967 and then, under the All England Law Report cases, H. v. H. in 1966 by his guardian's intervention and B. v. B. in 1968. In all those cases it was perfectly clear what the phrase
1226
"a child of the family" means. I submit that it is a phrase which has a clear legal connotation. So I ask that the family circle be once again established as sacrosanct and this modest taboo accepted in order that there may be safety and freedom from possible exploitation. I beg to move.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: May I say, first, that I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his remarks about my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger. She is very sorry indeed not to be with your Lordships tonight. I am particularly sorry, not only because of her illness but also because I am afraid that I am an inadequate replacement for her. I am sure that we all join in wishing her a speedy recovery.
I quite appreciate the considerations which led the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Winchester and the Bishop of Norwich to put down this amendment. However, there is a preliminary point which I feel bound to make. I am sorry to have to do so, but I do not think I should be doing my duty to the Committee if I did not make it. This is a major amendment which goes to the very roots of the Bill, yet it was not tabled until yesterday. So most of your Lordships will not have had a chance to see it until today. However, the Second Reading debate took place on 25th February, a month ago today. I feel, and I say this in the gentlest possible way that I can, that a little more regard really should be paid to the convenience of your Lordships. Rather similar considerations apply to the very big and major amendment, Amendment No. 3, which was put down only on Monday.
This amendment which is before us at the moment goes, as I have indicated, to the very roots of the Bill. It would indeed run counter to the whole principle of the Bill. In fact, it is about as close as one could possibly get to a wrecking amendment. I am bound to say that the right reverend Prelate has made my case for me. He has just made what was undoubtedly, I submit, a Second Reading speech. It is of course the case, as some of us have acknowledged before, that certain noble Lords simply would not wish to see a marriage at all between a stepchild and a step-parent, and particularly between a person and somebody who had acted in loco parentis towards her or him in the circumstances described by the right reverend Prelate. But it has been agreed generally in our previous debates—and there have been many—that there does not seem to be any way of excluding such cases from the provisions of the Bill without also excluding the sort of cases of real hardship which have been brought to the attention of your Lordships by my noble friend Lady Wootton and other noble Lords.
Let us look at some of the difficulties which the amendment would involve. It could be that for a short while the person related by reason of affinity had been accepted into the household as a child of the family but that thereafter that person went to live elsewhere and had no dealings directly with the other party and that when they came together much later on—perhaps around the time they found they would like to marry—the other party's wife or husband who had been in the household when the then child was accepted as a child of the family had long since died. That would of course be very different from the sort of case in which

1227
the original husband and wife had acted in effect all along in loco parentis to the child.
If this amendment were passed, it would rule out both types of case. This sort of case touches upon cases that we have considered all along in dealing with my noble friend's Bills. Indeed, many cases of this type have been among the very ones that this Bill is designed to help, for there has often been cited in the course of our debates the case of the stepdaughter whose mother dies and who is older than other children within the family—children of her stepfather and her own mother—and who acts then as a mother towards those other children, and who looks after the household and whose relationship with her stepfather develops quite naturally to the stage where they would wish to be joined in marriage. If this amendment were to be passed, such a couple would be prevented from taking what in those circumstances would be perhaps the most natural and desirable course in the world for all concerned, not least for the other younger children.
As the right reverend Prelate has mentioned, "a child of the family" (that is of course a legal technical phrase) might not be a child in terms of its age. Moreover, how would it be decided whether the particular circumstances amounted to the person having been accepted as a child of the family? That could well be open to dispute, as indeed is sometimes the case in divorce actions. There is no provision here to enable that to be decided. What provision is proposed to enable that to be decided? Ultimately, this could only be resolved by the court.
On this amendment I am not going to embark upon the practical problems involved in bringing the courts into these matters because we shall have to go into those on Amendment No. 3, but by passing this amendment we would immediately and automatically need to involve the courts, and the practical problems involved, not to mention the possible costs, would not be small. Let us not forget that it is the whole future of these couples that we are considering tonight. So, while I understand the motives behind this amendment, I hope that the right reverend Prelate may be disposed to withdraw it. As I have said, it goes to the very principles of the Bill and I feel it is only fair to say now that if this amendment were to be pressed I would need to invite your Lordships to resist it.
Viscount Hanworth: I find it really rather extraordinary that what is very nearly a wrecking amendment should have been produced right at the last moment, bearing in mind that this is a very simple Bill and there has been ample time for tabling amendments. I saw this amendment only when I came into the Chamber, because in fact I had asked for the amendments yesterday.
I think what must be realised is that, rightly or wrongly, we have ceased to dictate private morals. Nowadays we legislate only in regard to what is against outside or national interests, and the second amendment, which I think is extremely reasonable, means that this sort of liaison will not occur among juniors. We are going further than the age of majority today; we are going to 21. I really do not think that we should lay down and dictate to people how they should behave, so long as it is not against the national interest. That was precisely what I was going to say
1228
on a subsequent amendment—and I have now said a certain amount of it, unfortunately. I hope that your Lordships, having voted for this Bill, will not be deterred by this amendment, which should be negatived out of hand.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: I hope your Lordships will allow me, on behalf of and with my brother Prelates, to say that if we have been discourteous to the Committee in the lateness of this amendment, naturally we are sorry, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Boston's strictures on the amendment need looking at again, because as I read column 1116 in that very clear-cut debate that we had on Second Reading, it is this very issue about which the noble Baroness made such a strong point. Noble Lords will remember that she said:
"The current image which is mostly put forward of this Bill is that of the lascivious husband who now sees an attractive daughter of his wife by a former union and thinks she perhaps is to be preferred to the wife to whom he was already married and takes steps to get rid of that wife in order to marry her daughter".
This, says the noble Baroness—whose illness we are sorry about and whom we wish a speedy recovery—is the image. She then continues by saying that this is emphatically not what she means by this Bill. It therefore seemed very proper, as she disavowed this as her aim, that we should put a reasoned amendment which sought to disabuse the minds of the public of what is at first glance what this Bill could do.
In my optimistic and hopeful way I had imagined that this was such an obvious amendment, which would at least curtail the worst possible excesses of this Bill; that in wisdom and also in concern for the happiness and stability of family life your Lordships, whatever view you may hold about the main Bill, would agree that this is a proper amendment. This is an amendment which attempts to stop just this stepfather and the young stepdaughter situation at its most serious, putting the girl into a dreadfully exposed and dangerous situation and therefore cutting across what I understood to be the argument of the noble Baroness, in which she was seeking to recognise that on the one hand those opposed to her Bill were speaking on principle—Biblical principle, Levitical principle, prayer book principle and the long history of Church principle in our country and the hard cases which she enumerated and which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, reminded us in the archives of the Home Office come to a very small number of known cases over the last 15 or 20 years. So this is really taking a very large nutcracker to deal with a very small nut. I think that will appear in the very reasonable third amendment.
In this case we have both together the principle of caring for the family and the care for the individual girl in danger, and therefore it seems to me that whatever noble Lords may feel about the general principle of the Bill, this amendment is a real attempt to care for and watch over the cases of particularly young stepdaughters who I think we have a proper responsibility in your Lordships' House to care for in terms of care and compassion. Therefore, in my optimistic way I had imagined that this amendment would go through without anyone even attempting to divide the Committee on it; but as I gather this may happen, I should like to say that I support my brother right reverend prelate in his amendment.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Soper: I have no pleasure in finding myself in disagreement with my ecclesiastical friends, but nevertheless I feel there is a need to present certain evidence which hitherto I think has been stated but certainly not proven. May I preface what I have to say with a gentle comment about the relationship of a taboo to morality. A taboo is that which you persist in until you have got the sense to get rid of it. Therefore, I find no comfort in the idea that preservation of the Levitical code is an expression of the way in which we have developed in our spiritual understanding, for which, in a period of henotheism, as your Lordships will know, in which that code was first adumbrated, very different parameters were required than those which belong to a civilised society today.
Secondly, I must agree with those who feel that my ecclesiastical friend who proposed this amendment was in fact proposing the destruction of the Bill itself, and that the substance of his argument was very much that of a mountain which ultimately produced a very small mouse. I respect those—of course I do—who regard the whole concept of affinity as being one which should be regarded with care and with a certain precautionary view, but at the same time I believe there is a practical relationship of this question which must not be ignored. It is, of course, possible to imagine so distributing the human pieces on the social chess board as to result in the condition of checkmate.
It is possible to conceive of dangers that arise in this particular field, and they are dangers which, if they occurred, would, I think, be substantial. But I have been a long time in social work, and over the 55 years of my own experience I cannot remember a case in which this amendment would apply with profit and with success. Most of those cases which are envisaged are cases which can be seen upon the technical chess board, but the complications which prevail in the real world are such as to make it impossible to select an amendment of this kind and regard that as doing something to improve a Bill. There are innumerable other cases that belong to the complex of human relationships which, if this amendment were agreed, would also require to be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. In that regard I entirely agree with those who would suggest that this is a matter of private rather than of social concern. At any rate, it is a matter which should not be exposed to the rigours of law which could not possibly anticipate the complexities of the human situation.
It is perfectly true, and no one would wish to doubt it, that marriage is a hazardous business anyhow. But the attempt to set up the safeguards, the stockades, that are suggested in this amendment, does not contribute anything towards that emancipation which I believe can contribute more to the welfare of the family than a return to the Levitical code, which should be outdated and regarded as obsolete, or at any rate transformed into something which is no longer a taboo uncritically accepted but a moral principle intelligently and progessively applied. It is for that reason that I for one will vote against this amendment.
The Earl of Lauderdale: When I saw my dear friend, the noble Lord, Lord Soper, enter the Chamber,
1230
I knew that we were of course coming here for opposite purposes. When he speaks of the complexities of the human situation, we approach the matter from, I think one has to say, diametrically different psychological viewpoints, and it is proper that both should be well aired. In regard to all the amendments which have appeared on the Marshalled List in the past two or three days, I think it is fair for Lady Wootton to complain that she did not have much time. There she is on her sickbed; we wish her well, and of course no discourtesy to her was intended. On the other hand, I do not know how busy are noble Lords opposite, but I do know that I have the greatest difficulty, even with 15 days warning, to find the two or three hours extra which are necessary to settle down, master a Bill, master the argument and master the briefing, ring up one's friends and get one's mind ordered. Although it was sad that Lady Wootton should be confronted on her sickbed with amendments put down late, it is none the less a reality of life, in a non-professional part-time House, that some of us have great difficulty in getting down until just beforehand to the "nitty-gritty" of the particular problem that concerns us.
Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, I am surprised that this amendment evokes such resistance. There is one point about it to which I will refer in a moment on which I have a little niggling doubt, but the purpose of the amendment I should have thought was quite clear. From the way the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, presented her Bill for Second Reading, for the third time in a few years, one would have thought that her own very reasoned approach would be open to this particular very carefully reasoned and moderate amendment to protect stepsons and stepdaughters.
One point was made by the noble Lord Lord, Boston. He said he thought it was generally agreed in the previous debates that provision must be made to meet questions of hardship. I am not sure that there is quite the generality of agreement that he refers to. This Bill got a Second Reading in the previous Parliament. It was rejected on Second Reading in the last Session of this Parliament. It got through the other day, and I think it is only fair to say that had some of us not been busy with other matters it might not have got through the other day. At any rate, there are those in this House who sincerely believe it to be a bad Bill and mistimed, abolishing an absolute prohibition which is the result of many centuries of social experience of many countries and religions, threatening and designed to threaten the sanctity of privacy and decency, violating a deep sense protected by the concept of shame. Many of us feel this very deeply. I have finished my Second Reading speech; I quite appreciate that this was rather a lengthy point.
Turning to one other point to be made with regard to this amendment, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, suggested that those of us who are critical of this Bill are trying to dictate private morals. Not a bit of it. What we are saying, at any rate what I am saying, is that the greater the plurality of society the greater the need for these anthropological taboos—not the less, the more. We are not trying to dictate matters, if you like, of private individual purity, but we are trying to protect the sanctuary of the home.
I have one point which I raise, and it may well be that my noble friend on the Front Bench when he

