Sitting of 31 March 1981

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

    Prescription Charges
    Mr. Leightonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the percentage increase in prescription charges since May 1979.
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services by what method he intends to determine the revision of prescription charges.
    Mr. Dixonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he plans to revise prescription charges.
    The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): Prescription charges will be increased annually in line with costs. This is a sensible way of running things as compared with the fits and starts of the previous Government. The prescription charge in May 1979 was 20p, as set in April 1971, when it was 27 per cent. of the average cost per item. It is now £1, 31 per cent. of the average cost per item.
    Mr. Leighton: Is the Minister aware that he has given a peculiarly disingenuous answer? How does he square an astronomic increase of 500 per cent. with his description of a challenge by the Labour Party at the last general election to the effect that these charges would increase as a Labour lie? Does this not show that the whole prospectus put before the electorate by his party was completely bogus?
    Dr. Vaughan:
    "This is an increase in charge which is an adjustment of charge to cost"—[Official Report, 21 July 1969; Vol. 787, c. 1393.]
    Those are not my words but the words of the Secretary of State for Social Services in 1969, the late Richard Crossman. The percentage increase in charges since 1979 is 400 per cent. compared with a percentage increase in the cost of prescriptions, since the 20p prescription was introduced, of 335 per cent. I cannot see from where the hon. Gentleman ris his figures.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.
    Mr. Powell: Is the Department still adhering to what is no more than a rule of thumb method of charging the patient one-third of the total cost of medication through prescription charges? If so, is it the Government's intention to raise the prescription charge to £1·30 in the autumn?
    Dr. Vaughan: I have already said that the charges will be increased annually in line with costs. The present average cost of a prescription is £3·22. The sum of £1 seems a reasonable contribution towards this amount.
    Mr. Dixon: Does the Minister agree that, in view of the positive campaign to persuade doctors to prescribe cheaper drugs, the cost of a substantial percentage of drugs has fallen well below the £1 prescription charge? Does, he further agree that this has led to many chemists not submitting prescriptions for payment?
    Dr. Vaughan: It is too early to see the effects of the recent increases. The total number of prescriptions has fallen. In 1979 the figure was 304·6 million. It is now 303·3 million. I would have thought that the Labour Party, which first introduced and later reintroduced charges, would have been pleased to see this development. It shows a wiser use of money.
    Mr. McCrindle: With all these percentages flying around, will the Minister say what percentage of the total population does not pay prescription charges and how this compares with 1979?
    Dr.Vaughan: Thirty-five per cent. do not pay prescription charges. Sixty-five per cent. have exemptions and another 5 per cent., making 70 per cent., use season tickets, and I am pleased to say that the use of these has increased considerably.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Minister agree that he invokes a new principle in tying a charge to the rate of inflation? Will he give an assurance that no other Health Service charges will be linked to the rate of inflation?
    Dr. Vaughan: No. do not think that the hon. Gentleman is looking at the matter correctly. We are tying the prescription charge to the actual cost of drugs which are dispensed.
    Mr. Marlow: As the Government, or, in other words, the taxpayers, are contributing, in real terms, a massive £150 million more to health and social services than did the Labour Government, is it not reasonable that those who can afford to pay prescription charges should do just that?
    Dr. Vaughan: Yes, it is reasonable. We have increased the overall amount of money available. Drugs are costing about £1,000 million a year. I should have thought that the majority of people would be pleased to contribute to such costs.
    Mr. Terry Davis: Now that the Minister has admitted that the Government have increased prescription charges by 400 per cent., will he explain why the Government chose to increase this charge by a larger percentage than any other charge, licence, tax or Excise duty?
    Dr. Vaughan: I do not accept that. We are adjusting the costs in direct proportion to the amount of money being spent on drugs. I believe that to be reasonable

    Pharmaceuticals (Manufacture)
    Miss Richardsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has yet received the urgent report which he requested on why the manufacture of pharmaceuticals has not ceased at eight hospitals in England.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Yes, Sir. It shows that seven of the eight hospitals have now ceased manufacture completely. The other one is continuing at a much reduced level.
    Miss Richardson: May we have an assurance that the hospital which is continuing to manufacture at a reduced level will be monitored? Why is that hospital being allowed to continue to manufacture? How will the Secretary of State ensure that the other seven hospitals really cease to manufacture? What plans has he to monitor them?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hospital which is continuing to manufacture is King's College hospital. It is making a small range of terminally sterilised products which are not available commercially. The hospital has been inspected again quite recently. The inspector is satisfied that the reduced level of manufacture involves no present danger to patients, having regard to the quality and dedication of the staff in the pharmacy department. We shall keep an eye on the other hospitals. The hospitals to which the original instructions went have ceased to manufacture in accordance with the inspector's recommendation.
    Mr. Terry Davis: What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that in future health authorities take action without delay on recommendations from the Medicines Inspectorate?
    Mr. Jenkin: Now that the matter has been brought to the attention of health authorities, I should be surprised if any health authority ignored a recommendation from the inspectorate. In addition, when we have developed, as we now nearly have, a new system of costing so that proper comparisons can be made of costs of manufacture in hospitals and costs of buying in, I shall expect all health authorities to examine carefully the comparative economics. I should expect them to buy in from outside whenever that is economical.

    Unemployment and Sickness Benefits
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current value of the standard rate of unemployment and sickness benefits, expressed as a percentage of average industrial earnings; and how this percentage figure compares with the figure in March 1979.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): The standard rate of unemployment and sickness benefit is 25·2 per cent. of the estimated average net earnings of full-time adult male manual workers in January 1981, the latest date for which figures are available; the comparable figure in March 1979 was 25·6 per cent.
    Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that the situation will become much worse when the earnings-related supplement is abolished? What will he do to counteract that appalling decision?
    Mr. Rossi: It is, of course, appreciated that when the earnings-related supplement is abolished, on average there will be a difference of about £9 a week for those who have been receiving it. However, for those who would suffer hardship, the supplementary benefit safety net is always available.
    Mr. Marlow: As there is a growing reluctance among some young people to stay on at school or in further
    138
    education generally or to go on to the work experience scheme because of the relatively high level for young people of supplementary benefit and unemployment pay, will my hon. Friend look into the situation with view, perhaps, to reducing supplementary benefit and unemployment pay for young people and increasing the amount of money available to those on the work experience scheme on a nil-zero sum basis?
    Mr. Rossi: The whole question of young people is being examined by the Secretary of State for Employment.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister intend to maintain the ratio between unemployment and sickness benefits and average earnings? If he does not, why not?
    Mr. Rossi: That matter is also being examined.

    District Health Authorities
    Mr. Soleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied that regional health authorities consult fully with the trade unions concerned before making firm proposals for the creation of new district health authorities.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Soley: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is genuine concern in the trade unions about the implications for employment of the new district health authorities? Will he guarantee that the trade unions will be fully involved in the discussions leading to their establishment?
    Mr. Jenkin: The trade unions were among the bodies consulted by the regions on the proposed new structure of district health authorities. I am fully satisfied about that. Of course the unions will be consulted again about the drawing up of orders transferring employment from the existing authorities to the new district health authorities. I make that absolutely clear.
    Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the deafness of the Wessex regional health authority to the consultation process has been answered by the patience, understanding and common sense of the Minister for Health with his intervention concerning the Grove? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to join me and every body locally, including general practitioners, in thanking the Minister for what has happened? Will he ensure that the new district health authorities referred to in the question are more responsive to local opinion on medical matters than was the case in that instance?
    Mr. Jenkin: I am glowing in the blushes of the Minister for Health. I thank my hon. Friend for his tribute to him. One of the central purposes of the reorganisation in which we are currently engaged is to have smaller, more local, authorities which will be more responsive to local opinion about local health services. That primarily is what we are out to achieve. I hope that my hon. Friend believes that we are setting about it in the right way.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: As we have had the enunciation of a new theory this afternoon, namely, that in future patients will be charged in relation to cost, irrespective of whether they need expensive drugs, will the Secretary of State follow that theory all the way along the line? Will he provide the amount needed for reorganisation in line with inflation? The unions would be happy to learn that their wages are to be increased in exactly the same way.
    Mr. Jenkin: I assure the hon. Lady that this Government have no intention of following the example of their predecessors, who preferred to cut capital spending by two-thirds rather than put up prescription charges. We have done the opposite.

    Death Grant
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services to what level the death grant would have to be raised to preserve its real value as at 1 April 1970.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Based on the movement of the General Index of Retail Prices up to February 1981, the latest month for which a figure is available, the standard £30 grant would need to be increased to about £115 to restore the value that it had in April 1970.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister realise that the cost of medical certification required for cremation is now about the same as, and in certain circumstances exceeds, the value of the death grant? Bearing that in mind, and noting the enormous anxiety felt by elderly people as they watch the value of their pensions and savings diminish and the cost of funerals mount, will the Government reconsider the matter urgently?
    Mrs. Chalker: The cost of cremation certificates is being reconsidered along with other matters related to the death grant. I remind the hon. Gentleman that pensioners received a 19½ per cent. increase in November 1979 and a 16½ per cent. increase last November. Many pensioners are not making the type of noises that we hear so often from the Opposition.
    Mr. Freud: As the Secretary of State has told the House that 27 per cent. of the cost seems a reasonable proportion, will he take that on board when he considers the death grant?
    Mrs. Chalker: Hon. Members know that the whole of the death grant is being fully reviewed. When that review is completed we can come to the House with a statement. In the meantime, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is necessarily the right answer to the problem.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is any consideration being given under that review to increasing the death grant to the £115 to which my hon. Friend referred, but paying it only where the next of kin of the deceased is in receipt of social security benefits?
    Mrs. Chalker: That, and many other suggestions, have been made to the Government. They are all being considered.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that 1 million people signed a petition and made noises about the issue because they felt so strongly about it? Will the Minister refute the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) that the Government are considering abolishing the death grant? Is she aware that that would be a slap in the face for those 1 million people?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of the Dignity in Death Alliance deputation and of the million signatures on the petition. It would cost over £86 million to extend the death grant to everyone. However, I can add nothing further, until we have reached a final conclusion on the death grant.

    Regional Health Authorities (Financial Allocations)
    Mr. Robert C. Brownasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received from regional health authorities regarding their financial allocations for 1981–82.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: None, Sir.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Secretary of State aware that of the 1·4 per cent. gross level increase in allocation at least half will be taken up by population change demands? With cash limits set for inflation at 11 per cent. and wage increases at 6 per cent., is that not wishful thinking, bearing in mind the effects of the Budget?
    Mr. Jenkin: The proposed spending in 1981–82 on the National Health Service follows exactly the projections that were established by our predecessors in their last public expenditure White Paper—that is in real terms, making allowance for the rate of inflation. Although the average for the country as a whole of allocations to health authorities is about 1·6 per cent., the allocation to the Northern region is 2·3 per cent., representing a growth that is nearly five times higher than the growth, for instance, in the Thames region, which serves London and the Home Counties.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Do those allocations take account of the Secretary of State's recent proposal to charge people from abroad for the use of NHS services? If not, when does he intend to take note of that allocation?
    Mr. Jenkin: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the pressure that he has maintained to ensure the introduction of that scheme. The money that will be earned in that way by the health authorities will be additional to the money that is allocated to them by the Government.
    Mr. Dubs: Will the Secretary of State explain how he can make a sensible decision about the allocation of money to regional health authorities when, according to the answers that he has given to parliamentary questions, he does not know the precise financial circumstances of the area health authorities in the previous year?
    Mr. Jenkin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the allocations are made according to the formula evolved by the resource allocation working party, known as the RAWP formula. That formula has recently been revised and refined, and now provides a good basis on which to allocate money to different parts of the country on the basis of need. In the final analysis, of course, a judgment is required; it cannot be an automatic process. However, in forming that judgment, Ministers base their assessments on a wide range of factors, and the results are the figures that were published earlier this year.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I appreciate the detailed response that my right hon. Friend gave to the original question. Will he say what representations he has received from regional health authorities about the need to increase the number of consultants in the regions to provide a more adequate service for patients? What was his response to the regional health authorities that made such representations?
    Mr. Jenkin: There are two sides to my hon. Friend's question. First, health authorities are never slow to say that they could spend more money than they receive. The other concerns the matter which the Select Committee—of which my hon. Friend is a distinguished member—is

    141
    considering, namely, the balance between consultants and training grade doctors. We await with interest the findings of the Select Committee. I know that the NHS would like to have a better balance between the two grades of doctor.
    Mr. Terry Davis: Will the Secretary of State clarify the figures? Is it not true that the increase of 1·6 per cent. includes the savings of £25 million which he imposed on health authorities? Is it not true that the £25 million is really £35 million at actual prices? Is not the Secretary of State counting minuses as pluses?
    Mr. Jenkin: With respect, the 1·6 per cent. is after taking account of the savings, which were £25 million at survey prices, and are likely to be between £35 million and £36 million at outturn prices this year. Bearing in mind that that relates to a programme involving a total spending of more than £10,000 million, it is surely reasonable to expect the Health Service authorities to be able to find savings through higher efficiency that will amount to that small proportion of their total spending. That is what I seek, and that is what the regional health authorities have taken on board. I am quite confident that they will be able to achieve that saving.

    Disadvantaged Persons (Church of England and Salvation Army)
    Mr. Freesonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions he has had with the Church of England and the Salvation Army concerning their help for the disadvantaged.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir George Young): Neither has requested a discussion, but I am always willing to consider those aspects of their work which fall within the Department's responsibilities and for which I have great admiration. Officials have been in touch with the Church of England Children's Society, the Church Army and the Salvation Army on specific projects.
    Mr. Freeson: Is the Minister aware that both the Church of England and the Salvation Army recently joined forces to condemn the Government's policy of major cuts in support for hostel housing accommodation for single homeless people? Is he aware of their concern that his Department and the Department of the Environment are sharply reversing the policy of his predecessor which was to seek closure of the massive, out-of-date and disgracefully inadequate single person hostels provided by his Department by means of increased provision at local authority and housing association level to such organisations? What does he intend to do about that?
    Sir George Young: I have seen the joint statement to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and it is not in the strident tone he attributes to it. The Department of the Environment has made available £12 million as a special allocation for hostels. Both the organisations that he mentioned are eligible to apply to the DOE for grants. On the issue of size, I sympathise with the view that large institutions do not provide the right environment for people who are homeless, many of whom would prefer smaller institutions or homes where there is an opportunity for them to have an independent identity and where there is some privacy. I welcome any move to develop alternative provision to replace such outdated institutions.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Is the Minister aware that the meeting chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury to launch the
    142
    joint appeal by the Church Army and Salvation Army for their hostels, far from condemning the Government's action, paid particular tribute to the Minister for Housing and Construction for the help that he had given to hostels?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend has confirmed what I said earlier, that the joint statement was not couched in the tones attributed to it by the right hon. Gentleman.

    Child Benefit
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he can now make a statement on the future system of child benefit payments.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he now expects to announce his decision upon the arrangements for paying child benefit weekly or monthly.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am still considering the comments received on the Government's proposals in Cmnd. 8106, and I hope to announce the Government's decision on all the proposals shortly after the Easter Recess.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Secretary of State confirm that it will no longer be possible to make a statement before Easter? Will there be a gap between any Government decision to change the system and the introduction of that change? If the Government go ahead with the four-week proposal, will he assure the House and the mothers of this country that the £50 million saved by the cash flow effects on his Department will be put to increased child benefits?
    Mr. Jenkin: At this stage I do not want to commit myself to a precise time, because clearly that would depend on what changes, if any, we propose. Any effect on total public expenditure occasioned by less frequent payments of child benefit—the hon. Gentleman rightly used the term "cash flow"—will affect the cash flow in moving expenditure from this year to next. The resulting reduction in public expenditure this year is a reduction which the Chancellor must have if he is to meet his Budget targets.
    Mr. Bennett: Does not the Secretary of State accept that the most important people to consult are the mothers who draw the benefit? Would it not be better to guarantee that any mother who wanted to draw her benefit weekly could continue to do so, even if the Government wished to persuade some people to change to a monthly system?
    Mr. Jenkin: We have received representations about the White Paper from 550 individuals, organisations and local authorities, many of them representing mothers and particularly mothers in need. I am of course aware that strong views have been expressed to the effect that weekly payment of child benefit should be retained for those who want it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am taking those representations seriously, and we hope to announce our decision after Easter.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of child benefit is the most important factor? Does he accept that, although the increase was good, we expect even more? If the survey shows that the majority of mothers wish to draw child benefit four-weekly, does he accept that allowing for the choice will probably achieve most of what the Government are after?
    Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's initial remarks. The Opposition's wish to have it both ways is puzzling. They must decide whether the amount of child benefit is reasonable and should be received regularly or is insignificant, in which case why should it not be paid less frequently? The Government are considering my hon. Friend's second point.
    Mr. Freeson: Does the Secretary of State accept that, despite the recent increases, child benefit is 40 per cent. a week lower in real terms than when his Government came to office? Should not his most urgent priority be to bring it back to that level?
    Mr. Jenkin: I cannot confirm the right hon. Gentleman's figures. The increase announced in the Budget will maintain child benefit at last November's level, in accordance with the undertaking that I gave to the House.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that child benefit is more valuable to people on higher rather than lower incomes because it is tax-free? Has he considered making it taxable? If it was, what would the yield be?
    Mr. Jenkin: Child benefit replaced child tax allowances, which had the same impact.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: More so.
    Mr. Jenkin: Indeed. Child benefit is in a sense a child tax credit and is a tax-free sum paid to mothers, whatever their income. I have doubts about any recommendation to make the benefit means-tested. It would be strange to bring a benefit that has replaced tax allowances into taxation.

    Smoking and Alcohol Consumption
    Dr. Mawhinneyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate how much illnesses related to smoking and to alcohol abuse cost the National Health Service in the last year for which figures are available.
    Sir George Young: Estimates by the Department suggest that the annual cost to the NHS in England and Wales of smoking-related diseases is about £115 million and of alcohol-related diseases between £50 million and £69 million, both at November 1979 prices. These figures of course exclude the other costs which these illnesses inflict on society.
    Dr. Mawhinney: What must be the cost to the NHS before my hon. Friend will consider imposing a direct charge on patients who bring such illnesses on themselves?
    Sir George Young: At first sight, my hon. Friend's suggestion has the advantage of equity and logic, but there are difficulties. How does one prove causality in a man with high blood pressure who drinks and smokes? How does one prove that the bad habit is the main cause of the illness and not merely contributory? There are also philosophical problems. Which bad habits does my hon. Friend suggest we should select? What about accidents in the home, or glue sniffing? What about dangerous habits such as pot-holing, or even bicycling? With all the problems, we have no plans to introduce new charges.
    Mr. Ron Lewis: With the ever-increasing number of alcoholics, and the apparent increase in under-age drinking, will the hon. Gentleman follow the example of one of his predecessors in banning cigarette advertising and ban advertisements for alcoholic beverages?
    Sir George Young: No. Smoking and drinking are different. The vast majority who drink do so in moderation and do not harm themselves. Regrettably, the same is not true of smokers.
    Sir William Clark: In view of the cost to the NHS of smoking and drinking, does my hon. Friend agree that it is nonsense to include the cost of smoking and drinking in the RPI?
    Sir George Young: I should welcome the opportunity to give my views to the House, but I have no ministerial responsibility for the matter.
    Mr. William Hamilton: As official statistics show that the Government are driving more and more people to drink, has the Department estimated the deterrent effect of the swingeing tobacco and alcohol price increases in the Budget?
    Sir George Young: The estimates are, of necessity, speculative. Initial estimates indicate a possible reduction of about 8 per cent. in the sale of tobacco. I have no figures on the possible impact of the increase on the consumption of alcohol, but I believe that it will maintain the relative price of alcohol to other goods and services. One cannot make a case for alcohol becoming relatively cheaper.

    St. George's Hospital Site
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what payment to the National Health Service he expects from the sale of the St. George's hospital site.
    Dr. Vaughan: No figure can be given at present.
    Mr. Bidwell: Is the Minister aware that many Londoners believe that publicly owned land should be retained for public usage, and that if the land is sold for a song because of Government policy there will be a public outcry? Therefore, when it is sold for its proper value, which must be fabulous, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the money is spent on providing better equipment for our under-equipped hospitals?
    Dr. Vaughan: We understand the point, but we have made it clear that there is no further NHS requirement for the site. It is of advantage to the Health Service to raise as much money as possible from our part of the site, which could be used to the benefit of health care.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Why do the Minister's commercial instincts work only one way? Why cannot the NHS benefit economically from the sale of the site? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a disgrace that Grosvenor Estates will walk away with an enormous profit and the taxpayer will gain no benefit?
    Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Lady has no grounds for saying that. Only a small section of the site belongs to the NHS.
    Mr. Freud: If a hospital, some of the cost of which was raised by the community, is sold, what proportion of the revenue of the sale will be returned to the community, and to whom will it go?
    Dr. Vaughan: I should be glad to give the hon. Gentleman a detailed answer in writing. It is our general view that regional, area and local community health authorities should benefit as locally as possible. As much money as possible should go back to the local health service.

    Oxford Regional Health Authority
    Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services on what basis the revenue allocation to the Oxford regional health authority for 1981·82 was calculated.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Revenue allocations are made on the basis of the recommendations in the report of the resource allocation working party, which provides a broad assessment of relative health care need between different populations.
    Mr. Morris: As the needs include population movement, what action is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure a fair distribution between the Northamptonshire AHA, with the vast population increase there, and the Oxford AHA, which is vehemently overspending?
    Mr. Jenkin: Allocation to individual AHAs is a matter for the regional health authority, but special account is taken of the needs of new towns. For the past four years the Oxford region has received a revenue addition specifically to help the development of services in the new towns of Northampton and Milton Keynes. For 1981–82 the sum is £784,000, to be shared between new town developments.
    Mr. Skinner: Should not the Minister tell his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) that he had better not make comparisons between his own area in Northamptonshire and, for example, the Derby authority, which might lead to the closure of the neurology department, or with the Sheffield health authority, which would result in the closure of a spina bifida hospital for young children, which would mean that the Government are prepared to act as terrorists?
    Mr. Jenkin: I point out gently to the hon. Gentleman that the Trent regional health authority had built into its allocations this year a percentage growth that was five times that of the four Thames regions and as high as that of any other region in the country. The hon. Gentleman's extravagant language is totally out of place.
    Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of himself.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.

    Hospitals and Charities (Fund-raising)
    Mr. Cockeramasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he intends to take to ensure that National Health Service hospitals do not take advantage of their position to the detriment of fund-raising activities of charities which provide health care as part of their services.
    Dr. Vaughan: I am aware of my hon. Friend's long interest and involvement in charitable work, including the cottage homes. This is part of this country's unique record of voluntary and charitable work. The new power in the
    146
    Health Services Act 1980 is intended to continue this, but we shall keep a close watch on its effect to ensure that the voluntary efforts are not undermined in any way.
    Mr. Cockeram: I welcome the ability of the NHS to tap new sources of funds, but does my hon. Friend agree that it would be counter-productive if charities such as the retail trades cottage homes in Derby, Mill Hill and Scotland were to find their work of total care for the elderly, including health care, undermined by the new measure?
    Dr. Vaughan: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. We shall keep a watch to ensure that that does not happen.
    Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Lymington hospital appeal in my constituency, which set out to raise £150,000, has now raised over £275,000? I do not wish to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram), but will my hon. Friend the Minister encourage the trend whereby the public are prepared to contribute from their own pockets towards the provision of public facilities?
    Dr. Vaughan: Yes. I cannot welcome too strongly what my hon. Friend has said. In going around the country I am amazed at the immense effort that goes into raising voluntary funds for the Health Service and the great deal of good that this does.

    Social Security Bill
    Mr. Stallardasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on clause 1 of the Social Security Bill.
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations has he received on clause 1 of the Social Security Bill.
    Mr. Rossi: We have received about 120 such representations, from hon. Members, organisations and individual members of the public.
    Mr. Stallard: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that amounts to representations from virtually all the pensioners in Britain? Does he acknowledge that they are all agreed that the charge levelled by the Government that pensioners and other beneficiaries have been over-provided for is a wicked travesty of the facts, as revealed in any study of the pensioners' price index and other statistics? Will he give the House an assurance that during the passage of the Social Security Bill, which is now in Committee, he will seek to introduce an amendment that makes provision to pay back any shortfall that might arise in future?
    Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that representations have been received from various pensioner organisations. They are all concerned with the 1 per cent. clawback. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given an undertaking on future shortfalls. There is provision in existing legislation to deal with them should they arise.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister agree that heating costs form a large part of the pensioners' budget? As the cost of electricity and gas is increasing by more than twice the increase in pensions, will he tell me how an ordinary pensioner with no income other than the basic pension will be able to pay the additional heating costs?
    Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the uprating contains an element of forecast of future increases. The expected increases in fuel costs were taken into account when calculating the uprating of 10 per cent., which will come into effect in November.

    Retirement Pension
    Dr. McDonaldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the value of retirement pensions for a single person and a married couple, respectively, had they been increased in line with earnings in 1978 and 1979 and prices in 1980.
    Mr. Rossi: In November 1978 the standard weekly rates of basic retirement pensions would have been £19·85 for a single person and £31·75 for a married couple. In November 1979 the rates would have been £23·65 and £37·80 and in November 1980, £27·30 and £43·65.
    Dr. McDonald: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that through the Government's legislative changes in social security arrangements pensioners are beginning to realise more and more the extent to which they have been done out of their rightful increases by the Government? They are aware that their pensions are failing to keep pace with the rise in the cost of living. Many pensioners are quite desperate because they do not know how they will meet the increases in rents and in fuel and food prices throughout the coming year.
    Mr. Rossi: The changes made in the Social Security Act 1980 broke the link between pensions and increases in earnings. We were pledged—and we have maintained our pledge—to keep pensions in line with rises in prices. We have the commitment that when Britain returns to prosperity the pensioners will share in that prosperity.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Economic Strategy
    Mr. Rentonasked the Prime Minister whether she has had any recent consultations with the National Economic Development Council about the Government's economic strategy.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I took the chair at the NEDC on 4 February. Three items were discussed: industrial trends, overseas capital projects and a report on the diesel engines industry.
    Mr. Renton: How can trade union leaders expect to be taken seriously as partners in discussing Britain's economic future if they refuse to attend tomorrow's NEDC meeting because of the Civil Service picket line? Will my right hon. Friend impress on the six senior trade union representatives the folly of such action? Will she ensure that the meeting takes place in any event?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the trade union representatives on the NEDC have said that they will not attend tomorrow's meeting because they do not wish to cross the Civil Service picket line. Nevertheless, the meeting will go ahead. I very much regret that there will not be trade union representation there, as there are such important matters on the agenda as industrial energy pricing and regional industrial issues.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that one reason why the trade union leaders will not cross the picket
    148
    line that is part of the Civil Service pay dispute is that in her election campaign she told civil servants, half of whom receive less than the average wage, and many of whom receive wages below the poverty wage line, that if they voted for free collective bargaining, Mrs. Thatcher and the rest they would be able to get all the wages possible in line with those paid to people engaging in free collective bargaining outside the Civil Service?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very unfair to other hon. Members who wish to ask questions——
    Mr. Skinner: I have nearly finished.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman had better nearly finish quickly.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Lady aware that civil servants are asking her and the rest of her tawdry rotten Government to carry out their mandate? That is all that they are asking. That is why there are picket lines. and that is why——
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman might reflect on the fact that since his Government were in power civil servants——
    Mr. Skinner: That is nothing to do with it.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it is not only bad parliamentary manners, but sheer bad manners to keep shouting while others are trying to speak in the Chamber. He should try to control himself.
    Mr. Brotherton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member will leave his helpful point of order until the end of Question Time.
    The Prime Minister: Since the Government of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) were in power civil servants have been awarded pay increases of 50 per cent. over the last two years, on top of which they have been offered another 7 per cent., which most of us believe is a good deal for those in the public sector. Many in the private sector would wish to have those levels of pay.
    Later——
    Mr. Brotherton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the start of Prime Minister's questions you had cause to remonstrate with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). From a sedentary position the hon. Member addressed a highly offensive remark to you. My point of order is to ask whether it would be in order for you now to ask the hon. Member to withdraw that remark, without having to repeat it in the House——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There are times when am mercifully spared from hearing what is said by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I did not hear the remark.
    Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) did.
    Mr. Speaker: In that case, perhaps there is better hearing on the other side of the House.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am content to leave the matter where it is.