1231
comments on the amendment may allude to this. I wonder whether the word "child", despite its respectable legal antecedents, is quite the word we want. I wonder whether the word "ward" might not serve the purpose better. But whatever is the right wording, I feel I must declare straight away that if this amendment is pressed to a Division I shall certainly support it.
Lord Milverton: On this occasion I would support my noble friends the right reverend Prelates in their amendment. I was not able to be here during the Second Reading of the noble Baroness's Bill, but reading it, and listening carefully on other occasions when this subject has been discussed and listening carefully today, I, too, feel, as one who would support it, we are not wanting to be holier than thou, we are wanting to safeguard, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester said, the holiness and the loveliness of marriage. There can be openness of affection without it being felt that that affection has got to lead to a man and woman becoming husband and wife; where there can just be that loving open affection in a household between men and women who can feel they have an affection without having to go to the extent of marriage, to the physical side. Surely, in having that feeling, we are not wanting to keep outdated taboos? We have the greatest feeling for men and women and the greatest feeling that young girls should be able to be brought up to realise that and to realise that men have respect for them.
At the same time young boys should also be able to grow up realising that and to grow into men and to have respect for women. That is why in perhaps simpleness—and I hope that it is not simpleness—I should like to support the right reverend Prelate. I do not think that we are being hard. We want to uphold the beauty and the loveliness of marriage, the love and affection which is involved, which is quite distinct from the love and affection in other relationships. So if the amendment is pressed to a Division I shall support the right reverend Prelates.
Viscount Hanworth: For goodness sake! let us get back to practicalities. Most people faced with this type of situation would simply live together. The people who we are considering are basically those who are religious and highly moral and who are prevented from marrying. There was the idea of course in older days that if people were living in adultery one encouraged them to marry. It is no good talking about this in "highfalutin'" terms. The plain facts are that in most cases they will simply live together. What you are doing is denying the possibility of marriage to people who are doing just that. I appeal again to noble Lords on the opposite Bench really to consider this matter from the practical point of view and not—as I think they have—from the idea of the church going back, which, of course, appeals to many of us. We must face where we are today and we must make the best of what we have got, and I think that this amendment certainly does not do that.
The Earl of Halsbury: I hope that the right reverend Prelates who have sponsored this amendment will not
1232
allow themselves to be intimated by some of the criticisms that have been addressed to them. I do not feel that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester made a Second Reading speech. The amount of legal cases that he quoted in the course of the proceedings in Committtee are clear evidence of having done his homework in detail on the points involved and if he chose to take his time over finalising the wording of his amendment then I think that he is absolutely entitled to do so. Both Front Benches on Government Bills sin over and over again by tabling amendments by the hundred which we have no time to consider at all before they have come up in Committee. if the right reverend Prelates choose to divide the House on this issue, I shall follow them into the Division Lobby.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): I found it helpful that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester spoke at the beginning of the speech which he made on this amendment in quite broad terms because it reminded me, at any rate, of some of the major issues which are raised by this Bill, and they are issues which we shall be discussing in the next few minutes when debating this Committee stage. I think that there is one broad issue that perhaps I ought to bring to the notice of the Committee and which was not put to your Lordships in quite this way on Second Reading. The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, referred to the law as it exists in other countries. I am also so sorry that the noble Baroness is unable to be here this evening and to learn the reason why she is absent. However, I thought that perhaps it would be helpful to the Committee in deciding on the amendments which we have before us, to have some further information about foreign law.
According to information furnished by the Council of Europe through our diplomatic respresentative in Strasbourg, there is only one of the member Countries of the Council—namely, Sweden—which has no general legal prohibition on marriage between persons related by affinity in the direct line. Six countries—Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland and Norway—have provision for dispensation to ameliorate the general prohibition, and the rest have restrictions which are as rigorous as or even more rigorous than, those contained in English law as it stands today.
The Council of Europe memorandum discusses the law of 17 of the 21 member countries, excluding only Cyprus and Liechtenstein as well as the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. My right honourable friend's department then tried to pursue our explorations a little further with regard to Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The net effect of the information which we have been able to gather was that only in Sweden, Australia and New Zealand is the law on prohibited degrees of affinity either non-existent or more relaxed than ours. So we are discussing a matter of which other countries throughout the world also take a very serious view—not just right reverend Prelates who have been speaking to your Lordships' Committee. Having said that—
Lord Boston of Faversham: I am most grateful to the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for giving way. I wonder whether he can help the Committee

1233
further on the points which he has raised in connection with his survey of overseas information. Can he say whether the comparisons which he has brought forward also involve a comparison as between this country and the first group of countries to which he referred—the EEC and other European countries—so far as their legal systems are concerned? Has any comparative exercise been done so far as that is concerned? Also, can he say whether or not he would agree that, as regards the other group of countries, and I am thinking in particular of the reference that he made to Australia and New Zealand, those are, in fact, the two countries which are most closely related to ourselves both in terms of social background and, indeed, their legal systems which are the same as ours?
Lord Belstead: I am afraid that I cannot answer the first question which the noble Lord, Lord Boston, has put to me, but I think that it might go some way to satisfy the noble Lord if I say that arrangements could be made, if the Committee wishes, to place a copy of the document to which I referred in the Library of your Lordships' House.
As regards the second point which the noble Lord made, I would not wish to cross swords with him on that matter because he is a lawyer and I am not. I think that probably there is a great deal in what he has said. None the less I thought that it was important just to set in general context with regard to other countries, so far as the Home Office has been able to look at them, what the situation is and not, therefore, to assume that in some way this country is the odd man out. I think that it does show—and this is the point that I have tried to put to your Lordships—that in many, many other countries there is great concern about the subject matter of the Bill.
Having said that, this amendment, of course, goes a good deal wider than Amendment No. 2 which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, inasmuch as the existence of the parent/child relationship in the context of a family unit at any time in the past would involve a continuing and indefinite bar to later marriage between the parties. On the other hand, I am interested that none of your Lordships, I think, has made the point that where the relationship of parent and child is of a technical character, in the sense that the parties concerned, although related by affinity in the direct line, have never formed part of the same family unit during the minority of either of them, there would be no impediment to marriage between the parties. In such circumstances, the effect of this amendment is, in fact, less rigorous than the amendment which I expect will be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, as such a marriage could be solemnised before the step-daughter attained the age of 21. Therefore, there is a matter of balance in looking at the amendment in the names of the right reverend Prelates.
After all this perhaps I could cut short my remarks. The Government fully understand the concern which is felt in many parts of the Committee about the effect of the Bill in relation to stepchildren to whom a stepparent had acted in loco parentis, and the desire of some of your Lordships to limit the application of the Bill in such cases. This can be done either by imposing a special age limit—as in the amendment which is to
1234
come—or by an amendment of the kind which we are now considering. Whichever approach is taken—if, indeed, either was to commend itself to your Lordships' Committee—I would suggest that amendments along these lines are bound to be something of a blunt instrument for the purpose of distinguishing those cases in which a marriage would be open to objections of the kind that have been voiced during the course of our deliberations.
If accepted by the Committee, the amendment of the right reverend Prelates would place persons who had at any time been a child of the family during minority in much the same position as a child by adoption, inasmuch as a marriage between parent and stepchild would thereafter be prohibited for all time.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, made a very important point when he said that this could lead to some difficult inquiries having to be pursued as to what period of time a child had been within the family circle. I think that there is possibly a technical defect in the amendment. My noble friend Lord Lauderdale as well as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester referred to the wording "a child of his family". I am advised that the phrase is not sufficiently well-defined for the purpose of the Bill, and in that respect the amendment possibly contains a technical defect. But it is not on those grounds that I reach any conclusion. The Government have, of course, endeavoured to take a neutral attitude to this Bill, but your Lordships may wish to consider whether the effect of this amendment is too sweeping in maintaining a permanent bar to marriage between persons whose close personal relationships within a family unit had occurred in the distant past.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that your Lordships will think it proper to deal with this amendment, notwithstanding that it has a star against it. It is a perfectly simple amendment to understand and a profoundly important one. Again, there may be a technical defect in the amendment. Probably the age of the child ought to be defined. That might be done
by taking it in connection with Amendment No. 2. However, the child of the marriage is already statutorily defined and, for myself, I cannot see that there would be any difficulty in a cross-reference, making it quite plain at a later stage of the Bill what is meant by "child" so far as years are concerned.
The only other remark I wish to make is that I do not believe for a moment that
the sort of inquiries which might have to be made are by any means beyond the compass of a family court. They are the sort of problems which we had to
elucidate day in and day out. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, said that he had never come across this particular problem, and that I can well believe. For myself, I can only say that forensically I have come across the problem that is highlighted by this amendment, and of all the painful cases that come into a family court, it is probably the most painful of all.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, was I am sure quite right when he said that the sort of case he postulated would be excluded if this amendment was carried. On the other hand, with respect, the case that was put by the right referend Prelate is perfectly possible and, sad though the circumstances would be in the case

1235
that was put by the noble Lord, Lord Boston, the circumstances envisaged by the right reverend Prelate would, I think, be quite excruciating. I can only give my witness that, on balance, it seems to me that the advantage would lie in carrying this amendment.
Lord Torphichen: I thought that this evening we had come to agree to put a safeguard into a Bill which—I shall not say accidentally—by persistence passed its Second Reading. I am not quite sure which is the favoured form of safeguard. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Boston, could tell us which of the other amendments he favours, if he does not favour this one; or should we vote for each of them in turn?
Lord Boston of Faversham: Perhaps I can ask for the indulgence of the Committee in order not to speak again but to respond to the invitation which has just been made as to subsequent amendments. I shall be joining in inviting your Lordships to accept Amendment No. 2, and the one which is linked with it.
Lord Mishcon: I intervene not in any way to cast any aspersions upon the right reverend Prelates who are responsible for this amendment and who have spoken in support of it. I recognise—and I say this in all sincerity—the depth of their feeling on this matter. Let no one in this Committee think that this is an amendment upon which one can have the most decided views and regard people who do not have those decided views as being wrong. It is a question of balance. I do not think that I would have intervened but for the remarks that were made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for whom we all have such a deep respect, especially those of us who happen to be engaged in the profession which he has graced.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the fact that inquiries, of the nature that would have to be made under this amendment, would be relatively easy because the Family Division had often had to conduct inquiries of a similar nature. By those very remarks he had envisaged that Amendment No. 3 would be carried and that this Bill would have made it necessary for couples who wish to become married, and who come within the hitherto prohibited degrees but who would be admitted to marriage under this Bill, to apply to a court. I remember having resisted that concept, if I may humbly say so, when this Bill came before the House in the previous Session. I then begged the Committee—or begged the House as it was on Second Reading—rather to throw out this Bill than to put citizens of this country in the position where, in order to obtain permission to marry, they came, as it were, with sullied hands, which had to be cleansed by a court, which would go into the questions of whose fault it was if a divorce had taken place and who got the financial benefit from all this. I must not anticipate a speech on Amendment No. 3.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Will the noble Lord allow me? That is not this amendment. That is a later amendment to which he is now speaking. As he is being courteous enough to allow me to intervene in his speech, he will no doubt be aware that under the
1236
New Zealand legislation there has to be recourse to the court, and so far as I know it has never caused any difficulty.
Lord Mishcon: I do not have to go to New Zealand to know what the reaction of the ordinary human beings may be. Whatever may be the experience in New Zealand, of which we have no evidence before the Committee, I can only say that people either ought to be admitted into the bond of marriage with our blessing or they ought to be refused it. But to have a certain category of citizen who has to go to the court to obtain permission to get married is a situation with which I can have no sympathy whatsoever.
That means—and this is why I am going to make a plea in a moment to the right reverend Prelates who have supported this amendment—that it would have to be an inquiry, unless one brings the court into this matter, of the registrar of marriages. I do not know how in any practical form the registrar of marriages, before allowing a marriage to take place, could satisfy himself that a child had, or had not, been a child of the family. In these circumstances the amendment as at present drawn is defective, and whether I would be in favour of it or not is irrelevant to the Committee, but I wonder whether the right reverend Prelates would consider withdrawing the amendment because of that particular defect, because otherwise they would be forcing this matter before the courts.
I raise one other point in my plea to the right reverend Prelates to withdraw this amendment and come back, if they see fit, with further thoughts—I am not trying to drive the amendment out of consideration of this Bill altogether—at Report stage or Third Reading. All their speeches were directed to the situation where the mother of the stepdaughter was still alive. I do not think they had in their minds—they will correct me if I am wrong—prohibiting a stepfather from marrying the stepdaughter long after the mother of that stepdaughter had died. When one is thinking in terms of a man who might be aged 60 at that stage with a stepdaughter of 40, I cannot believe that the right reverend Prelates had such a prohibition in mind.
Under this amendment, if the child had ever been in the position of being a child of the family, this marriage would be prohibited under their amendment for ever and aye and in spite of the death of the mother. I wonder whether they would not wish to go away and consider whether their amendment, within the spirit in which they have spoken tonight, should not be limited at least to the situation where the parents of the home to which they referred were both of them still alive. think they had in mind a case of divorce, or whatever.
It is because of the defects in this amendment—not technical ones but the real ones to which I ventured to draw the Committee's attention—that I wonder whether, having heard the speeches tonight and rather than having a vote which will be taken on a mixed appreciation of the principle of this amendment, and an understanding, too, of the defects to which I have tried to draw attention, it would not be better if this amendment were withdrawn, and after further consideration of the points I and other noble Lords have ventured to make this might be brought forward again without having the defects to which reference has been made.
Lord de Clifford: Before we go any further, I should like to support the right reverend Prelate. I hope he will press this amendment. This is always happening in your Lordships' House. People are urged to withdraw an amendment and recast it, and when it is recast they are told that they had better withdraw it again because it is still not right. I would invite noble Lords to put this amendment into the Bill, whether the noble Lord likes it or not, and let him recast it the way he thinks it should be. This is happening all the time in this House. I trust that the right reverend Prelate will press it, and I shall be with him all the way.
Lord Torphichen: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made the case identically for including in this Bill adopted children. Adopted children are not included in this Bill, and the case that the noble Lord made for. stepchildren is in that case no different, by his reasoning, from that of an adopted child.
Lord Boston of Faversham: It might be of help to deal with this point straight away. So far as adopted children are concerned, as indeed my noble friend Lady Wootton made clear on previous occasions, they are in precisely the same position—and always would be whether this Bill was an Act or not—as natural children. There could never in any circumstances be any question of marriage in those cases.
Lord Torphichen: I am sorry to start again—
Several noble Lords: No!
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness White): I think that the Question should now be put.
8.18 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28: Not-Contents 50.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Milverton, L.