    Engagements
    Mr. Heddleasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 March.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall attend a reception given by the Indian high commissioner.
    Mr. Heddle: During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend consider the position of public sector unions as well as the Civil Service unions? Does she agree that those who are responsible for providing essential services for the nation and who wish to achieve pay settlements in excess of those that are freely entered into in the private sector can do so only by entering into binding no-strike agreements?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to Civil Service pay, 7 per cent. already exceeds what a number of people in the private sector will receive. With regard to the nationalised industries, there is undoubtedly great difficulty in applying the same disciplines to them as to companies that suffer from bankruptcy if they do not achieve competitive prices in the market. Most of us think that people should be paid for their work, and not for no-strike agreements. It is always possible to consider that. I would add one thing. Those whose service is vital to the well-being of the citizens should stick at their jobs.
    Mr. Bidwell: Is the right hon. Lady aware that many trade union leaders tell us that even when they visit the House and attend meetings in her presence they are to be seen and not heard? What is the difficulty about their not crossing the picket line in the Civil Service dispute? It is a waste of time for them to see her at any time these days.
    The Prime Minister: What absolute nonsense the hon. Member talks. When I take the chair at the NEDC the trade unions are vocal in what they wish to say. When about 40 of them come to see me, the difficulty is to persuade 37 of them to say anything at all.
    Sir Paul Bryan: Will the Prime Minister find time today to congratulate those responsible for securing the biggest export order in British history—the order for the Castle Peak B station in Hong Kong? Will she say what that means to this country in terms of employment? Will she tell the British industrialists that that order, following the earlier vast order for the Castle Peak A station and the equipment for the mass transit railway, shows what opportunities there are in Hong Kong for British business men?
    The Prime Minister: The order is worth about £550 million. It is a major success for British industry, working with the Government, to have achieved the order for Castle Peak B, in addition to Castle Peak A. The order will provide between 5,000 and 7,000 jobs over the next seven years, many of them in assisted areas where they are most needed. All concerned are to be thoroughly congratulated on taking advantage of those opportunities.
    Mr. Foot: Perhaps I might revert to the answers given by the right hon. Lady about the Civil Service dispute. If she is so certain of the Government's case, why are she and her colleagues so afraid to refer the matter to arbitration, as the unions have asked? Has the right hon.
    150
    Lady had time today to study the latest report of the CBI on the state of the British economy? Does that report accord with her view and that spread by her fellow Ministers that there is increasing evidence of an upturn in the economy?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first question is that the Government have a duty to decide what the taxpayer can afford to pay public servants. The more money that goes on current expenditure, the less there is for capital expenditure. The more that goes on current expenditure, the more unemployment is created, because that money could otherwise be spent on vital capital projects. I hope that those in the Civil Service will remember that.
    I have seen the CBI survey. The indications of an upturn to which the right hon. Gentleman referred come in the main from other forecasters and from the Central Statistical Office. In part they come from some of the CBI indicators, but otherwise they come from the independent indicators published by the Central Statistical Office, which gives the leading indicators, both long and short term.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady tell us who are those other forecasters? Will she tell us specifically whether she agrees with the CBI's judgment, in its latest report, that the Budget reduced demand and increased business costs? Does she not think that that is a plain statement of fact?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to that last question is "No, Sir". There was a good deal in the last Budget to relieve industry. There was a reduction in interest rates of a further 2 per cent. which is worth about £700 million over a year. There was a generous scheme for stock relief, and further relief for big users of fuel in industry. The latest outside forecasts from the NIESR, the London Business School, Phillips and Drew, and the Central Statistical Office indicators—long-term, coincident and short term—all suggest either a levelling out by the spring or an upturn.
    Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Lady not appreciate that the report from the CBI, which she says she has read, takes into account those factors and still arrives at the conclusion that I suggest, namely, that unemployment will be increased rather than reduced by the Budget? Is the right hon. Lady really trying to tell the country that the CBI consists of a group of liars?
    The Prime Minister: Of course not. I deeply resent the fact that the right hon. Gentleman chooses to say that. The Budget will not increase unemployment. What is more likely than anything else to increase unemployment is people taking out more for themselves, regardless of the effect on others.
    Mr. John Carlisleasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Vauxhall Motors in Luton, having been on a one-day working week for several months, is now moving to a four-day week and full production? Does she agree that that shows the confidence which several businesses, large and small, are showing in the Government's economic strategy?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to my hon. Friend is of course "Yes, Sir". Some companies are being realistic and making themselves competitive. They are the ones that will receive orders and be able to offer future and sound job prospects. Vauxhall is not alone in that. Some of the best news that we have had is the Hong Kong order, which will provide many jobs, and which was won because of the efficiency of these companies and the help given by the Government.
    Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister find time to have a word with the Secretary of State for Social Services about the important decision that he has taken to appeal against the award by a medical tribunal of a mobility
    152
    allowance to the parents of an autistic child? In this International Year of Disabled People, is she aware that it would be greatly appreciated if she took a personal interest in a matter that concerns so many people?
    The Prime Minister: I shall have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I expect that he took the decision on legal advice.
    Sir Anthony Kershaw: Whatever discussions my right hon. Friend has with the NEDC, will she take no notice of the opinions of the 364 economists, whose various opinions have been tried and have failed?
    The Prime Minister: I thought that the 364 economists did more damage to themselves than to anyone else.

President Reagan
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for this House to wish President Reagan a speedy and complete recovery after the dreadful attempt on his life that took place yesterday?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have seen that various people in this country have sent messages, but it is good that from our own House there should go out a greeting to the people of the United States of America and to President Reagan and his wife. I should tell the House that I sent a telegram this morning as well.

Greater London Council (Housing Transfer)
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the transfer of GLC housing to certain London boroughs.
In May 1980 the Greater London Council requested me to make an order under section 23 (3) of the London Government Act 1963 transferring the council's housing stock in the London boroughs of Brent, Camden, Hackney, Haringey, Hounslow, Lambeth, Lewisham and Waltham Forest to the borough councils. These boroughs were unwilling to accept the transfer of the stock. In these circumstances, the Act required me to consult the boroughs before reaching a decision.
There have been intensive consultations. I am now satisfied that it is right for the housing to be managed at borough level. I also believe that terms can be determined that will not only enable the stock to be assimilated smoothly but will lead to more effective housing management in London. My Department is today conveying this decision to the borough councils.
I shall be making an order transferring the stock to the borough councils on 1 April 1982, and intend to lay it before Parliament in the near future. A copy of the decision letter has been placed in the Library, together with a draft of the proposed order. The order will take into account the boroughs' views on the GLC's proposals, and in particular will impose an obligation on the GLC to bring the property up to an acceptable standard over 10 years.
The needs for housing mobility in London have changed considerably. The GLC's own mobility scheme for the transferred stock, together with the inter-borough nomination scheme, which is now to be part of the national mobility scheme, provides an adequate framework for meeting these needs, without the necessity to retain the GLC as a housing management authority. These transfers, together with those taking place by agreement, will largely fulfil the recommendations of the Herbert commission in 1960 that, to the fullest possible extent, council housing in London should be owned and managed locally by the borough councils.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement conceals more than it reveals?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many dwellings are being transferred?
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the property being brought up to an acceptable standard. Is it the Parker Morris standard to which these houses were originally built? What is an acceptable standard? Will he decide it, will the GLC decide it, or will the boroughs decide it?
The right hon. Gentleman said that he is satisfied, after intensive consultations, that it is right for the housing to be managed at borough level. Is that still being done against the wishes of the boroughs?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the reaction of the Greater London Council to his arrangements? Is it not true that the council has asked the right hon. Gentleman for guarantees that its housing investment programme allocation will be arranged in such a way as to ensure that it has the £450 million that it estimates is necessary to bring these houses up to an acceptable standard?

155
Is it not a fact that the Greater London Council has asked for an assurance that is its grant-related expenditure will be adjusted in such a way as to free it from the penalties of the taper that it could incur because of the increased expenditure that will be necessary on these houses?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the housing investment programme of the receiving boroughs will be adjusted to take account of the consequential costs that will face them?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the rate support grant allocation for the Greater London boroughs, hypothecated to the housing revenue account, will be adjusted to take accunt of the increased costs of administration that will face the receiving boroughs?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say—[Interruption.] I have to ask these questions, Mr. Speaker, because this information is not in the statement. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the housing subsidy of these boroughs will be adjusted to ensure that the base amount is not artificially reduced in future financial years?
Finally, is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman is undertaking a gross political manoeuvre, and that he is deliberately bringing the order before the House before a possible change in the political control of the Greater London Council on 7 May, when a Labour GLC would not wish to have these arrangements at all?
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that this process has been going on for 20 years. He knows full well that the Greater London Council has been considering this policy and working on it since 1977. A significant part of that period was when the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) was responsible for my Department.
The number of houses to be transferred is 53,428. The standards to which they will be maintained are the 10-point standards applicable to improvement grant applications.
The programme will be carried out over 10 years, and that should lead to the houses then having a minumum expected life of 30 years.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether the order was against the wishes of the boroughs. It is a compulsory order, and it is to be put forward in that context. The rest of the houses—the 163,000—were transferred to 24 boroughs on a voluntary basis. This represents the last part of the programme, to complete the exercise.
There have been long discussions with the GLC and the London boroughs about the various terms upon which the transfers are to take place, because I have to put the order before the House and to satisfy myself about the terms. Obviously, one had to have consultations in order to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
The GLC has made requests of me, as one would expect, but the terms of the requests that it has made would assume that I am able to give commitments about the housing investment programme allocations for years to come. That is quite without precedent, and I cannot do it.
The housing needs of the boroughs and the GLC, in the light of block grant and housing investment programme allocations, will reflect their statutory duties, and their statutory duties will include responsibility for the transferred houses. All these things will be taken into account. I hope that the House will feel that this will be
156
a logical conclusion to the recommendation of 20 years ago that it is desirable that housing should be administered as close as possible to the people who live in it.
Mr. Tim Eggar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be widely welcomed throughout London by Londoners who have severe housing problems? Does he also recognise that the announcement is the fulfilment of yet another pledge given by the Tory GLC at the last GLC election?
Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that this will be seen as a sensible step forward in the administration of housing. I am pleased to confirm that it fulfils a pledge made by the Conservative GLC, in the way in which one would expect the Conservative GLC to carry out its pledges.
Mr. Christopher Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell Lewisham council how it is to find the nearly £1 million necessary to equalise the existing rents of the GLC with those of Lewisham? Why has he chosen this time to give a slap in the face to his friend Horace Cutler, in refusing to give any guarantees to the people of London that these houses will be brought up to the standards that he is making it a statutory duty of the GLC to achieve?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the leader of the GLC, Sir Horace Cutler, has requested me to make these orders. He knows full well that I am not able to commit this or any future Government over a period of 10 years with the degree of precision implied by the hon. Gentleman's question. As for the rent policies, it will be for the London borough of Lewisham to take the essential decisions in the light of Government policies about subsidy and to decide how to phase in its new tenants with its existing tenants.
Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the existence of the GLC housing stock provided the most important source of mobility within the Greater London area and that the inter-borough nomination scheme is a very inadequate substitute for it? Will he acknowledge that there is no housing case whatever for what he proposes and that the order is political not only in the sense outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) but in the sense that many of the outer London boroughs did not wish to relieve the housing stress of the inner London boroughs, and it is to exclude them from. that obligation that the whole of the GLC's housing management scheme is being abolished?
Mr. Heseltine: I think that when the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to consider the situation in more detail he will realise that his analysis does not stand up to investigation, particularly as six out of the 14 Labour boroughs have voluntarily accepted the transfer of this stock. If those six could see the virtue of this, it cannot be described in such partisan terms as the hon. Gentleman has, regrettably, tried to inject.
The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has today announced a very significant national mobility scheme, which overtakes the existing arrangements. the deficiencies of which the hon. Gentleman was right to

157
draw to the attention of the House, although he might have pointed out that the Labour Government made little attempt to rectify them.
The House will be pleased to know that under the new arrangements the GLC will retain 50 per cent. of nominations for the transferred housing and that there is a new arrangement today, agreed by the AMA, the ADC and the London Boroughs Association, in conjunction with the Government, whereby 1 per cent. of national vacancies are available for mobility purposes to people with social and economic cases from outside the areas concerned.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that from now on it will be impossible, without legislation, for the GLC to acquire land for housing purposes, particularly by compulsory purchase powers?
Mr. Heseltine: The questions raised by my hon. Friend are important, but he will appreciate that no changes in the statutory powers of the GLC are involved in what I have announced today. With the transfer of a very substantial part of the housing organisation of the GLC, a review of the GLC's housing powers might well be appropriate, but nothing that I have announced today should prejudge that issue.
Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when, in May 1980, the Secretary of State was asked by Sir Horace Cutler to transfer the stock, Sir Horace was not aware of the enormous costs involved? Since Sir Horace has found out those costs he has asked the Secretary of State not to transfer the properties. The Secretary of State had that letter in February. He know that that is the case. He is misleading the House. He knows that Sir Horace is aware that the cost factor over the 10 years will be £1,000 million or more and is now saying that the Secretary of State is wrong to carry out this proposal. Why does the Secretary of State persist in rebuffing Sir Horace by putting this burden on the people of London?
Mr. Heseltine: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. If Sir Horace should ask me to withdraw this compulsory order, I should, of course, be prepared to do so.
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Will he comment on the effect on council house sales, as many inner London boroughs are going very slow on sales? Will he also give further thought to the fact that the London borough of Waltham Forest is going exceedingly slow on council house sales? Is he aware that that council owns 600 homes in my constituency and that my constituents cannot buy them? Will he do something to get those houses transferred to Basildon district council, which will sell them?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can tell the House that of the houses covered by the order some 700 are subject to right-to-buy applications by the tenants. The House will realise that the date of transfer is April 1982, so there is plenty of time for the right to buy to be completed within that time scale. For any houses that are subject to a right to buy at the date of the transfer, the legal responsibility—indeed, the duty—is of the authorities
158
concerned to carry out the implementation of right to buy will transfer from the GLC to the London borough concerned at that time.
My hon. Friend also raised the subject of inadequate progress in certain local authority areas. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction dealt with this matter on Saturday, when he expressed very clearly the Government's concern at the lack of progress and made clear that it can now be only a short time before we have to take further, decisive steps in this matter.
Mr. Reginald Freeson: Are not the two most important factors to bear in mind against the background of this proposal the need for more housing provision to be undertaken, whether by new build or by rehabilitation, by the GLC as well as the boroughs, and, secondly, the need to ensure that there is adequate mobility? On the first question, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there has been a collapse in housing provision at GLC level? On the second, is he aware that in my borough, which is not a major receiving authority, there has been a reduction in nominations out of the borough through the GLC over the past three years from about 400 to 500 transfers per year to less than 100 currently? How can it be argued that the mobility arrangements in London are working effectively when there has been a reduction of three-quarters in mobility from a borough that is in the greatest need of all because it does not have major GLC estates within it?
Mr. Heseltine: I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the mobility arrangements in London. He is, of course, particularly aware of them, as he was responsible for administering them. I do not think that they have been operating as effectively as we would wish. We wish to improve the arrangements. I believe that my hon. Friend's statement today is a significant step in that direction. But the procedures necessary to bring about these improvements are administrative procedures, and we shall be paying attention to that aspect.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the collapse of GLC housing provision. He will be familiar with the phenomenon of the decline in council house building, as he presided over one of the biggest declines since the war. He will therefore wish to join the Government in urging local authorities in London and throughout the country to release the maximum amount of land in order to allow private builders to continue the upsurge in private building that has now begun.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any housing stock will remain under the control of the GLC, and, if so, roughly how much?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. A small number of houses will remain. They are largely centred in Thamesmead, where there are special problems. That is something to be considered at a later date. There are also some small housing areas in Covent Garden, as well as the seaside and country homes. However, the total number is small. I shall give my hon. Friend the precise figure in a letter.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Setting aside all party political considerations, does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that he has announced a perfect formula for irresponsibility in housing management? I represent tenants on the GLC Ossulston estate, in

159
Somerstown. Is it not the case that when they complain to their new landlords—Camden council—the council will be able to say that the GLC is responsible, and in turn the GLC will be able to say that the Government are responsible for not providing the money to bring that estate up to scratch? The right hon. Gentleman ought to have come forward with a formula that was acceptable to everyone, because only that sort of formula will look after the interests of the tenants who are being transferred.
Mr. Heseltine: I am interested to learn that the hon. Gentleman has so little faith in the London boroughs to which the houses are being transferred. I take the view that the local authorities do the best that they possibly can in difficult circumstances. Under the terms of the orders that will be laid before the House, the hon. Gentleman will find that a substantial amount of money is built into the arrangements in order to bring the houses up to standards that are higher than currently exist. The hon. Gentleman should have more faith in the Labour boroughs to which the houses will be transferred.
Mr. Robin Squire: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Will he confirm, I suspect for the umpteenth time, that it would make no sense at all for a minority of the housing previously run by the GLC to remain in its ownership when the vast majority of London boroughs have already accepted their share? Secondly, and more important from the point of view of actual and would-be tenants in the areas concerned, does he agree that it would make more sense to have but one landlord, prospective or actual, rather than two?
Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Twenty-four London boroughs reached perfectly amicable arrangements, which left only the last eight. The House will be invited to conclude the arrangements to bring about the coherence of local housing administration that makes sense for the people concerned.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: How will the order affect the Greater London Secondary Housing Association? Will that also be dispersed? The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have been in correspondence about the period of consultation. Has that period how been extended? With whom will the consultation take place? Will it be a tripartite consultation between his Department, the GLC and the London borough of Brent? What is the possibility of altering the numbers that are to be transferred?
Mr. Heseltine: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing only with the GLC housing stock. Other organisations are not affected by the orders that I shall bring before the House.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising, but I shall call London Members first.
Mr. Roland Moyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that among the many defects in his statement is a complete absence of any reference to what will happen to the employees of the GLC and the London boroughs? Will he review the decision not to meet a deputation of the trade unions concerned? There is grave disquiet among the trade unions about the industrial
160
relations aspect of this problem. Will the right hon. Gentleman meet the trade unions in the near future, because by doing so it could well be that he will save both himself and the GLC a great deal of trouble?
Mr. Heseltine: I have great concern for the anxieties of the employees affected. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will help to reassure them that there is a time-honoured practice for transferring employees within the public sector. First, the arrangements are laid down in the Greater London Council Housing (Staff Transfer and Protection) Order 1979, presumably with the support of the right hon Gentleman, who was a Member of the House when that legislation was enacted. Secondly, there is a London housing staff commission to deal with any problems. This is a well-precedented activity within the public sector, but of course I shall keep an eye on it.
Mr. John Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman said that if the present leader of the GLC requested him to withdraw the order he would do so. Will that promise hold good after 6 May?
Mr. Heseltine: As the hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware, this policy has been pursued and advocated for 20 years. The present GLC was elected in order to bring about that policy, and it is entitled to see that policy brought to a satisfactory conclusion. The policies that will be pursued by the GLC after the elections are a matter for the new GLC. The hon. Gentleman and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends should wait and see what happens before making forecasts about the policies that will be pursued.
Mr. Thomas Cox: How many estates in the GLC area has the right hon. Gentleman visited? Is he aware of their condition? Houses are boarded up and many are absolute dumps. No one would want to live in them. How long will that continue? Will it be the Department's policy to advance moneys to the boroughs to bring those properties back into habitable condition, or will they remain for years to come in the condition in which the GLC has allowed them to remain?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what I said. Part of the arrangements within which the compulsory transfer is to go through is that within a 10-year period those houses will have been brought up to the standards of the 10-point improvement grant scheme. This is a real improvement either for those living in the areas or those who may find access to currently unused houses. It ensures a significant increase in standards.
Mr. David Alton: Is this not just another example of the high-handed attitude with which the Secretary of State deals with local government? It is rather like Thomas Cromwell and the way in which he dealt with the monasteries—first, list them, and then bust them. When the right hon. Gentleman meets local authorities, his idea of consultation seems to be "Tell them what I think, but do nothing about what they think". What consultation has the right hon. Gentleman had with the tenants who must live on these estates?
Mr. Heseltine: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was complaining about my attitudes to local government, but he then asked a question about consultation with the tenants. The GLC was elected on this programme. It is its housing stock, and it is entitled to see the policy carried through. During the last four years the GLC has had

161
widespread consultation with the local authorities in the London boroughs, the majority of which, including a significant number of Labour authorities, reached voluntary agreement. We are now left with eight, which for the bulk of the period when consultation was available were not prepared to get involved in the consultation process. That has forced me to come to a conclusion on this matter and to ask the House to act.
Mr. Frank Allaun: I put the question in simple terms. Is it not unfair and class-biased to deny the people of overcrowded, poorer inner city areas access to the land that they desperately need in the more spacious areas of outer London?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that that is one of the arguments in favour of a mobility scheme. I have told the former Minister for Housing and Construction that he must see how we can improve the administration of that scheme. It is not easy to do. Presumably, that is why the complaints mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are so deeply held—because the previous Government were quite unable to achieve a way of improving the scheme. I do not disagree with the concern raised by the hon. Gentleman, and we shall continue to do what we can to help.

Jennie Aste
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the case of Jennie Aste, who applied to the Inland Revenue to pay 40 per cent. of her tax to the Overseas Development Administration".
She wished to use that proportion to pay direct to the Overseas Development Administration. She applied to the collector of taxes in York and was initially refused. She then came to see me and showed me an acceptance of such a scheme by the collector of taxes in Wembley, which related to a London taxpayer. I sent that to the collector of taxes in York. Thereafter, he got in touch with my constituent and told her that she was entitled to do that if she wished. Therefore, she sent off the appropriate cheque. At no stage did the collector of taxes or any Treasury Minister get in touch with me direct, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer had earlier issued a circular to all hon. Members to the effect that when such issues arose they should write not to him but to the appropriate local official. That is why I wrote to the collector of taxes.
I then learnt from the newspapers that a statement had been issued by the Board of Inland Revenue after the House had risen on Thursday night. It said that it intended to go back on the assurance given by the collector and that a mistake had been made. Again, the appropriate Minister did not contact me. Only at 12.5 pm today did I receive a letter from the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees), the Minister of State, Treasury. In it he said that the Inland Revenue had made a mistake, because it had no discretion to allow a taxpayer to direct any part of her tax to anything other than the Consolidated Fund. He quoted no authority for that decision.
I was interested to see that the statement issued by the Board of Inland Revenue gave no authority for that
162
proposition. As I understand the income tax Acts, the collector of taxes and the Board of Inland Revenue have full discretion as to the manner in which they collect taxes. I have always understood that they could use that discretion in any way that they chose.
I realise this subject as a matter of urgency, because I have received hundreds of letters from those who wish to avail themselves of this facility. It is clear that many people would like to avoid paying taxes that will go towards armaments and would like the conscientious right to abstain from doing so. Indeed, in wartime people have the right to abstain from fighting. Although I do not subscribe to their view, I should like to give people this right.
The difficulty is that if the Board of Inland Revenue has a discretion that it can give with one statement and retract with another people will be denied their legitimate rights. Therefore, I ask the House for permission to raise this subject as a matter of urgency, so that the sincere wishes of hundreds of taxpayers may be given vent. They should be allowed to make their wishes known. If they were to be denied a right simply by the Minister's fiat, it would represent an arbitrary use of parliamentary power. I hope that the House would seek to curtail any such ministerial design.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) gave me notice earlier today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thought should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the case of Jennie Aste, who applied to the Inland Revenue to pay 40 per cent. of her tax to the Overseas Development Administration."
I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said. He knows that I decide not whether this matter should be debated but merely whether it is of such urgency and character that it should be debated either tonight or tomorrow.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reason for my decision. I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (Amendment)
4.3 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 in relation to the definition of `material change of use of buildings' for development and control purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is to try to take steps that will alleviate the second homes and holiday homes problem that affects parts of Wales severely and that is also felt in many other rural and holiday areas. Hon. Members will be aware of the existence of a problem from the extensive publicity given to arson attacks on second homes in Wales over a period of about 15 months, during which time between 40 and 50 second homes have suffered fire attacks.
I make it perfectly clear that I and my party can in no way condone such actions. We condemn violence of all

163
forms, and quite clearly the burning down of houses cannot solve housing problems. The arson attacks are, however, only the tip of a problem that has grown over the past two decades, and the tensions in certain local communities have been manifested in other less violent ways that have not caught the headlines. There have been protests at auction sales, paint daubings and bad feelings. The time has come when Parliament can no longer keep its head in the sand and positive action is needed to show in a practical way that the legislature is aware of these problems and is prepared to act to ameliorate them. Such action by Parliament is essential if we are to create a climate in which violence will not survive.
I wish to make two other matters clear. First, I am not advocating steps to try to eliminate second or holiday homes. There are many houses in my area—remote from towns and villages, or perhaps stuck on top of mountains or in the middle of forests—in which local people do not wish to reside. It is perfectly reasonable that they should be used as holiday homes. Clearly the income from the tourist industry is an important factor in a county such as Gwynedd. It is, however, a question of scale and of balance.
Secondly, I should make it clear that this is not a problem that is unique to Wales. Difficulties associated with the degree of penetration of second homes have been experienced in areas such as the Lake District and the South-West. Positive steps have been taken by many overseas countries, such as Switzerland and Denmark and by places such as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, to try to meet the problem. However, it is particularly acute in areas such as Gwynedd, in North-West Wales, for a number of reasons that are partly historic, partly economic and partly cultural.
Today, 31 March, is a significant day to discuss the problem, since for many people in Gwynedd it is the last day of their winter lets. They are now expected to clear out of the homes that they rented over the winter so that the owners can let those houses, at rents that local people cannot afford, to the holiday market, or so that they can use them for their own leisure purposes.
The magnitude of the problem in Gwynedd can be seen from the fact that a survey of second homes, carried out by the planning department of Gwynedd county council in 1979, showed that there were over 8,000 holiday homes in the county. That was at a time when there were about 4,600 families on the waiting list for local authority rented housing in the county. It is not difficult to imagine the strong feelings that develop when an abundance of housing stands empty for large parts of the year while families in the same vicinity cannot get a roof over their heads. To pretend that a problem does not exist is to fly in the face of reality.
Welsh Office figures published last Friday indicate that the problem may be even more severe and that the number of second homes in Gwynedd could be as large as 14,000. Those recent figures indicate that as much as 25 per cent. of the entire housing stock of the district council area of Dwyfor, in my constituency, are second homes and that 21 per cent. of the housing stock in Meirionnydd are also second homes. Within those average figures are concealed villages, such as Llanengan, Abersoch or Llanbedrog, in which the proportion of second homes is over 40 per cent.
In villages where the number of second homes has grown to that extent there are real problems for the residual community who live there round the year. In winter, the
164
village may become quite dead, with half the houses empty, and it is difficult to maintain services such as shops, schools and buses. That leads to pressures on some of the remaining population to move away. In my area, which is 87 per cent. Welsh speaking, second homes bring another pressure in summer—a linguistic tension—that adds to the strength of feeling on the issue.
Last summer, in a debate on the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services gave an undertaking to hold "cross-government discussions" on the matter with a view to bringing forward a positive response to meet the problem. He invited representations from local authorities on the subject. In response, Gwynedd county council has submitted to him and to the Welsh Office a document that represents the wishes not only of the county council but of the Arfon, Dwyfor, Anglesey and Aberconwy district councils and of the national park authority for Snowdonia and that calls for specific steps to be taken to help alleviate the problems caused by second homes in some areas.
In that joint document, the local authorities state:
"Second home buyers have raised the prices of the older and smaller properties in the county to such an extent that local inhabitants who would otherwise buy them are unable to meet the market price particularly as wages and salaries in Gwynedd are considerably lower than the national average.
The councils accordingly wish to emphasise the seriousness of the situation, the frustration and annoyance it causes to local people and the need for the Government to empower local authorities in the area to tackle the problem."
Those local authorities, which cover the Conservative-controlled areas represented by the hon. Members for Anglesey (Mr. Best) and for Conway (Mr. Roberts) as well as my constituency, call for specific action.
The House may recall that some steps have already been taken in Acts to discriminate between first and second homes. For instance, the Housing Act 1974 provides that improvement grants should not be available for improving second homes. Likewise, in the Housing Act 1980, there are powers for the Secretary of State to designate areas where holiday homes problems may be acute. In the Finance Act 1965 exemption from capital gains tax was not allowed for second homes. In the Finance Act 1972 tax relief on mortgages for second homes was abolished.
Parliament has recognised the difference in status between first and second homes. The question to which we must now apply ourselves is how we can make further provision that will help to solve the continuing problem.
In its submission Gwynedd county council asks Parliament to consider three methods of tackling the problem. The first is action by local housing authorities in being allowed and encouraged, in certain areas, to buy up holiday homes when they come on to the market so that they can be let to local people on the waiting list for council houses. That has been undertaken to a certain extent in my area, but the Government are wholly opposed to it. I believe that the Government should think again on that matter, but that is not the objective of my Bill.
The second proposal made by Gwynedd county council is for higher rating on second homes. That proposal has recently been pressed at an inquiry in the Lake District, where a call has been made for a penal rate levy on second homes. However, the Brill, by its nature, is an inappropriate vehicle for such a change.

165
The third proposal by Gwynedd county council—and the one on which I am putting the Bill forward—is to allow local planning authorities in certain areas to define as a material change of use the conversion of a house from a first home into a second or holiday home. If a house is to be converted from an office or a shop, planning permission is needed. Similarly planning permission would be required for a change of use of a house into a second home.
My Bill proposes that those powers should be made available to local planning authorities in those areas where a problem is seen to exist. I suggest that those areas should include national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and other areas designated by the Secretary of State, as he has already done, for the purposes of the Housing Act 1980.
The merits of the proposal are that it puts the powers where they can best be used—in the hands of the local planning authority. That is the body that knows the problems of an area and whether it is reasonable for a house to be converted into a second home. In remote areas that may be thought to be appropriate, but in the middle of a village, when half the village has already been bought up, the authority may withhold planning permission.
These provisions are non-bureaucratic. They are decentralised to the communities that they affect and flexible so that they meet the varying circumstances of different communities. Furthermore, they would not cost the Government any money to implement.
The Bill not does purport to solve the second home problem. It deals only with controlling a further escalation of the problem. A full solution involves many other factors, not least the economic factors relating to the ability of persons in one part of the country being able to
166
afford a first home before others can afford a second one. But the Bill allows for a better balance to be struck between the varying interests involved in any community—the interests of those who are seeking a first home, those who want to buy a second home and not be subject to threats of violence, and those who want to sell their houses to one or other of those groups and to the community in which those houses are located. The failure to get the balance right has led to the strength of feeling on this issue in areas such as Gwynedd.
A Bill along these lines should be allowed to make progress because it is the specific request of the local authorities in my area who have to live with the problem. To block the progress of such a Bill would be to show that the House is turning a deaf ear to the representations of such areas and will do nothing but worsen what is already a serious and, in some cases, tragic problem. The Bill has the support of Members of all parties.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Tom Ellis, Mr. David Penhaligon, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. D. E. Thomas, Dr. Roger Thomas and Mr. Gordon Wilson.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1971 (AMENDMENT).
Mr. Dafydd Wigley accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 in relation to the definition of "material change of use of buildings" for development and control purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1 May and to be printed. [Bill 106.]
Orders of the Day

  Forestry Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. W. Benyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. New clause 1 has not been selected. I accept that, but I seek your guidance. I presume that the reason why it has not been selected is that these matters normally fall under Orders in Council under the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975, but how can an hon. Member discuss such an important matter if he cannot do it on a Bill of this nature? Additionally, I am advised that it is possible for a clause similar to this to be moved in another place, to be voted on and, if necessary, to be passed. When it comes to the House we shall be faced with considering it, but we shall not be able to move it.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have listened with care to the hon. Gentleman's point of order. As he will know, I do not give reasons for my selection. There is a good reason why I do not, namely, that it would lead to endless points of order. I listened with sympathy to the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that I cannot alter the selection that I have already made.