Avon, E.

Newall, L.

Carlisle, Bp.

Norwich, Bp.

de Clifford, L.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Falkland, V.

Salisbury, M.

Gisborough, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Gowrie, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Southwell, Bp. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Spens, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swansea, L.

Inglewood, L.

Torphichen, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lyell, L.

Winchester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gainford, L.

Auckland, L.

Gifford, L.

Blease, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Brockway, L.

Hale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hampton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hanworth, V.

David, B. [Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Dowding, L.

Jacques, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Jeger, B. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

1238

Kimberley, E.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Robbins, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Rugby, L.

Listowel, E.

Soper, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stamp, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Monson, L.

Stone, L.

Mountevans, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Northfield, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Oram, L.

Underhill, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Rhodes, L.

White, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge Lord Robertson of Oakridge moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
("Provided that at the date of the marriage both parties have attained the age of 21 years.").
The noble Lord said: I, too, am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, is not able to be here this evening, and I wish her a speedy recovery. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for the favourable words he used about my amendment, but I am conscious of the need to explain it fully to the Committee, and with leave, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 6, which is consequential.
The aim of the amendment is primarily that which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, mentioned on Second Reading, namely to go some way to meet the concern which has been widely expressed in relation to the case of step-parents and stepchildren. I believe, however, that that concern applies to marriages within the other degrees of affinity, although perhaps to a lesser extent. If you believe, as I do, that the passing of the Bill would introduce potential conflicts of interest into family life, then there is a need to provide safeguards. In this respect, it has been suggested that the courts, social workers or marriage guidance counsellors might be involved, but as we have already seen tonight and may perhaps see later, there are difficulties which need to be overcome if that is to be the answer.
It was the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who said at Committee stage in the last Parliament, on 15th March 1979—and repeated his view today—that, if one wanted to put protection in the Bill, it should be on the basis of an age limit of 21. It is because I believe that that protection is needed that I am proposing that no marriage within the rules of affinity should take place unless both parties have reached the age of 21. It will be reasonably questioned why the age should be 21 and not 18. My answer is that the reason is most clearly seen in the case where a person marries his or her stepchild, especially when the child has grown up as a child of the family and where the step-parent has acted as parent.
We must do what we can to minimise the circumstances where there can be abuse of filial loyalty, trust and obedience. To raise the limit from 18 to 21 would give that stepchild greater scope for an independent and maturer choice, having perhaps cast around rather more widely than might otherwise have been the case. Furthermore, it would give a longer interval

1239
between the time when the two parties enjoyed a parent-child relationship and the time when they enter a relationship of an entirely different kind. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Boston of Faversham: I am pleased and relieved that at this stage in our proceedings my noble friend and I are able to adopt a conciliatory approach, even though—and I would not be doing my duty if I did not add this—with a certain amount of reluctance. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will not mind my saying that (with, I hope, an abundance of grace, if I can muster that) because it will make his victory all the sweeter if he knows that it has not been a walk-over. As he will know, and as we have heard on previous occasions, there are in fact quite substantial arguments against the course which is proposed here, and which I support. There was the report of the Latey Committee 13 years ago into the age of majority. That committee made many recommendations reducing the age of majority, and for most purposes we have gradually applied full rights to people from the age of 18. After all, Parliament reduced the voting age from 21 to 18 not so very long ago, though I must confess that as a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law I was actually against that proposal when it was originally put forward, and spoke against it when it came up for debate in another place. So I can understand those who argue that now we should be consistent and stick to the age of 18 for all possible purposes.
However, in the context of this Bill anxieties have been expressed by a number of noble Lords and right reverend Prelates. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, himself has spoken of his own anxieties in putting forward the amendment. This is a matter on which there are deep feelings among many Members of your Lordships' Committee and therefore in all the circumstances my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger and I feel that it would be right to join the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, in commending his amendment to the Committee.
Lord Belstead: I wonder whether it would be convenient to the Committee if at this stage I beliefly give the Government's point of view on this matter. It occurs to me that in, for instance, the case of a stepdaughter who has scarcely previously known her stepfather and who has never been a member of his household, it might be argued that it would be inconsistent with the spirit of the Bill that a marriage between such a stepdaughter and her stepfather, who might, for instance, be a widower, should be forbidden, even for the three years until the girl reaches 21 years of age. However, I suggest that it must be accepted that a statute very rarely accommodates every single case that might conceivably arise. Moreover, the concern which has been expressed for the need to provide relief from the absolute bar which the Bill seeks to remove has generally focused on couples who are very much older than 21. Despite the possible general objection which the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, mentioned, concerning the recommendations of the Latey Committee, the proposal regarding the age of 21 might go a long way to meeting the
1240
misgivings about the Bill felt by those of your Lordships who have expressed them.
If, on balance, the Committee is disposed to accept the amendments, I should certainly not wish to oppose them. I think that we may need to consider the drafting. I doubt whether the second amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, spoke, which repeals a number of provisions but preserves them for under-21 marriages, is the best way of going about the matter. However, if the Committee decide to accept the amendments, perhaps I may consult the noble Lord, as well as the noble Baroness, when she has recovered, with a view to reconsidering the drafting, if necessary, at the Report stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.34 p.m.
Lady Saltoun Lady Saltoun moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
("Provided that both parties to the marriage have attained the age of twenty-one years and the Court has given its consent to the solemnization of the marriage.
( ) In determining whether to give such consent the Court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the following matters, that is to say:

(a) the degree of relationship between the parties to the proposed marriage;

(b) the extent, if any, to which the dissolution of any previous marriage of either of those parties was caused by the conduct of the other;

(c) the value to either of those parties of any financial benefit which that party will have the chance of acquiring if the proposed marriage takes place;

(d) the interests of any children.

( ) Nothing in the preceding provisions shall be taken as affecting section 2 of the Marriage Act 1949 (marriage of persons under sixteen void) or section 3 thereof (consents required to the marriage of certain other unions).
( ) For the purposes of the section, "the Court" means the High Court or the county court of the district in which any applicant resides and rules of court may be made for enabling applications under this section—

(a) if made to the High Court, to be heard in chambers;

(b) if made to the county court, to be heard and determined by the registrar subject to an appeal to the judge;

( ) Nothing in this section shall dispense with the necessity of obtaining the consent of the High Court to the marriage of a ward of court.").
The noble Lady said: First, I should like to join with other members of your Lordships' Committee in saying how very sorry I am that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, is ill, and I hope that she will be quite better very soon. I propose this amendment with great diffidence, as I have no legal qualifications whatsoever. The amendment has, however, been vetted by distinguished members of the legal profession who were of the opinion that it was workable.
Many of us are very unhappy at the prospect of the Bill becoming law as it stands, because we feel that to remove all prohibition against marriages between persons related by affinity, and especially between stepparents and stepchildren and parents-in-law and children-in-law, is a very dangerous step and constitutes a very real threat to the sanctity of family life. We do not feel that to permit such marriages with the only proviso that both parties must be over 21 years of age is sufficient safeguard from the family point of view. It is because we feel very strongly about this aspect of the Bill and believe it to be wrong that we have put

1241
down this amendment. I should like to apologise in her absence to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, (whose Bill this is) and her supporters for putting down the amendment so late. This was not intentional. The drafting and legal vetting took much longer than I had hoped it would, and much of it was done on bad telephone lines from the North of Scotland.
I want to emphasise that although a very long amendment to a very short Bill, it is in no way intended to be a wrecking amendment, but rather a constructive one, since it will enable hard cases to be dealt with by the courts, instead of by a personal Bill, as was necessary in the case of Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward last year. I am advised that the expense would be very much less than the cost of a personal Bill. I am also advised that legal aid would be available, where necessary, whereas it is not for personal Bills. I hope that that removes the objection to the present system—that we have one law for the rich and another for the poor.
At the same time a hurdle remains, and it is quite a high fence to clear, although less formidable than the Becher's Brook of a personal Bill. I believe that those few hard cases—25 in 15 years, according to Home Office statistics quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, during Second Reading—for which we are legislating would be quite willing to undergo the scrutiny of their private affairs which this amendment involves if they really wish to marry. It is not so long ago that people wanting divorces had to submit to very seaching public scrutiny of their conduct, unless they waited three years to get a divorce for desertion; but they endured that experience if they wanted the divorce badly enough.
The scrutiny proposed in the amendment would be private. It is based on the law regarding such cases in New Zealand, but it gives more specific guidelines to the court than does the New Zealand Act. It resembles quite closely the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in 1979, but there are certain differences. The amendment of the right reverend Prelate concerned only persons under the age of 21 years. This amendment applies to all cases over the age of 21. For those under 21 the law would remain as it is at present. Furthermore, the right reverend Prelate's amendment allowed these cases to be heard by courts of summary jurisdiction. This amendment allows them to be heard by the High Court or county courts only.
Rather late in the day may I seek the agreement of the Committee to speak also to Amendment No. 5, which is consequential on this amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale): I should tell your Lordships' Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 4.
8.39 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: I have some sympathy with the objects of the amendment, but if one gets down to the practicalities I think it will be seen that it would be impossible to apply. I say that for two reasons. The court is being asked to open up a whole matrimonial case, or potential matrimonial case, whereas long ago
1242
we decided that in divorce proceedings that course did not lead in any useful direction. There might also be the problem that any matter before the court might be opposed by people with certain motives. In particular, take the financial provisions, which I think are in paragraph (c) of this amendment. What on earth would the court think about them? In fact, what is this provision in the amendment meant to imply? If there was a financial advantage, does the court turn it down? No, it simply will not do. I go back again to saying that if there are two people of the age of 21 who have decided, rightly or wrongly, to ask for marriage, then in today's society we cannot presume to decide what is good for them. We do not do that in other areas—and yet this amendment attempts to do just that.
From the court's point of view I would say that it is impossible. I do not mind what any noble Lord who is a lawyer says about this, because the thing is so openly drafted that they could not possibly conclude, unless they made up their own rules as to how to do it, what they should decide. No, this amendment is simply not on, despite the fact that I have sympathy with what it is trying to achieve.
Lord Boston of Faversham: As has been indicated, this is indeed an important amendment, and I want to say at the outset—and I am sure my noble friend Lady Wootton, too, would wish me to say this—that it has been put down with the best possible motives and, if I may say so, moved in that spirit by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. Perhaps I may also say that I am sure that the Committee will be very much obliged—certainly I am—for what she has had to say about the tabling of the amendment and, in that connection, the difficulties about living in distant parts. As she has indicated, this amendment is somewhat similar to—although, as she says, not entirely the same as—one we debated two years ago, when an identical Bill was before your Lordships. A number of noble Lords raised objections to it then on practical grounds, including the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I did, too, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I refer to some of those objections again tonight, and take a few moments to do so. Some of them, indeed, have been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, in his speech to the Committee.
Clearly, the basic principle involved here is that a couple related by reason of affinity only should be allowed to marry only if consent has been given by the court. If your Lordships pass this amendment, we should be requiring judges to take on what I would submit to be a very difficult role, different from any that they have at present and, I believe, a most unsuitable one for them. An entirely new system of jurisprudence, despite what the Family Division has been used to dealing with up until now, would have to be built up to cover it. Of course, the courts frequently have to grapple with difficult decisions—we know that—but the parties appearing before them take on an adversarial role. The courts take their decisions on the basis of the evidence adduced before them, and that evidence is in due course tested by the opposing side. We really do need to ask ourselves what sort of evidence should be brought before the court in a case of this kind—an unfamiliar sort of case—