New Clause 3

  COVENANT IN SALE TO MAINTAIN STOCK-PROOF FENCING
  `In the Forestry Act 1967 there shall be inserted at the end of section 39 the following subsection—
  "(7) In any sale of land made under this section it shall be a condition of sale that a covenant be inserted binding the original purchaser and any subsequent purchaser to maintain a stock proof boundary fence". '.—[Mr. Mark Hughes.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Mark Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I have much sympathy with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), namely, that on Report or in Committee the other place is empowered to press and perhaps to succeed in pressing, amendments which our rules do not permit. This is in no sense a criticism of your office, Mr. Speaker, in having to decline to select. It is in the nature of the different rules of order of the two Houses. I hope that when the Bill is debated in another place such a new clause will receive favourable consideration. Therefore, though not selected, I tell the hon. Member for Buckingham—I hope without a suggestion that your decision was improper, Mr. Speaker—that I am grateful to him for having tabled the new clause. I wish that the rules of order had allowed new clause 2 to be selected.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) should feel that the compliment paid to him has more than compensated for the fact that his new clause was out of order. I hope that the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) will not pursue new clause 2 as long as it was pursued in Committee.
  Mr. Hughes: In no circumstances, Mr. Speaker. When we discussed something akin to new clause 3 in Committee I was advised by the Parliamentary Secretary
  168
  that the amendment was legally unsound and could not be sustained. Therefore, on Report we introduce a new clause that I trust is legally sound. I hope that it will command the support of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are not seeking to inhibit the ability of the Forestry Commission, under the orders of the Secretary of State, to sell forestry land for any purpose. He may not agree with the terms of clause 1, but the new clause is based on the premise that clause 1 has been carried and that the Bill is about to become part of the law.
  We are about to impose upon the purchaser of such land, and any subsequent purchaser, a covenant that forces him to maintain a stock-proof boundary fence on and around the property. This stems from a gentleman's agreement entered into in 1956 between the Forestry Commission and the National Farmers Union of England and Wales, whereby, although not legally required to maintain such stock-proof fence, the commission undertook, at its own expense, to do so. This has been of immense benefit to farmers farming land adjacent to forestry land. They have not had the normal legal responsibility of fencing in their stock. The commission has accepted that part of its public responsibility was to fence out stock from forestry land and that, when sold, such fencing should be maintained.
  I accept that new fencing is expensive. We are asking not that new fencing should be erected by the new owner but that the new owner should maintain a stock-proof fence round forestry land.
  I accept that there are difficulties in Scotland, where the situation is significantly different. I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Chamber. No gentlemen's agreement exists between the Scottish NFU and the Forestry Commission in Scotland. Therefore, different interpretations of the rules on grant-aid for boundary fencing obtain in Scotland. I doubt whether Scottish farmers have been the net beneficiaries of the different arrangements.
  In England and Wales many small farmers in upland and hill areas on marginal land have had a significant improvement in their capital and current positions because of this gentlemen's agreement. The agreement has operated since 1956, and there is no evidence that it has significantly inhibited the Forestry Commission's ability to purchase land, to manage land, and to plant and reap the rewards of previous planting.
  It may be argued that the inclusion of the new clause would mean the net receipts of sales under clause 1 being significantly reduced. That is not sufficient to undermine and abandon an arrangement that the NFU and the commission have allowed to continue to their mutual satisfaction for 25 years.
  A farmer who in good faith bought his farm last year, in the expectation that the boundary fence would be maintained by the Forestry Commission, will, if the commission should sell adjacent land, have by retrospective legislation imposed upon him the duty to maintain the fence. The terms upon which he entered into the original contract for the purchase of that land will be changed by an Act of Parliament after the making of the contract. It is not in the best traditions of the House that contracts honourably entered into in 1979 or 1980 should be materially affected by an Act passed in 1981.
  We are concerned possibly with a small hill farmer in, for example, central Wales—Gwynedd, Dyfed, or Powys—who has purchased a smallholding with perhaps

  169
  two-thirds of the boundary towards the mountain adjacent to forestry land. That farmer bought in the expectation that the Forestry Commission would maintain the stock-proof boundary fence and that there would be no call upon him to continue the maintenance costs, but by virtue of this legislation and the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, he will find that that no longer obtains.
  In Committee we were told that the pre-existing maintenance would be continued. Therefore, when in the late 1940s and 1950s a previous acquisition by the commission had been undertaken and the green and blue lines on the conveyance indicated that that would be the new purchaser's responsibility, that was waived, because of the gentlemen's agreement that the commission would undertake that responsibility. Those would have been the terms upon which the new purchaser bought the freehold or leasehold two or three years ago.
  If we pass the Bill without new clause 3 we shall cause mischief to a number of purchasers who, in good faith, have bought and invested in properties during the past three of four years. That good faith is being undermined by the Government's unwillingness to allow this minuscule but important restriction and covenant on sales.
  We may be told that such a covenant drives a coach and horses through all the laws of tort and contract in the United Kingdom. I remind the House that "forestry" stems from the Latin word "foris", which means "outside the normal run of common law". It has nothing to do with trees. "Foris" is concerned with common law arrangements, and it means that people may hunt and shoot but, as human beings, not have protection.
  4.30 pm
  Therefore, to say that a forestry Bill cannot include a specific covenant is to deny the whole of the mediaeval history of forestry legislation. The whole of the legislation on forestry until the major appeals in the Cromwellian period is about exclusion from normality. Therefore, if it is argued in this specific case that this makes the purchase of foris land—that which is outside the normal procedures of law—abnormal, that is absolutely classic for forestry legislation. That is what forestry legislation from the period of William Rufus has been about, and that is what it should still be about. Therefore, I trust that no arrow hits the Parliamentary Secretary when he next visits the New Forest.
  We do not wish to delay the House on this matter, but we hope that the hon. Gentleman will carefully consider the feeling of many farmers—both those who have bought their farms recently and those who have been occupying them for many years—that this change, whereby they are made to bear a maintenance cost that was not part of their original bargain or contract, puts upon them a form of retrospective cost that they could not reasonably have been expected to anticipate when they made their original contract.
  If the Parliamentary Secretary believes that the wording could be improved, I have no doubt that we would welcome his undertaking to do that. We are not asking that the new purchaser should create stock-proof fencing. That is not what is in the new clause. It is that he and his successor shall maintain the new fencing that already, under the gentleman's agreement, the Forestry
  170
  Commission has provided. We are not asking them to make a major capital investment. We do not believe that the loss of purchase value to the Crown, or to the Government—even though we regret the Government's desire to sell off such property—should be encumbered by a major capital charge, and that new fencing should be produced. We are simply saying that the purchaser shall maintain stock-proof boundary fencing that within England and Wales since 1956 it has been the custom and habit of the commission, whatever its legal obligations, to maintain.
  Therefore, in moving this new clause as briefly as I can I hope that even at this late stage the Parliamentary Secretary will accept that this is in no sense an amendment that seeks to undermine the principle of the Bill and reduce the contribution made to the Exchequer by the sales beyond a minuscule level. It does no harm to the principle of the Bill and it would give major relief to a vast number of small farmers throughout England and Wales.
  Mr. Donald Coleman: It is a pity that we are not discussing new clause 2, but I understand the reason—that it would have concerned maintaining access and amenities. However, we are talking about a new clause which will affect access to forestry land, and I support what my hon. Friend said. We are asking to have put into the Bill a requirement that the Forestry Commission and those who may buy forest land maintain proper stock-proof fencing around the boundaries of their existing forest.
  If we insist upon this and if the covenant is put into the Bill it will not do anything more than what is at present required under the gentleman's agreement. One of the advantages of ensuring that this provision is made is that it will rule out some of the difficulties and troubles with which we are familiar in places such as my constituency, where there are forests on the hills and hill farming is undertaken.
  There has been friction from time to time between the Forestry Commission and the farmers in these hill farms because stock has strayed into the forest. The gentleman's agreement, when it works, is helpful and ensures that we do not have these difficulties.
  I hope that the House will ensure that in this Bill we have the means of providing such a permanent arrangement for the future. I hope that the Minister will consider what we are asking and accept the new clause. It is designed not to cause additional expenditure but to ensure that amicable arrangements continue to exist between forestry and agriculture interests.
  I support my hon. Friend's new clause.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I have some doubts about the new clause and I would seek clarification before deciding whether or not to support it. As it stands, it appears that it would require a purchaser from the Forestry Commission to maintain an existing fence under the provisions of a covenant running with the land.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclennan: Gladly, if the hon. Gentleman has a serious point.
  Mr. Cormack: I merely wondered whether the hon. Gentleman's party was on the fence or coming down on one side of it.
  Mr. Maclennan: I regret my generosity in giving way to the foolish hon. Gentleman.
  The question in my mind is this. If the original purchaser of land already owns land adjacent to the forestry land which he has acquired and seeks to amalgamate the new land with his existing land, will he still be required to maintain the fence? As I understand it, that would be the effect of the clause.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: It is precisely for that reason that the word "boundary" is introduced. If the new land is running with his land surely there is no boundary. I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands that a boundary which would have to be maintained cannot exist within a single holding. Therefore, there can be no such implication.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am not so certain as is the hon. Gentleman that "boundary" is a legal term of art in the way that he describes. Perhaps he is right, but it would be unfortunate if the clause required subsequent purchasers to maintain unnecessary fences. Indeed, it would seem to obstruct the interests of sensible land use management and to impose wholly unnecessary burdens. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman resolves those problems in the wording of the clause. He may be able subsequently to clarify the point.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: I endorse the sentiments that have been expressed and support the clause. As a hill farmer I declare my interest.
  In respect of a fence erected, say, 20 or 30 years ago there has always been an agreement—sometimes a gentleman's agreement—between two neighbours that one farmer is responsible for 500 yards or half the length of the fence and the other farmer is responsible for the rest. The law of the land is that the owner of the stock must keep his animals at home.
  I should like some clarification, as would many small farmers—hill farmers in particular. Suppose, for argument's sake, that the Forestry Commission sold 500 hectares of unplanted land to a private individual who did not erect a fence. Suppose that he planted thousands of small trees. The law of the land is that the farmer must keep his sheep at home. If they went across the boundary and destroyed all the trees, who would be responsible? Although the Minister and the Government will probably not accept the amendment, farmers need clarification.
  I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) that there should be a covenant to maintain stock-proof fencing. There are many such covenants in the sale of farms in my part of the country. Perhaps the Government should accept the clause. It is a matter of common sense, which is the only way that people in the countryside will survive. Common sense must prevail if people are to live in harmony. Pressure has been brought to bear on the Minister from many sectors to accept the clause. For the sake of peace of mind and good relationships among farmers, the Forestry Commission and new owners, I hope that he will accept it.
  4.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): We had a lengthy debate on this subject in Committee, when the amendment's wording was marginally defective. My reply covered several columns in Hansard, but I shall
  172
  not repeat all I said then. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) told me that he would raise the matter again on Report.
  It is important to comprehend what we are talking about. It was not until a ministerial policy statement in 1956, which arose from the Mid-Wales investigation report, that the Forestry Commission undertook to maintain stock fencing around its plantations in hill farming and upland grazing areas in England and Wales, even after they were no longer required for forestry purposes. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) will remember that at that time there was considerable conflict between those who wanted to farm the hill areas of Wales for sheep and those who wished to afforest them.
  One grievance concerned fences which were placed round new plantations, and still are. The answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Cardigan, about what would happen if 500 hectares of land were planted without a fence, is that the hares would eat the trees. So inevitably in the first instance the plantation would be fenced. The problem arises when the trees get bigger and no longer require vermin protection, and there is no stock-proof fencing—hence the agreement. That is how it come about. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) put his finger on the point. There are parts of the country where the practice is not to fence the forests. The shelter that is available from relatively mature woodland is useful in time of storm and tempest, and good for the forest, incidentally.
  The maintenance of fencing under the gentleman's agreement is not in itself desperately expensive, but as time goes on so those fences collapse and require renewal. The hon. Member for Durham said that this was not costly, but it is currently costing the Forestry Commission about £500,000 a year to replace fences under that gentleman's agreement. No contractual or legal obligation is involved. If we were to accept the clause there would be a legal involvement for all time, and it would be an extremely expensive commitment for the purchaser to take on.
  The purchaser anywhere in Britain, not just in the areas which at present are covered by the agreement, would be required to maintain a stock-proof fence even where there was no need for it. He would be legally bound to do so even if the adjoining owner also had a similar responsibility or there was a joint responsibility for a march fence, as happens in Scotland.
  I am not a lawyer, but I understand that the principle of the fencing of stock in England and Wales is simply that the owner of the stock is responsible for the stock and if he wishes to constrain them on his land he must fence them within that land. In Scotland there is a different arrangement, whereby the cost of the fence is joined.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: It is a better arrangement in Scotland.
  Mr. Wiggin: I am the first to admit that there are many points in Scots law that we English would be wise to consider, but I am happy to say that that is not my responsibility.
  In disposing of land the Forestry Commission will pass on all obligations that currently run with it, but I do not think that it would be right to impose a condition of this kind on a purchaser simply because the land is at present publicly owned. The clause suffers from the defect that the obligation that it seeks to impose is not usually passed on

  173
  to successive purchasers. Although I accept the argument of the hon. Member for Durham that if it says so in the clause this is what will happen, I believe that there are substantial legal problems in writing this sort of matter into the transfer of land. I am sure that he accepts that point.
  I understand that there may be the odd rare occasion where land is sold and the purchaser believes that the forest next door will remain fenced, which is a pretty remote possibility. The purchaser would be unwise to read into the gentleman's agreement any contractual or legal obligations on the part of the commission. I do not think, given all the difficulties and substantial cost that would be raised by the clause, that the Government can acept A. I hope that the House will vote against it.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: Given that the Government, under the proposals in the Bill, intend to sell off about 1 per cent. of our total forest assets—that is, £10 million worth of forest a year—what we are talking about in the amendment is 1 per cent. of £500,000 worth of liability. We are not talking about vast sums of money. We are talking about £5,000 worth of liability. I am concerned for the peace of mind of small farmers who are affected. I find the Parliamentary Secretary's answer wholly unsatisfactory. I accept that no sensible forester will do other than fence out vermin. That is not what the new clause is about. It is about fencing out stock. Given the very satisfactory way in which the gentleman's agreement has operated in England and Wales over the last 20 years I do not believe that the transfer of this arrangement to Scotland would cause a diminution of facilities to Scottish farmers. I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 274.

  Division No. 126]

  [4.52 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen

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

  Allaun, Frank

  Deakins, Eric

  Alton, David

  Dean, Joseph(Leeds West)

  Anderson, Donald

  Dempsey, James

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dewar, Donald

  Ashton, Joe

  Dixon, Donald

  Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

  Dobson, Frank

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Dormand, Jack

  Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dunn, James A.

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

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

  Eastham, Ken

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Edwards, R.(Whampt'n S E)

  Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)

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

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

  Ellis, Tom(Wrexham)

  Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)

  English, Michael

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

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

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

  Evans, Ioan(Aberdare)

  Campbell, Ian

  Evans, John(Newton)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Field, Frank

  Cant, R. B.

  Flannery, Martin

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)

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

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Coleman, Donald

  Ford, Ben

  Cook, Robin F.

  Forrester, John

  Cowans, Harry

  Foster, Derek

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

  Foulkes, George

  Crowther, J. S.

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

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Cunningham, G.(Islington S)

  Freud, Clement

  Dalyell, Tam

  Garrett, John(Norwich S)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(L'lli)

  George, Bruce

  Davies, Ifor(Gower)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  174

  Ginsburg, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Golding, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Gourlay, Harry

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Graham, Ted

  Parker, John

  Grant, George(Morpeth)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Grant, John(Islington C)

  Pendry, Tom

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Penhaligon, David

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

  Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)

  Hardy, Peter

  Prescott, John

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Price, C.(Lewisham W)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Rees, Rt Hon M(Leeds S)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Richardson, Jo

  Haynes, Frank

  Roberts, Albert(Normanton)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Robertson, George

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

  Robinson, G.(Coventry NW)

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

  Rooker, J. W.

  Home Robertson, John

  Ross, Ernest(Dundee West)

  Homewood, William

  Ross, Stephen(Isle of Wight)

  Hooley, Frank

  Rowlands, Ted

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Ryman, John

  Huckfield, Les

  Sandelson, Neville

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Sever, John

  Hughes, Mark(Durham)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Hughes, Roy(Newport)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.(Deptford)

  John, Brynmor

  Silverman, Julius

  Johnson, James(Hull West)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec(Rh'dda)

  Snape, Peter

  Jones, Barry(East Flint)

  Soley, Clive

  Jones, Dan(Burnley)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Stallard, A. W.

  Lamond, James

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Stewart, Rt Hon D.(W Isles)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Stott, Roger

  Lewis, Arthur(N'ham NW)

  Strang, Gavin

  Lewis, Ron(Carlisle)

  Straw, Jack

  Litherland, Robert

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Taylor, Mrs Ann(Bolton W)

  Lyon, Alexander(York)

  Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)

  Lyons, Edward(Bradf'd W)

  Thomas, Dr H.(Carmarthen)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Thorne, Stan(Preston South)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Tilley, John

  McElhone, Frank

  Tinn, James

  McGuire, Michael(Ince)

  Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

  McKay, Allen(Penistone)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  McKelvey, William

  Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  McNally, Thomas

  Watkins, David

  McNamara, Kevin

  Weetch, Ken

  McTaggart, Robert

  Welsh, Michael

  McWilliam, John

  White, Frank R.

  Magee, Bryan

  White, J.(G'gow Pollok)

  Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Marshall, Dr Edmund(Goole)

  Whitlock, William

  Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

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

  Maxton, John

  Wilson, Gordon(Dundee E)

  Meacher, Michael

  Wilson, William(C'try SE)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Woodall, Alec

  Mikardo, Ian

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Young, David(Bolton E)

  Mitchell, R. C.(Soton Itchen)

  Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Morton, George

  Mr. Hugh McCartney and Mr. James Hamilton.

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Banks, Robert

  Ancram, Michael

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Arnold, Tom

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bendall, Vivian

  175

  Benyon, Thomas(A'don)

  Grylls, Michael

  Benyon, W.(Buckingham)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Best, Keith

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Bevan, David Gilrsoy

  Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hannam, John

  Blackburn, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Blaker, Peter

  Hastings, Stephen

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Bright, Graham

  Heddle, John

  Brinton, Tim

  Henderson, Barry

  Brotherton, Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

  Hill, James

  Browne, John(Winchester)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Holland, Philip(Carlton)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hooson, Tom

  Buck, Antony

  Hordern, Peter

  Budgen, Nick

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

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Howell, Ralph(N Norfolk)

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Hunt, David(Wirral)

  Butcher, John

  Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jessel, Toby

  Churchill, W. S.

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Cockeram, Eric

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Cope, John

  Knox, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Lamont, Norman

  Corrie, John

  Lang, Ian

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Latham, Michael

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Critchley, Julian

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Crouch, David

  Lee, John

  Dean, Paul(North Somerset)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lester, Jim(Beeston)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Lloyd, Ian(Havant & W'loo)

  Dover, Denshore

  Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Loveridge, John

  Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

  Luce, Richard

  Durant, Tony

  McCrindle, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacGregor, John

  Eggar, Tim

  MacKay, John(Argyll)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

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

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Farr, John

  Madel, David

  Fell, Anthony

  Major, John

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Marland, Paul

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

  Marlow, Tony

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Marshall, Michael(Arundel)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Marten, Neil(Banbury)

  Forman, Nigel

  Mates, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Mather, Carol

  Fox, Marcus

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Fraser, Peter(South Angus)

  Mawby, Ray

  Fry, Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gardiner, George(Reigate)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gardner, Edward(S Fylde)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mellor, David

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Goodhart, Philip

  Miller, Hal(B'grove)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mills, Iain(Meriden)

  Gorst, John

  Mills, Peter(West Devon)

  Gow, Ian

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Grant, Anthony(Harrow C)

  Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)

  Gray, Hamish

  Moate, Roger

  Greenway, Harry

  Monro, Hector

  Grieve, Percy

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Moore, John

  Grist, Ian

  Morgan, Geraint

  176

  Morris, M.(N'hampton S)

  Speed, Keith

  Morrison, Hon C.(Devizes)

  Speller, Tony

  Morrison, Hon P.(Chester)

  Spicer, Jim(West Dorset)

  Mudd, David

  Spicer, Michael(S Worcs)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Sproat, Iain

  Neale, Gerrard

  Squire, Robin

  Needham, Richard

  Stainton, Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Neubert, Michael

  Stanley, John

  Newton, Tony

  Steen, Anthony

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stevens, Martin

  Page, John(Harrow, West)

  Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G.(Crosby)

  Stewart, k.(E Renfrewshire)

  Page, Richard(SW Herts)

  Stokes, John

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Parris, Matthew

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Patten, Christopher(Bath)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Patten, John(Oxford)

  Thompson, Donald

  Pawsey, James

  Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Townend, John(Bridlington)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)

  Porter, Barry

  Trippier, David

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Trotter, Neville

  Price, Sir David(Eastleigh)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Viggers, Peter

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Waddington, David

  Raison, Timothy

  Wakeham, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Rees, Peter(Dover and Deal)

  Walker, B.(Perth)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Waller, Gary

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)

  Watson, John

  Roberts, Wyn(Conway)

  Wells, John(Maidstone)

  Rost, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Wheeler, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Whitney, Raymand

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Wickenden, Keith

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shaw, Giles(Pudsey)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Shelton, William(Streatham)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shepherd, Richard

  Young, Sir George(Acton)

  Shersby, Michael

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Silvester, Fred

  Sims, Roger

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Peter Brooke.

  Smith, Dudley

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

  DISPOSAL OF LAND
  Mr. Paul Marland: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 9, after 'section', insert
  `with the exception of the Royal Forest of Dean'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine):
  With this we may discuss amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 9, at end insert
  `except for Woodlands containing Crown Woods.'.
  Mr. Marland: I assure the Minister that in principle I am in favour of the Bill. It is absurd that an organisation with nearly £2 billion worth of assets should need a subsidy from the taxpayer of about £35 million a year in order to make ends meet. I am assured by officers of the Forestry Commission that that need is only temporary and

  177
  that in seven years it is scheduled to break even. It is absurd that an organisation with such assets should be unable to stand on its own feet from the word "go".
  I regard the possible sale of the Royal Forest of Dean and other Crown forests to faceless investors as a national disaster. The Royal Forest of Dean is steeped in ancient history and tradition. Today's forester is of the same independent mind and rugged character as were his forefathers. It is our duty to preserve his ancient rights and traditions.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why it is all right for forests in other parts of the country to be sold to faceless investors but not the Forest of Dean?
  Mr. Marland: The ancient traditions exist in the Royal Forest of Dean. It is a national asset and in some ways a national monument. Hundreds of thousands of people go there every year either for the day or for their holidays. They go there to examine the national heritage of the Royal Forest of Dean. They go walking, riding, swimming, picnicking and caravanning. They walk unrestricted through the trees.
  The Forestry Commission has done much to encourage such tourism, and locally it has a good reputation. The commission has laid out the forest trails, established picnic spots and camping grounds, and allowed the visitors and local people to enjoy the freedom of the forest whenever they choose. However, such privileges have no legal status. If the forest were sold to faceless investors those rights could be snuffed out and people would be denied rights of access.
  For centuries forest sheep have grazed there. The graziers are well aware that their sheep cause problems in some areas. If one goes down Cinderford High Street on a hot afternoon and one's way is barred by 25 sheep sunbathing, one can see that the people have a point.
  The graziers, through their commoners' association, have co-operated with the commission in the restriction of numbers of sheep that they graze in the forest. Each sheep has to be clearly marked and flocks in the Cinderford area are hefted elsewhere on ground provided by the commission. It is easy to understand why the graziers believe it to be their right to graze their sheep in the Forest of Dean. This belief in their ancient rights and customs is reinforced by the fact that, although in 1808, under the Dean and New Forest Act, the foresters were discharged from all rights of common and from all manners of rights, claims and privileges to the Forest of Dean, they continued to enjoy those rights and privileges at the discretion of the Forestry Commission.
  Then, in 1965, according to the Forest of Dean district council's legal department, under the provisions of the Commons Registration Act, local inhabitants were prevented from registering their interest and their rights of way in this common. It seems, therefore, that the Crown took away the statutory right of common and rights of way in 1808, and that local people have not been allowed to register their common rights since then.
  If the Forest of Dean is sold there will be no forest trails, no picnic sites and no sheep, because they do not enjoy legal status. In their place will be high fences and "keep out" notices, if the new owner of the Forest is so inclined. The smoothly reassuring words of the Parliamentary
  178
  Secretary and the equally reassuring commitment by Forestry Commission officials that the Forest of Dean would never be sold off, coupled with the assertion that if the forest were offered for sale no one would buy it because too many local interests would prevent people from buying it, are not enough. If the land were cheap enough, someone would buy it. If the Forestry Commission decided that it wanted money at a later date, it might well sell the forest.
  We want more than a gentleman's agreement that the Forest of Dean will not be sold off. It is a sad fact that Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food come and go, Forestry Commission officials come and go, and Members of Parliament for Gloucestershire, West undoubtedly come and go, so more than a gentleman's agreement is needed to ensure the freedom of the Forest of Dean for future generations.
  It is not true to say that we cannot make exceptions. Under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 an exception was made for small coal mining operations such as those which abound in the Forest of Dean. I believe that the Royal Forest of Dean is a special case, and I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept my amendment.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: I note that with this amendment is coupled amendment No. 6, standing in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Forest of Dean is an exemplar of many forests where the historic position of Crown land and Crown forests with all the rights of soc and coke, ingang feoff and outgang feoff have been exercised for centuries. Those rights are at the heart of the matter.
  Crown woodlands are present in the New Forest South-East England conservancy, where there is perhaps the most extreme pressure of alternate land use and misuse. We have a Crown woodland in the Alice Holt, Hampshire, West Sussex, and Surrey—a forest of about 3,200 hectares. We have the Bedgebury forest, in Kent and East Sussex, of 3,900 hectares. There are 27,000 hectares in the New Forest, and approximately 3,400 acres in the Isle of Wight. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is in his place. I shall surprise him by telling him that that is the sort of woodland that amendment No. 6 seeks to exclude from these sales.
  I take nothing away from the special pleading of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), in whose constituency lies the Forest of Dean, but there is a small group of forests and woodlands in England, Wales and Scotland which, by accident or design, contain Crown woods. The Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee that the Forestry Commission had given him verbal undertakings that they would not be high on any list of priorities, and would not be excluded.
  We are not asking for something that the Forestry Commission wants to be excluded. We are asking that the undertakings given to the Parliamentary Secretary and relayed by him in Committee should be put into statutory form.
  5.15 pm
  I shall give a list of the woodlands that are involved. In Wales there are Beddgelert and Tintern. Anyone who knows North and South Wales knows that those are areas of particular beauty. If those woodlands which contain Crown woods were sold and eroded or destroyed by

  179
  inadequate planning control—there is nothing in the Bill to ensure adequate planning control—great tracts of beauty would be lost for ever.
  In my part of the North-East we have Chopwell wood, near Tyneside, which is much used by the inhabitants of Tyne and Wear, Newcastle and Blaydon. In those woods there is a symbiosis between the woodland of the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne and the Forestry Commission land of Chopwell. The two can exist only if they are run together. If the Forestry Commission sold off Chopwell, mischief would be done to the management and maintenance of the nearby woodlands of the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.
  In Cheshire we have Delamere. In the West of England, there is the Forest of Dean. In the South of England there is the New Forest, the Isle of Wight, Alice Holt, Bedgebury, and so on. In Scotland there is Inverliever—the only one there. All those woodlands contain Crown land. Why must we have this specific reservation? Between 1922 and 1927, a number of small parcels of woodland were transferred by the Crown to the Forestry Commission under restricted covenant.
  As we said in Committee, the Forestry Commission accountants have a problem. If the land is sold the Forestry Commission has a highly specific liability to pay the original donors. Many of the woodlands were acquired under now obsolete legislation. A condition was that if they were sold the Forestry Commission would have to reimburse the original gurantee—in this case the Crown. If Crown woodlands are sold in the Forest of Dean, the New Forest or the Isle of Wight, the Treasury does not benefit. The proceeds have to be transferred to the Crown Commissioners.
  By extending the Forest of Dean argument to all Crown estate woodlands we seek to protect some of our most beautiful woodlands. To demonstrate our position, we shall support the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West in the Lobby on amendment No. 2.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: We are uncomfortable about the wide-reaching implications of the Bill, which follow from the sweeping powers granted to Ministers in clause 1. I support the amendments that exclude woodlands such as the Forest of Dean.
  I gladly support the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland). The Forest of Dean is one of our most beautiful forests, but we have others. In my constituency of Cardigan we have a narrow-gauge line from Aberystwyth to Devil's Bridge, which travels for 12 miles through a beautiful valley and through forestry land. It would be a shame if that forest were sold to a private individual and the trees demolished.
  Express restrictions on Ministers' power to sell such woodlands to the private sector to the detriment of the public are much needed. In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary assured us that Ministers and the Forestry Commission would exercise common sense and good management. I am not convinced that we can rely absolutely on that. Different Governments have different ideas about common sense and good management. The objective of this Government is to reduce Exchequer liability. When such objectives become of overwhelming significance to them a Government can easily lose sight of the social consequences of their decision and may damage the quality of life for the public, who enjoy the
  180
  recreational and sporting amenities in our forests. A Government must not be insensitive to the public desire and right to enjoy our beautiful forests.
  Unless we restrict Ministers' power to dispose of this land, this or a future Government, when pursuing objectives that have nothing to do with preserving our forestry industry, may forget the promise to the public that forest parks will not be sold to the private sector. I hope that in common sense the House will vote to safeguard our forests.
  Mr. Cormack: I was greatly moved by the splendid eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland). His constituents should acknowledge what he has done today. He spoke with vigour and determination on their behalf. They have every right to be proud of him. However, he was perhaps a little over-parochial. I am sorry that we may be voting on amendment No. 6 instead of amendment No. 2. We should deal with Crown woodlands generally.
  My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) raised a significant and important point. I cannot share the strictures that they would heap on possible buyers, but certain woodlands are so beautiful and so important to our heritage that they should not be put at risk.
  It appears that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary accepted that argument in Committee. No one who knows him could doubt his abilities or sympathies, but he will not hold that office for ever. If Ministers do not intend to oblige the Forestry Commission to get rid of the woodlands, or if the Forestry Commission has no intention of putting them up for sale and there is unanimity between Government and Commission, why not write that into the Bill to ensure that no trigger-happy Minister or careless Forestry Commission will dispose of priceless national assets?
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on being the first hon. Member I have heard in 11 years to admit to be speaking for sheep. It was a brave admission. In speaking for sheep in the Forest of Dean he demonstrated his deep love and knowledge of the area and recognised that wild life and livestock are important to our woodland heritage.
  I shall be inclined to support his amendment in the Lobby, but I hope that it will not be necessary. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary shows his sympathy for the cause. I hope that he will tell us that in another place a suitable amendment will be inserted to make it impossible for the woodlands to be disposed of.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I had not intended to speak on the amendment until I heard the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland). The hon. Gentleman reminded me that when I entered this place one of the first Standing Committees on which I served considered a Bill to consolidate or remove forest law. The House made special arrangements for the Forest of Dean. I hope that other special arrangements will be made by the Government in response to the hon. Gentleman.
  Some time ago a group of hon. Members, including myself, who have an interest in forestry visited the Forest of Dean. We well understood why there is a tradition in the area for the Member of Parliament to be especially interested in forestry. At one time, before certain protective arrangements applied, the hon. Member who