1243
and no guidance at all about that evidence is proposed in the amendment.
We also need to know, in my submission, who would be the opposing sides and who would be testing the evidence. Certainly it would be quite wrong to involve the judge himself in any adversarial role, in any testing role of this kind; that is clear. In some cases, as we know, there is a requirement on the courts to exercise a quasi-parental discretion, and we have the example in some types of case involving children—cases where parental consent to marriage is refused. But in those cases there are the guiding criteria of the interests of the young persons themselves. The criteria proposed in this amendment are very different, and are more complex ones. All of them seem to involve some difficulties, and I feel there is really no alternative to looking at each of them in turn.
The amendment mentions the degree of relationship between the parties, but in mentioning that there is no attempt to define the closeness of the relationship which ought to cause the court to withhold consent. In fact, the court would have to consider the very question which Parliament itself might be thought to have settled in passing this Bill, if this Bill is eventually passed; that is to say, whether the degree of affinity in relation to the specific couple whose case is before the court should or should not be a bar to their marriage.
Again, there is the question of the extent, if any, to which either party has contributed to the breakdown of a previous marriage—a point which I think was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, in his speech. This really would go against the trend of recent legislation on divorce, ending the concept of the matrimonial offence and, indeed, of actions for enticement as well. One of the main aims of those reforms in family law was, I believe, to free the courts of the task of apportioning blame, which they had to do previously, with all that that involved—the battles between the parties, the anger generated and the effect all that had on the children. The court would have to decide about the cause of breakdown—there is no escape from that—and the amount of blame. In a marriage which might have ended some years before, it would have to perform that task. A third party might have been involved. Evidence would have to be called, with the need for representation and, perhaps, additional witnesses as well.
We notice, too, that the amendment does not require the court to refuse consent if there has been any contribution by either party to the breakdown. It does not give any guidance, in other words, as to how much or what sort of blame ought to be sufficient to cause it to withhold consent. So after the inquiry which the court would have to carry out into the question of blame, with perhaps old wounds being reopened in court and animosity being brought out between the parties, on the one hand, and the former partners, on the other, the court would nevertheless, in some cases, go ahead and grant consent. What a way that would be to begin a marriage! The animosity would not be easy to dispel afterwards, with all that that might mean for family unity and for family love.
Then there is the financial question, which has also
1244
been referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth —any financial benefits which might arise from the marriage itself. Here, to add to what the noble Viscount himself said, there could well be the need for a wide-ranging inquiry into, for example, the terms of any existing financial arrangements. Those can be very time-consuming, as those of us know who have been in any way involved in practice in the family courts, in divorce cases, with the need for repeated adjournments to produce, for example, successive affidavits about financial matters from the parties, perhaps involving documentary evidence from employers and others. In certain circumstances aspects of the inquiry could well grind to a halt completely because, for example, it would be impossible to examine the chances of a party benefiting under the wills of people not yet dead. There are many practical difficulties here; and there are no powers to carry out these investigations. The possible benefits might be changed by the testator; and the parties might not know of any prospects anyway.
No less important is what weight, after it had carried out those inquiries, the court ought to give to those matters. Why should those considerations, I would ask your Lordships to consider, outweigh other objections? Indeed, why should these particular couples be subjected to this sort of scrutiny anyway?
Then there is the question of any children of either party. It is true that the courts sometimes carry out a similar exercise on custody and guardianship cases. But those involve quite different considerations, for the outcome of the court's decision whether a couple may marry where neither is necessarily a parent of the children involved, is different. Then there is the general wording at the beginning of the amendment that:
"the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case".
That makes it clear that, apart from the specific points mentioned in the amendment, the discretion of the court would he at large. What is the court to make of the frankly expressed intention of the couple to the court to live together if consent is not granted? Is the court to commend them for their frankness, loyalty and devotion; or is it to condemn them for what the court may choose to regard as anti-social behaviour?
In my submission, it is clear that applications for consent are likely to involve delay and a difficult and complicated procedure and the likelihood that the parties would need to have legal representation and, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, mentioned, there may be eligibility for legal aid. That also—and I think in this House that we have to face it—would involve costs to public funds. There is the possibility that third parties would become involved in some cases, also needing representation and costs there and the need to call witnesses. All involves expense. There is also the point that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made in his speech last May on Second Reading of the Berry and Ward Bill, the difficulty of leaving matters of this kind to the judiciary.
I come back to the point that I made on Second Reading in connection with the matter we are now considering. The more I consider this matter of inquiry by the court and the need to seek consent, the more convinced I become that the question of marriage

1245
between a couple related by reason of affinity only really is a matter for them and for the advisers that they themselves choose to consult: their family, their religious advisers and others—something which I am sure very many couples, if not the vast majority of couples, do before they marry, anyway, and without the sort of complications that we are discussing in this connection tonight. There will still be the moral, social, family and religious restrainsts on those couples in cases where there is any doubt about the desirability or suitability of a particular proposed union.
I feel that it is immensely valuable for this whole matter to be aired. Therefore, I feel that the Committee owe a debt to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the others who put forward this amendment. But I hope, in view of the practical problems involved, and perhaps also in view of the amendment on the age of 21 that we recently passed, that it will prove possible for this amendment to be withdrawn. Perhaps it is only fair to the Committee to indicate that if it were to be pressed, I would need to invite your Lordships to resist it.
8.55 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Lord Boston's beguiling persuasiveness is always difficult to resist but I must do the best I can, not being a lawyer. I take one point that he made and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, made, which was that if people are living together anyway, why bother about denying them the status of marriage? That, I think, is not an unfair representation of what both noble Lords said. It is because the status of marriage is one ultimately conferred by society that it is safeguarded. When the noble Lord, Lord Boston, says that in the end this is a decision for the couple concerned, it is not a decision for the couple concerned; it is a decision ultimately for society, for the couple within society. If the couple propose to
continue to live together without the approbation of society, that is their affair. But society has over many generations in many countries and with many religions built up a system of approvals and disapprovals, and that is the context in which we look at this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, said that this raises many practical difficulties. I must apologise for not having drawn attention to this on Second Reading; but I thought I had said enough on this Bill in the last Parliament and in the last Session of this one. The Bill bristles with difficulties; it is spiky with difficulties. These amendments are endeavours seriously to meet these difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, said that this will involve a new system of jurisprudence. I thought it was most instructive when we heard from my noble friend Lord Belstead on the last amendment the list of countries, European and in the white Commonwealth, which, in fact, still maintain a very strong law in regard to affinity. To say that a new principle of jurisprudence will be involved surely flies in the face of the fact that New Zealand law and Australian law is very similar to our own. But these provisions that are incorporated in this amendment are drawn primarily from New Zealand experience. A notable leader in The Times some while ago said:
"There should be a hurdle—it should be a high hurdle".
1246
I believe that once we are confronted with the principle of this Bill having been accepted at Second Reading, our concern is to erect not only a hurdle but a high hurdle. It was well put by a New Zealand judge who said:
"The court's discretion should be exercised with care. I do not think the court should go so far as to exercise it only with reluctance because the Legislature in passing the statute obviously contemplated the consent of the court as being proper in certain circumstances".
But the care with which each case should be examined may best be indicated by remembering that the discretion now given is one enabling the court to relax in appropriate cases what has, until now, been an absolute prohibition. That is what we are talking about. The best protection we can now provide when an absolute prohibition of noble lineage is being set aside.
That, I think, is a simple case of writing in these guidelines. They are modelled on the experience in New Zealand where, so far from such provisions having proved unworkable, they have worked tolerably well. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, said that the degree of relationship should be defined. No doubt it should; but I am not a lawyer and, in putting down this amendment, we were not trying to tie the hands of the court in the exercise of discretion which, at the end of the day, is the purpose of the Bill. The object of this Bill is to confer a very wide discretion on all sorts of people. I believe that to define the degree of relationship would be to limit the court's discretion.
Then there is the point about a possible involvement in a previous marriage breakdown. Here is a guideline taken more or less word for word, or, anyway, taken in principle from a New Zealand Marriage Act of 1955. It may be said that it is retrograde to look at what went wrong in a previous marriage. It is nothing like as retrograde as this Bill. This Bill is back to pre-paleolithic times. This Bill is opening wide all sorts of gates to opportunism and chicanery which society over centuries and in many countries and religions has found must be safeguarded against. If we are accused of going backwards, this is because this Bill goes backwards. I sympathise with the position that it is sad to be invited or invite the courts to delve into the relative causes as between two partners or indeed a third interfering factor in a marriage breakdown. The whole concept is most unpleasant. It is like the concept that merely living together, because it is agreeable to the two people concerned, should have conferred upon it the status, standing, glory and sanctity of marriage.
This guideline signals that if one party has been involved in a marriage breakup that that person cannot except much sympathy from the court. And how right! The question of financial benefit is fairly obvious; and the position of the children is more obvious still. These are the two conditions suggested by the New Zealand experience. Apparently, very few cases have arisen in New Zealand. I am told that in fact there have been three. Two of them cleared the court hurdle quite easily. The third one was a proposed marriage between a stepfather and a stepdaughter—the situation that we are talking about here.
I must not be drawn aside, but I was tempted to refer to a noble Lord in this House who always talks

1247
about his grandmother's deceased sister, or something. We do not want to spend our lives thinking of hypothetical cases. The real case that is worrying many of us here is the stepfather,/stepdaughter possibility. As I say the third case that came up before the New Zealand courts, which was rejected, was a proposed marriage between stepfather and stepdaughter. The reason it was rejected was because it was altogether repugnant. We are talking here about matters that to the generality of society are altogether repugnant. I hope that the Committee will feel fit to support the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, myself and others in carrying this amendment to a Division.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I wonder whether the Committee can bear to listen to one or two impudent remarks. One of the drawbacks to being in the House of Lords is that we go on talking about some things time and time again, and nothing ever happens. We have discussed this subject before. Very soon there will be a kind of collection of hardy annuals that will come forward each session to be debated afresh, passed in your Lordships' House and seen to be dying a lingering death along the corridor.
I have a Bill to add to the list—my pet animals Bill. We will also have the Bill of Rights and this one. Some noble Lords will live to debate this Bill 20 years from now because on the moral laws of England reforms amount to legislation by lottery. It is the bran-tub along the corridor that decides whether we reform the moral laws of England. It is just as much a lottery as the bran tub at a garden party on the vicar's lawn. This is how we do our business.
There was a time when it was rather the other way round. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, is expecting me to refer to the marriage of a deceased wife's sister. It was the other place that passed it 11 times and sent it here only to get it rejected. The House of Lords must have talked about it until they were sick of it. The Bishops' Bench was full for that occasion—and not on many others—in order to turn it down.
Eventually Mr. Asquith said: "This scandal must come to an end". The Government took the Bill over; the Bishops walked out and the secular Lords passed it. This is the history of the reform. If one reads the debates on the subject of the marriage of the deceased wife's sister, one will read of all the horrors, the dreadful calamities, that were going to befall society if a man was allowed to marry his deceased wife's sister.
However, this is an awful amendment. Who wants to get married on these terms? Goodness me! Better just go and live together and have done with it than put up with this nonsense. Who wants to parade their private and family affairs in this way before a court in order to go into Holy wedlock? It is an insult to people aged over 21 who are fully able to decide for themselves and probably better able to decide for themselves than all the younger people aged 18 who are now able to get married whether or not their parents consent.
This is an age which we have now accepted in the Bill which is five years on from the age of consent and three years on from the age to enter into a contract
1248
and three years on from the age to get married—three years on to do anything in adult life whatsoever and have the full rights of citizenship. We have said to these people covered by this Bill: "We are going to put a handicap on you of three years' additional wisdom and we are going to assume that you will be three years' wiser than the other people who go into marriage tomorrow and make a mess of it within three years".
Can we not live in the world of today? This amendment can be put forward only by old men and women. I think we should cut the cackle, reject the amendment, pass the Bill and get on with it.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: It would be a brave man who sought to follow that magnificent and rumbustious speech. I shall seek to be as brave as I may. May I refer to something which the noble Lord, Lord Boston, said when he appeared to suggest that it was too difficult for the courts to tackle paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Amendment No. 3. Having listened to his magnificent, fluent and mellifluous speech as a lawyer clearly nothing—even such a small matter as that—will be passed into the law of our land and for the courts to deal with if the noble Lord can show how difficult this is to do. He appeared to think the court could not do it, but he used the words "Family Division". Surely the wealth of case law in the Family Division means that sui generis this would be an easy matter to deal with and not a difficult one. I do not think, therefore, that the speech he made stands up to the "difficulty" question.
In addition it seems to me, on the family unity and love point that he made, that it is for the express purpose of seeking to contain thousands of families within unity and love that, to quote The Timer, as quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, calls for a high hurdle. This is not a high hurdle: it is only half a high hurdle. It is a very moderate amendment. But the two fatal flaws in the argument of the noble and learned Lord are, first, that this whole Bill is itself an enormous change in the social mores of our country. The affinity situation has been so for hundreds of years and it has helped to hold together the whole de-sexualised larger family circle, and the dagger is thrust at that if this law goes through unamended.
The second fatal flaw in the argument is that there are hundreds of people, as it were, waiting to take advantage of it. But we know from the statistics produced by the Home Office that there is a tiny handful of people for whom this enormous change in the social mores of our country would provide help. Therefore this very reasoned, helpful and, I think, kindly amendment, would help people to realise that there is a moderate hurdle but that there are things to help them; there is even the possibility of legal aid. I have approached this whole Bill with a heavy heart. I believe there has not yet been the chance of its being discussed in full Church circles, although of course Canon B.21 of Canonical Law operates right against it and it would therefore automatically fall to the ground because of that. Therefore a major Church and State confrontation must take place if this Bill is passed unamended. At least this particular amendment would be a modest attempt to contain the really big changes which this small Bill would in fact bring.
9.11 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: I cannot remember whether this Bill is before us now for the third or fourth time round, but I think it is quite possible that it will not get on to the Statute Book this year and it may be before us for a fourth or fifth time round. So I would not want anyone on that occasion to suppose that I had been a party to letting it go through on the nod. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, whose characteristic vigour always enchants your Lordships when he addresses us in bellicose mood, has drawn attention to the fact that a certain very famous Bill took eleven times round before it got through this House. I have been consistently against this Bill from the start, and the voting on it—what the noble Lord calls "the bran tub" depends very much on what day of the week it comes forward, what time of day it comes forward and what was the previous Business before the House. That is what controls the composition and cross-section of those who debate it; so it may be that it will come forward for a fifth, sixth or seventh time.
I would encourage my noble friend Lady Saltoun not to be intimidated by any wealth of legal opinion that may be brought against her. When people go to court they go there as plaintiff and defendant and each has been advised that the case was worth fighting. They emerge as winner and loser, and on that basis I would say that the chance of any particular piece of legal advice being right was not better than evens. Therefore, since the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has been advised legally on this, I would advise her to stand by it and, if she chooses to divide the Committee, I will be glad to follow her into the Division Lobby.
Lord Denham: I wonder whether I may intervene very briefly here. I have got myself an extremely unpopular name over various Bills in trying to push business through, and I assure your Lordships that I have absolutely no axe to grind on this occasion because the Government are neutral. However, I rather wonder—we having spent 39 minutes on this amendment—whether a lot more talk will change a lot of minds, and whether perhaps your Lordships have almost made up your minds on this point and might fairly soon come to a Division. I have no interest, as I say, in the matter because this is a Private Member's Bill and the Government are neutral; but I just put that forward for the consideration of your Lordships.
Viscount Hanworth: I never speak for more than about one and a half minutes, and what I should like to say in a second speech will take just that length of time. We must recognise that this amendment, as it stands—and I said that I had some sympathy with it—would be a lawyers' paradise. We would not know which way it was going to go, until there had been a great deal of case law; and, of course, any case might be opposed by a number of interested parties. Finally, it is no good saying that the present situation has been there for a number of years. The trouble with Britain today is that we have not made the gradual changes when they were required. For those reasons, I think that we should vote against the amendment. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord, because I have taken only one and a half minutes.
9.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS

Avon, E.

Orkney, E.

de Clifford, L.

Salisbury, M.

Drumalbyn, L.

Saltoun, Ly. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Southwell, Bp.

Gainford, L.

Spens, L.

Greenway, L.

Stamp, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swansea, L.

Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]

Torphichen, L.

Newall, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Norwich, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Auckland, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Listowel, E.

Blease, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brockway, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Monson, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Northfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Oram, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Peart, L.

Gifford, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Robbins, L.

Hale, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tweeddale, M.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jacques, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Jeger, B. [Teller.]

Winstanley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.23 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby Viscount Ingleby moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
("Provided that the High Court has given its consent to the solemnization of the marriage.").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move this amendment. In doing so, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the indomitable spirit of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, whom I so much admire. I should also like to congratulate her, because I think that she has here tonight a very able deputy.
There is a presumption that the kind of marriages contemplated by the Bill are unseemly and should be prohibited for that reason. However, I accept that there are perfectly genuine hard cases. Although I had a lot of sympathy for the
amendments which have been pressed to a Division I did not in fact support them. I believe that this is such a difficult field that one simply cannot lay down any ground rules other than the age limit of 21 to which we agreed earlier.
I feel that the best thing to do is to maintain a general prohibition against such marriages but to give to the court absolute discretion to grant permission where they see fit. I do not think that we can lay down rules in this sector. It would be wrong to abolish the whole thing lock, stock and barrel. Therefore my

1251
amendment proposes to give to the court absolute discretion as to whether or not to allow a marriage. I beg to move.
Lord Boston of Faversham: First, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, very much indeed for his kind words and also to say that it is perfectly clear—and especially from what he has said—that this amendment was tabled with the best of motives and with the best of intentions. I think I should simply add this. Most of what I said on the last amendment on the principle of consent by the court and the applications to the court I should have said on this amendment, so I do not think there is any need to detain your Lordships so far as that is concerned.
Perhaps I should just add that the difficulty as I see it about this amendment, compared with the last amendment, is that it does not even contain the—admittedly to me—unacceptable guidelines of the last amendment, and therefore I think that we—and particularly the courts—would be in even greater difficulty in addressing our minds to these matters. Perhaps in view of the debate which has taken place the noble Viscount might feel able to withdraw this amendment, but if not it would be only fair to indicate to your Lordships that I would need to invite your Lordships to resist it.
Viscount Hanworth: I will add one brief note. Do people realise the cost of applying to the High Court, particularly if a case is opposed?
Viscount Ingleby: I should like to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but to reserve the right, if necessary, to bring it up at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must tell your Lordships that if Amendment No. 5 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 6.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Robertson of Oakridge Lord Robertson of Oakridge moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert ("save in their application to a marriage not falling within the proviso to subsection (1) above.").
The noble Lord said: This is consequential on Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester The Lord Bishop of Winchester moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause:
("Saving for Clergy
. No clergyman of the Church of England or of the Church in Wales shall be compelled (a) to solemnize a marriage contracted between a person and any of that person's relations by affinity; or (b) to permit the marriage of such persons to be solemnized in the church or chapel of which he is the minister.").
The right reverend Prelate said: As your Lordships well know, the law of England and Wales requires the clergy of the Church of England to solemnise marriages for any of their parishioners who request it and on whom there is no bar to marriage. That is the
1252
Marriage Act of 1949. This obligation is not imposed upon other religious denominations. As I have already stated, on the authority of the executive director of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish community is distressed by this Bill, but Jewish rabbis will not be compelled to marry people related by affinity because citizens of this country have no inherent right to be married according to the usage of the Jewish faith. Roman Catholics have no inherent right to be married according to the usage of their Church but any citizen does have the inherent right to be married according to the ceremonies of the Church of England, with the one exception which was allowed in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965. It is on that concession that the wording of my amendment is based. It does not prevent such marriages taking place in the church if the parish priest is willing to perform the ceremony or to allow another priest to do so in his church, but a priest who in conscience considers that such marriages are contrary to scripture or that they offend against natural justice and social health, will not be acting against the law if he refuses to marry, or to allow his church to be used for a marriage of his parishioners in such circumstances.
Because the clergy of the Church in Wales are in the same legal position as those of the Church of England, the Church in Wales has requested that the amendment be extended to them, in the same way as happened with the 1965 Act. In that Act, Parliament considered it right to respect the conscience of clergy and laity who felt unhappy about the terms of the Act. There are, of course, a variety of reasons; we would not all agree in the reasons we might offer. Some would be purely biblicist; it is in the Bible and we cannot go against it. Others would have a more critical view of the Bible but would say they believe that for social reasons the principle underlying that biblical injunction can be applied in new terms for our modern age. That is the position I myself adopt.
I regret very much that we have to ask for this concession, because it takes one more step in the direction of turning the Church of England into another sect in our country, but, so long as we are faced with what seems to me to be the irresponsibility of those who say that in these matters of private concern the courts cannot act, the Church has to take upon itself some such responsibility, and desires, where conscience demands it, the freedom to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Boston of Faversham: I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester for the clear way in which he has explained the purposes of this amendment to the Committee. But for his speech I should have had two querries. One would have been to invite him to inform your Lordships about the present law so far as matters of this kind, marriage generally and solemnisation by the clergy to whom he has referred are concerned. Secondly, I should have asked him to clarify the position so far as the solemnisation or otherwise of the marriages of divorced persons is concerned. From what he has said, your Lordships will appreciate, as you know from the statute the right reverend Prelate has mentioned, that this amendment would not involve any new departure; in other words, we should not be creating, by accepting

1253
this amendment, any new category of person. There is the precedent that he himself mentioned. So I certainly—and this is the spirit in which my noble friend Lady Wootton approached this amendment when she heard about it—should not wish to seek to compel anyone to do something of this kind against his conscience. Therefore, I would join with the right reverend Prelate in commending the amendment to your Lordships.
Lord Belstead: The Government also are certainly sympathetic to the intention of this amendment, which, as the right reverend Prelate has said, has precedent in a provision of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965. But I think the amendment is defective in the sense that it does not quite achieve what the right reverend Prelates who have their name to it intend. As I understand the wording of the amendment, it would go too wide, inasmuch as it would enable a clergyman to refuse to marry, or allow another clergyman to marry in his church, persons related by affinity who, under the law as it stands today and as is also set out in Canon B.31 of the Church of England, are permitted to marry each other; for example, a man and the sister of his deceased wife I doubt whether that is what the right reverend Prelate really intends. I imagine that he would wish his proposal to be limited to cases of affinity in the direct line, whether ascending or descending, which, under this Bill, would for the first time fall outside the prohibited degrees of marriage. May I make a suggestion to the right reverend Prelate? It is that, if the Committee agree to the amendment, perhaps it could be moved into the Bill, and then could be further slightly amended at Report stage.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I shall be very happy for it to be handled in that way.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Drumalbyn: May I make a short observation, with the consent of my noble friend on the Front Bench? It is simply in relation to Scotland. How does this Bill affect Scotland? What is the situation when two Scots come down to England and get married here within what used to be called forbidden relation ships? What happens when they go back to Scotland? Are they there married, or are they not? This seems to be a kind of Gretna in reverse.
Lord Boston of Faversham: I am grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for inviting me to respond. I have resolutely resisted throughout my legal life becoming involved and embroiled in what are to me the abstruse complexities of Scottish law and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I adhere to that principle.
Lord Belstead: There is a serious point here in the sense that I put it to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, who is not here this evening, that, of course, the Bill does not extend to Scotland and that this could cause certain problems. I ask the noble Baroness if she would perhaps consider whether it ought to extend to Scotland and, if so, the services of the Home Office, so far as we are able to make them available, would be at her disposal. The noble Baroness has not been able to respond, but maybe it is right for me to say a second time that perhaps the noble Baroness, advised by the noble Lord, Lord Boston, would like to think about this matter again before the Report stage.
Lord Boston of Faversham: I am very grateful to the Minister for that generous offer, and on behalf of my noble friend I would say I am sure that we should like to take advantage of the guidance and advice from the noble Lord's department.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