  181
  represented the Forest of Dean was a Forestry Commissioner. The hon. Gentleman's predecessor, John Watkinson, is extremely interested in forestry.
  I hope briefly to take part in the debate on Third Reading. If I catch the eye of the Chair, I shall refer to a report on forestry that I took through the Council of Europe two years ago. The report was originated by John Watkinson. He follows a line of involvement and interest which the House should commend.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West that he should respond to anxiety in his constituency and try to ensure that the historic legacy of the Forest of Dean is preserved. However, there are parts of England where the forests and woodlands may not be quite so historic, so well-known or so attractive as the Forest of Dean. It may be that they occupy a small part of the surface of such other districts and regions. Nevertheless, they are extremely important to their localities from the points of view of amenity, environment and conservation. I am concerned that these small areas could be put at risk by the Bill. I hope that in extending protection to the Forest of Dean the Minister will ensure that the Forestry Commission's interests in other areas, small though they may be, are not dismantled.
  It is important that there is a local structure and relationship involving the Forestry Commission in any and every part of the British Isles. That is important in cooperating with large landowners, with local authorities and with other forestry interests. If the commission disposes of its holdings in a given area it could make its regional or local presence that much more economic.
  The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) held out for me the rather attractive prospect of the Minister's departure to other areas. However, another Minister may take a particularly harsh view of these matters. The present Minister is not incapable of taking a harsh view. I should hate the hon. Gentleman or his successor to decide that because there is only a small commission involvement in a region it should be removed or dismantled. On the grounds of viability and the commission's national responsibilities I hope that the approach adopted by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, which many others on both sides of the House commend, will prove to be acceptable to the House.
  Sir Anthony Kershaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) spoke with his customary eloquence and with the care for the interests and enthusiasms of his constituents that we and they have come to expect. However, I wonder whether his misgivings are entirely well-founded. It would be a historic act of vandalism for Crown lands in the Forest of Dean, that have existed for 800 years to be sold off in some spasm of commercialisation if the Bill becomes law. I cannot believe that that would happen. I do not need the assurance—which I am nevertheless glad to accept—of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to find it almost unbelievable that the Forest of Dean would be treated in such a way.
  Apart from the scenic beauty of the Forest of Dean and the undesirability of splitting it up or cutting it down, surely we know that an organisaton such as the Forestry
  182
  Commission, which never dies and has no cause to wonder about its heirs, or anything like that, has no reason to sell except for the purpose of good forest management. Private estates often have to be split up for such reasons but the commission need have no such fears. I cannot believe that there is the slightest danger of that happening. If it were to happen we would have not only the Minister's assurance but the record of what has been said on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I am sure that the commission will be watchful of its public image and will be aware that it should not do anything that will be regarded with horror by every thinking person who has good forestry at heart.
  In spite of the cares and anxieties of my hon. Friend I contend that the Bill is not the measure in which to insert the restrictions that he wishes to introduce. I cannot remember the constituency of the Labour Member who preceded me——
  Mr. Hardy: It is Rother Valley.
  Sir Anthony Kershaw: It is a pretty low sort of place. The hon. Gentleman indicated the anxieties that I have in mind. He implied that no one could possibly think of selling off chunks of the Forest of Dean but that there are some other rather unattractive places that could quite easily be sold off. If that is so, let us make different rules for different places. The special pleading of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West, which is perfectly justified from his constituency's point of view, should be dealt with in some other way. The Forest of Dean is unique, and I am sure that it will not be sold off. If there is anxiety, or if there is a problem, the right way to deal with it will be for the Gloucestershire county council or a private Member to introduce a Bill.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: It may surprise hon. Members to know that they do not have to go very far to see one of the most beautiful forests in Britain that was under Royal patronage, namely, Epping Forest. It is no longer under Royal patronage. It is the only open-air lung that the East Enders of London have the opportunity of opening and breathing through. It is a marvellous forest.
  The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) mentioned sheep. The cattle of Epping Forest come up to the railway lines. That goes one better than the hon. Gentleman. I often receive complaints from my constituents about cows eating roses in the gardens. This is Epping Forest, which extends to the borders of London. Conservative Members will cheer when I say that it is looked after by the City fathers—the City of London corporation—to which I pay a 100 per cent. tribute.
  One of the first battles that I fought in the House took place 36 years ago, when the then West Ham council wanted to purloin part of Epping Forest and to build flats on it. I had to fight my local authority and my local party. First, there would have been flats. There would have followed shops, garages and other buildings. We would have lost part of the forest.
  It is right that Ministers, political parties and civil servants come and go. They forget the promises that have been made. It is easy for them to find good excuses. The hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) knows that one of the largest and most heavily financed lobbies is the road lobby. The road lobby is always trying to drive roads through here and there. The City of London corporation has had a heck of a job trying to preserve Epping Forest

  183
  from the incursions by the Department of Transport. We must fight like Kilkenny cats to prevent that from happening. The day may come when some bright spark thinks that it would be good to have a double, treble or quadruple motorway going through the centre. All sorts of excuses will be made for extra bits to be added on.
  Unless one puts up a strong fight, excuses will be found to choose the easiest answer. If one wants a road to go from the City of London to the East End, why go through the industrial area when one can go straight through the forest? It will be said that it is easy to cut down a few trees and that it is cheaper and quicker. Thank goodness there is the City of London corporation, the City fathers, vergers and local people, who say that that cannot be done. There is a private Act which prevents the Government—the last Government or the next Government—from doing so. I hope that the Minister will either give a promise to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West that the matter will be put right or, if the amendment is not legally in order, that the principle will be accepted and that it will be dealt with in another place.
  So often we take away our limited good environment. Any person or organisation taking action to try to prevent the despoliation of our countryside should be supported. Therefore, I support the amendment.
  Mr. Wiggin: I take it that in amendment No. 6, the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) means by "Crown Woods" the woodlands that were transferred to the Forestry Commission by the Commissioners of Woods under the Forestry (Transfer of Woods) Act 1923. Those include the Forest of Dean and the New Forest. The New Forest and the Forest of Dean were the major tracts of land concerned in that transfer.
  The Forestry Commissioners fully recognise the special status of the Forest of Dean and the New Forest. It is not in their minds to make substantial sales in either of those areas. However, there is a problem. In the day-to-day management and under the existing legislation a considerable transfer of properties takes place in those areas. In the Forest of Dean there are frequently sales of what is known as forest waste. I understand that some of the hon. Member's constituents believe that even that should be prevented. In the management of the forest there are sales of open land and of cottage properties. In the New Forest some houses are also for sale. An amendment of this order would preclude those sales, which have taken place over the years as part of the ordinary management of the estate.
  5.45 pm
  There are some smaller and insignificant Crown woodlands scattered around the country which were transferred under the 1923 Act, which would be regarded as part of the normal forest estate and would be disposed of if considered appropriate, subject to the ordinary criteria.
  I shall refer in particular to the New Forest and the Forest of Dean, concentrating on the Forest of Dean, which is mentioned in the amendment. I had the privilege and pleasure of visiting that part of the world the other day with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland). We discussed his fears. During that visit I made it clear in public that the Forestry Commission had no intention of selling the Forest of Dean. It is the least
  184
  attractive of the 1,200,000 hectares owned by the commission, from the point of view of investment. For that reason alone it is unlikely to be considered.
  Mr. Marland: Surely whether it is an attractive investment depends on the price. If there are local interests, surely id would be offered at a lower price.
  Mr. Wiggin: It is not going to be offered for sale. When I said "least attractive," I meant from the point of view of investment, because in most part the woodlands are not in particularly good order. They are hardwood. I do not believe that there is the slightest danger of anyone seeking to buy the Forest of Dean, let alone of the Forestry Commissioners wishing to sell it.
  Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend will know that National Trust land is inalienable. Parliament has made it so. Why cannot we extend that principal and build on that precedent?
  Mr. Wiggin: I am trying to explain that if that is done it is stultifying the ordinary operations of estate management.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: That is not true.
  Mr. Wiggin: It is true. I have already been involved in the sale of a large number of properties in the New Forest which are surplus to commission requirements. That is a complicated operation. If the hon. Gentleman cares to go and look for himself I am sure that the commission will show him the complexities of that operation. They amount to far more than just running the forest. There are many ramifications. Therefore, it would be wrong to ossify the situation in such a way that the commission cannot use its discretion, as it has done in the past.
  In fairness, my hon. Friend will agree that the commission has been a good steward of the Forest of Dean so far. The Bill is necessary only on a legal technicality.
  Mr. Hughes: No.
  Mr. Wiggin: Yes, it is. If they had wished, the Forestry Commissioners could have abused their position over that time. They have not done so. The Bill in no way alters their intention towards the Forest of Dean. There is no intention of disposing of large tracts of land there or in the New Forest. I hope that my assurance will be accepted.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: One thing is certain. If it is the wish of the Forestry Commission to sell the Forest of Dean, it will have the right to do so once the Bill has had its Third Reading.
  Mr. Wiggin: It will have a better right. It will have a clear legal right. The Bill was introduced because the previous right to sell land, which is there in black and white, as the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) knows, was under question by the lawyers. the commission did not use that previous position to sell off the Forest of Dean; nor will it do so in the future.
  Mr. Marland: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. I agree with much of what he said about the outstanding stewardship of the commission in looking after the Royal Forest of Dean and other Royal Forests. However, he is still asking us to accept a gentleman's agreement from himself and the commission that they will not sell off the Forest of Dean. I am afraid that to me., on behalf of my constituents, that is unacceptable.
  Question put,That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 267.

  Division No. 127]

  [5.49

  AYES

  Adams, Allen

  Graham, Ted

  Allaun, Frank

  Grant, George(Morpeth)

  Alton, David

  Grant, John(Islington C)

  Anderson, Donald

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, James(Bothwell)

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

  Hardy, Peter

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Haynes, Frank

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

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

  Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)

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

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

  Home Robertson, John

  Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)

  Homewood, William

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

  Hooley, Frank

  Callaghan, Jim(Midd'fn & P)

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Campbell, lan

  Howells, Geraint

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Huckfield, Les

  Cant, R. B.

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Mark(Durham)

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

  Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Roy(Newport)

  Cook, Robin F.

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cowans, Harry

  John, Brynmor

  Cox, T.(W'dsw'th, Toofg)

  Johnson, James(Hull West)

  Crowther, J. S.

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec(Rh'dda)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Barry(East Flint)

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

  Jones, Dan(Burnley)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(L'lli)

  Lamond, James

  Davies, Ifor(Gower)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Davis, T.(B'ham, Stechfd)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Deakins, Eric

  Lewis, Arthur(N'ham NW)

  Dean, Joseph(Leeds West)

  Lewis, Ron(Carlisle)

  Dempsey, James

  Litherland, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lyon, Alexander(York)

  Dixon, Donald

  Lyons, Edward(Bradfd W)

  Dobson, Frank

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Dormand, Jack

  McCartney, Hugh

  Douglas, Dick

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Dubs, Alfred

  McElhone, Frank

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McGuire, Michael(Ince)

  Dunn, James A.

  McKay, Allen(Penistone)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  McKelvey, William

  Eastham, Ken

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Edwards, R.(Whampfn S E)

  McNally, Thomas

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ellis, Tom(Wrexham)

  McTaggart, Robert

  English, Michael

  McWilliam, John

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Magee, Bryan

  Evans, Ioan(Aberdare)

  Marland, Paul

  Evans, John(Newton)

  Marshall,D(G'gow S'ton)

  Field, Frank

  Marshall, Dr Edmund(Goole)

  Flannery, Martin

  Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

  Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)

  Martin,M(G'gow S'burn)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Ford, Ben

  Maxton, John

  Forrester, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Foster, Derek

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Foulkes, George

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

  Mitchell, R. C.(Soton Itchen)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Morris, Rt Hon C.(shaw)

  Freud, Clement

  Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

  Garrett, John(Norwich S)

  Morton, George

  George, Bruce

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Ginsburg, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Golding, John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Gourlay, Harry

  O'Neill, Martin

  186

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Stoddart, David

  Parker, John

  Stott, Roger

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Strang, Gavin

  Pendry, Tom

  Straw, Jack

  Penhaligon, David

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann(Bolton W)

  Prescott, John

  Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)

  Price, C.(Lewisham W)

  Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

  Race, Reg

  Thorne, Stan(Preston South)

  Rees, Rt Hon M(Leeds S)

  Tilley, John

  Richardson, Jo

  Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

  Roberts, Albert(Normanton)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Roberts, Ernest(Hackney N)

  Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

  Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)

  Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

  Robertson, George

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Robinson, G.(Coventry NW)

  Watkins, David

  Rooker, J. W.

  Weetch, Ken

  Ross, Ernest(Dundee West)

  Welsh, Michael

  Ross, Stephen(Isle of Wight)

  White, Frank R.

  Rowlands, Ted

  White, J.(G'gow Pollok)

  Ryman, John

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Sandelson, Neville

  Whitlock, William

  Sever, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Sheerman, Barry

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

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

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wilson, William(C'try SE)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.(Deptford)

  Winnick, David

  Silverman, Julius

  Woodall, Alec

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Snape, Peter

  Young, David(Bolton E)

  Soley, Clive

  Spearing, Nigel

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Mr. Walter Hanrison and Mr. James Tinn

  Stallard, A. W.

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Alexander, Richard

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Cockeram, Eric

  Ancram, Michael

  Cope, John

  Arnold, Tom

  Corrie, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset)

  Critchley, Julian

  Banks, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Dean, Paul(North Somerset)

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bendall, Vivian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Benyon, Thomas(A'don)

  Dover, Denshore

  Benyon, W.(Buckingham)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Best, Keith

  Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Durant, Tony

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Blackburn, John

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Blaker, Peter

  Eggar, Tim

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Eyre, Reginald

  Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Bright, Graham

  Farr, John

  Brinton, Tim

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Brooke, Hon Peter

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

  Brotherton, Michael

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Buck, Antony

  Fox, Marcus

  Budgen, Nick

  Fraser, Peter(South Angus)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fry, Peter

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Gardiner, George(Reigate)

  Butcher, John

  Gardner, Edward(S Fylde)

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Carlisle, John(Luton West)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Gorst, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gow, Ian

  Churchill, W. S.

  Gower, Sir Raymond

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

  Grant, Anthony(Harrow C)

  187

  Gray, Hamish

  Monro, Hector

  Greenway, Harry

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Grieve, Percy

  Moore, John

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

  Morgan, Geraint

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Morris, M.(N'hampton S)

  Grist, Ian

  Morrison, Hon C.(Devizes)

  Grylls, Michael

  Morrison, Hon P.(Chester)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Mudd, David

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Murphy, Christopher

  Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Needham, Richard

  Hannam, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neubert, Michael

  Hastings, Stephen

  Newton, Tony

  Hawkins, Paul

  Normanton, Tom

  Hawksley, Warren

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Osborn, John

  Heddle, John

  Page, John(Harrow, West)

  Henderson, Barry

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G.(Crosby)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard(SW Herts)

  Hill, James

  Parris, Matthew

  Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

  Patten, Christopher(Bath)

  Holland, Philip(Carlton)

  Patten, John(Oxford)

  Hooson, Tom

  Pawsey, James

  Hordern, Peter

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Howell, Ralph(N Norfolk)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, David(Wirral)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)

  Porter, Barry

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

  Price, Sir David(Eastleigh)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Jessel, Toby

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michaei

  Raison, Timothy

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rathbone, Tim

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rees, Peter(Dover and Deal)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)

  Lang, Ian

  Roberts, Wyn(Conway)

  Latham, Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lee, John

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lester, Jim(Beeston)

  Shaw, Giles(Pudsey)

  Lloyd, Ian(Havant & W'loo)

  Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

  Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)

  Shelton, William(Streatham)

  Loveridge, John

  Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

  Luce, Richard

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Shersby, Michael

  McCrindle, Robert

  Silvester, Fred

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Sims, Roger

  MacGregor, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  MacKay, John(Argyll)

  Smith, Dudley

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Speed, Keith

  McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)

  Speller, Tony

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

  Spicer, Jim(West Dorset)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Spicer, Michael(S Worcs)

  Madel, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Major, John

  Squire, Robin

  Marlow, Tony

  Stainton, Keith

  Marshall, Michael(Arundel)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marten, Neil(Banbury)

  Steen, Anthony

  Mates, Michael

  Stevens, Martin

  Mather, Carol

  Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

  Mawby, Ray

  Stokes, John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Mellor, David

  Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Miller, Hal(B'grove)

  Townend, John(Bridlington)

  Mills, Iain(Meriden)

  Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)

  Mills, Peter(West Devon)

  Trippier, David

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Trotter, Neville

  Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Moate, Roger

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  188

  Viggers, Peter

  Whitney, Raymond

  Waddington, David

  Wickenden, Keith

  Wakeham, John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Wilkinson, John

  Walker, B.(Perth)

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waller, Gary

  Young, Sir George(Acton)

  Ward, John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Warren, Kenneth

  Watson, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wells, John(Maidstone)

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Donald Thompson.

  Wells, Bowen

  Wheeler, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  6 pm
  Mr. W. Benyon: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in 0page 1, line 9, at end insert
  `providing that in any one year the proceeds of such disposals shall not exceed the grant in aid to the Forestry Commission for that year or if they do the balance shall be carried forward to the next and subsequent years'.
  This is an attempt—I hope not a vain attempt—to achieve some consensus on some of the most contentious aspects of the Bill, and thereby to ensure that the measure starts its life with the widest possible agreement and good will. It is essential to grasp that the Bill is predominantly a financial and not a forestry measure.
  First, therefore, the amendment seeks to limit the enabling power given to Ministers by the Bill. None of us likes wide enabling powers. The amendment places a very modest limit on their exercise under this legislation. If the Government propose to exercise their powers with moderation, as we have been assured from the start is their desire, they have nothing to fear from the amendment.
  It remains irrefutable, however, that under the Bill as drafted the Government—any Government—could sell the entire forestry estate of the Forestry Commission. The Minister himself acknowledged that in Committee when he said:
  "I understand these fears very well."
  He continued:
  "if I can be convinced that there is some sensible constraint which would satisfy the fears that have been expressed, yet which would be reasonable and not lead to endless litigation or delay or constrain the Forestry Commission from exercising its ordinary commercial practice or deprive the market of what the market can absorb, I am certainly not so rigid in my thought as to say that I shall not consider any such suggestion before the Bill leaves this House."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 February 1981; c. 104.]
  The amendment is a response to that invitation.
  Secondly, the amendment acknowledges the Government's desire—and, indeed, my own—that the Forestry Commission should become self-financing at the earliest possible moment and thus relieve the taxpayers of their present obligations. That was expressed by the Minister in Committee as follows:
  "the object of the Government here is to reduce the Exchequer liability."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 February 1981; c. 45.]
  I absolutely accept that.
  Thirdly, the amendment provides an incentive for the Forestry Commission to sell which would otherwise be lacking because it could thereby lessen its dependence on the Treasury and at the same time continue its forestry enterprise at the optimum level of finance and management.
  Fourthly, the amendment ensures that the money raised from sales will continue to be used in forestry if the need

  189
  is there. That is the important point. Equally, it does not alter the position under clause 2, whereby an overall surplus achieved by the Forestry Commission can be paid into the Consolidated Fund. I am emboldened on this aspect by the Minister's remarks in Committee, when he said:
  "The purpose of clause 2 is, indeed, if the sales of land and/or the profits made on the sale of timber go beyond the needs,—"
  to me this is the important point—
  "and the sensible needs, of the Forestry Commission, as decided by forestry Ministers …money will be transferred to the Consolidated Fund."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 February 1981; c. 121]
  My amendment entirely accepts that position.
  Throughout the discussion on the Bill there have been two recurring themes. First, there is the desire of the Government to reduce the burden on the taxpayer and to encourage greater participation by the private sector. That has been matched by the concern in many quarters that the enabling powers are too wide and that the proceeds of sales will be lost to forestry even if the need is there.
  Overall hangs great uncertainty in all the measures proposed in the Bill. First, will the private sector respond? Secondly, what level of sales can be achieved? There has been an estimate of £10 million, but we do not know. Will the Bill and the arrangements for the private sector, taken together, make a major impact on the future level of imports?
  The key issue in my view, however—this is the reason for the amendment—is not the transfer of assets from the public sector to the private sector, important though that may be, but the totality of the industry and its economic viability. That depends essentially on confidence. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. It may be—it probably is—imperfectly drafted, but its sense and design are clear. I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Cormack: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), who moved the amendment with considerable eloquence. The case that he put is supported by all the officers of the Conservative Party forestry sub-committee. We are not against the Bill as such, or the powers to sell off parts of the Forestry Commission's assets, but we are concerned about the two points to which my hon. Friend drew emphatic attention. They are, first, the wide enabling powers given to the Minister, and secondly, the question where the proceeds from the sales would go. I wish to make two brief points to emphasise what my hon. Friend said.
  First, of course, we have total trust and confidence in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the other Ministers charged with responsibilities under the Bill. This is no personal attack upon them, and implies no suggestion that we question their judgment or integrity for one moment. We are, however, extremely concerned that in legislating Parliament is giving powers to a Minister and not to an individual, and wide enabling powers can be misused. We should be worried if some people occupied the posts occupied in such distinguished manner by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We therefore wish this note of caution to be accepted by the Government.
  The second and perhaps even more important point made by my hon. Friend concerns the proceeds of sales. On Second Reading—I did not have the good fortune to serve on the Committee—I was among those who said that
  190
  we were concerned that this was a Treasury measure rather than a forestry measure. I said at that stage that unless some amendments were made I should find myself in a difficult position on Third Reading. Indeed, if the amendment is not accepted—or, rather, if the spirit of the amendment is not accepted—I am afraid that I shall be unable to vote for the Third Reading. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister either to accept the amendment here and now or to make it plain that a similar amendment having the same effect will be introduced by the Government in another place. If he cannot give that assurance, I shall ask my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) to press the amendment to a Division. I should certainly support it in the Lobby, and I should then be unable to vote for Third Reading.
  Mr. Bruce Milian: I well understand why the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) moved the amendment and was supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack). He wishes to place some restriction on the wide powers given to Ministers by the Bill. That theme has run through all the debates on the Bill—on Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report.
  I am slightly worried about the amendment. The grant in aid to the Forestry Commission is at present about £40 million a year. However, in 1979–80 it was rather more than £40 million, but there were special reasons for that. On adjustment, the correct amount for that year should have been about £38 million.
  Even the amendment will allow scope for disposals well beyond anything that the Opposition—or, for that matter, the hon. Member for Buckingham—could accept. It would help if the Minister could explain rather more coherently what the Government expect in the way of disposals, both in terms of acreage and the money involved. It would also help if the Minister could explain exactly what will happen to the money.
  Only last week, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the Earl of Mansfield spoke to the Royal Scottish Forestry Society in Edinburgh. That speech was reported in The Scotsman on 26 March. He made the bold and inaccurate statement that
  "The receipts will be ploughed back into the commission."
  As I understand it, that will not happen to the receipts from the sales. We have had different accounts from the Minister of State——
  Mr. Wiggin: Is that in the Bill?
  Mr. Milian: The Bill states that the money will go into the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, as far as I can see, my hon. Friend's ministerial colleague's remarks are inaccurate.
  Before the Opposition decide how to vote we should have a great deal more clarification than we have had so far about the scale of the disposals which the Government envisage. We should also be told what will happen to the money. I am talking about the next few years. No Government can commit a subsequent Government. Indeed, it is part of the hon. Gentleman's apprehension that this type of modest amendment may be necessary in years to come when a Government might be disposed to sell off Forestry Commission assets on a large scale. From that point of view, such an amendment would be a safeguard. At present, it might even carry the implication

  191
  that it would be all night for the Government to sell off £30 million or £40 million worth of assets a year. I would oppose and regret that.
  Mr. W. Benyon: The right hon. Gentleman will also accept that as the Forestry Commission's woodlands become more productive its income will increase and the two will come together.
  Mr. Milian: I accept that. In any case, without the Bill we do not know when the break-even year will be. If it were 10 years from now the amendment would be valuable at that time. There is a tremendous amount of uncertainty, which could be ended if the Minister clarified the position.
  I support the thought behind the amendment. Unless we get a satisfactory answer I would be disposed to support it.
  Mr. Alex Pollock: I endorse what has already been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) and for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) because I believe that the amendment goes to the root of the disquiet which has persisted ever since the Bill was first presented to Parliament. That disquiet has been shared throughout the House. No doubt it will continue when the Bill goes to another place for consideration.
  The reason for that disquiet is that, in spite of the several assurances from the Government, both here and elsewhere, that the Bill will not be used to decimate Forestry Commission land, the fact remains that its scope is enormously wide and that it gives enormous enabling powers to the Government of the day in respect of any sale of Forestry Commission land. Coupled with that is concern about the role of the Treasury. Is this truly a Forestry Bill, or is it Treasury-inspired? I fear that the doubt remains.
  6.15 pm
  If the amendment were at least accepted in spirit and principle it would go a considerable way towards allaying the fears on both sides of the House about the risk to the bipartisan support for the continuing existence of the Forestry Commission alongside the private sector. If a similar amendment were acceptable to the Government, that risk would no longer persist. In Committee I felt obliged to reserve my position. I shall continue to do so until we hear the Minister's reply.
  Mr. Wiggin: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) for the courteous and clear way in which he moved the amendment. From their public utterances and from private conversations I am familiar with the concern that my hon. Friends have expressed and I fully understand it. The Forestry Commission has been completely free to buy land, and I can see no justification for constraints on the sale of land. That is what the argument is all about.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham quoted what I said in Committee, namely, that I would be prepared to consider constraints that fell within certain parameters. The amendment is technically unsatisfactory, but I do not think that that will trouble my hon. friend. However, I understand that it would be necessary to transgress the law if the second part were to be implemented. I am sure that my hon. Friend did not intend that. The issue relates to the argument behind the amendment rather than to the details of it.
  192
  The grant in aid mentioned in the amendment: will effectively be the constraint. A sum is fixed by agreement in the normal way, but that in itself could be open to some manipulation. I recognise that under the public expenditure programmes the figures are produced in advance, but this could be manipulated.
  Mr. W. Benyon: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's point. However, that would be manipulatable only in the interests of the Forestry Commission, because the sales could increase only if the grant in aid were increased.
  Mr. Wiggin: I understand that point. My hon. Friend asked whether the private sector would respond. I have made it clear all along that the Government do not know. There is not a substantial market in mature timber. Therefore, it is difficult to say whether such a market can exist. I am advised that there are those seeking to find investments for pension funds, life insurance, and the like, who see some merit in this type of investment. However, we shall have to test the water to discover what the level may be.
  We should consider the practical problems of selling even £10 million worth of land, which is what we have in mind for the first year. They are considerable. There are both the legal and physical sides. However, £10 million worth in the first year and £15 million worth in the next two years is the answer to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian). That is the programme that we have embarked on.
  The future will depend on whether the private sector turns out to be interested and on whether a sensible market develops. Of course, confidence will be involved. It is no great secret that the price of certain small roundwood dropped by one-third last year. That will have a substantial effect. If the price rises again there may be greater interest. It would be most unwise to stand here prophesying the future level of such an unexplored market.
  There is a misapprehension about imports. Whether wood A is owned by the Forestry Commission now and at some future date by an insurance company or by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will not make any difference to the amount of timber grown in the United Kingdom. I hope that those of my hon. Friends who are interested in forestry matters will bear in mind that the Forestry Bill is a small part of the package that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced before Christmas.
  Confidence is the key to this business. I am not an expert forester but I have learnt a great deal during the Bill's passage. However, I entirely respect the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire. Confidence is involved. The sale of some Forestry Commission land is but a small part of the overall picture.
  As for the statement, two things really matter. First, I refer to the Government's avowed intention to proceed with forestry. That intention was made clear. Secondly, despite the advice of a Select Committee, the Treasury was prepared to make it clear that the tax concessions necessary for the private investor in forestry would be maintained. Without that there would have been a substantal deterioration in confidence. I am happy to say that the rate of application is surprisingly rewarding. am hopeful that we have established, or at least maintained, confidence in the private sector in a way that the Labour Government did not.