East/Southern Africa: Economic Co-operation
9.38 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what their policy is towards the attempts at greater economic co-operation in East and Southern Africa, as illustrated by the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference and the summit meeting held in Kampala.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. As the noble Lord the Minister knows, I have just returned from the area of Africa about which I am asking the Question tonight. In some ways it gives me a sense of déjà vu to return here. It reminds me very much of the days before the war, returning from the Continent of Europe to this country and finding so many people at the best apathetic and at the worst disinterested in what is happening in the outside world.
The area that I have come from is an area of war—there is simply no other way to describe it. It is a war caused by the last dying spasms of a malformed philosophy from South Africa which regularly causes raids on Mozambique, Angola and Zambia; which has spread throughout Central Africa and indeed, far beyond into our own continent; and the intelligence work of which the "Muldergate" scandal was but the tip of the iceberg. Immediately, and perhaps above all, there is the continued occupation of Namibia. I would suggest to the Government that when they—I think properly—protest against the occupation of Afghanistan, they should also consider that the principle is the same in Namibia.
I regret the cuts that have been made by this Government in overseas aid, particularly the cuts that have been made in the provision for higher education and the increased fees that are being charged to overseas students. Above all, this hits very deeply the technological training of many of the young people of Central Africa. I would echo many of the sentiments that were expressed yesterday in another place by my friends in the Labour Party. But I say to the Minister that this is not what I want to discuss. This is not the channel of argument that I want to follow tonight. Indeed, I would go much further and congratulate the Government on the part that they are playing in the Zimbabwe conference. I am particularly happy to see that the EEC and Britain are allocating a part of their increased aid to the regional development of Central Africa, meagre though that amount may be.
In 1953 this Parliament created the Federation of Central Africa. I believe that that was a great mistake. I believed it at the time and said so at the time. It was a mistake because it was an artificial forcing together against the will of the majority of the people of disparate countries under the control of a minority. In 1980 the same countries, now with the addition of six other countries, began planning and working towards a co-operative agreement which is different from that federation, but which they believe will be closer, more constructive and more productive for the people of that area.
It was less than a month after the Zimbabwe elections last year that the nine countries met together in Lusaka
1256
and unanimously agreed that their principle objective in co-operation was to release themselves from the thrall of South African economic domination. Since then there has been a further meeting in Maputo and the seriousness with which this is taken is shown by the very high level of representation at both those meetings.
It is about this form of co-operation and about the British responsibility to assist it that I want to spend the rest of the time that I have tonight. I would just make one reference to the other side of this form of co-operation—the East African side—which began in Kampala a few weeks ago, after the re-election of President Obote, and which brought together, hopefully, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia. I believe that this is an extension of the spirit which was initiated in Lusaka 12 months ago. I hope that it will continue and expand, but of course there are special problems in Uganda at the moment.
So far as the nine are concerned, we are talking here about 55 million people. If one includes the South Africans who are intimately concerned and the people of Zaire, who very quickly came to associate themselves with the nine, then we are talking of over 100 million people. We are talking about an area which is extremely rich in minerals, in agricultural produce, in energy, in water supplies and, above all, in its people and in their skills, their tolerance, and their ambitions.
The central difference between the federation formed in 1953 and the co-operative association which came together in 1980 is that the leaders of these countries deliberately concentrated upon a functional approach. This is not a federation. It is not a common market. It is not a free trade area, because it has already been realised that the experience of the East African community has shown that when you get an unbalanced growth between the different countries then you run into difficulties.
I would take just one example; it is the one which is considered at the moment to have top priority, and it is in transport. The transport association has been based in Maputo, and it has already got to work. It is already planning, along with the Canadians, the extension of the railway in Malawi. But here is the very clear case for a vastly improved transport system in the whole of Central Africa. In Zimbabwe there is a bumper harvest of maize this year. It is hoped that it will reach 2 million tonnes. Yet Zimbabwe can mill only 750,000 tonnes of maize. What is going to happen to the 1¼ million tonnes left over?
There are people dying. Fifteen people died of hunger in Zambia itself just before Christmas. There are people dying in Tanzania. Drought has spread, as it always does, and has destroyed crops in many parts of East Africa. So that here you have a granary and you have people not very far away who are dying from starvation. Surely one cannot make a clearer case as to the importance of an immediate and vast improvement in the transport system, in the railways and on the roads. I am happy to see and applaud the initiative taken by Sonny Ramphal, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, in pointing this out and already suggesting a Commonwealth plan which can unite the production of Zimbabwe with the people of the rest of the area who are in such straits.
In all this discussion that is going on, all the planning,

1257
all the exchange of views, the country of Zambia is pivotal. Look at a map and you will see that it is geographically pivotal. If you know anything about the politics of the area it is obviously pivotal, as it was throughout the Zimbabwean war. But, and I do not blame the Government for this for one moment, it is a description of the situation in which the Government have to work. There is, I would say, in this country a sense of guilt that is coming through on the media, about the country of Zambia. The country and people of Zambia that are described in the media of this country are certainly not either the people or the country in which I have been living over the past four months. This is not understood by the Zambians, who are puzzled because they always thought they were friends of the British.
The media attack the President in their headlines and in what they say, whereas many noble Lords will be aware that the President has had a long, close and personal association with this country. Without naming the newspapers concerned, I shall quote a few of the headlines that have appeared: "Kaunda loses his excuse for his nation's ills"; "Poor leadership behind many of Zambia's economic crises"; "Russian advisers help build Zambian jets"; "Budget increase could kill Zambian aid hopes".
Those sorts of headline are being put to the British people daily, and unfortunately it extends beyond the newspapers—and the papers from which I have quoted are what would be considered to be respectable and friendly newspapers. Those of us who live abroad and listen regularly to the World Service of the BBC hear the same sort of things being said by their correspondents.
We in this country owe a great debt to President Kaunda. We asked him only 12 months after independence to apply sanctions to Southern Rhodesia. He put his life, his leadership and his political position on the block by agreeing to the proposals of the British Government, and I am talking about British Governments generally—not the present one, but Governments over the last 16 years. He was asked to apply sanctions against those who had rebelled against the British Crown, not against Zambia, so he was fighting our fight; and his personal position—it is no exaggeration to say his life—was put in jeopardy by those who disagreed with his consent to follow the policy of the British Government.
Have the correspondents who write about Zambia and those who talk on the subject in this country forgotten the history of the last 30 years? Have they forgotten that Zambia was forced against the will of the majority of its people into the Central African Federation, its resources milked to build up the economy of Southern Rhodesia? Have they forgotten the opposition of the British Administration to the nationalist movement in Zambia? Have they forgotten that an independent Zambia was left locked into the Southern Rhodesian economy and then asked to apply sanctions against Southern Rhodesia? Have they forgotten the war against the rebels, those who were rebelling against the British Crown? Have they forgotten the bombings the Zambians suffered and the number of martyred Zambian men, women and children? Have they forgotten the Bingham Report, which showed that British oil companies were supplying
1258
the oil to fly those planes? Have they forgotten that Zambia acted as hosts to the freedom fighters who eventually brought about the successful elections in Zimbabwe last year? And have they forgotten the tens of thousands of refugees from countries surrounding Zambia?
Has all that no effect upon the economy of the country? I believe that it has a deeper effect than has yet been realised. I believe that the major effect is to be found not among any of the more obvious impacts on the economy, but rather in the fact that because of sanctions Zambia was forced artificially to industrialise too soon. That was due partly to the influence of the multinational companies which dominate the mineral world in Zambia, and partly to companies in Southern Rhodesia which moved their subsidiaries to Zambia. That meant that Zambia started manufacturing substitute imports; that it became a consumer society; that there was very rapid urbanisation—the fastest urbanisation anywhere in Africa, where half the population lives in the towns, and where there are shanty towns around every town. When one visits the shanty towns, one finds that each household has its little patch of maize, its little groupings of sugar cane. People are building their own houses with bricks made from mud and dried in the sun. The effect of sanctions was to increase the rate of urbanisation, to diminish the planning and development of agriculture, and to destroy a great deal of the transport system and to divert other parts of it.
During the same period—from 1974 to 1979—the terms of trade turned against the Zambians by 50 per cent. That meant that people in this country were benefiting from the exchange of goods between this country and Zambia. We were paying less for our copper and cobalt than the Zambians had to pay for imported machines. When talking about copper and cobalt I hardly need to tell your Lordships' House that these are the two materials on which the foreign trade of Zambia depends almost entirely, and yet copper prices today hardly cover the cost of production. Sometimes they do not cover the cost, sometimes production runs at a loss.
So, yes, there have been intense pressures on the economy of Zambia ever since independence. Those pressures have come from the outside world, and we are partly responsible for the drastic results that have accrued. Yet at the same time President Kaunda and his series of Governments have been able to develop free universal education, build a university, establish a free medical service—how many countries in the world have a free medical service?—and perhaps above all develop a genuine non-racial community, in which no person of any colour need have any fear in any part of Zambia of being insulted or attacked because of the colour of his skin. That, I believe, is a tremendous achievement reached under the most adverse conditions that one can imagine.
Of course the countries that we are talking about were, before independence, ruled by either Britain or Portugal. I want to suggest to the Minister that we should now take some responsibility for assisting the people of these countries back on to the road they were on in the 1960s—when in Zambia the growth rate was 5 per cent. a year—back towards some hope for a decent standard of living in the foreseeable future.

1259
I will not again go through the proposals of the Brandt Report, but they all relate directly to Zambia. Indeed, Zambia is taken as a particularly apposite example of what the application of the principles of Brandt could do in a country such as Zambia.
Let me ask the Government to press ahead with what they have started in the Zimbabwean conference on assistance to regional development. I am not asking for a lot of money—I am not asking, necessarily, for more money, even, than the Government have already allocated—but I am asking for the application of that money to the special and constructive needs of this new, infant grouping of the nine states. For example, take the case of the port of Beira. From the beginning of this century the port of Beira has used British materials, British techniques, British equipment. It needs spares to get the port back to where it was before the war, and with some hope of progress. The same could be applied to Maputo; the same could be applied to Nacala. There is a need for spares, above all, with technical assistance to show them how to use those spares as they are needed.
Let me refer the Minister to railway engines. There is an important number of steam railway engines in the southern part of Zambia—built, I believe, in Doncaster. They are off the rails; they have not been used for years. They could very easily be put back into use with the help of a handful of technicians and, again, with the spares. Let me say at this point that the British High Commissioner in Lusaka and the overseas development administration representatives for that area are doing all they can. They and the new High Commissioner have made a great start. They are doing all they can to assist the local people to look to Britain for assistance in this way; and they are assisted by the interests of the OAU and by the Economic Commission for Africa. Prime Minister Mugabe and President Stevens of the OAU were in Lusaka within the last two weeks.
Finally, I believe that the Government and the House should take extremely seriously the proposition that the co-operation and healthy development of these nine countries—none of which has any intention whatever of attacking anybody—provides the only alternative (if there is an alternative) to war with South Africa. Beyond economic co-operation I believe they need a military alliance, because they are all of them subject to attack; and the war that is apparently coming is a war in which Zimbabwe and Namibia are only on the periphery. But here there is a very great danger, and the danger comes largely from the United States. The sentiments as expressed by President Reagan, by his security adviser, Mr. Allen, and by the United Nations' Ambassador, Mrs. Fitzgerald—all give hope to the South African Government: Hope that now they can begin to consider that they will not have to give up Namibia; that the northern boundary of Namibia can now become their front line; that now they can start again to support the organisation known as Unita in order to accomplish the destabilisation of Angola, in order to bring the cold war into this area—which would be disastrous to what is at the moment a very promising and constructive prospect. And the Americans do not understand that a non-aligned country is not a Communist country,
1260
that a non-aligned country looks to the interests of the third world and the non-aligned group and its own people on each issue; and that this does not make it into a Communist country. I believe that the British Government can do a great deal to explain this and to persuade Washington that this is the case and this must be the basis of the political, economic and military policy of the West. When the Americans tell us that President Kaunda gets his arms from the Soviet Union, let us remember that President Kaunda looked all over the West, right across the Atlantic, for arms to defend Lusaka, to defend the copper belt against South African attack before he finally had to turn to the Soviet Union.
In other words, the time for sitting on the fence on the great issue of Africa has gone. Apartheid, which is universally condemned, can never reform itself. There is no such thing as a reformed apartheid. The principle of colour discrimination lies at the heart of apartheid. Do not take my word for it but that of the honoured guest of the Government last week, President Shagari. Look at the figures and tell the Americans the figures; tell the Americans that they are importing nearly four times as much from Nigeria as they are from South Africa; and remember that we in Britain are exporting considerably more to Nigeria than we are to South Africa and that, following the visit of the President last week, there is hope that these export figures to Nigeria will increase. It was President Shagari who, I understand, last week begged Britain to stop supporting and strengthening the South African economy. I suggest that this—added to pressure on Pretoria, to all the leverage that the Government can muster both on Pretoria and Washington, together with the support of regional planning—may give just the chance that the South Africans will come to their senses before disaster strikes. This cannot be left merely to the businessman's judgment. This is crucial and is seen as crucial, not just in Africa, but in Asia, in Latin America and in all parts of the world. It is crucial to the future of British influence in the world and it brings together in happy marriage international morality and British self-interest.
10.10 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, after the comprehensive speech of my noble friend I shall be brief. I regret that there were not more here to listen to my noble friend's speech. The remarkable knowledge which it expressed, the passionate sincerity which was behind it, almost made us forgive the fact that the noble Lord has been away for four months.
I want to raise some quite concrete questions. It is recognised now that most of the territories which we are discussing have unbalanced economies. Historically that was due to Imperial economic policy. I want to acknowledge that one has been disappointed that more has not been done since independence has been gained by many of these countries.
However, since Lusaka, followed by the recent conference at Kampala, great hope has emerged. The proposal that nine countries should co-ordinate their economies in a development plan, carrying out the urging by President Julius Nyerere at Lusaka for self-reliance, indicates the new mood that is in Africa