  193
  The right hon. Member for Craigton asked about the proceeds of sales. What happens is clear. The money goes into the forestry fund. Under clause 2, with the agreement of Ministers, it can then be transferred into the Consolidated Fund. We must be realistic. Since 1919 Government money has been pooled for the purpose of creating this great asset. It was always envisaged that a dividend would be paid at some point in the future. It was envisaged that as the trees matured, were felled and sold, money would be returned to the Exchequer.
  Of all people, my hon. Friends must be acutely aware of the pressure that every Minister is under to ensure that he exercises the greatest economy within his Department. We have tried to dissociate forestry as far as possible from the pressures of the Treasury. Although the Forestry Commission comes under a Government Department, the enterprise bears more resemblance to a nationalised industry than to a bureaucratic office. When the Government place constraints on the commission it is difficult for it not to comply with them. The commission wants more and more men in order to fell the trees that are reaching maturity. The operation of the financial arrangements will dissociate the commission from the Treasury rather than associate it with the Treasury.
  Mention has been made of a bipartisan approach. We are bringing forward the date on which some of the taxpayers' money will be returned, although this is a time of great national stringency. Although I sympathise with the fears that my hon. Friends have expressed I hope that they will accept that we have set out with the best of intentions for the whole of forestry. They should look upon this as a small part of an overall package.
  I have taken close note of the fears expressed not only during this debate but during the passage of the Bill. I shall certainly give consideration to strengthening assurances in any way. However, I can give assurances only for my period of office. Given those remarks, I hope that my hon. Friends will feel that the spirit of their amendment is in the Government's mind. We intend that the industry should take its rightful place as a productive part of Britain's national heritage.
  Mr. Hardy: I had not intended to speak until I heard the Minister's comments. Someone should comment on the matters that he raised. He suggested that it was time for some return to be provided by the Forestry Commission. He referred to its establishment in 1919. In many respects that is a long time ago, but in terms of the lifetime of trees and of the cycle of forestry operations it is meagre.
  The Minister referred to the commission as a great asset. Indeed, I value it. However, he overlooks the fact that only 8 per cent. of the land surface of Britain is covered by forest. In addition, only 83 per cent. of that 8 per cent. is exploitable, which means that apart from Ireland and Iceland a smaller proportion of our land is afforested than that of any other Western European country. We are dependent on imports. Therefore, the Government's vision is limited.
  Instead of this pettifogging procedure there should be a promotion of expansion on a bipartisan basis. Encouragement should be given to both the private and the public sector in order to meet the acute need that will arise. The Minister is aware that the world's forests are being
  194
  cleared at a rapid rate. In most tropical areas of the world millions of hectares of forest are cleared every year. Indeed, they are being cleared in such a way as to sterilise the land.
  If the Minister has done his homework—I recognise that he has great and wide-ranging responsibilities—he will be aware that by the end of the decade countries such as ours will be in a bad way. It is already obvious that in every year between 1985 and the 2000 the balance of payments cost of our timber deficiency will greatly exceed the cost of importing all our food. The Minister pointed out that because of the recession this year's roundwood market may have fallen. However, if this country is to remain an industrial Power large quantities of timber will have to be imported. The Minister's arrangements are not satisfactory.
  The Minister seems to believe that the Treasury is entitled to take £10 million from the Forestry Commission this year, £15 million next year and £15 million the year after that. The Treasury should be reminded that it is not omniscient. Some hon. Members will recall the Treasury's interference in forestry in 1972. Certain Conservative Members remember that, because they shared my misgivings. In July 1972 the Treasury brought out a cost-benefit analysis. It produced a forestry policy document that suggested that there was no role for commercial forestry. A few weeks later the Russians increased their timber prices substantially and knocked the Treasury's policy firmly on the head.
  The Treasury has already demonstrated that it takes too short-term a view. The Parliamentary Secretary seems to have gone too far along that road. I urge him to ensure that the comments of his right hon. Friend the Minister are accurate. Although it is possible that this money should not be taken from the Forestry Commission, the Minister should ensure that it will at least be completely devoted—with a great deal more besides—to ensuring that we meet more of our requirements in the 1980s, if not before. The national interest suggests that the time scale required for growing a tree should be considered to a greater extent than it has been today.
  Mr. W. Benyon: I emphasise our strong understanding of the motives of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am sure that they are sincere. We have heard much about the mortality of Ministers. We must look further ahead. We cannot look simply over the next year; in forestry we must look a long way ahead. In view of what has been said, I have no other course but to press the amendment to a Division.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 279.

  Division No. 128]

  [6.29 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen

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

  Allaun, Frank

  Campbell, Ian

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Ashton, Joe

  Cant, R. B.

  Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

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

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Coleman, Donald

  Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

  Cowans, Harry

  Bidwell, Sydney

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

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

  Crowther, J. S.

  Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

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

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

  Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Davidson, Arthur

  195

  Davies, Ifor(Gower)

  Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

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

  Martin,M(G'gow S'burn)

  Deakins, Eric

  Maxton, John

  Dean, Joseph(Leeds West)

  Meacher, Michael

  Dempsey, James

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Dixon, Donald

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dobson, Frank

  Mitchell, R. C.(Soton Itchen)

  Douglas, Dick

  Morris, Rt Hon C.(O'shaw)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Morton, George

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Eastham, Ken

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

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

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

  O'Halloran, Michael

  English, Michael

  O'Neill, Martin

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Evans, Ioan(Aberdare)

  Parker, John

  Evans, John(Newton)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Field, Frank

  Pendry, Tom

  Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)

  Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Price, C.(Lewisham W)

  Forrester, John

  Race, Reg

  Foster, Derek

  Richardson, Jo

  Foulkes, George

  Roberts, Ernest(Hackney N)

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

  Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Robinson, G.(Coventry NW)

  Garrett, John(Norwich S)

  Ross, Ernest(Dundee West)

  George, Bruce

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ginsburg, David

  Ryman, John

  Golding, John

  Sever, John

  Gourlay, Harry

  Sheerman, Barry

  Grant, George(Morpeth)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.(Deptford)

  Hamilton, James(Bothwell)

  Silverman, Julius

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

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hardy, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Haynes, Frank

  Stallard, A. W.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Stewart, Rt Hon D.(W Isles)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Stoddart, David

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

  Stott, Roger

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

  Strang, Gavin

  Home Robertson, John

  Straw, Jack

  Homewood, William

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Huckfield, Les

  Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

  Hughes, Mark(Durham)

  Thorne, Stan(Preston South)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Tilley, John

  John, Brynmor

  Tinn, James

  Johnson, James(Hull West)

  Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec(Rh'dda)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Jones, Barry(East Flint)

  Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Lamond, James

  Watkins, David

  Leighton, Ronald

  Weetch, Ken

  Lewis, Arthur(N'ham NW)

  Welsh, Michael

  Lewis, Ron(Carlisle)

  White, Frank R.

  Litherland, Robert

  White, J.(G'gow Pollok)

  Lyons, Edward(Bradf'd W)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Whitlock, William

  McCartney, Hugh

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  McElhone, Frank

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

  McGuire, Michael(Ince)

  Wilson, Gordon(Dundee E)

  McKelvey, William

  Winnick, David

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Woodall, Alec

  McNamara, Kevin

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  McTaggart, Robert

  Young, David(Bolton E)

  McWilliam, John

  Magee, Bryan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

  Mr. W. Benyon and Mr. Alex Pollock

  Marshall, Dr Edmund(Goole)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Banks, Robert

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Alexander, Richard

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Alton, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Benyon, Thomas(A'don)

  Arnold, Tom

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  196

  Blackburn, John

  Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)

  Blaker, Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hannam, John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Bowden, Andrew

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Hawkins, Paul

  Bright, Graham

  Hawksley, Warren

  Brinton, Tim

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Heddle, John

  Brotherton, Michael

  Henderson, Barry

  Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Hill, James

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

  Buck, Antony

  Holland, Philip(Carlton)

  Budgen, Nick

  Hooson, Tom

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hordern, Peter

  Burden, Sir Frederick

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

  Butcher, John

  Howell, Ralph(N Norfolk)

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Howells, Geraint

  Carlisle, John(Luton West)

  Hunt, David(Wirral)

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Chapman, Sydney

  Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Cockeram, Eric

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Cope, John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Corrie, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Knox, David

  Critchley, Julian

  Lamont, Norman

  Crouch, David

  Lang, Ian

  Dean, Paul(North Somerset)

  Latham, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Dover, Denshore

  Lee, John

  Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

  Lester, Jim(Beeston)

  Durant, Tony

  Lloyd, Ian(Havant & W'loo)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Loveridge, John

  Eggar, Tim

  Luce, Richard

  Ellis, Tom(Wrexham)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Eyre, Reginald

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  MacGregor, John

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  MacKay, John(Argyll)

  Farr, John

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

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

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

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Madel, David

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Major, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Marland, Paul

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Marlow, Tony

  Fox, Marcus

  Marshall, Michael(Arundel)

  Fraser, Peter(South Angus)

  Marten, Neil(Banbury)

  Freud, Clement

  Mates, Michael

  Fry, Peter

  Mather, Carol

  Gardiner, George(Reigate)

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Gardner, Edward(S Fylde)

  Mawby, Ray

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mellor, David

  Gow, Ian

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Miller, Hal(B'grove)

  Grant, Anthony(Harrow C)

  Mills, Iain(Meriden)

  Gray, Hamish

  Mills, Peter(West Devon)

  Greenway, Harry

  Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)

  Grieve, Percy

  Moate, Roger

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

  Monro, Hector

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Moore, John

  Grist, Ian

  Morgan, Geraint

  Grylls, Michael

  Morris, M.(N'hampton S)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Morrison, Hon C.(Devizes)

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Morrison, Hon P.(Chester)

  197

  Mudd, David

  Speed, Keith

  Murphy, Christopher

  Speller, Tony

  Neale, Gerrard

  Spicer, Jim(West Dorset)

  Needham, Richard

  Spicer, Michael(S Worcs)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sproat, Iain

  Neubert, Michael

  Squire, Robin

  Normanton, Tom

  Stainton, Keith

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Stanley, John

  Osborn, John

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Page, John(Harrow, West)

  Steen, Anthony

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G.(Crosby)

  Stevens, Martin

  Page, Richard(SW Herts)

  Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

  Parris, Matthew

  Stokes, John

  Patten, Christopher(Bath)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Patten, John(Oxford)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Penhaligon, David

  Thompson, Donald

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Porter, Barry

  Townend, John(Bridlington)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)

  Price, Sir David(Eastleigh)

  Trippier, David

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Trotter, Neville

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Raison, Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waddington, David

  Rees, Peter(Dover and Deal)

  Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wakeham, John

  Renton, Tim

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Walker, B.(Perth)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Waller, Gary

  Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)

  Ward, John

  Roberts, Wyn(Conway)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Ross, Stephen(Isle of Wight)

  Watson, John

  Rost, Peter

  Wells, John(Maidstone)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Wells, Bowen

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Wheeler, John

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Whitney, Raymond

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wickenden, Keith

  Shaw, Giles(Pudsey)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shelton, William(Streatham)

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shepherd, Richard

  Young, Sir George(Acton)

  Shersby, Michael

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Silvester, Fred

  Sims, Roger

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Peter Brooke.

  Smith, Cyril(Rochdale)

  Smith, Dudley

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Millan: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 9, at end insert—
  `except for land acquired under section 24(2) of the Countryside Act 1968.
  (2A) Nothing in subsection (2) above shall affect the powers of disposal provided under section 24(3) of the Act of 1968.'
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 8, in the schedule, page 2, column 3, leave out lines 10 to 12.
  Mr. Millan: The amendment would put a restriction on disposals with specific reference to amenity land. It refers to section 24 of the Countryside Act 1968, under subsection (2) of which the Minister was given power to acquire on behalf of the Forestry Commission
  "land which in his opinion ought to be used for planting trees in the interests of amenity, or partly for that purpose and partly for afforestation, together with any other land which must necessarily be acquired therewith".
  198
  This is another attempt to put a restriction on the wide powers that otherwise will be available to Ministers for the disposal of land.
  On Second Reading and in Committee hon. Members interested in forestry expressed concern that land essential for the maintenance of amenity might be sold by the Forestry Commission and that such land, which is used at present for tourism, recreation, and so on, might be in danger if the Bill were to be passed unamended.
  6.45 pm
  I am not too optimistic that the Government will accept the amendment, because they seem determined not to accept any amendment, however reasonably expressed and from whatever quarter it may come, which would restrict the unfettered right of Ministers to dispose of land. Such obstinacy is foolish and unnecessary. Even Conservative Members who do not disagree with the principle of wider powers of disposal being made available to the commission and to Ministers are concerned about certain land that may be disposed of. We have already discussed the Forest of Dean and other Crown lands.
  The amendment specifically relates to land acquired under the 1968 Act for amenity purposes. I think that there is a general feeling on both sides of the House that it would be undesirable for such land to be disposed of and perhaps to disappear from use for amenity purposes.
  This is a modest amendment. I hope that the Minister will not say that the drafting is not right, that it will be difficult to identify the land, and that there will be many problems if such land is excluded. The land is identified, because it is specifically provided for amenity purposes under the Countryside Act 1968. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will accept this modest amendment to limit the disposal of land about which there is considerable concern.
  Mr. Wiggin: I should like to oblige the right hon. Gentleman by accepting the amendment, but there is a snag. As far as can be traced, no land has been specifically acquired by the Forestry Commission under section 24(2) of the Countryside Act 1968. Therefore, there would be little purpose in accepting the amendment.
  I accept the spirit of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman. In Committee, we dealt with the principles of access, amenity and other such matters, about which he rightly expressed concern, because they would be in the public's mind.
  Sensitive woodlands will not be selected for the sales programme. If, for example, an insurance company were to purchase a wood, I cannot believe that it would be in its interest to conflict with the public in such a way as to get itself a bad name. If I were in the happy position of controlling such an investment I should seek to make the best of it for my company or employer.
  The commissioners have powers under the Countryside Act 1968 to plant for amenity purposes land that is already in their possession. They have never needed to invoke the provisions of section 24(2) of the 1968 Act. If they were to do so, one might readily accept that it would be for a special reason. Having purchased land for a special reason, I cannot believe that they would wish immediately to sell it.
  Although I cannot please the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that I have satisfied him that there is no necessity for the amendment.
  Mr. Milian: The Minister having told me that there is no land in the possession of the Forestry Commission that falls into this category—which surprises me—obviously there is little purpose in pushing the amendment, because it would not bite on the land in which we are interested. Nevertheless, there is a real worry about amenity land. Obviously, this matter will not be dealt with here. I hope that the other place will fare better than we seem to have fared in getting some sense written into the Bill.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I had the good fortune a year or so ago to put a request to the Forestry Commission in Scotland to go to some of its amenity lands—the Queen Elizabeth Forest, just north of Glasgow, and other Forestry Commission estates there—to see to what extent it had sought, in the land under its control, to marry the interests of itself as a forester and the amenity of the Greater Glasgow and other areas. It would be unfortunate if, under the Bill, the work which the Forestry Commission has done so successfully in Scotland were to be harmed in any way.
  Although the Minister made a point about insurance companies and said what he would do personally if he had control of a company to ensure that nothing was done contrary to the public interest as he perceived it, he surely cannot speak for a commercial organisation, whose prime aim would be to maximise its profits rather than to keep on good terms with the public.
  There is a real problem here, and even if nothing has yet been done under the 1968 Countryside Act—I must be one of the few hon. Members here who served on the Committee on the Countryside Bill in 1968—I hope that the Minister will take this amendment in the spirit in which it is moved. There is real concern about the dangers to those areas which the Forestry Commission has earmarked, currently so successfully, for amenity purposes and I hope that the Minister—or perhaps a Minister in another place—can act sympathetically on the problem raised.
  Mr. Coleman: My hon. Friend has talked about Scotland. Is he aware that in South Wales, particularly in my constituency, this matter of amenity land and usefulness to the public has arisen, apart from the Bill, and we want to see that it is not interfered with?
  Mr. Anderson: I take my hon. Friend's point. I should know the Welsh situation. I had a week or so in Scotland and I saw there the grand work done by the Forestry Commission, so that comes more immediately to my mind, but I know that in the constituency of my hon. Friend, in the Neath valley—which people praise as one of the most beautiful forested valleys in South Wales, in spite of the scars it bears—the same problem exists.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Cormack: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 9, at end insert
  `providing he gives any surviving previous owners of such land an opportunity to acquire it by private treaty sale'.
  I do not want to detain the House for long. The purpose of the amendment is simple. On Second Reading I referred to those owners who had been obliged to sell their land to the Forestry Commission, particularly after the war. I am not talking of precise compulsory purchase, but many people did indeed sell their land under some duress, including some in my constituency. I suggested on Second
  200
  Reading that there should be some provision in the Bill whereby, if the land that those people sold were to be sold by the Forestry Commission, it should not necessarily be sold to the highest bidder but should first be offered to the original surviving owners by private treaty sale if they wished to acquire it.
  That is the plain and simple purpose of the amendment and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me a sympathetic reply. I am well aware that the wording of the amendment is deficient and that there may be difficulties in writing this precise provision into the Bill. Perhaps my hon. Friend will want to do it by means of a code of conduct, notes of guidance, or something like that, but I sincerely urge him to do something to ensure that if land were sold under duress, or not entirely willingly, and were offered for sale by the Forestry Commission, those original owners should have the chance to buy it and it should not merely go on to the open market and be sold to the highest bidder.
  Those of us who have the interests of rural areas and the countryside at heart are concerned about this matter and do not believe that the highest bidder will necessarily be the best owner and custodian of the land in the future. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to show that he has taken this point and to tell the House what he intends to do about it.
  Mr. John Farr: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack). His interest in these matters is well known and enables him to speak with great authority. What he says appears to be only common sense. However, there are two points which I fear would raise difficulties if his amendment were accepted.
  First, if what my hon. Friend proposes were put into effect, how would such a valuation be arrived at? The sums involved would probably be very large and it could not go to the district valuer. Presumably my hon. Friend has in mind a form of arbitration, rather like the arbitration for agricultural rents, but it appears to me that there should be at least two valuations to enable a fair and appropriate figure to be reached, so that the public interest is seen to be properly respected.
  The second cause of my hesitation in supporting the amendment is that it may not be worded exactly as my hon. Friend intended. As it reads, a number of surviving previous owners might have an opportunity to acquire the land by private treaty sale. I see that what my hon. Friend really intends is that the immediately preceding surviving private owner should have that opportunity.
  Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I accept what he says. What I mean and what I think most people would understand—I apologise if it is not clear—is that if an owner has sold land to the Forestry Commission and that owner is still alive, he should be given the opportunity to buy it back from the Forestry Commission.
  Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interpretation, which makes the matter much clearer.
  With those two qualifications, I fully support what my hon. Friend is trying to do. I feel sure that the Government are likely to support it as well because it seems to me to be a matter of common and equitable sense and justice.
  Mr. Wiggin: I am aware that my hon. Friend has been exercised about this matter for some time. He raised the

  201
  point on Second Reading. I indicated in my reply on that occasion that I was extremely sympathetic to what he wanted to do.
  The difficult problem is that there is a code for the sale of Government-owned land, and much of this goes back, of course, to the Crichel Down affair and all associated with that. The procedure whereby surplus Government land can first be offered to the former owner was introduced in 1954. It applied only to agricultural land acquired since 1934 for which no development had been allowed. Former owners could repurchase at current market value as assessed by the district valuer, if they still owned adjoining land or were farming in this country.
  These arrangements have recently been reviewed and on a provisional basis are now being applied, with certain exceptions, to freehold agricultural and non-agricultural land and property which was originally acquired under threat of compulsion, provided it has not materially changed in character since acquisition. In the case of agricultural land, the operative date remains 1934, but for other land the procedure is limited to purchases in the 25 years before the property is offered for sale.
  A material change in this context includes a change from agricultural land to forestry plantations, which means that moorland, for example, which the commission has acquired and planted does not come within the rules. The commission only ever acquired one property under its compulsory purchase powers, although I accept that some owners may in the distant past have had regard to the fact that those powers were in the background when they decided to sell. In all events, the commission will be following the new rules.
  I think that I should comment on two points which my hon. Friend made. First, the proposition that the Forestry Commission should sell land not necessarily to the highest bidder will not, I know, appeal to the accounting officer. I am no expert on the stringent rules under which accounting officers must administer public funds, but those principles cannot be breached in a Bill of this nature. To do so would be to breach the policy adopted by all Governments, for obvious reasons.
  On the whole, the Forestry Commission is staffed by country people. Their reputation and their knowledge of their own areas are well known. In the programme of sales as envisaged, they will not wish to tread on anyone's toes; they will go out of their way to avoid doing that. Therefore, I am convinced that in the circumstances which my hon. Friend described they will as far as possible seek out former owners and make sure that they are aware of the sales.
  I am taking note of the pressures that have arisen during the passage of the Bill for some of the concerns that have been expressed to be met in more tangible form. I shall certainly consult my fellow forestry Ministers to see whether, by written instruction or in some similar way, these matters can be put into writing if not into legislation, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment, for the reasons that I have stated.
  Mr. Cormack: I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive and helpful reply. I acknowledge the amendment's deficiencies and I have no intention of
  202
  forcing a second Division. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his qualified support and sincerely hope that it will be possible for some form of words to be devised.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Although this is a short Bill it has provided the House with the opportunity for the first substantial debate on and review of forestry for many years. It is reasonable to say that frequent reviews of such a long-term industry are unnecessary, but perhaps the House will not wish another 30 years to go by before again considering the subject.
  The Bill has, in particular, focused attention on the work of the Forestry Commission and the considerable contribution that it has made and continues to make to the industry since its establishment over 60 years ago. I am sure that the commissioners have been gratified by the remarkable degree of good will that has manifested itself on both sides of the House and, indeed, was evident in another place during a forestry debate on 23 February.
  I view the commission's future place in the industry and in the Government machine as being secure. It cannot be said too often that we see its partnership with the private sector as crucial to the future of forestry. The Bill is intended to enable the Commission to help the other half of the partnership—the private sector—to make its contribution more effectively.
  The heart of the Bill is clause 1, which provides Ministers with the power to sell land. The operation of that clause will be under the direction of the Commission and it has already started planning in the expectation that the Bill will reach the statute book. I assure my hon. Friends who are concerned about this provision that the modest proposals are being looked at carefully and that each conservator is looking at his contribution as part of the whole.
  We strongly deny that we are asset stripping or seeking to destroy the Forestry Commission. At a time of great national stringency it is surely unreasonable that this vast accretion of public wealth—whether it is £800 million, £1,250 million or more—that has accumulated in the 60 years should continue to receive annual Exchequer assistance of the order that it has been receiving without some contribution, and the Bill is that contribution.
  I made it clear during the Second Reading debate that the Government would impose fairly strictly certain factors in connection with the sale of land. I shall not detain the House for long, but I feel that I should once more remind hon. Members of those factors, not necessarily in order of importance. They are: financial considerations; the maintenance and development of the wood processing industry; the maintenance of employment and the viability of local communities, especially the socially fragile areas; the use of forests for public access and recreation; the interests of conservation, research and education; the effects on management; the market preferences having regard to other criteria; and, lastly, the rationalisation of the Forestry Commission's own estate. If it is possible to stick within those guidelines none of the fears expressed by hon. Members should be realised.
  The main purpose of clause 2 is to direct that receipts paid into the forestry fund should, to the extent authorised by Ministers, be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund.

  203
  The way in which this is expressed has led some of my hon. Friends to the mistaken assumption that this is a Treasury Bill. It is no more than a technical or accounting device, which will protect the commission from the problems that might otherwise be associated with fluctuations in receipts in what is bound to be an uncertain and even volatile market.
  The Bill is an essential ingredient of the forestry policy statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 10 December last. It will provide the commission with the opportunity to operate more flexibly in the commercial environment of which, by virtue of its steady development as a producer of industrial raw material, it is increasingly becoming a part. It will not impair either the range of its activities or its role as the forestry authority. It represents no more than a technical measure to enable the partnership between public and private woodland owners in the expansion of the nation's forestry resources to function more effectively as the commission advances towards the achievement of greater financial self-sufficiency.
  I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. Milan: The Minister said that we do not often debate forestry in the House. It is a pity that when we do it has to be on the basis of such a miserable little Bill as this. I shall of course be asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.
  Despite all the Minister's protestations, the genesis of the Bill is the Treasury. The purpose is to save money. It has nothing to do with the encouragement of development or expansion of forestry. Yet hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken an interest in the Bill on Second Reading and subsequently have emphasised the need for forestry expansion.
  The background to the Bill is that the funds which are to be made available to the Forestry Commission for the acquisition of plantable land for new planting have already been cut and will be cut more severely over the next few years. To add to this injury that is being done to forestry, which everyone agrees is an efficient operation, the powers granted by the Bill are to be used to dispose of certain Forestry Commission land.
  Virtually no one has had a good word to say of the Bill. There has been no welcome for it in the House. Even the private forestry interests who might have been expected to welcome a Bill of this nature have been at best sceptical of it and in some respects fearful about the intentions behind it, particularly if it were to be used—it could be, as the powers are completely unqualified—to dispose of a substantial part of the Forestry Commission's enterprise.
  The wood processing industry, the paper industry and similar industries have expressed considerable scepticism about and, indeed, antagonism towards the Bill. Despite the efforts made to introduce more flexibility into the Bill and to impose certain restrictions on the otherwise unfettered powers given in the Bill, the Government have not moved an inch. They have not accepted any amendments to the Bill. We have received ministerial assurances. These are cheap to give. Ministers can always give an assurance that if matters are left to them, particularly the present incumbents, who are always men of good will, or believe themselves to be so, no one has any need to worry. I do not believe that this is the way to write legislation.
  204
  There is undoubtedly widespread concern about the powers of disposal. The way to assuage that concern, even if the Government are determined to press ahead with such powers, is to write safeguards into the Bill. However, they have been unwilling to write any safeguards into the Bill to prevent land suitable for forestry going out of forestry and to prevent the disposal of amenity land, even Crown land such as the Forest of Dean. They have been unwilling to provide safeguards in regard to continued opportunities for access to, and recreation on, forest land.
  A number of reservations and concerns about the B ill have been brushed aside by Ministers on the ground that hon. Members can rely on the good will of Ministers and the good sense of the Forestry Commission. At the end of the day, the Forestry Commission will act as the servant of the Government, as it must. That is its role. To talk about the discretion and the good sense of the commission is meaningless if the Government—perhaps this is such a Government—are determined to use the powers in the Bill to the fullest extent to dispose of a considerable part or, indeed, the whole of the forestry enterprise. It is a great pity that the Government have gone along this road.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned the fact that forestry in the United Kingdom has been a bipartisan matter to a considerable extent. I do not mean that there has not been a considerable difference of view at different times about the level of forestry expansion. There has been a general acceptance, however, of the role of the Forestry Commission and also of the partnership between the commission and the private sector.
  A good deal of what I have described is put at risk by this miserable Bill. It is brought forward because of the Government's doctrinaire obsession with the sale of public assets and the reduction of the PSBR. It has no forestry justification. For that reason, the Opposition will vote against the Bill.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: (Bury St. Edmunds): I have followed the progress of the Bill by reading the Standing Committee debates. If the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) thinks that the Bill is friendless, he is mistaken. I believe that it is a good Bill. I believe that the Government are right to introduce it. It is entirely consonant with the programme on which the Government were elected. I only wish that Ministers in other areas had gone down the same road as vigorously as have my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend.
  I have a constituency interest. Thetford Chase is by far the most productive forest in the country. It exceeds the Scottish forests at this time because most of the trees planted about 20 years ago are coming on stream. We have a productive and attractive forest. I pay my tribute to the Forestry Commission, which, over the years, has done a good job in looking after the timberland, harvesting it and providing employment for a number of my constituents. Following a certain amount of pushing, the commission has opened up the forest in recent years for amenity and recreation purposes. My constituents and many of those living in the surrounding area are able to enjoy the amenities of the forest in a manner that was not previously possible.
  My hon. Friend, together, perhaps, with the tenth member of the commission, who, I assume, will be capable of offering advice on the financial aspects of sales, will be welcome to come to Thetford Chase. My hon.

  205
  Friend can bring his picnic basket with him. He will be able to offer to those who support the Bill such advice as he and others may think useful about the manner in which some parts of the forest can be privatised along the lines of the partnership that he has so wisely proposed between the Forestry Commission and the private sector.
  It is high time that the Government were removed from areas of our national life where they need not have an interest. It is urgent that we unlock some of the investment that is tied up in State assets and introduce a much more market-oriented, robust and private enterprise approach. I believe that the Bill will enable this process to go ahead in co-operation with the Forestry Commission and the private sector.
  There has been a suggestion from the Opposition Benches that the private sector is not to be trusted with what hon. Members regard as a national asset. I can only speak from my experience in Norfolk and Suffolk. Not far from Thetford Chase, a monument to State enterprise which I commend, there has been the enormous achievement of the private sector in reclaiming the Breckland. My hon. Friend may be aware of the enormous achievements of private farmers in reclaiming the glacial sands of the Breckland and putting them into profitable agricultural use.
  Not far away again are the chalk hills around Newmarket where, with the private help of the Jockey Club, land has been developed that is a credit to the private sector. These areas, adjacent to one another, demonstrate that the Forestry Commission—the public sector in the case of Thetford Chase—has done a good job while next door, in the Breckland, the private sector has done a good job. It is possible and highly desirable that there should be partnership. I commend my hon. Friend for pursuing that policy along the lines for which he and I were elected.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Hardy: I was surprised by the development of the speech by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). At first, he seemed to be critical of the Forestry Commission. Towards the end of his speech, he demonstrated his concern that there should be partnership. I believe that there is a good case for partnership. What concerns me most about the Bill is that it illustrates a meagre and inadequate approach by the Government. A recent Economic Forestry Group newsletter quoted in its front page story the opening remarks of the Secretary of State for Scotland when he announced the Government's forestry policy in a statement just before Christmas. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "A continuing expansion of forestry is in the national interest"—[Official Report, 10 December 1980; Vol. 995, c. 1405.]
  That is the criterion by which this wretched Bill should be judged. Will the Bill contribute to an expansion of forestry? If Conservative Members were honest they would admit that the Bill is largely irrelevant set against that fundamental need.
  I have already indicated that 8 per cent. of the land surface of the British Isles is forestry. Eighty-three per cent. of that forestry is exploitable. This has to be set against the position in some other European countries-20 per cent. in Belgium, 30 per cent. in the Federal Republic of Germany, 27 per cent. in Italy and 25 per cent. in
  206
  France. When we look at the Russian satellites, we sce that despite the enormous resources of the Soviet Union, the figures are 36 per cent. in Czechoslovakia, 28 per cent. in the German Democratic Republic and 33 per cent. in Bulgaria.
  By the turn of the century almost all the world's forests will have been cleared. When timber shortages become acute and when, therefore, the price of timber rises, we shall regret that the Government, in their commitment to the expansion of forestry, produced only a mouse of a Bill to shift some land from the public sector to the private sector. The public and private sectors should be encouraged to develop more effective, more tasteful and perhaps more successful forestry.
  Two other issues require attention. The Bill does not deal adequately with them. I refer to the question of employment in rural areas. One of my constituents who is extremely experienced and highly qualified in forestry recently returned from a visit to Scotland. He professed his concern and horror at the inadequate management of the forests that he visited. Hon. Members who have been on forestry visits will be aware of the excellent examples in Scotland. However, large areas of forest in the British Isles are not adequately managed. It is about time that the Government encouraged more skilled and productive forestry activity.
  I have referred to the private sector's newsletter. I commend the description of high-yield forestry systems applying in Tacoma in Washington State, in the United States. It would be desirable if some of our forests were managed in the way illustrated in that article. If they were, it would promote not only more productive forestry activity but useful and perhaps relatively substantial employment in rural areas, especially where employment needs to be created. I am not talking about thousands of jobs. In sparsely populated regions where forestry is important, just a few extra jobs could bring life to communities whose existence is in peril because of lack of economic and employment opportunity. It is a pity that when nearly 3 million people are unemployed the Bill does not deal with that matter.
  If Britain is to be given the capacity to avoid excessive reliance on increasingly costly timber imports, a better Bill is needed. I hope that we shall divide the house on Third Reading because the Bill is small-minded. I hope that the Government will re-examine the matter and take the longer, more civilised and sensible view that is demanded by the national interest.
  7.23 pm
  Mr. Roger Thomas: At the last Committee sitting of the Bill we discussed new clauses 4 and 5, which dealt with amenities and access, and the stock-proofing and vermin-proofing of areas between farm and forestry land. There was a fair amount of cross-party argreement on new clause 4 dealing with amenity and access. Indeed, the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams) said that he would support the Opposition in pressing the clause to a Division. However, we were disappointed not to have the hon. Gentleman supporting us today. He prognosticated that the Government would make a move to accommodate hon. Members on all sides who believed that the Bill was restrictive.
  I am also disappointed that no move was made in relation to new clause 5. We benefited from the great experience of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howell)

  207
  who is a noted hill farmer in Wales. He said that stock-proofing and vermin-proofing should be differentiated. He said that the Bill could be strengthened by dealing with stock-proofing, which would prevent discontent and disharmony among foresters and farmers.
  However, I am disappointed that even at this late stage the Minister has not moved an inch. The Government have not allowed a comma to be changed. They have not changed the emphasis, let alone allowed the insertion of a clause or an amendment. The Committee involved dogged resistance by the Minister. We are disappointed.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Home Robertson: This is called the Forestry Bill. What exactly does it contain? It contains a clause for the disposal of land, a clause for tinkering with the forestry fund and a third clause providing for an additonal forestry commissioner. We understand that he is to be a super-salesman; a special Government asset-stripper to carry out the provisions of clause 1 and get rid of some of the land.
  The Minister said that he had nothing but good will for the Forestry Commission. That was not the message that we received in Committee and on Second Reading. We had the impression that the Minister had the same good will towards the Forestry Commission that I hope I shall have for my dinner in a few minutes, in that he and the Government simply want to devour a successful public enterprise.
  The Bill has been changed not an iota since it was published. The Minister has stood like a fossilised tree, totally oblivious to the economic, forestry and conservation arguments advanced against the Bill from all sides. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) say that he was a wholehearted supporter of the Bill. To my knowledge only one other hon. Member has announced such support—the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). If anyone deserves credit for the Bill it is the Government Whips for delivering it in the face of almost unanimous opposition.
  I hope that the Government will not have such an easy time when the Bill arrives in the other place. Tory Back Benchers in the House of Lords are a little less docile than the hon. Members with whom the Whips have to contend here.
  The Minister spoke of a modest proposal for selling Forestry Commission land. He spoke of tapping the vast "accretion" of public wealth. The Bill provides a curious way of doing that, since it is clear that the Forestry Commission will be required to sell land relatively cheaply. At the same time it will be required to buy land which is relatively expensive because there will be a sellers' market. That cannot make economic sense, even from the Treasury's view.
  Clause 1 states that:
  "The Minister may dispose for any purpose of land acquired by him under this section."
  If that is a modest proposal I should hate to hear an ambitious one from the Minister. It is tragic that we have been unable to insert any qualifications. In view of that I hope that this House or the House of Lords will throw out clause 1.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. MacLennan: I shall not detain the House for long, because the inadequacies of the Bill and the confined nature of its operative clauses are such that a Third Reading debate is inevitably confined.
  The hon. Members for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and Rother Valley (Mr. I-lardy) legitimately lamented the fact that the Bill does nothing for forestry, and I concur with those laments.
  It is a sad commentary on the Government's attitude to forestry that they have nothing more constructive to bring to the House than a Bill that is designed to enable the Minister to dispose of forestry land, and to require payment out of the forestry fund into the Consolidated Fund of such sums as he may from time to time direct—a purpose that clearly has nothing to do with the interests of forestry. It is designed to meet the exigencies of the economic situation over which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has presided with such unparalleled incompetence. The Bill also seeks to add one member to the Forestry Commission.
  What a lamentable comment on the Government's attitude to forestry. However, it encapsulates one of the reasons why the Social Democratic Party has come into being. We profoundly believe that it is highly inappropriate to the welfare of the country's economy that the frontier is constantly changed between private and public enterprise. We believe that industry needs stability and security. It is presisely this kind of legisaltion, designed to interrupt the continuing developmemt of an industry that has enjoyed a degree of stability for over half a century, that has led many people who are actively engaged in forestry to support us in our belief that a Social Democratic Party is needed at this time. The Government have injected uncertainty into forestry policy where none previously existed. The Bill has few friends, and when it is considered in another place by people who have experience of both private and public sectors I hope that it will be demolished, as it deserves.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Mark HughesThe puerile remarks of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in using the Bill in an attempt to adduce the need to create a Social Democratic Party is beneath contempt.
  My feelings about the Bill are encapsulated on page 45 of the Government expenditure White Paper. Indeed, I offer it to whichever Minister is to reply to the debate. In that White Paper the Government treat forestry with such contempt that they get the figures upside down. Moreover, the Government do not consider that a printer's error matters. They want to perpetuate a printer's error in policy and introduce a method of acquiring Treasury money as part of deep Tory policy.
  The Bill totally fails to meet the requirements of the pulp industry. It will not help the balance of payments. It does nothing for the private forester or for the national Forestry Commission afforestation programme. The Government pay such scant regard to that major element of national policy that they allow a foolish printer's error to go through.
  I entirely accept that there is an error on page 45. It is nothing more and nothing less. However, it epitomises the cavalier way in which the forestry industry is treated by a Government who are intent upon a minuscule reduction

  209
  in the public sector borrowing requirement. For doctrinaire and ludicrous reasons, the Government are doing a major mischief to the Forestry Commission and its planting programme, to the private sector of the forestry industry, to amenities, forest parks, and all users of forest land. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. and hon. Friend's will vote against this ludicrous little Bill.
  7.35 pm
  The Secretary of State For Scotland (Mr. George Younger): The concentration of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) on a printer's error shows the emptiness of some the opposition to the Bill. He knows very well that the Bill is a much more important matter than that.
  The Bill has to be seen against the background of the general statement that I made in December about the Government's commitment to a firm future for forestry—something that the industry has been wanting for a long time. As I made clear in that statement, we have committed ourselves to a continuing level of planting on the same scale as has happened in recent years. We have firmed up the taxation arrangements for forestry, which were in a state of uncertainty and disarray, and which acted as a major disincentive for people to plant. We hope that those actions, together with the Bill, will inspire confidence in all those who are involved in the industry.
  I want to emphasise something that has not been said often enough in the debate, namely, that forestry is an industry. The Forestry Commission is rightly admired for the work that it does. It has had a highly successful history, and I know that it will be successful in the future. However, we are debating an industry. Perhaps the disposal powers in the Bill will be seen in their proper perspective if we ask ourselves what other industry has no right to dispose of assets for which it has no requirement. At present the commission does not have that right. There is a gap in our legislation. It is a right that a great industry should have and use sensibly.
  My hon. Friend stressed repeatedly in Committee that the Government intend that these powers will be used in a sensible and controlled way by the commission. The commission will decide what parcels of land are to be disposed of. Both my hon. Friend and I have spelt out the way in which it will use the powers.
  Anyone who hopes that forestry will have a secure future can be assured that the Bill, taken in conjunction with the statement that I made in December, will give the industry the future that it requires. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will receive wholehearted support.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 208.

  Division No. 129]

  [7.38 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Alexander, Richard

  Benyon, Thomas(A'don)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Best, Keith

  Arnold, Tom

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

  Blackburn, John

  Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset)

  Blaker, Peter

  Banks, Robert

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  210

  Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Bowden, Andrew

  Heddle, John

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Henderson, Barry

  Bright, Graham

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Brinton, Tim

  Hill, James

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

  Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

  Holland, Philip(Carlton)

  Browne, John(Winchester)

  Hooson, Tom

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Howell, Ralph(N Norfolk)

  Buck, Antony

  Hunt, David(Wirral)

  Budgen, Nick

  Hunt, John(Ravensboume)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Butcher, John

  Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Carlisle, John(Luton West)

  Jessel, Toby

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Chapman, Sydney

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Churchill, W. S.

  Kershaw, Anthony

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

  Kimball, Marcus

  Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Knox, David

  Clegg, SirWalter

  Lamont, Norman

  Cockeram, Eric

  Lang, Ian

  Cope, John

  Latham, Michael

  Corrie, John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lee, John

  Critchley, Julian

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Crouch, David

  Lester, Jim(Beeston)

  Dean, Paul(North Somerset)

  Lloyd, Ian(Havant & W'loo)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Loveridge, John

  Dover, Denshore

  Luce, Richard

  Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Durant, Tony

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Dykes, Hugh

  MacGregor, John

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacKay, John(Argyll)

  Eggar, Tim

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Elliott, Sir William

  McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)

  Eyre, Reginald

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

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Madel, David

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Major, John

  Farr, John

  Marland, Paul

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Marlow, Tony

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Marshall, Michael(Arundel)

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

  Marten, Neil(Banbury)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Mates, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mather, Carol

  Forman, Nigel

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Mawby, Ray

  Fox, Marcus

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Fraser, Peter(South Angus)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Fry, Peter

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Gardiner, George(Reigate)

  Mellor, David

  Goodhart, Philip

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Miller, Hal(B'grove)

  Gorst, John

  Mills, Iain(Meriden)

  Gow, Ian

  Mills, Peter(West Devon)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Grant, Anthony(Harrow C)

  Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)

  Gray, Hamish

  Moate, Roger

  Greenway, Harry

  Monro, Hector

  Grieve, Percy

  Montgomery, Fergus

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

  Moore, John

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Grist, Ian

  Morris, M.(N'hampton S)

  Grylls, Michael

  Morrison, Hon C.(Devizes)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Morrison, Hon P.(Chester)

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Mudd, David

  Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hannam,John

  Needham, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hastings, Stephen

  Neubert, Michael

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Normanton, Tom

  Hawkins, Paul

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hawksley, Warren

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  211

  Osborn, John

  Squire, Robin

  Page, John(Harrow, West)

  Stainton, Keith

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G.(Crosby)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Page, Richard(SW Herts)

  Stanley, John

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Steen, Anthony

  Parris, Matthew

  Stevens, Martin

  Patten, Christopher(Bath)

  Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)

  Patten, John(Oxford)

  Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

  Pawsey, James

  Stokes, John

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Porter, Barry

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Thompson, Donald

  Price, Sir David(Eastleigh)

  Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Townend, John(Bridlington)

  Raison, Timothy

  Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Trippier, David

  Rees, Peter(Dover and Deal)

  Trotter, Neville

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Renton, Tim

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Viggers, Peter

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Waddington, David

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Wakeham, John

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)

  Walker, B.(Perth)

  Roberts, Wyn(Conway)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Rost, Peter

  Waller, Gary

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Ward, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Warren, Kenneth

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Watson, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wells, John(Maidstone)

  Shaw, Giles(Pudsey)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

  Wheeler, John

  Shelton, William(Streatham)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

  Wickenden, Keith

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shersby, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Sims, Roger

  Wolfson, Mark

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Young, Sir George(Acton)

  Smith, Dudley

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Speed, Keith

  Speller, Tony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spicer, Jim(West Dorset)

  Mr. Peter Brooke and Mr. Robert Boscawen.

  Spicer, Michael(S Worcs)

  Sproat, Iain

  NOES

  Adams, Allen

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Allaun, Frank

  Cunningham, G.(Islington S)

  Alton, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Donald

  Davidson, Arthur

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(L'lli)

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Atkinson, H.(H'gey,)

  Deakins, Eric

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Dean, Joseph(Leeds West)

  Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)

  Dempsey, James

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

  Dewar, Donald

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dixon, Donald

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dobson, Frank

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

  Dormand, Jack

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Douglas, Dick

  Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

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

  Dubs, Alfred

  Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

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

  Dunn, James A.

  Campbell, Ian

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Eastham, Ken

  Cant, R. B.

  Edwards, R.(Whampt'n S E)

  Carmichael, Neil

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

  Cartwright, John

  Ellis, Tom(Wrexham)

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

  English, Michael

  Coleman, Donald

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Cook, Robin F.

  Evans, Ioan(Aberdare)

  Cowans, Harry

  Evans, John(Newton)

  Cox, T.(W'dsw'th, Toofg)

  Field, Frank

  Crowther, J. S.

  Flannery, Martin

  Cryer, Bob

  Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)

  212

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morton, George

  Forrester, John

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Foster, Derek

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Foulkes, George

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  O'Neill, Martin

  Garrett, John(Norwich S)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  George, Bruce

  Parker, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Ginsburg, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Golding, John

  Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Prescott, John

  Grant, George(Morpeth)

  Price, C.(Lewisham W)

  Grant, John(Islington C)

  Race, Reg

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Rees, Rt Hon M(Leeds S)

  Hamilton, James(Bothwell)

  Richardson, Jo

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

  Roberts, Albert(Normanton)

  Hardy, Peter

  Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Robertson, George

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Robinson, G.(Coventry NW)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Rooker, J. W.

  Haynes, Frank

  Ross, Ernest(Dundee West)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ross, Stephen(Isle of Wight)

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

  Rowlands, Ted

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

  Ryman, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Sandeison, Neville

  Homewood, William

  Sever, John

  Hooley, Frank

  Sheerman, Barry

  Howells, Geraint

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Huckfield, Les

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.(Deptford)

  Hughes, Mark(Durham)

  Silverman, Julius

  Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Roy(Newport)

  Smith, Cyril(Rochdale)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Snape, Peter

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Soley, Clive

  John, Brynmor

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Johnson, James(Hull West)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Johnston, Russell(Inverness)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec(Rh'dda)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D.(W Isies)

  Jones, Barry(East Flint)

  Stoddart, David

  Jones, Dan(Burnley)

  Stott, Roger

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Strang, Gavin

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Straw, Jack

  Lamond, James

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Taylor, Mrs Ann(Bolton W)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)

  Lewis, Arthur(N'ham NW)

  Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

  Lewis, Ron(Carlisle)

  Thorne, Stan(Preston South)

  Litherland, Robert

  Tilley, John

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Wainwright, R(Colne V)

  McElhone, Frank

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  McGuire, Michael(Ince)

  Watkins, David

  McKelvey, William

  Weetch, Ken

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Welsh, Michael

  Maclennan, Robert

  White, Frank R.

  McNally, Thomas

  White, J.(G'gow Pollok)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Whitehead, Phillip

  McTaggart, Robert

  Whitiock, William

  McWilliam, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Marshall, Dr Edmund(Goole)

  Williams, Rt Hon A(S'sea W)

  Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

  Wilson, Gordon(Dundee E)

  Martin,M(G'gow S'burn)

  Wilson, William(C'try SE)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Winnick, David

  Maxton, John

  Woodall, Alec

  Meacher, Michael

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Young, David(Bolton E)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mitchell, R. C.(Soton Itchen)

  Mr. James Tinn and Mr. Allen McKay

  Morris, Rt Hon C.(O'shaw)

  Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

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

  Criminal Attempts Bill
  As amended (in the Special Standing Committee), considered.

  New Clause 5
  Offences of attempt under other enactments
  '(1) Subsections (2) to (5) below shall have effect, subject to subsection (6) below and to any inconsistent provision in any other enactment, for the purpose of determining whether a person is guilty of an attempt under a special statutory provision.
  (2) For the purposes of this Act an attempt under a special statutory provision is an offence which—

  (a) is created by an enactment other than section 1 above, including an enactment passed after this Act; and

  (b) is expressed as an offence of attempting to commit another offence (in this section referred to as "the relevant full offence").

  (3) A person is guilty of an attempt under a special statutory provision if, with intent to commit the relevant full offence, he does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of that offence.
  (4) A person may be guilty of an attempt under a special statutory provision even though the facts are such that the commission of the relevant full offence is impossible.
  (5) In any case where—

  (a)apart from this subsection a person's intention would not be regarded as having amounted to an intent to commit the relevant full offence; but

  (b)if the facts of the case had been as he believed them to be, his intention would be so regarded,

  then, for the purposes of subsection (3) above, he shall be regarded as having had an intent to commit that offence.
  (6) Subsections (2) to (5) above shall not have effect in relation to an act done before the commencement of this Act.'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]
  Bought up, and read the First time.
  7.50 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 20, 21 and 22.
  Mr. Mayhew: I acknowledge the daunting appearance of so large a batch of amendments. However, it is not nearly as bad as it appears. Indeed, one amendment has the laudable effect of removing two subsections from clause 6. The amendments are designed to remove from the scope of the Bill offences which are triable only summarily, and to make consequential changes. The law at present, although this is not absolutely certain, is generally held to preclude a charge of attempt in respect of a summary offence except where the attempt itself is specifically penalised by statute.
  It is clear from the Law Commission's report that sound arguments may be adduced both in favour of and against a general provision which would make it an offence to attempt to commit a summary offence. These arguments are set out clearly in the commission's report. The commission concluded that on balance, and primarily in the interest of consistency, there should be a general provision of this sort. However, its working party had earlier come to the opposite view, in which it was supported by the Law Society.
  In Committee the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) questioned the Law Commission's conclusion and rightly drew our attention to the contrary view that had been expressed by Professor
  214
  Glanville Williams in the early stages of our proceedings in Committee. Professor Glanville Williams was of the opinion that there is no social need to extend the punishment of attempt outside the class of serious crimes.
  The Government have given further thought to this matter. We believe that the arguments are finely balanced. In the absence of clear evidence we do not think that there is need of such an extension. There is not a sufficient case to warrant such an extension of the criminal law. We have concluded that on balance we prefer the view of the working party, which considered that the amount of time that may be spent in magistrates' courts considering complicated questions whether there has been an attempt to commit a minor offence may be out of proportion to the advantage accruing from allowing the law to intervene at an early stage. Therefore, the inclusion of the words—I speak to amendments Nos. 6 and 13—
  "as an indictable offence"
  and the deletion of clause 5(3) remove summary offences from the scope of the Bill. This means that it will continue not to be an offence to commit a summary offence.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will my hon. and learned Friend repeat that sentence? Did he say that it would not be an offence to commit a summary offence?
  Mr. Mayhew: It will not be an offence to attempt to commit a summary offence. If I left out "to attempt", I am grateful for the opportunity to put that right.
  The remaining amendments are all consequential on this change. They deal with existing offences of attempting to commit summary offences, created by particular statutes, which were to have been repealed as being superfluous. As a result of the change they are superfluous no longer.
  The schedule is rather complicated. The assumption originally was that the law governing all criminal attempts would be dealt with in the Bill. Therefore, separate provisions for attempts to commit statutory offences already on the statute book ought to be repealed. However, the Bill will no longer apply to attempts to commit summary offences if the new clause is carried. Therefore, it is right to leave references to summary attempts on the statute book, as it is not our purpose to make far-ranging changes in the criminal law unnecessarily. Therefore, amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are deleted from the repealing schedule. However, we still need to repeal the provisions dealing with indictable attempts to commit statutory offences and any general provisions on offences of attempt and how they should be tried, hence the surviving portions of the repealing schedule.
  The removal of the references to the Deer Act 1963, the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and the Official Secrets Act 1920 stem from what I have just said. Section 7 of the Official Secrets Act applies both to summary and indictable offences under that Act. Strictly, it needs to be retained only for the sake of the former, but any attempt to apply the provisions of the Bill to indictable offences under the Official Secrets Act and to leave summary offences of attempt to be dealt with under the Act would produce a clause of great complexity to nobody's advantage. The removal from the repeal schedule of the Official Secrets Act provision leaves all attempts to commit offences under those Acts to be dealt with under

  215
  those Acts, and makes it possible to simplify the Bill by removing subsections (1) and (2) of clause 6, which would be necessary if the repeal were made.
  Finally, there is the new clause and its accompanying amendments. These are designed merely to ensure that the specific statutory attempt provisions which will remain, and any which might be created in future, will be interpreted according to the same principles as attempts under the Bill. These provisions apply not only to existing statutory attempts but to any which might be created in future—for example, by means of downgrading an offence triable either way to one triable summarily only and specifying that an attempt to commit it remained an offence.
  This is a sensible and simplifying group of amendments, although it may not seem to be as simplifying as it appears on the Order Paper. I commend the clause and the amendments to the House.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister of State for that lucid explanation of the purpose of the new clause. I doubt whether I am the only hon. Member who still has some doubts about its effects. The general purpose covered by this group of amendments is one which the Opposition wholeheartedly welcome—that is, to make it impossible as a general rule to charge a person with an attempt to commit a summary offence.
  The Minister said that as the law stands, before the Bill goes on the statute book, it is not possible to charge with attempt in the case of a summary offence. The Law Commission in its report, which is the basis for this Bill, was, I think, slightly more cautious. On page 55 it said:
  "in the case of attempts, it seems probable that at present, in the absence of specific provision, an attempt to commit a summary offence is not itself an offence."
  There appeared to be, at least in the mind of the Law Commission, some doubt about the present law on this point, and that doubt is being removed as well as the fact that we are taking a policy decision one way or the other by means of these amendments. As the Minister said, the working party of the Law Commission took a contrary view.
  The reasons why the Law Commission seemed to disagree with its own working party were two. First, it said on grounds of consistency that it should be possible to charge an attempt to commit a summary offence as it is possible to charge an attempt to commit an indictable offence. Secondly, it said that the distinction between a summary and an indictable offence was a shifting distinction; indeed, we shifted that distinction quite markedly a few years ago. It said that the distinction was not one which could be equated with the distinction between a trivial and a serious offence. Upon that ground the Home Office initially favoured the view of the Law Commission.
  In Committee I said on behalf of the Opposition that I had an open mind on the question of making the amendment, but in the light of discussion in Committee and the Minister's explanation of his position while we were all thinking aloud I opined the view that the discussion of the matter and the Minister's speech had led me to think that my amendment was wiser than I thought when I first tabled it. I was fortified in that view by the fact that Professor Glanville Williams, in giving evidence to us, had been emphatic that there was no need to extend criminality to attempts to commit summary offences. In
  216
  Committee we were all sure that we did not want to have the possibility of an attempt to commit the new summary offence of interfering with motor vehicles. That fortified us in the general conclusion that we should cut out attempts to commit all summary offences.
  8 pm
  Therefore, our conclusion is that it is best to make the change advanced by the Government. In Committee the Minister said, in giving a reason why it might be better to keep the possibility of attempts to commit summary offences:
  "The police and prosecuting authorities will not wish to add to their burdens by charging people with attempts to commit summary offences unless there are good reasons for doing so."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 17 February 1981; c. 238.]
  I think that that statement must have been based more on hope than on confidence, because we have found an the past, not least on the "sus", that charges are brought in circumstances which many people feel do not justify a charge. It would not be right to rely too much on prosecutorial discretion, even in respect of a provision in a Bill, a large part of which relies on prosecutorial discretion on the issue of impossibility on attempts.
  The Minister did not refer to a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) about Northern Ireland. He asserted that the law in Northern Ireland specifically permits a charge of attempt to commit a summary offence. I do not know whether that is so, but it is a point worth raising. If it is so, it could be argued that as there is greater control over prosecutions by central authorities in Northern Ireland, that is a reason for tolerating the situation in Northern Ireland, even if we are not prepared to tolerate it in England and Wales.
  Even if we got our system of Crown prosecutors—as recommended by the Royal Commission recently—in England and Wales, it would surely be wrong to rely too much on prosecutorial discretion. It would be better to tidy up the law so that everyone knew where he stood. On those grounds the Opposition welcome the change.
  I now come to the other part of the package of amendments and new clauses. I am reminded of the delightful remark of Sir Henry Skinner to our Special Standing Committee on another issue—that the confusion was clear. The Minister referred to the offence, mentioned in the schedule, under the Deer Act. As I understand it the Minister is saying that the provision—for example in the Deer Act—specifically allowing a charge of attempt to commit a summary offence should be retained on the statute book. Similarly, that applies to the Conservation of Seals Act and the Official Secrets Act.
  The Official Secrets Act is an important matter. We shall not discuss "moles" tonight; we have enough complications with deer and seals. On the face of it, If we are deciding, as a general rule, that one should not be charged with an attempt to commit a summary offence, is there anything so special about doing something wrong about deer and doing something wrong about seals which makes it desirable to sustain the possibility of a criminal offence in attempting to commit an offence under those Acts?
  Have the Government explicitly and clearly addressed their minds to those two offences and decided consciously that they want to maintain the possibility of attempting to commit a summary offence in those cases? I thought that

  217
  I saw the Minister shaking his head at that point. Unless there is an overwhelming case—the Minister has not stated a case—for preserving the criminality of an attempt to commit a summary offence in those cases, I hope that we shall wipe them out as we are wiping out all the other attempts to commit summary offences.
  The Minister moved a new clause on special statutory provisions. I am still baffled to know why the new clause is necessary. It seems to take those provisions in statute law where an attempt is specifically provided for by statute and to apply to those statutory attempts the three points which appear in clause 1. If that is the purpose, I should have thought that the most natural way of doing it was simply by redefining the words
  "an offence to which this section applies"
  rather than by introducing a new clause. I suppose that the effect would have been the same, but it would have been more obvious in its meaning if we had gone about it in that way.
  The Minister should give an indication—not necessarily a complete list—of what he is pleased to call the special statutory provisions and what one could call attempts otherwise provided for in statute. He should give an indication of what offences are included in that definition which will be subject to the new clause rather than to the provisions of clause 1 as it stands.
  It would have been much more convenient for all of us to have dealt with those points in Committee, but we accept that that was not possible, because in Committee we were clearing our minds on the question whether we wanted criminality for attempts to commit summary offences. Although we are dealing with the matter on the Floor of the House, some clarification of those technical points is in order. However, on the main policy point, we strongly welcome the effect of this group of amendments.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) referred to one of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee, who said that the confusion was clear. May I say with affection to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State that his clarification was confusing to me? No doubt he will be able to set my mind at rest.
  I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the lapidary phrases which he used in Committee, when he said:
  "It is common ground to the Committee that there should be a criminal offence of attempting to commit a criminal offence. The mere fact that one has not got as far as fulfilling the criminal intention and completing the offence ought not to save one from criminal liability."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 17 February 1981; c. 239.]
  Those sentences lie at the heart of the Bill.
  In my very brief remarks I want to ask my hon. and learned Friend whether he can apply the effect of his amendments and his new clause to two or three specific cases that the police witnesses indicated to the Committee.
  I should declare an interest. As the House knows, I have a connection with the Police Federation. In this case the federation did not give evidence to the Committee.
  The two specific cases that I have in mind are the ones that were alluded to by the Metropolitan Police in their evidence, and thereafter in the case put by the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Perhaps, to refresh my hon. and learned Friend's memory, I may quote the cases that they have in mind.
  The Metropolitan Police said this:
  218
  " 'B' "—
  the initial of a person's name—
  "stands in a crowded area at a bus stop. A female standing nearby is holding a shopping bag containing property including a purse which is clearly visible. 'B' spends some time watching and when a bus comes the woman goes towards a crowd which forms around the platform. 'B' approaches from behind and places himself behind the woman just as she removes the purse from her bag. 'B' immediately withdraws taking no further interest."
  He has, one might suppose, been foiled by her action.
  "He crosses the road and stands by a bus queue for buses going in the opposite direction and repeats his actions in respect of two other women. In each case they seem to be alarmed and remove purses from their shopping bags."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 10 February 1981; c. 138.]
  By so doing, of course, they have made it impossible for him to commit an offence. The Metropolitan Police then go on to say:
  "Neither of these incidents are catered for under the existing or proposed law regarding attempt."
  They made their case—with which I disagree—that that is a reason for retaining "sus" on the statute book.
  I said in the Second Reading debate that in my judgment "sus" should go, but I urged at the time—and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in replying to the debate, went some way towards satisfying me—that if "sus" is to go, the law of attempt should be changed so as to fill the gap created by its abolition.
  I ask my hon. and learned Friend very politely whether he is satisfied that the Bill, with his new clause and amendments, will be able to deal with example "B" as put to the Committee by the Metropolitan Police.
  My second example was put to the Committee in the evidence of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In many respects this is perhaps a much more relevant practical example. In its memorandum the association said:
  "A member of the public looking out of his bedroom window at 2 am sees a man approach a row of terraced houses opposite. He pauses at each front door and front window of three houses and appears to examine them to see if they are secure. At this point a motor vehicle approaches and the man conceals himself in a recessed doorway until the vehicle has passed. He then examines the exterior of another house before walking away and disappearing from view into a side street. The watcher decides to call the police, but before the arrival of the police the man returns and appears to examine houses on the opposite side of the street. On the approach of a pedestrian he again conceals himself and emerges later to examine a further house. At this point the police arrive and the watcher explains to the police what he had seen. The officer questions the man who denies any intention to commit a crime but says he has lost his way".
  The crucial point is that
  "inquiries show he has four convictions for housebreaking and is suspected of, crime locally; the officer must now tell his informant"—
  that is the member of the public who has complained about what he has seen—
  "that the man has done nothing which makes him liable to arrest. The suspect's actions, whilst they would fall within the provisions of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act, will not amount to an offence if the suspected persons law is repealed, nor would they constitute an offence under the Bill."
  That is the example given by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
  I do not wish to pursue this argument. The various arguments have been listened to in Committee. I want only to ask my hon. and learned Friend whether he believes that the Bill, with his amendments, will enable the police to act in cases of that sort. If it will not, the anxieties expressed by the Metropolitan Police—and, indeed, by the