1261
today. This development among these nine nations shows that if their plans were fulfilled they would not only be able to meet the needs of their people, but would end hunger there and also end the dependence which now exists on external multinational companies and South Africa.
I want to take the situation in Zimbabwe (to which my noble friend referred) as an example of this. They have now a surplus of maize. In their neighbouring countries of Zambia and Tanzania people are dying from hunger for want of that maize. The difficulty is in developing the plan of distribution and the plan of transport. The first suggestion that I want to make to the Government is this: They should give the fullest support to the proposal by Mr. Ramphal of the Commonwealth Secretariat which suggests that there could be, by proper aid, a meeting of the problems that are involved.
The second concrete matter to which I want to refer is the proposal by the Food and Agriculture Organisation in what has been picturesquely termed a triangular fairy godmother system. That is a system by which a developed country should provide cash to buy grain from a second country to relieve hunger in a third country. I am asking that the Government should give the utmost support to that proposal by the Food and Agriculture Organisation.
The third quite concrete point I want to raise is this. The Food and Agriculture Organisation recently called a meeting of 38 potential donor countries to Southern Africa and at that meeting 12 countries announced increased donations. Those 12 even included the United States of America (despite its recent announcements of policy), Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, Japan and, subsequently, Italy. They did not include the United Kingdom, and I am asking the Government whether, since that gathering, the United Kingdom has agreed to co-operate with these other Governments in that support.
My next concrete suggestion is this. There has been a meeting in Kampala where co-ordination has been proposed between Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania; but the great obstacle to co-operation between those three nations is the closed frontier between Tanzania and Kenya. Will the Government do their utmost to try to bring about a solution to that problem, which has meant economic difficulties for Tanzania? Could not the Commonwealth Secretariat or the OAU be asked to initiate negotiations to end that difficulty? I have satisfied myself with raising those concrete points, but I do ask Her Majesty's Government to give the utmost assistance to these new regional plans in Africa—self-reliance by the African countries themselves—and to encourage them to fulfil their hopes by giving them the fullest aid that is possible.
10.17 p.m.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, the peoples of Southern Africa will, I know, be very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hatch for, by his Question, drawing attention to one area of Government policy and one element of what the Government's responsibilities should be at what is a critical period in the history of Southern Africa. We hold this debate within two months of
1262
military raids being carried out by the South African forces into the heart of Mozambique. We hold this debate within a month of gross threats of interference in the internal affairs of Angola being made by the new Reagan Administration.
It is against that background that this Question spotlights part of what the Government's response should be. So far as the whole question of Southern Africa is concerned we need a wider debate, and I think we should have one in the very near future. But this Question raises what our response should be to the demands of the independent states of Africa: those that have won their freedom, often after a bitter struggle, and are now faced with desperate problems of economic weakness and dependence, the legacy of their colonial past—dependence on an economic power, the Republic of South Africa, whose political interests are fundamentally opposed to their own.
Like my noble friend Lord Hatch in Zambia, I have seen concrete examples of this weakness and this dependence in Mozambique. I have seen some of the railways; for instance, the railway that leads from the port of Nacala, the lifeline for Malawi and for North-Western Mozambique, where the trains can go at only 40 kilometres an hour because of the weakness of the track, leaving those areas unsustained because of the paucity of the trains that can go week by week. I have seen the ports—ports which are rich in natural resources, but which are run-down, ill-equipped and left quite inadequate to supply the needs not only of Mozambique, but of the landlocked countries.
So far as dependence on South Africa is concerned, I have seen, perhaps most strikingly, the Cabora Bassa dam, where a whole hydro-electric complex is built to channel electricity, not to the surrounding poor countries that need it badly, but direct to Johannesburg, where it is fed into the South African grid, without any possibility of direct use for Mozambique and its neighbours. It is in the face of that, that a determined initiative has been made by the nine front line states.
At Lusaka, they put the challenge in graphic terms. After stating that Southern Africa is a focal point of conflict, they said this in the declaration made there on 1st April 1980 about the context of that conflict:
It is not the quest for liberation, but the entrenched racism, exploitation and oppression which is the cause of conflict in Southern Africa. The power behind this is in large measure economic. Economic liberation is, therefore, as vital as political freedom ".
It is in that spirit that they first made the declaration of Lusaka, and then followed it up by concrete programmes worked out at the Maputo Conference.
There is a quotation from the strategy paper presented to the Maputo Conference that deserves our attention, and it is this:
"This is the beginning of a movement which will stretch far into the future, affecting the lives of all of us in Southern Africa and all who have interests here. We seek at the Maputo Conference to know who stands with us. We seek therefore from our friends clear statements of their political and national support for the objectives, programmes and policies of SADCC.".
In response to that, our policy should be clear. There should be a commitment to back, generously and promptly, with all the resources that we can spare, the demands which come from these nine countries. But so far the response from Britain has been grievously disappointing. At the Maputo Conference itself, there

1263
were pledges from a wide spectrum of Western countries. In addition to a substantial pledge from the EEC, there were pledges from particular member states and Western countries—Holland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, West Germany, Denmark and Belgium, but not Great Britain. The Foreign Minister of Mozambique, Mr. Chissano, came to this country in January this year. He was received with great respect by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—respect justly due, having regard, in particular, to the part played by President Machel in the Lancaster House talks for the obtaining of independence for Zimbabwe. But when it came to the commitments for which he was asking as a member of the nine SADCC states, there was none. He was told that the requests were being processed. I fear that he was being fobbed off.
So what is the answer to the Question posed by my noble friend? What is the Government's policy? There will be many in Southern Africa, in all the countries, who will read the reply with intense interest. The very worst response, the very worst attitude, would be to hold back because of misguided political motivations, because of the fear of loosening the economic ties that bind this country to the apartheid Government of South Africa.
As President Shagari of Nigeria said during his state visit, the countries of Africa are the countries with a future. They are rich in resources. They are anxious to remain non-aligned, to receive aid, to welcome investment, to make honest bargains with countries and with businesses. So often British policy in Africa is based on ignorance and prejudice. Only 18 months ago substantial sections of the party opposite were branding Mr. Mugabe as a Communist and as a dangerous tool of the Soviet Union. We now respect him as the responsible political leader which he always has been.
In the same way there is a danger of isolating Mozambique and Angola because they, as is their right, as is their people's need, are pursuing a socialist path of development. We must not follow the wild prejudices of the new men in Washington. If we do, we bring about the very polarisation which we claim to deplore. The idea that any of the Governments, particularly the Governments of Mozambique and Angola, are in any way the puppets or the tools of any other power is an insult to them and is belied by a determined history of advancing the interests of their people against enormous odds: in these countries, as in Zambia, they are now building up programmes of health, of education, of popular participation in the running of the country.
I trust that that sort of motive will not be and is not the reason for what seems to be tardiness on the Government's part in responding to the Maputo Conference. On this question of economic liberation, as well as the question of political liberation, it is time a British Government expressed themselves as firmly on the side of those who are struggling to be free.
10.28 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, may I apologise for not putting my name down to speak? However, I thought that I ought to add my pennyworth to this
1264
debate and support my noble friend. Although the situation so far as South Africa is concerned may provide the political motivation for the coming together of the nine, the co-ordination of their development is right in itself. Because it is right in itself and because it is important in world terms, we ought to give it every support.
We have many discussions, not always in this House but outside, about the North-South dialogue and its importance. I am not sure to what extent Her Majesty's Government have in fact understood the importance of the North-South dialogue. However, on this occasion we are talking of an important South-South dialogue, an important getting-together of countries that are regarded as part of the South. But they are countries with resources which, if pooled together, can make them very rich. This is the important point. If the resources are pooled together, they can provide a very good life for their people. They can, for example, feed themselves. A fair amount of energy will be available: hydro-electric and of course, coal. They are full of minerals which are important to the world. With these resources they can provide a good life for their people. By co-ordinating and bringing together these resources they can be used for the common good.
Their problem at this moment, as has been mentioned before by the previous speakers, concerns communications, road and rail transport and their ports. What they need at this moment is what I would call the "priming of the pump", by helping them, financially and with technical help, to increase and improve their communications, because once that is done the community—I will call it that, although they have not yet called it that—will rise and will be able to be a community about which the whole world can be proud.
The OAU has set AD 2000 as the date by which they hope to achieve an African common market. One does not know whether they will achieve that aim, but what one can say about this regional co-operation is that with proper support this regional co-operation can, in a few years, become an area of wealth, an area in which people will live well and comfortably, an area about which not only Africa but Europe as well could be proud.
What I am hoping is that the Minister will reply in a manner which will give us encouragement, because so far the Government have been tardy in their response. I hope that the Minister will give us the hope and the encouragement that we need.
10.32 p.m.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, the hour is late, but this is a very important matter and I hope not to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. However, we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby for the comprehensive speech that he has made about Central and Southern Africa. He has very considerable first-hand knowledge of this vast area, and I am sure the Minister has listened with close attention to what he said. There were many important points, some of them disquieting, which he so graphically put to the House.
There are of course two outstanding facts about this huge area. It is an area where hostility and suspi-

1265
cion between whites and non-whites is an ever-present threat to its stability and prospects of peace. But it is also a region, as my noble friend Lord Pitt reminded us, very rich in minerals, many of them essential to Western industry and with an enormous agricultural potential. The whole purpose of the Lusaka Conference, carried on in Kampala—the whole objective of the Lusaka Nine—is somehow to intensify economic co-operation and development in this area. Surely this is a purpose which the United Kingdom and like-minded countries should actively support, not only because it is morally right but also because it is in our clear interests to do so.
As the Nigerian President reminded us last week, Central and Southern Africa is the United Kingdom's third largest trading partner, and certainly our trade, to our mutual benefit, with this enormous area could be doubled or trebled in a few years, if the resources of the area were enabled, through aid from the North and West, to promote the co-operation and development that the nine countries are seeking. But of course to do this they must have the technical assistance in men, money and machinery, and the developed countries of the West have been rather slow to grasp the need for this, although there are now signs that we are beginning to learn the facts of life as between North and South, that there is no future, certainly no prosperity, for either in isolation. The Brandt Commission has conclusively demonstrated that massive aid by the North to the South is at once a moral imperative on the North and an investment in friendship and prosperity between the two regions.
My noble friend rightly asked what our Government are doing about this, and I strongly reinforce his question. The other place had a most instructive debate yesterday about these matters. I do not know whether the Minister can confirm the figures given by my honourable friend Mr. Guy Barnett in an excellent speech, that the United Kingdom has cut its aid by 18 per cent. since 1979; that is about four or five times the cut it has imposed upon itself in its own public expenditure. By 1983 a further cut of 15·3 per cent. will have been effected in the somewhat inadequate aid we make available from our GNP. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how far short we are falling of the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP to be devoted to overseas aid. Two years ago we were within striking distance of that target; we had achieved 0·51 per cent. and 0·7 per cent. looked attainable, but by 1980 we had fallen back and fallen behind other countries in our overseas aid. We had fallen back to 0·34 per cent. which is less than half the United Nations target.
Our record in helping Zimbabwe is better—£75 million over three years and the prospect of a further substantial sum to be announced by the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Soames, at the donors conference in Salisbury. Perhaps the Minister can give us details of this.
I truncate my remarks and put the final and substantial point I wanted to bring to the Minister and your Lordships. Economic aid is, of course, vital to the future development of regions like Central and Southern Africa, not only that of Zimbabwe, but Zambia, Botswana, Malawi and the others. But, vital as economic aid is, it cannot be truly effective
1266
unless the region achieves political stability. This is an area of racial tension erupting into actual armed conflict; the fact of war is already in Southern Africa. The provision of aid cannot be fully effective unless conditions of stability are also promoted at the same time as the aid is extended.
The principal cause of this political instability—it must be said and repeated—is the apartheid policy of the South African Republic. There are signs that there is a toughening of their attitude due to their, I hope, misreading of American policy. I hope that our Government—and I speak as a pro-American, a firm believer in the alliance and the special relationship—will speak with clarity in Washington. Namibia is a key country in Southern Africa whose resources are vital to the interests of the West, indeed to the survival of the West. Unless you have an independent successor state which has reason to be grateful to the West and reason to co-operate with it, then the consequences for the West will be dire indeed. So it is time to speak with clarity to our friends in Washington about the way in which their policy towards Namibia is proceeding at present.
I should like briefly to put three points to the Minister to convey to his colleagues and to think over himself. First, with like-minded countries in Western Europe, North America and certainly in the Commonwealth—and the Commonwealth showed last year what it could do in Africa; indeed, in Lusaka it achieved a historic U-turn in the way in which it dealt with what used to be called the "Rhodesian problem"—we should support morally and practically the efforts of the Lusaka Nine to achieve a comprehensive programme of development. It is their right that we should take the lead in this as the premier post-colonial power in the world. It is in our enlightened self-interest that we should do this.
Secondly, we should redouble our efforts to obtain a much more speedy programme of reform in race relations in South Africa—in the Republic—with the early total abandonment of apartheid. Apartheid has no future; its dissolution can only be marginally postponed. We used to say about Rhodesia that there was no future for the Smith idea of running the country. It would only postpone the inevitable—the desirably inevitable—for a year or two at a time. The end is clear. Let them make a virtue of necessity—a humane virtue of an imperative necessity, and institute the reforms at a fast pace so that the millions of deprived and underprivileged black Africans can see for themselves that the white man is in earnest about extending equal rights to them. That would be an investment that would pay in peace and friendship far beyond even the material aid that we have been talking about tonight.
Thirdly—and material aid is important, of course, for the reasons already given—we should really look again at our overseas aid programme. It has been reduced at a fast rate, as I have tried to show, and this is a moral reproach to us as the premier post colonial power, and a political and economic error of the first magnitude. There is a blindness about this, about reducing overseas aid—a blindness about the consequences in terms of forcing these new countries to turn to totalitarian sources for the necessities of development. Every penny that we can make available to these