  219
  Association of Chief Police Officers—will be widely shared by members of the public, who are increasingly the victims of this kind of offence.
  I have one other quotation from the evidence given before the Committee, where the Association of Chief Police Officers drew attention to the comments of the Prosecuting Solicitors' Society on the draft Bill. I suspect that all hon. Members, whatever view they take about the Bill, will share the view of the society that
  "Controlled police intervention is preferable to members of the public taking the law into their own hands if the police are powerless."—Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 10 February 1981; cc. 147–8.]
  8.15 pm
  That is what worries me very much. If, in the circumstances of the two hypothetical cases that I have put before my hon. and learned Friend, the member of the public who has complained to the police is fearful that a would-be house breaker—a would-be thief—cannot be dealt with, arrested or charged by the police because Parliament has altered the law, there is a very real possibility of some members of our society taking the law into their own hands. That would be highly regrettable.
  That is why I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to say that as a result of his amendments being accepted, as I am sure they will be—namely, that with the abolition of "sus" we should not open a gap unfilled by the reformed law on attempts which this Bill seeks to produce—the public will not be left exposed and the police left powerless in cases of the kind that I have described.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I hate to make things awkward for my hon. and learned Friend, who has conducted these historic and fascinating proceedings from start to finish with very great skill and ability. Those of us who have also been concerned in this matter from start to finish must be filled with admiration for the way in which he has conducted himself and the case for the Government. But we are—I hope he will forgive me for pointing this out—in danger of making our law very muddled-looking and illogical.
  There was presumably a time when one could attempt to commit every inchoate offence. Now we have got ourselves into a position where, under the Criminal Law Act 1977, it is an indictable conspiracy to agree with others to commit a summary offence. But under this measure one cannot attempt to commit a summary offence. We have got ourselves into the position where an attempt to commit a summary offence is no offence in England and Wales but is an offence in Northern Ireland. That seems similar to the position into which we have got ourselves in the Bill, whereby if one completes a series of acts there may be no crime but if one attempts to commit a series of acts which one thinks may end up in a crime there is a crime.
  From the point of view of the public, who must understand our legal system, we are in danger of becoming lopsided in choosing what shall or shall not be an offence. We are distorting what I suggest is a more balanced and simple view of the law, in which consistency is one of its virtues. That is somewhat philosophical, I admit.
  I turn to a second reason for my doubts about the sense of what we are doing here. The Law Commission working party which considered this decided, albeit tentatively, that all three inchoate offences—conspiracy, incitement and attempt—should be treated in a similar way, so that
  220
  an attempt to commit a summary offence would in itself become an offence. Having come to that conclusion and worked the matter out, the working party's conclusions were considered by the Law Commission itself. The Law Commission considered the arguments advanced for the attempt to commit a summary offence not being an offence. They are set out on page 55 of the Law Commission's report, and I shall not weary the house by repeating them. The report states, on page 56:
  "While acknowledging that there is force in some of these arguments, we have concluded that consistency in this context would be preferable. An attempt may fall little short of the completed crime and, in such instances, the defendant's conduct may be almost as serious as if he had been successful; this consideration applies with equal force to summary and indictable offences."
  The report continued—this had been the main objection to having as an offence the attempt to commit a summary offence, and the main argument relied on by my hon. and learned Friend—
  "We do not think that there is a real danger of a needless proliferation of charges of attempt to commit summary offences … there are other summary offences in which it seems desirable that a charge of attempt should be available."
  That is when we came to talk in Committee about offences relating to the protection of birds and animals.
  The report makes the further point that a number of offences which had previously been triable only on indictment had been shifted to the lower category of being triable only summarily. There was, as it were, a growing tendency to take offences out of the triable by jury category and to put them into the summarily triable category. Therefore, the more such offences were taken to the summary court and out: of the jury category. the less sense there was in taking attempt out of the legal system for summary offences.
  It must be remembered that there is substantial pressure due to the time taken in processing criminal trials. I hope that no one will conclude from the time that I take making my arguments in the House that I take as long in court. There will therefore be a tendency, which was resisted in considering many of the recommendations of the James report, to shift more offences now triable on indictment to the magistrates' court. A new situation will therefore arise in which we shall increasingly have to ask whether we did right to do away with the offence of attempting to commit a summary offence.
  The Law Commission therefore concluded:
  "Having regard to these considerations, we do not think there are compelling reasons for a conclusion differing from that which we adopted in regard to conspiracy, and therefore recommend that an attempt to commit a summary offence should itself be an offence."
  We have the views of the Law Commission, the working party and what I believe is the logical balance of our criminal law, all in favour of keeping the attempt to commit a summary offence as part of the criminal calendar.[Interruption.] Page 55 of the report shows clearly that the working party tentatively came down in favour of retaining attempt to commit the three inchoate offences as criminal offences. Whether I am right or wrong about that, I am certainly right about the second case, if not about the first. Having considered the matter, the Law Commission certainly came down in favour of keeping attempt to commit a summary offence.
  I know that I am a voice crying in the wilderness. I do not intend to embarrass my hon. and learned Friend by voting against the Bill. Nevertheless, I think that perhaps

  221
  not enough thought has been given to this matter. I appreciate that Professor Glanville Williams thought that it was a waste of time having the offence of attempt to commit a summary offence, and that he is one of the leading criminal jurists if not the leading criminal jurist of our generation. But that does not make him right in every case. I hope that the Government will look at this again before the matter is finally disposed of, on the basis that on this occasion the Law Commission was right, the working party may have been right, and there is some sense in keeping a consistent approach to all three inchoate offences and thus removing the stigma of the illogicality of making distinctions for no valid reason.
  Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful for the careful speeches that have been made on this group of amendments. I shall seek first to deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). He asked why it was proposed to delete the Deer Act and the Conservation of Seals Act from the schedule. He also asked why, if we are deciding that there should be no liability for an offence of attempting to commit a summary offence, these offences should be retained under those Acts.
  8.30 pm
  In Committee the hon. Gentleman dwelt on the importance of this proposition. We have taken care to ensure that the Bill will not make unnecessary changes of any substance in the criminal law. The two statutes to which he refers are statutes in which Parliament thought it right to provide that a summary offence shall also carry liability for attempting to commit it. That is in conflict with the generally held state of the common law, namely, that there is no liability for attempting to commit an offence which is triable only summarily.
  We now propose not to change that state of the common law, contrary to the recommendation of the Law Commission, which was arrived at only by balancing many considerations. Equally, we propose not to change the state of the statute law which Parliament previously thought it right to introduce. That is why those offences are being preserved.
  We propose to leave the Official Secrets Act as a code of its own. It would have been possible to have constructed an elaborate clause which would have made an exception of the one summary offence which the Official Secrets Act contains—all the other offences being indictable. However, that would have been quite needlessly complicated, and m the interests of clarity and simplicity we prefer to leave the Official Secrets Act as a code of its own.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked why, if we are wiping out all the other attempts to commit summary offences, we are proceeding in the way that we have proposed in the schedule. With respect, that is not an accurate way of putting it. We are not wiping out the other summary offences. There are no summary offences, other than the statutory ones contained in the schedule, for which, under the existing law, it is possible to be liable for attempting to commit them. That is not a beautiful piece of syntax, but I hope that my meaning is clear. Accordingly, and unusually for the hon. Gentleman, that point was not accurately expressed.
  222
  The hon. Gentleman stated the objective of the new clause, which is to apply the principle set out in clause 1 to those offences already on the statute book which carry liability for attempt. I sympathise with his view that this could have been drafted more simply. However, I am advised that greater simplicity is not capable of being achieved commensurate with the necessary clarity that we require in statute. I am advised that for technical reasons it is necessary to draft the new clause in this way. I am afraid that we can do nothing about that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) kindly told me that he had an appointment which would prevent him from staying for my answer to his questions.
  He referred to what he said in Committee when I set out the general principle by which we were guided. I stand by that principle, which I explained as follows:
  "It is common ground in the Committee that there should be a criminal offence of attempting to commit a criminal offence. The mere fact that one has not got as far as fulfilling the criminal intention and completing the offence ought not to save one from criminal liability."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 17 February 1981; c. 239.]
  I agree with that. The shorthand label that we have attached to it is the "dipping" offence. For example, a person may put his hand into someone's pocket intending to steal whatever there may be in it but discover that it contains nothing. We all believe that the failure to complete the full offence should not save that man from liability for criminally attempting to steal. The Bill fulfils that principle. However, with respect, that proposition has nothing to do with the new clause or the group of amendments under consideration.
  I was asked for my opinions about the examples quoted from the evidence given by the Metropolitan Police and the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In both cases, the law of "sus" would have enabled a prosecution to have been brought, but a prosecution cannot be brought under the law of attempt. It is more usual for such a scenario to arise in enclosed premises, because a person is much more likely to get away with a nefarious purpose in enclosed premises. The section of the Vagrancy Act that makes it an offence to be found on enclosed premises is not affected by the Bill and will remain available.
  My comments on the example given by the Association of Chief Police Officers also apply to the first case. Section 2 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 would enable the police officer in such cases to arrest the person on suspicion of being about to commit an arrestable offence. Therefore, it is not right to say that the policeman would have to tell the householder that he was sorry that there was no ground on which he could arrest the chap. I hope that I have dealt with those points.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for the kind compliment that he paid me. He has never succeeded in embarrassing me by any of his contributions. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not go into great detail. However, he was right to say that there will be a discrepancy between the way in which the law treats the offences of conspiracy and incitement and the way in which it will treat the offence of attempt. It is possible to charge someone with attempting to conspire. However, if the Bill is amended that will not apply in the case of attempting to commit a summary offence. Conspiracy always involves more than one person. As my hon. Friend will know, if more than one person is involved

  223
  in a criminal offence it has always been thought that that added to its severity. That applies particularly to conspiracy.
  In my opening remarks I tried to explain why we believe that this is a pretty finely balanced judgment. Ultimately, we were persuaded that there was an unnecessary risk that magistrates' courts would be bogged down because in a significant number of trivial cases they would have to go into the structure of the law of criminal attempt—which is far from easy.
  It is no accident that common law has always held hitherto—or so it is generally believed—that attempt does not lie for a summary offence. That has probably been a sensible rule. Professor Glanville Williams was probably right to say that there is no social need to extend it. The decision has not been easy, because consistency is always attractive. However, on the balance of considerations we felt it right to adopt the view that Professor Glanville Williams took for the reasons set out clearly in the working party's report. Indeed, those reasons are also referred to in the Law Commissioner's report. At length, we felt it right to come down on the side of these amendments. Therefore, I hope that I shall have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and of the rest of the House on this matter.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.
  Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) complicates the proceedings, but if it would assist I should be happy to move amendment No. 1 formally, although it is not one that I support. That would allow us to take the proceedings in a logical order and we could discuss that amendment and Government amendment No. 12 together, as we expected to do.
  I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out "merely".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I am in the hands of the House. Amendment No. 12 will be moved in due course when we reach it, but as amendment No. 1 has been moved formally we shall discuss with it amendment No. 12.
  Mr. Mayhew: I am happy to speak to amendment No. 12 but I do not want to take up time speaking to amendment No. 1. This is a minor but none the less useful amendment, the substance of which was suggested by Professor Smith in evidence that he gave in the Special Standing Committee and which has the Law Commission's support. The Law Commission is content with the provision that we have just discussed.
  Clause 5 abolishes the offence of attempt at common law. It is possible that there exists at common law a separate offence penalising certain acts of preparation. In the 1966 case of Gurmit Singh it was held, following a number of nineteenth century decisions, that it was an offence at common law to procure a rubber stamp, which bore the realistic legend "Magistrate First Class Jullundur", with intent to commit forgery. It is unclear whether that case and its predecessors are simply examples of attempt in which liability has been imposed by the court at an unusually early stage of the defendant's activities, or, on the other hand, whether they are specific offences at common law. If the latter, they would not be abolished by
  224
  clause 5(1) and it might therefore be possible for a court to rely on them in certain special cases to convict a defendant who had not proceeded beyond a preparatory act. That would be contrary to the principles of the Bill. Thus, the amendment abolishes any such specific offences as may exist. The amendment is proposed out of what the courts call an abundance of caution, but it is sensible and I hope that it will have the support of the House.
  Mr. Cunningham: The Opposition welcomes that cautionary amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments made: No. 6, in page 2, line 6, after `Wales', insert 'as an indictable offence'.
  No. 7, in page 2, leave out line 15.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Clause 2

  APPLICATION OF PROCEDURAL AND OTHER PROVISIONS
  Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 31[Clause 2] at end insert—
  `(ee) provisions conferring a power of seizure and detention of property;'.
  The amendment repairs a minor omission in the list of procedural and similar provisions in clause 2(2). The purpose of the clause is to ensure that where specific procedural or other provisions of the kind set out in the clause apply to an offence they should also apply to an attempt to commit that offence. Thus, paragraph(g) ensures that any power of forfeiture applies to art attempt as it applies to the full offence. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the same is true of any power to seize and detain property.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

  TRIAL AND PENALTIES
  Amendments made: No 9, in page 3, line 11, leave out `summary or'.
  No. 10, in page 3, line 18, after `it', insert
  `or an attempt under a special statutory provision'.
  No. 11, in page 3, line 24, at end add—
  '(3A) Where, in proceedings against a person for an attempt under a special statutory provision, there is evidence sufficient in law to support a finding that he did an act falling within subsection (3) of section(Offences of attempt under other enactments) above, the question whether or not his act fell within that subsection is a question of fact.'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Clause 5

  EFFECT OF PART I ON COMMON LAW
  Amendments made: No. 12, in page 4, line 8, leave out `is' and insert
  `and any offence at common law of procuring materials for crime are'
  No. 13, in page 4, leave out lines 17 to 20.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Clause 6

  AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON PART I
  Amendment made: No. 14, in page 4, leave out lines 21 to 38.—[Mr. Mayhew.]
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 4, line 38, at end insert—
  '(2A) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2) of section 70 of the Army Act 1955, section 70 of the Air Force Act 1955 and section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (all of which relate to civil offences)—
  "(2A) For the purpose of determining under this section whether an attempt to commit an offence is a civil offence, subsection (4) of section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (which relates to the offence of attempt) shall have effect as if for the words 'offence which, if it were completed, would be triable in England and Wales as an indictable offence' there were substituted the words 'civil offence consisting of an act punishable by the law of England and Wales as an indictable offence or an act which, if committed in England or Wales, would be so punishable by that law .'.
  This is simply a technical amendment. It is designed to overcome a difficulty that the Bill might cause in relation to the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. Each of these statutes makes provision for the trial by court martial of any person subject to service law who commits a "civil offence", which means an ordinary criminal offence as opposed to a specifically military one, such as having one's hair too long. "Civil offence" includes any act which, if committed in England, would be punishable under the law of England. At present, therefore, it includes the common law offence of attempt. Once this Bill becomes law, however, it is possible that it would be argued that a soldier who, say, attempts to steal in Germany is not guilty of a civil offence because he is not attempting to commit, as specified by clause 1(4), an
  "offence which, if it were completed, would be triable in England and Wales".
  Theft committed outside the territory is not so triable. By replacing this part of clause 1(4), for the purposes of Armed Services law, with a simple reference to a "civil offence", this argument is precluded.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 5, line 4, at end insert—
  '(3A) In section 12(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 the reference to an offence under that Act includes a reference to an offence under section 1 above of attempting to commit such an offence'.
  This amendment, which is technical in nature, corrects an omission from clause 6. Section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs 1971 empowers the Secretary of State to give a direction imposing restrictions in respect of the prescribing of controlled drugs on practitioners convicted of offences under the Act. At present section 19 provides that an attempt to commit such an offence is itself an offence under the Act, so a person convicted of tempt would be liable to a direction under section 12. Under the Bill, however, section 19 will be repealed and attempts to commit offences under the 1971 Act will become offences under clause 1. Consequently section 12, with its power to order restrictions, would not apply in respect of them.
  226
  That power ought to be applicable. This amendment ensures that a section 12 direction may be given in respect of a conviction of an offence under clause 1 of the Bill.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Perhaps I can pursue this a little to make sure that I have clearly understood it. Do I take it that the position is that a substantive offence under the Act is an offence under the Act and an attempt is an offence under the Act, but that in future an attempt to commit an offence under section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 will be an attempt under a combination of that Act and the Bill, and therefore will not be caught by the words
  "an offence under this Act"
  in the 1971 Act?
  I am sure that I have expressed that question less clearly and helpfully than the answer with which the Minister anticipated it, but have I got it about right? I see the Minister nodding. On that basis, I think that the amendment is acceptable. I wonder, then, whether the Home Office has done much homework in order to ascertain whether there are any other cases like that which might give trouble in future.
  Secondly, may I take it that the substance of this point is approved by the Law Commission?
  Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman, in his own engaging words, has got it about right. The importance of this clause is that section 12 confers these special powers to give restrictive directions, and it is important that that should be maintained. The effect of the clause is to ensure that reference to an offence under the 1971 Act includes a reference to an offence under section 1 of attempting to commit such an offence. That is because, as the hon. Gentleman says, an attempt to commit a misuse of drugs act of this type becomes an offence under clause 1. It is important to keep these restrictive powers, and that is what the amendment is all about.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

  INTERFERENCE WITH VEHICLES
  Mr. George Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 11, leave out Clause 8.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
  No. 3, in page 5, line 27, leave out from `to' to end of line 29 and insert `a fine not exceeding £400'.
  No. 4, in page 5, line 27, leave out from `to' to `a' in line 28, and Government amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 23
  Mr. Cunningham: We come now to far more important aspecs of the Bill than those that we have just been considering. This group of amendments really embraces three different subjects and questions. First, should the new offence of interfering with a motor car be put on the statute book at all? Is there any need for it? Secondly, if it is, ought that offence to be one for which a penalty of imprisonment can be awarded? Thirdly, should this offence be one that may be committed only in a public place, or should it be commitable anywhere at all? I should like to take these points in reverse order.
  The term "public place" is differently defined for different purposes on the statute book but in Committee we

  227
  ensured that in the Bill the reference in the clause to "public place" meant a place where the person in question was a trespasser at the time. It is worth remarking that a similar offence that already exists on the statute book—namely, the offence of tampering with a motor vehicle under section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1972—may be committed in a public place or in a parking place provided by a local authority.
  I made the point—and we moved an amendment in Standing Committee to achieve this—that if we are, unfortunately, to have this offence, it is arguable that it should apply to the offence not only when it is committed on a public street but when it is committed, in particular, in a car park or, let us say, on a council housing estate. This is because, if the offence is to exist at all, residents on a housing estate are going to be very puzzled to know why it can be used if their car is parked on the street but not if it is parked in a supposedly more secure position within the estate boundaries.
  I think that in Committee we were generally in agreement that such an extension would be desirable, and we bothered ourselves mainly about where the line should be drawn. On the whole, I would prefer to draw the line short of a private driveway, so that a local authority car park in the middle of a town used for shopping purposes, a car-parking space on a council estate, a car-parking space in a private block of flats, and the like, would be included but a small private driveway would be excluded.
  I accept that there is a logical difficulty in justifying that line and almost certainly a practical difficulty in defining it. Therefore, with some hesitation we have come to the conclusion that the right thing to do, if we are unfortunately to have this offence, is to allow it to be an offence that can be committed in any place.
  The second issue is whether the offence should be one in respect of which a sentence of imprisonment may be awarded. We are trying to cut down the prison population. Ministers fall over themselves—I will not say bullying the judges but trying to influence judges and benches either not to award custodial sentences when at the moment they do, or to award shorter sentences. Given that we are sure that the offence should not exist, we are thereby sure that if it does exist it should not be possible to award a sentence of imprisonment.
  In Committee my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) said that interference with a motor vehicle is an offence that is not triable by jury, and that there will be some temptation on the police to bring a charge under this offence rather than a charge of attempted theft, for example, to avoid jury trial.
  We all know—especially those of us who have the stipendiaries of London to deal with—what a difference there can be in the chances of conviction before a London stipendiary, before a jury, or, for that matter, on appeal in the Crown court. So there is a case for saying that there should be some disincentive against the police using this new offence too much, and such a disincentive might be the non-availability of a custodial sentence under it. Then, if the police felt that they wished to expose the charged person to the possiblity of prison, they would have to go for the more serious charge of attempted theft, which is what they always should do if the actions that they say they have observed are ones that could conceivably justify that charge. On those general and specific grounds we do not
  228
  believe that the new offence of interference with a motor vehicle is one that should be imprisonable, and we have tabled an amendment to that effect.
  Our view is that the offence of interference is not needed. "Sus", the offence of loitering with intent to commit an arrestable offence, was, even 156 years ago, an aberration in English law. It was contrary to proper principles of law as much then as it is today. Indeed, in some respects one would have thought that there would be more opposition to it in the middle of the nineteenth century than there is today.
  Britain is an extremely conservative country in that kind of thing. Once something gets on to the statute book we are lucky if we manage to get it off after 156 years. If we put this new interference offence on the statute book, my prediction is that it will be there 156 years from now, and we shall never know what life would have been like without it. Almost certainly life would have gone on without it in very much the same way. I shall have a suggestion to make to our colleagues in the House of Lords as to what they might be able to do about it. Unfortunately, I thought of it too recently to be able to table an amendment here.
  9 pm
  The new offence is a great deal better than it was as it stood when the Bill first appeared. We have tightened up the burden of intention, which the prosecution must show. The Law Commission, in its thorough consideration of the law of attempt, indicated many times that it felt that criminality should not extend too far back from a completed criminal offence. It said that on those grounds the general law of attempt should not apply to actions too remote from the final act and that if Parliament wanted to extend further away from a clear, final offence, Parliament ought to lay down the limitations. The Law Commission report implied clearly that Parliament should be extremely cautious in doing so and that it should do so only on overwhelming grounds, where certain preparatory behaviour was so dangerous to society that we wanted to make that preparatory behaviour a criminal act even though it would not be a criminal act under the general law of attempt.
  On those grounds, the Opposition feel that no case is shown. There is no case that the Minister made on Second Reading or in Standing Committee to justify the putting of this offence in the place of "sus". The Select Committee, which recommended that we get rid of "sus", suggested that there was no need to put an offence in its place. The Committee was almost unanimous in its report. I am aware that the Minister is now looking up the part of the report that mentions that the one gap that could be left was that of interfering with car doors, and the like. There is, however, no point in repealing something if one fills the totality of the gap that is left. The Select Committee's advice was to take it away and not to replace it except with the general law of attempt. The Committee was writing at a time before the Law Commission produced its report.
  Our proceedings in Committee revealed confusion among some witnesses about the difficulties that could arise if the police were not able to bring a charge of this nature. Some of that confusion was reflected in the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). It seems to be suggested that if the police see somebody doing something suspicious they have to be able either to charge him with an offence or at least arrest him. One

  229
  often says that the police can arrest under the Criminal Law Act. This was stated by the Minister a few moments ago.
  The Opposition maintain that what the police should do in those circumstances is to wait and see whether the man does the thing. I believe that this is what the police normally do. If the police see somebody who looks as if he is about to break into a house and the behaviour is not so clearly criminal as to justify a charge, they will normally hang around and wait to see whether he does it. That is the correct alternative to this kind of offence, rather than bringing a charge in respect of behaviour that is, at most, preparatory, and, at its most innocent, subject as much to innocent interpretation as to guilty interpretation.
  On those grounds, the Opposition believe that it would have been better at least to enjoy life without the offence of interference with a motor vehicle for a while to see whether we suffered. The suggestion that I make to our colleagues in the House of Lords is that they should table an amendment to say that the clause will come into force only at a date to be declared by the Minister.
  Mr. Percy Grieve: Would not the enjoyment be entirely that of the criminal classes?
  Mr. Cunningham: That is what we are trying to find out. It is always best to "suck it and see." It is best not to put laws on to the statute book unless they are clearly necessary. It is best not to invent crimes unless they are necessary. We shall not know whether this crime is necessary unless we have life without it for a little while.
  Even people who believe that the retention of this offence is highly desirable do not regard it as the most important thing in the statute book. It is at the end of the spectrum. It is not an attempt to commit a criminal offence. It is very low down indeed in the criminality spectrum. So let us see what it is like without it first. We may not need it at all. Once a law is on the statute book, if it is removed before 150 years that will be a record. I suggest to our colleagues in the House of Lords that they should invent an amendment whereby the offence comes into force only when the Minister declares a day. I hope that the Minister will then leave it for a while and declare a day later, when we can see whether it is necessary.
  On those grounds we shall vote for amendment No. 2 to delete the new offence of interference with a motor vehicle. If, unfortunately, we are unsuccessful in that attempt we shall vote for amendment No. 4, to make the offence non-imprisonable.
  Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) for the clear way in which he moved his amendment. I am responsible for a number of amendments in the group and it may be helpful if I say something about them now.
  I am grateful for the hon. Member's recognition that if we are to have the new offence of motor vehicle interference it should apply wherever the vehicle is found. We believe that the new offence contained in clause 8 is a useful crime-fighting tool for the police.
  The hon. Member asks why we should not enjoy life without "sus" and not put anything in its place. Anyone who reads the police evidence to the Committee and takes note of the high proportion of cases in which "sus" is used against motor vehicle interference will believe that there
  230
  is not much enjoyment to be gained for people whose cars are interfered with, who have articles stolen from their cars, or whose cars are taken and driven away or stolen. That is why, having paid attention to the evidence about the high incidence of opportunist street crime against vehicles, we believe that we cannot leave the gap unfilled.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that there was no point in abolishing a law if we intended to fill the gap completely. However, we are not filling the gap completely. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) asked about the illustrations given by the police in their evidence. I had to tell them that the gap was not fully filled in the particular and specialised circumstances to which he referred. Section 2 of the Criminal Law Act is available but there is no substantive offence to take the place of "sus" in such circumstances.
  One has to strike a balance. The Government believe that the weight to be given to the adverse consequences of keeping "sus" on the statute book is greater than the advantages of having a substantive offence that would meet the circumstances to which my hon. Friend referred. We are not filling the gap completely.
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I am sure that the Minister will accept that, in one respect at least, the new offence goes wider than the existing "sus" offences. Under existing legislation two separate occurrences have to happen whereas under the new offence simply trying one car door will be sufficient to cause an offence. Could not the Minister at least amend the Bill so that there must be two separate acts before an offence can be deemed to have been committed?
  Mr. Mayhew: Personally, I believe that the offence is narrower than "sus", because it requires the proof of specific intent—one of the three theft-related offences—whereas one of the great bones of contention about "sus" was that it did not require any intent. People often complained that they had done nothing. In that regard, therefore, this offence is very much narrower.
  In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point about having to commit more than one offence, the matter was dealt with by one of the distinguished police officers who gave evidence, Sir Philip Knights. He said that he did not envisage any prosecutions being brought unless at least two actions had been observed. He thought that that was the way the police would operate. In other words, he thought that a single handling of a car door handle would never form the substance of a prosecution.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. and learned Gentleman cites with approval the evidence of Sir Philip Knights, the chief constable of the West Midlands. If he approves of that, why does he not put it in the Bill? It is certainly not sufficient for him to say "We have made the offence in the Bill, but we have been given an assurance by chief constables that they will exercise the discretion widely." That is not an acceptable way in which to legislate.
  Mr. Mayhew: I am not saying that one cannot visualise circumstances in which it was so abundantly clear that the interference with the motor vehicle was carried out with the intention of committing one of the theft-related offences that it would not be sufficient to proceed on one act of interference alone. That is why I resist the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