1267
countries, positioned as they are and full of important resources as they are, will be an investment not only economically, but strategically and politically.
This has been a useful debate. I wish that it could have been held under more suitable conditions. But I am grateful to my noble friend for having persisted in his intention to raise this matter. It is one of the most important matters that this House can possibly discuss. I would say that, with the Middle East, Cent ral and Southern Africa is the most important area in the world not only in terms of its own stability and peace, but also in terms of the implications of getting this wrong for the rest of the world. I hope that this short but useful debate will spur on the Government to do in Central Africa as a whole what they have commendably begun to do in Zimbabwe. They have given themselves a reasonably good example in doing what they have done in Zimbabwe. Let them carry on in the same way in the rest of Africa.
10.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, at the outset may I say that I am a little croaky this evening and if I finally give up halfway through my speech, my noble friend Lord Avon has kindly agreed to take over, though I hope that that will not be necessary.
This has been a most interesting and wide-ranging debate. I am very glad to have this opportunity to set out the Government's policy on the issues which have been raised and where possible to answer questions and clarify some apparent misconceptions which I fear the debate has revealed.
Southern Africa has suffered greatly both in human and economic terms from the devastating war in Zimbabwe. But the Lancaster House settlement, followed
closely by Zimbabwe's independence, have helped us to bring greater stability to the region. If this stability is to continue, however, it is essential that the countries concerned have a sound economic base on which to formulate their policies.
As your Lordships will know, this Government attach great importance to increased economic cooperation between the individual states of Africa and particularly so in the East and Southern region of that continent. Moreover, the interdependence of their economics and the need for greater co-operation is fully recognised by the states themselves. In November last year, nine of them—Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, Angola, Tanzania and Mozambique—held a conference in Maputo, the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference. There they met a large number of mainly Western and multilateral donor organisations to discuss ways of strengthening their regional economic links.
This initiative was warmly welcomed by Her Majesty's Government, who were
represented at the conference by my honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development. He expressed Britain's strong support for the conference's aim of identifying practical means of increasing regional co-operation for the economic benefit of the region as a whole. For it is certainly this Government's view that if increased economic co-operation within the region is to lead to a real improvement in living standards, to increased productivity and to
1268
increased prosperity, the benefits of this will be felt not only in East and Southern Africa but in the world beyond, and particularly in the countries with which this part of Africa trades. So it is very much in our own interests, as well as those of the African countries concerned, to encourage further moves towards economic integration in the region.
But clearly, words, resolutions and conferences are not enough by themselves to achieve the economic progress that everyone agrees is desirable and necessary. The objective must be to seek practical measures contributing towards the important goal of regional co-operation. Projects must be economically sound and defensible in themselves. It is not enough, for example—as some might think—for projects to be justified purely or even primarily on the contribution that they might make to reducing the dependence on South Africa of the African states that surround it. Whatever they and we might think of apartheid, in pure economic terms there are obvious overriding practical limits on the ability of the states surrounding South Africa to reduce their economic dependence on the republic. Conversely, there are equally obvious economic benefits in these states maintaining commercial and physical links with all countries of the region. Far better, therefore, for the countries of Central and Southern Africa to identify achievable plans which if successful will bring to the region prosperity, independence and the ability to choose to trade, or not to trade, on the basis of equal partnerships and from a position of economic strength.
The conference at Maputo identified three main areas—transport, agriculture and manpower—where the need for economic progress in the region is pressing. We are sure that this emphasis is right. The development of transport and communication links is a particular priority; and with many of the states concerned landlocked, it offers the most critical and tangible example of interstate co-operation.
In 1979, the last year for which we have full statistics, we spent some £140 million on aid to the nine Maputo Conference countries, plus Kenya and Uganda. Provisional figures indicate that we spent at least that amount in 1980 as well. I would ask those who are always ready to criticise the Government's performance in development matters to reflect a while on these impressive figures: they are worth more I think than expressions of solidarity, which is about all they get from the Eastern bloc.
A considerable proportion of these funds has gone to the transport and communications sector. For example: the Songea/Makambako Road in Tanzania, which is our biggest single aid project in the region; planning assistance for the development of Botswana Railways; rehabilitation of the railway track to Malawi's southern border with Mozambique; and in Mozambique itself, the construction of roads in Gaza and Cabo Delgado provinces. In Kenya, too, we are providing equipment to improve handling capacity at Mombasa port and we have allocated some £13 million to the building of the Embu—Meru road.
We already have plans to continue to help with the improvement of communications in the region. In Zambia we shall soon discuss how we might assist with the rehabilitation or replacement of the Kafue Rail Bridge. In Lesotho we have offered to provide

1269
funds for road construction. In Zimbabwe we have agreed to some £7 million for a major railway electrification project and should be happy to consider using funds for other transport projects should the Zimbabwe Government so wish. The Zimbabwe Donors' Conference is of course now in progress in Salisbury. It is too early to say what the final result of the conference will be, but we are very hopeful that it will be an important success with substantial pledges of aid being made by donor countries.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House tonight of the substantial aid pledged on behalf of the United Kingdom by my noble friend the Lord President. In addition to our existing bilateral aid to Zimbabwe of £96 million we have offered a further £10 million for land settlement, £5 million for training Zimbabweans in Britain, and £10 million for regional projects in the Southern African area. This is in addition to our military assistance to Zimbabwe and to £22 million of debts which we have written off. I suggest that these are figures of which the Government can be proud.
The exact use to which the new £10 million for regional projects will be put is not yet finally decided. But because of its central importance to communications in the area, it is expected that a substantial proportion of the funds will go to transport and communications projects in Mozambique. My noble friend has already mentioned at the Zimbabwe Conference that we have in mind in particular the improvement of the rail link from Salisbury to Beira; and the improvements to Beira Port. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, mentioned those points specifically.
Such projects will not only be of assistance to Mozambique itself; they will also be of direct benefit to countries on or near its borders. Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Swaziland, Botswana—all landlocked states—acknowledge that their economic prospects would be greatly improved if they were able to import and export their goods quickly and efficiently through Mozambique.
We will be moving as quickly as possible to reach decisions on how this new aid will be allocated; preliminary discussions on possible new projects are scheduled for early next month in Maputo. It is of course not only in the transport sector that we have been—and will continue to be—of help. Agriculture is clearly vital to the region. We are already providing substantial assistance for agriculture and rural development generally in many of the states of Southern and Eastern Africa. More initiatives are being planned, but perhaps our most significant contribution of all in this part of Africa is the provision of skilled personnel. Well over 2,000 experts in the region are partly or wholly financed from British aid, and are located as far as possible in key posts where skills can readily be passed on.
I have spoken so far of activities under our bilateral aid programmes. But let us not forget our substantial contributions to the multilateral bodies which are also assisting the economic development of the countries of East and Southern Africa. Nor should we ignore the significant benefits of membership of the Lomé Convention for these countries. Of course, not quite all of them are members. The two that are not, Angola and Mozambique, would stand to gain much from membership, which in view of their important
1270
harbour and rail facilities would in turn benefit neighbouring states.
I would add that Britain's role in the development of the region is not confined to aid, whether provided direct or through multilateral aid bodies. British companies have played an important part in the development of this part of Africa and there is much they can do in the future.
I have given particular attention so far to the outcome of and the initiatives arising from the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference, which is the subject of the Question. But the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has referred specifically to East Africa as well. I am pleased to say that recent developments in that region have given rise to hopes for greater political stability and economic co-operation. President Obote has taken the initiative to restore Uganda's good relations with its neighbours. This has given impetus to the series of meetings this year between Government Ministers of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and other neighbouring countries. The Kampala Summit on 17th January is a tangible example of improved relations and has led to an agreement to hold further meetings at regular intervals to review the possibilities for greater regional co-operation.
The meeting in Dar es Salaam on 13th March shows the progress that is being made. If these meetings result in a strengthening of economic ties between the countries concerned and the amicable settlement of problems arising from the break-up of the East African Community in 1977, then we would regard them as a most welcome initiative.
Economic imperatives dictate that there must be some measure of regional economic co-operation in East Africa. The landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Zambia require access to the sea for their exports, and their economies and markets are interdependent. Moreover, economically, all three major East African countries, like most of the world, are going through difficult times. Tanzania suffers severe balance of payments problems. Uganda has suffered much from a lack of political stability and her economic and administrative infrastructure is in dire straits. Kenya, though stronger economically, nevertheless has increasingly been affected by adverse terms of trade and a high population growth rate. All to a greater or lesser extent have suffered from the rise in oil prices, the fluctuation of the world commodity market and the problem of drought and food shortage.
Ideally, therefore, the economic interests of the East African countries should coincide, particularly as regards trade and transportation. The road and rail link with Mombasa is vitally important for the economic health of the region, as are the port facilities at Dar es Salaam. Finance is available for regional projects from the European Development Fund, and I know that the European Commission would be particularly receptive to East African proposals for the abolition of trade barriers and the improvement of transportation links. Certainly we would encourage investment of this sort from the European Development Fund to which, of course, we contribute a substantial 18 per cent.
Much can be done to reduce the economic problems facing East Africa at the moment and, with Kenya soon to take up the chairmanship of the Organisation

1271
of African Unity, I hope the opportunity for promoting greater regional co-operation in the area will be taken. For, in East Africa, as in Southern Africa, the assistance that we and other donors can provide will be of real and lasting value only if it is matched by the genuine efforts of the recipient countries to work closely with each other for the greater economic good of the region as a whole.
I turn to some of the points that have been raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, was of course particularly concerned about the position of Zambia and referred to critical reports about Zambia in the United Kingdom press. No matter what may be written in the British press, over which of course the Government have no control, our relations with Zambia are in fact most cordial. We have a substantial aid programme there; indeed, our recently announced £10,000 allocation for the SADCC projects would greatly benefit Zambia indirectly. And, as an example of our continuing close relations, we are sponsoring visits to this country by a group of officials and MPs from the United National Independence Party of Zambia and the editor of The Times of Zambia.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and other noble Lords also referred to the food surplus in Zimbabwe and to what might possibly be done with it. We have already offered to provide 14,000 tonnes of food aid to Mozambique and Zambia this year, and we have proposed that this food be purchased in and provided from Zimbabwe, which, as the noble Lord has rightly pointed out, is enjoying an impressive food surplus this year. That I think somewhat pre-empts Mr. Ramphal's ideas, which were referred to by both the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. It is hoped that other donor countries will be able to make similar or parallel arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, also referred to the Kenya—Tanzania border. Closure of the border between Kenya and Tanzania was one of the unhappy consequences of the break-up of the East African community. We should welcome any progress towards its reopening, but we understand the difficulties. In the first instance, it must of course be a matter for the two countries involved, but I hope that the current discussions between them, borne out by the new spirit of co-operation to which I have referred, will lead to an amicable agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, referred to the United States' policy, in
particular towards Angola. I imagine that he was referring to the possible appeal of the Clark amendment which, if it is carried through, will allow the United States Government to provide additional new aid for the Unita group in Angola. This is of course primarily a matter for the United States Government and Congress. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we are of course in normal cordial relationship with the Government of Angola and there can therefore be no question of our supporting any dissident group in that country.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, too, referred to United States' policy more generally in the area of Southern Africa. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my noble
1272
friend the Foreign Secretary discussed Namibia with President Reagan and Mr. Haig on the occasion of their recent visit to Washington. They expressed the hope that the United States Administration would work with all those involved in the negotiations for an internationally-recognised settlement there. We understand that the new United States Administration are reviewing the complex of Southern African problems and intend to consult other Governments mainly concerned before formulating specific policies or taking policy decisions.
We are coming to the end of a most interesting and constructive debate. Many noble Lords have given us the benefit of their advice, and indeed expert knowledge, and I thank them for that. I would express the hope that in turn I have been able to apprise your Lordships of the Government's positive and substantial response to the economic needs of East and Southern Africa.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him to expand on just one point in his speech? I thank him for his very full and courteous reply. I hope that his voice will improve; perhaps a visit to Zambia would do his throat good. The noble Lord spoke, quite correctly, about the importance of skilled technicians being made available to the area that we have been considering. But can he give some advice to the vice-chancellor of the University of Zambia, for example? The vice-chancellor is now faced with a drastic cut, causing great dismay, in the British Government's support for members of staff that he and the administration would like to recruit in this country.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not of course have in front of me the details of the matter to which the noble Lord refers. All I can do is to make the general point that I have made to your Lordships on many occasions: we regret any cuts that may be necessary in our aid budget, but if we do not make our dispositions in accordance with the resources available, then in due course we shall have no resources at all.

  UN CONTRIBUTIONS AND DEFAULTS
  UN CONTRIBUTIONS AND DEFAULTS
  IMMIGRATION: X-RAYS OF CHILDREN
  IMMIGRATION: X-RAYS OF CHILDREN
  IMMIGRATION: X-RAY EXAMINATIONS IN INDIA
  IMMIGRATION: X-RAY EXAMINATIONS IN INDIA