  231
  In Committee we changed the offence considerably. I shall say a word on the subject, because it is important. A number of hon. Members on both sides argued that the clause could be improved if it included a specific requirement that the prosecution should have to show that an act of interference was carried out with criminal intent. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) raised this subject on Second Reading. Those hon. Members who served on the Special Standing Committee will know that the Government paid careful attention to those criticisms and tabled an amendment, which the Committee accepted, to introduce such a requirement.
  The origin of the clause is to be found in the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on "sus". The Committee specifically drew attention to the difficulties that arose in charging an attempt in the case of interference with parked motor vehicles when it was not clear precisely what the individual concerned intended to do. That passage is to be found at paragraph 37 of the Report. The Committee said:
  "There is evidence of some confusion in the law of attempt. This arises particularly in cases where;(a) it is unclear exactly what offence was being attempted—for example, when a person attempts to enter a locked car and it is not known whether he intended to steal it, to drive around in it, to sleep in it or to steal from it;"
  Virtually everyone who has considered these matters has acknowledged that the difficulty of the law of attempt it that in prosecuting one has to specify which particular offence the accused person was trying to commit. It is very difficult. Magistrates have to ask themselves whether they are satisfied that it was offence A or whether it was perhaps offence B. If it might be offence B they cannot be satisfied that it was offence A. Therefore the prosecution has to fail.
  Mr. George Cunningham: The Government have found the solution to that problem—and a very obvious solution it is—in the amendment to clause 8, which the Government tabled in Standing Committee. They say there that the intention that needs to be proved is an intention to do one of the three specified offences, and it does not need to be shown which of the three offences it was intended to commit.
  Equally, one could rely on the law of attempt but provide that in the case of an attempt to do any one of those things it would be sufficient to satisfy the court that the person was attempting to do one of those things even if it could not be shown which of the three he was attempting to do. In other words, the proximity to the completion of the offence would remain the same as what is required for the law of attempt, but there would be the qualification that in this case there did not need to be proof of attempting a specific offence but one of three, four or even five offences.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Mayhew: The evidence of the police officers in particular establishes the need for an offence of interference with a motor vehicle. The suggestion that a police officer should wait and see what happens does not reflect the realities of policing. If we followed the suggestion, much more time would have to elapse, and we should be faced with the difficulties that everyone acknowledges, however one formulates the offence of attempting to commit a criminal offence, of proximity or more than a merely preparatory act. Anyone who studies the police evidence in particular will acknowledge, having
  232
  regard to the high prevalence of opportunist street crime concerning motor vehicles, that there is need for an offence of interference. That is why the Government are right to retain the provision, which is a valuable addition to the statute book.
  The discussion of the provision in Committee, with particular reference to the police officers' evidence, confirmed that it was necessary to establish such an offence. It is important to bear in mind the evidence that a significant proportion of "sus" cases concerned interference with vehicles. The witnesses also emphasised the importance of thefts of and from vehicles in the overall crime figures. The latter is all too well known to those who live in urban areas. Those who oppose the creation of a new offence argue that such activities can be dealt with by other means, but their arguments do not sufficiently address themselves to the reality of the problem.
  It is suggested that we should give it a try without the provision and see how we get on, but we should not be seen to be discharging our responsibility to the public if we took away a statutory offence that has been used substantially to prosecute people for interfering with motor vehicles and did not put anything in its place, because we wanted to wait and see. In these days of increasing crime, we should not be considered to be particularly careful of our duties if we adopted that blithely confident approach.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The clause-heading is "Interference with vehicles". The Minister sometimes uses the word "vehicles" and sometimes "motor vehicles". Why should the provision apply only to motor vehicles and not, for instance, to bicycles, when bicycle thefts are increasing? The heading "Vehicles" would cover bicycles and motor vehicles, if the clause has to remain in the Bill.
  Mr. Mayhew: Bicycles get stolen, and without straining the logic of our philosophy the provision could be extended to bicycles, boats and other forms of conveyance. We have not done so because it has been impressed on us that the main area for such crime is motor vehicles. If the hon. Gentleman presses us hard, the provision might be extended elsewhere, although we have been anxious to confine the clause. "Sus" has not been used to an appreciable extent to deal with possible bicycle thefts, although it may have been in university towns. I do not know.
  Finally, I come to whether the offence should be punishable by imprisonment. If we did not have the power to imprison, there would be no means by which magistrates could make a convicted person the subject, for example, of a community service order. That is important If the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk:) is concerned, as we all are, not to have unnecessary custodial sentences, it would be a great mistake to close the door to the making of a community service order or a detention sentence order. Such orders can be made only in respect of imprisonable offences. The appropriate method of dealing with persistent offenders may be by way of custodial orders.
  Mr. Clive Soley: It is important to be technically correct. It is merely a Home Office recommendation that a community service order may be imposed as an alternative to imprisonment. I think

  233
  that the Minister will find that I am right in saying that a number of courts use such orders in respect of nonimprisonable offences and are within the law in so doing.
  Mr. Mayhew: Distant though I am from the source of wisdom in these matters, I am told that I am right and the hon. Gentleman is wrong. If I find that that is incorrect, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge my mistake.
  I think that the Government are right in not accepting the amendments, which would prevent magistrates' courts from imposing sentences of imprisonment in proper cases, important though it is that no unnecessary sentences of imprisonment should be brought about. I paid attention to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), who is not in the Chamber today, about applying a disincentive and the fear that the police would prosecute under this provision because otherwise they would risk a jury trial. I do not think that his proposal is the answer to determining this issue.
  We are discussing a useful crime-fighting tool that has been made much more effective by reason of the evidence to which we listened in Committee and by the changes made in Committee. Having fashioned that tool, there is no reason why we should deny to the police the ability to use it on private premises or in council car parks and restrict its use to public places. I hope that the House will support the Government's view.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I am sorry that the Minister chose to answer the debate before it had really been opened. That is an unusual procedure on Report. I support the amendment, which seeks to delete clause 8, mainly on the ground of the unnecessary imprisonment of offenders and because the new offence of interference with a motor vehicle, which is created by clause 8 as amended in Committee, requires an intention to commit an offence of theft or of taking and driving away.
  The danger of the clause as it stands arises from the difficulty of deciding what was or was not in the mind of the accused. I shall quote from the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee entitled "Race Relations and the `Sus' Law", the Bill being to some extent derived from the report. In commenting on the present suspected person offence the Select Committee stated:
  "A conviction depends on the court's judgment as to the subjective intentions of an accused revealed by a course of behaviour witnessed in most cases by two or more people who are usually two police officers".
  The Committee went on to say:
  "the understandable absence of civilian witnesses makes the offence yet more unsatisfactory".
  It added:
  "It is impossible to make any accurate estimate of the proportion of those convicted for 'sus' who did not in fact intend to commit an arrestable offence. It is indeed questionable if, in many cases, the accused could themselves have been certain as to their precise intentions when arrested."
  Exactly similar problems to those will arise in adducing an intent to commit one of the offences contained in clause 8(2).
  I accept that the clause does not merely re-enact the "sus" offence. It is not re-enacted in another guise. As the Minister said in response to my earlier intervention, the clause is expressly limited to circumstances in which someone interferes with a vehicle, though it would seem not a bicycle.
  234
  However, even in those circumstances, the new offence goes wider than the present "sus" offence, as it would depart from the present requirement that at least one act which would give rise to suspicion must be followed by a further separate act which constitutes the offence. In contrast, under the Bill as presently drafted, trying a single car door would suffice for an offence to be committed. That is not acceptable. I should have hoped that some of the amendments which have not been selected, but which would have dealt with that aspect, would have been preferable.
  The Bill also runs counter to the recommendations of the Home Office working party on vagrancy and street offences, which reported in 1976. It consisted of three chief constables, an inspector of constabulary and officials from the Home Office, the DHSS and the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That working party was not exactly anti-police or biased against the police. However, it stated in its final report:
  "One suggestion put to us is that one act by the defendant ought to suffice for conviction in the absence of an explanation. We reject this idea, which it seems to us would provide insufficient safeguards against wrongful convictions."
  The working party recommended that the "sus" law should be replaced by an offence limited to a case of a person whose antecedent conduct in a public place suggested an intent to commit an arrestable offence. It proposed that "antecedent conduct" should include at least one suspicious act before and distinct from the act which caused him to be charged with the offence.
  The working party's working paper of 1974 stated:
  "The new offence might then refer to 'a course of suspicious conduct 'or' a repetition of suspicious conduct', or, by exclusion, provide that it should not suffice to establish suspicion that there has been only one instance of such conduct."
  Precisely that proposal should have been incorporated in the Bill. Its absence makes clause 8 unacceptable.
  Not only was that proposal made by the Home Office working party, with its strong police representation; but Sir David McNee, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, expressed support for the recommendations of the Home Office working party in the memorandum which he presented to the Home Affairs Select Committee during its inquiry into the "sus" law. In that memorandum he listed a number of specific proposals by the Home Office working party which he favoured, including a proposal that
  "antecedent conduct should include at least one suspicious act before and distinct from the act which caused him to be charged with the offence."
  Neither the Home Office working party nor Sir David McNee could be suspected of wishing to make the job of the police more difficult. I cannot see why the Government see fit on this occasion to ignore the advice from such an authoritative and experienced source.
  Having made the mistake of answering a debate which has not taken place, I hope that the Minister will at least be able to answer some of my points, and those which will be made by Conservative Members. The possibility that someone who had not formed a dishonest intent could be penalised by the new offence is in many respects the Bill's most objectionable feature. For that reason alone, it should be opposed.
  In many ways, just as important is the fact that the Bill makes the new offence subject to the potential penalty of imprisonment. The Minister is proposing that a maximum period of three months can be imposed for what is by any estimate a trivial and minor offence. We must view that

  235
  against the background of the current crisis of overcrowding in the prison system, which was referred to by the Home Secretary in a speech to the Leicestershire magistrates on 13 February which will be repeated and quoted time and again. He said:
  "Of the many problems facing me as Home Secretary, the most pressing and dangerous is the chronic crisis of overcrowding in our prisons which threatens to undermine our criminal justice system and its contribution to maintaining law and order in our society."
  9.30 pm
  There are about 43,700 men, women and schoolchildren in our prisons today in accommodation designed for 39,000 people, and 18,000 of them are living three to a cell built for one in Victorian times. Very often they are locked up for 23 hours out of every 24.
  Already, a few short weeks after the conclusion of the prison officers' dispute, there are five prisoners in Oxford prison who are having to sleep in a library. There are 29 prisoners at Watton detention centre who are having to sleep today in storerooms and classrooms because of the gross overcrowding at those two institutions.
  The Home Secretary, to his credit, has repeatedly and very forthrightly pointed to the problems of overcrowding in the prison system and has urged—some would say threatened or at least cajoled—the courts to use imprisonment only when it is absolutely necessary. For example, in his speech to the Conservative central council on 21 March 1980, he pointed out:
  "It is no use continuing to overburden the staff who have to run the system, too often in antiquated and inadequate buildings, with petty offenders who can be dealt with just as well in other ways".
  Those "petty offenders" are precisely the kinds of offenders that we are talking about tonight and with whom we are dealing in the Bill.
  I wonder whether the Minister was present on 21 March at the Conservative central council and heard those words of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. If he heard them, did he take account of them? Does the Home Secretary know that what he is saying in one breath is being countermanded in another here tonight by the Bill?
  The Home Secretary went on to say:
  "We shall need, and in this the courts have their part to play,"£
  one would have thought that the Minister of State had his part, too, but he is not fulfilling it tonight—
  "to see that the prisons are not allowed to remain cluttered up with trivial and inadequate offenders who are no real threat to anyone, except possibly themselves, but whose presence helps to create the extremely acute pressures which afflict our prisons today and all who work in them".
  Those are not my words or the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), or of any of the other radical Members on the Benches behind me. They are the words of the Conservative Home Secretary. I should have thought that he at least would take the time and the trouble not just to make those very encouraging and highly welcome statements but to ensure that his actions backed up what he was saying frequently in his speeches.
  Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend did not say on that occasion that there should be removed from the statute books the ability of magistrates in serious cases—for example, the case of a really persistent offender who has in the end to be sent to prison, perhaps after every other non—custodial alternative had been tried—to take action to
  236
  secure the protection of the public. He acknowledged that such cases exist, although perhaps they are rare. But my right hon. Friend said nothing to suggest that that kind of ability should be removed from magistrates' courts.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman ever bothers to read the Home Secretary's speeches. Let me give the hon. and learned Gentleman an example from the Leicestershire speech, where the Home Secretary said that in 1979 there were 9,000 people serving sentences of 18 months or less—not the trivial three months that we are talking about tonight but 18 months or less.
  The Home Secretary referred to non-violent and non-dangerous offences, to which again we are referring today, and he asked:
  "How far can we be sure they invariably deserved imprisonment at all?"
  Mr. Mayhew: Quite right.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. and learned Gentleman says "Quite right". The Home Secretary was doubting whether 9,000 non-violent, non-dangerous offenders who were in prison for 18 months or less should even have been put there in the first place. He is saying largely what the report on petty persistent offenders, which the hon. and learned Gentleman's own Department published only last Thursday, said—namely, that petty persistent offenders should be diverted from the criminal justice system and the prison system.
  Mr. Mayhew rose——
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I shall give way in a moment. I have a few more questions.
  Does the hon. and learned Gentleman ever read the research findings of his own Department? A moment ago he rose in high dudgeon and talked about the dangerous petty persistent offender. Is it really dangerous to have committed the offence of attempting to interfere with motor vehicles? In a different incarnation, as an Opposition Back Bencher when the Labour Government were in office, the hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the disgrace and the scandal of imprisoning petty persistent offenders. Is he saying that because he wears a different hat he now regards them as dangerous?
  Mr. Mayhew rose——
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I have said that I will give way. The hon. and learned Gentleman's occupancy of the Front Bench does not give him any particular kudos. Has he suddenly changed his mind on all those issues? Is he seriously suggesting that the public will be in great danger and under serious threat if we say that these individuals should not be in prison? If that is his view, should he not increase the maximum sentence from three months to 18 months or more?
  Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for at last giving way. He might have acknowledged that my right hon. Friend has done more than any Home Secretary in recent years to draw the attention of the public and all concerned to the dangerous degree of overcrowding in the prisons and the need to question whether sentences should always be as long as they are. The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that what my right hon. Friend said in Leicestershire was that the question should be asked whether every prisoner in that category serving 18 months needs to spend so long in prison. The hon. Gentleman

  237
  suggested that the Home Secretary was saying that none of those people should be in prison at all. To put that gloss upon my right hon. Friend's speech is inaccurate and misleading.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Of course the Home Secretary should be given credit where it is due. I think that I have given it, both today and on other occasions, and always on the record. The right hon. Gentleman has indeed drawn attention to the deplorable and disgraceful state of our prisons far more than any previous Home Secretary of any party. But he has not yet done anything to reduce the prison population, although he has been in office for two years. It is not good enough for him to continue making high-sounding speeches, however much I personally applaud and welcome them, if at the end he does not produce the goods.
  The Home Secretary had the opportunity tonight to take out of the penal system one group of offenders who the hon. and learned Gentleman must accept—because by definition it is true—are minor, petty offenders, albeit some of them may happen also to be persistent offenders. They are not a major danger to society, and on no conceivable argument is it necessary to put them into prison. The arguments against imprisonment generally have been deployed elsewhere, not least by the Home Secretary himself. He called for shorter sentences. He pointed out that imprisonment does not deter, reform or rehabilitate and that it is inordinately expensive and often counter-productive for the individual. He went on to say that for those who are not dangerous or violent every effort should be made to find non-custodial alternatives within the community.
  I am doing no more tonight than preaching to a specific case in the same terms, and employing the same language as the Home Secretary himself has applied as a generality. All the research and evidence shows that the use of imprisonment and the lengths of sentences bear little or no relation to whether the individual will commit further offences or become a positive, constructive and contributing member of society.
  For those reasons, and for the reasons that the Home Secretary has powerfully and eloquently advanced, it has become increasingly accepted that non-custodial sentences should be used as far as possible for all but the most serious and violent offenders. Such alternatives should therfore be used for precisely the kind of individual who will be caught by the new offence created by the Bill if it reaches the statute book.
  I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman remembers that the Home Secretary has asked the courts to be particularly careful to ensure that every custodial sentence is as short as possible. If that is the case, surely Parliament also has a responsibility, when enacting legislation which contains a new imprisonable offence, to be absolutely certain that that offence justifies the sanction of imprisonment. Parliament must also be certain that if it justifies that sanction the period of imprisonment should be as short as possible consistent with the safety of the public.
  No one could argue seriously that minor offenders whose conduct does not even constitute an attempt to commit theft, let alone theft, should be imprisoned for three months. The Home Secretary has said "We do not
  238
  want to imprison minor, petty, non-violent and non-dangerous offenders. We must ask whether it is necessary to imprison them". Yet tonight we are giving the courts the power to imprison people who have not even been convicted of the attempt to steal, still less of the substantive crime itself. Against that background, it should not be automatically assumed that every new offence which is created should necessarily become imprisonable.
  In considering whether the new offence created by clause 8 merits imprisonment it is worth recalling that the report "Too Many Prisoners", published in June 1980 by the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group, said of the present "suspected person" offence:
  "If the offence is retained, it should be made non-imprisonable: custodial penalties cannot be justified when, in the assessment of the prosecution, the evidence is insufficient to support a charge of theft or attempted theft".
  Clause 8 does not simply re-enact the "sus" law in another guise. It is expressly limited to circumstances in which someone interferes with a vehicle. However, in those circumstances the same considerations surely apply. The new offence is being created for use in circumstances where the evidence is insufficient to support a charge of theft, taking and driving away or an attempt to commit one of the more substantive offences. Moreover, the new offence is wider than the "sus" offence in these circumstances as it departs from the present requirement that there must be at least two separate and distinct suspicious acts before the offence can be proved.
  I cannot see why, both in Committee and on Report, the Government have been allowed to get this far in their redefinition of the law, to the point where they are making it more likely that more people will be wrongly accused, convicted and imprisoned.
  Custodial penalties are available for the substantive offences of theft, taking and driving away and attempting to commit those offences. If the new offence were comparable in its nature with a fully-fledged attempt to steal or drive away a car, or to steal something in it, it could be argued that it would be reasonable for custodial penalties to be available. However, the offence is not comparable with an attempt, as the whole purpose of creating it is to provide an offence which can be invoked when the evidence falls considerably short of attempted theft.
  The arguments against the availability of imprisonment in the case of the "suspected person" law are just as applicable to the new offence in clause 8 as they were—both by the report "Too Many Prisoners" and the Home Affairs Select Committee—to the previous offence of being a suspected person.
  I hope that the Minister will answer the points that I have raised, because they are important and substantial. I do not think that the Government have made out a case on grounds of either logic or justice. There is no conceivable justification for continuing, almost as an administrative convenience, to imprison people who by any definition are petty, minor, trivial offenders, who are not a danger to the community, who are non-violent offenders, and for whom prison would serve no conceivable purpose. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury will force a Division on clause 8 and that my hon. Friends will join him in the Lobby.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Percy Grieve: It is a long time since I have listened to such a rigmarole of nonsense as informed the speech made by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). When we debate matters affecting the criminal law I sometimes wonder whether Opposition Members are not more deeply concerned for the criminal than for his victim.
  I am on record, both in the House and outside, as deploring the abolition of the "sus" law. It is one of society's first lines of defence. As far as it goes, clause 8 provides a measure of defence for society. It defends those whose motor cars are constantly at risk in public places. They are at risk of depredations by criminally minded persons. To suggest that clause 8 should be omitted or radically amended in order to do away with the power of justices to imprison is to deprive it of its efficacy in defence of society.
  Justices are not compelled to imprison. In the majority of cases it is doubtful whether they would do so. They have other powers at their disposal that are short of imprisonment, such as fines, community service orders and other orders. As in the case of other offences in our courts today, imprisonment will be the last resort.
  The hon. Member for Ormskirk spoke of overcrowding in our prisons. Does not he realise that because of the amount of crime our prisons are capable of containing their populations only because the police are unable to bring many criminals to justice? Indeed, the overwhelming preponderance of criminals are not brought to justice. In defence of society more prisons should be built if necessary. If it is possible to keep people out of prison, that should be done. However, ultimately we must retain the sanction of imprisonment, because that is the only sanction open to society if it is to defend itself against crime. It is the ultimate and most important sanction.
  I agree that it is important to have short, sharp sentences. Long sentences are necessary only to lock away those who have shown themselves to be persistent enemies of society. Under clause 8 the maximum sentence is a period of three months' imprisonment. By anyone's standard that is not a long sentence. It is deplorable that Opposition Members should argue that we should do away with the protection that our citizens should enjoy and that Parliament should give in respect of property that is likely to be put at danger by layabouts and petty criminals.
  It is nonsense to suggest that many people will be wrongly convicted. Under the clause, intent must be proved to the same degree as for any other criminal offence. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject the amendment and it will throw out with contumely the suggestion that clause 8 should be omitted.
  Mr. Soley: I shall not detain the House for long, but I hope to be more rational in my arguments than the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) was in his arguments.
  To some extent the Minister spoilt his own case and put the case against the clause. He talked consistently of the high prevalence of crime. That provides the police with a crime-fighting weapon. That is why we are here, and why the 1824 Act was passed originally. There were major social and economic problems leading to vagrancy and other associated problems. We are using the same argument to perpetuate a part of the Bill that is a hangover from the 1824 Act. That is why it should be thrown out.
  Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in England today there is far more lawlessness than there was in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars?
  Mr. Soley: That is why I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was being so irrational in his approach. He has failed to think through what he said previously and in his intervention.
  The problem is one of parked cars in which youngsters show an interest. The difficulty is that young people are interested in cars. If a youngster goes up to a car, puts one hand on the door handle, looks through the window, moves on to a second car and does the same, then moves back to the first car and repeats his actions, he can be arrested under the provisions of the clause. There is no evidence that he intended to commit an offence. He was doing what a number of youngsters do—looking at the speedometers of the cars concerned. Yet the onus is on him to prove his innocence. The Minister knows that. If he does not believe that to be so, he must demonstrate how a person can prove his innocence with a clause such as this. The weight of evidence means that it is for the person concerned to prove his innocence.
  Mr. John Wheeler: Clause 8 is very clear. The obligation will lie upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt to the magistrates that a person is guilty of the offence. It is not a question of the defendant having to prove his innocence.
  Mr. Soley: I should love to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I must be guided by the words in the Bill, which state:
  "if it is shown that a person accused of an offence under this section intended that one of those offences should be committed, it is immaterial that it cannot be shown which it was."
  If that does not put the onus of proof on the defendant. I do not know what does, because it clearly states "We can get you for one of these three actions."
  Mr. Douglas Hogg rose——
  Mr. Soley: I shall not give way. I mean no disrespect, but there is now a major problem with the time factor.
  The Minister quoted the police evidence. The memorandum by the Association of Chief Police Officers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland was fascinating. It said:
  "Whilst acknowledging the proposed improvements in the law and the reasons for making these in relation to attempts and of interference with vehicles, it should be made clear that there will be areas where the police in the future would be powerless to act."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 10 February 1981; c.147.]
  The memorandum continues to give the examples cited by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence:). The Minister correctly rejected the arguments of his hon. Friend. It is clear that the police want extended to houses the power that they have to deal with interference with vehicles. Yet the Minister has rejected that argument. If he is to be consistent he must either give in to the police and give it for households as well, or not give it for interference with motor vehicles. That and the constant talk about the high prevalence of crime in this area is a sure sign that we are going down the same road as in 1824.
  The hon. and learned Member for Solihull got himself muddled about this matter. It is not as though this is a way of dealing with excess crime. Taking and driving away a motor vehicle is a charge in its own right. The more

  241
  serious charge is the theft of a motor vehicle with the idea of selling it, and that is a separate charge. There is the problem of theft from a motor vehicle, and that is a separate charge. None of those offences would apply.
  I turn now to imprisonment. If the Minister took his responsibilities seriously he would suggest one month's imprisonment. There is no rational reason for three months' imprisonment. It does not protect the public. As my hon. Friend for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said, it is not a dangerous offence. It tends to becommitted by petty offenders.
  The persistent offender will at most serve only two months' imprisonment for this offence. That does not protect the public either. We cannot pretend to be protecting the public with a sentence of three months' imprisonment which is reduced to two months with remission.
  The only way to deal with the matter is to get rid of the clause, because it is contradictory and takes us back to the origins of the 1824 Act. If the Minister is to stick with the clause, the least that he can do is to reduce the sentence to one month's imprisonment or, preferably, to get rid of it altogether.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I should like to comment briefly on the two points made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), which echoed points made previously.
  The first point relates to the powers of imprisonment. I support those powers. It is important to bear in mind that the powers of imprisonment are merely permissive, and not mandatory. I suggest that three months' imprisonment is a modest period. It would be wrong to take away from magistrates the power to impose prison sentences in a limited number of cases.
  This offence is easy to commit. Therefore, it puts many owners of vehicles at risk. Furthermore, the offence bears repetition. Many offenders who are likely to come before the courts will be of bad character and will have previous convictions for similar offences.
  I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) that this is a trivial offence. In itself it may be. In isolation, one may be concerned with only a few pounds. But pilfering from vehicles in towns is a scourge. Therefore, the courts should have a residual power—which they will exercise rarely—to impose a prison sentence.
  The second point relates to the overall criticism of the clause that was first voiced by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). On Second Reading I was critical of the clause, which was then clause 9. I am greatly impressed by the changes that have been made, and I welcome them.
  I do not agree that this is an unnecessary clause. Several hon. Members—in particular, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury—have said that the offences covered by the clause are much the same as those covered by the offence of attempt. Generally speaking, that will be true. There are obviously a large number of cases in which the two classes of offence will overlap, but it is not always true because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State so aptly said, in order to establish an attempt the offence in respect of which the attempt is alleged must be identified. It is necessary to be specific. Therefore, there
  242
  are always a number of instances in which a person is undoubtedly doing a criminal act but it cannot be said with absolute certainty to what the attempt relates. That being so, clause 8 should stand.
  Another point made by various Opposition Members is that clause 8, in its present form, is by its very nature oppressive and objectionable. That was put in its most extreme form by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North. With respect, I simply do not agree. This offence, like all other criminal offences, has two elements, namely, the prohibited act itself and the prohibited intention. Merely to interfere—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered.
  That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Attempts Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Special Standing Committee), again considered.
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Hogg: I was dealing with the nature of the offence and I pointed out that, in common with all other criminal offences, it has two elements, namely, the prohibited act and the prohibited intention.
  It is not sufficient for the prosecution in any case to prove the prohibited act, namely, interference. It must go further than that and prove that the person charged had the prohibited intention. A court will not infer a prohibited intention simply from the trying of handles. There must be more than that.
  I have one criticism of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North. I am afraid that he has misled himself as to the nature and the meaning of this Bill. He suggested that it was for the defendant to prove his innocence. That is simply not so. It is for the prosecution to prove both elements, namely, the interference and the prohibited intention.
  As for the choice of three offences as provided for in the Bill, all that means is that the prosecution must prove one of those three. It does not have to identify which of the three prohibited intentions was in the defendant's mind, but the prosecution must prove one of them.
  It is quite untrue to say that the defendant must prove his innocence. That is not a proper reading of the Bill and, anxious as I was about what I think was clause 9 when the Bill came before the House on Second Reading, I am now content, and I hope that the clause will win the approval of the House.
  Mr. Christopher Price: If I felt that this clause would operate along the lines described by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) I would not be as worried about the clause as I am. But I am a Member for South-East London and the truth about "sus" is that it was a London offence. It was used far more widely within the Metropolitan area than in any other area in London and it was, quite frankly, a catch-all offence; it was a holding charge, something with which the police would charge virtually anybody.
  In a case with which I was associated, the Confait case, which some hon. Members will remember, two youngsters who were picked up watching television in their own house were registered as having been charged as being suspicious people in a public place on the actual charge sheet before they were charged with murder.

  243
  The "sus" offence was used by the police substantially in London as an offence with which they could charge anybody at any time, particularly if they wanted to hold him and charge him with something else later.
  My great fear is that by simply replacing that "sus" offence with this clause 8, in the mind of the ordinary copper in South-East London we are providing another holding charge, because this will be tried in front of a magistrate. The hon. Member for Grantham may be right about a proper judicial court with a jury and all the rest, where the two legs of this offence really do have to be proved, but I can assure him that in a London magistrates' court it is not remotely like that. What the magistrates do is either say that the defendant is lying or say that the police are lying, and 99 times out of 100 they decide that the defendant is lying because, in the natural course of events, they cannot bring themselves to say that the police are lying.
  If the police say that a defendant has touched a door handle, how can he, particularly if he is a young black defendant in South-East London, prove to a magistrate that he did not interfere with a door handle? The House got rid of "sus" on an all-party basis, in spite of the opposition of the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) because it was a brutally counter-productive law. It may have been a tool of law enforcement for the police, but it massively exacerbated race relations in the part of London that I represent. In the end an all-party committee, and everybody, even the Home Office, agreed that it had to go.
  My great fear that is that the police force will use clause 8 in exactly the same way as it used section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, and the London magistracy will go along with the police and it will grow into a new "sus" law.
  I am no lawyer. I do not think that anyone knows how clause 8 will operate if it becomes part of the armoury of law enforcement, but the Government are, tragically, losing an opportunity to get themselves a good reputation for this legislation. They rightly received many congratulations for bringing in the Bill, but it is marred by a clause which might be used in exactly the same oppressive way as its predecessor, the "sus" law, was used. If it is used in that way and there are no independent witnesses to prove a defendant's innocence in the face of the police evidence in a magistrates' court, cynicism among youngsters against whom the clause will be used will be heightened and in the end the law will be brought into greater disrepute. That is why I shall vote against the clause.
  Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) asked three questions, one of which the Minister has properly and helpfully answered by his amendment, namely, that "public" shall now include "private", or words to that effect.
  The second question was whether we needed the clause 8 offence at all. The answer was given by three chiefs of police in evidence before the Special Standing Committee. Sir Philip Knights, the chief of police for the West Midlands said:
  "Of the 82 offences brought before the courts under section 4, 61 related to tampering with motor vehicles. So from West Midlands experience, there is a case for creating this offence if `sus' is to be removed."
  That is an extraordinary proportion. It would be insanity to leave a gap there which the police would not feel able to fill under existing law.
  244
  The point was backed up by the chief constables of Merseyside and of the Thames division, who said that about 25 per cent. of the total crime figure was related to theft of or from motor vehicles, or the unlawful taking away of motor vehicles. That is an extraordinarily high proportion of crime. Are we at this stage to take away a weapon in the armoury of law enforcement for dealing with the very problem that faces so many citizens in town and country alike?
  The second question is whether imprisonment should be an available sentence for this offence. 'The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) made a long speech. He, like many of his hon. Friends, always ignores, as though it does not exist, the deterrent factor of having a sanction of imprisonment for a number of offences. It is not simply a question of saying "Do we want to put these people into prison?" It is also a question of saying "Can we have some sort of sanction that will, at the margin at any rate, deter an offender from committing an offence?"
  It is clear that in some circumstances people are deterred from committing criminal offences by the knowledge that they may go to prison. It is not simply a matter of stopping someone trying car door handles; it is stopping someone taking and driving away a motor vehicle, which he may drive while uninsured and in a dangerous manner, and sometimes cause loss of life or loss of limb to ordinary innocent citizens. Within reason, anything that exists within our law to deter would-be offenders from committing offences of this kind is valuable to the whole system. It would be an act of utter stupidity for us to take away the sanction of imprisonment for offences as frequently indulged in as those that we are discussing.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On hearing a remark just made from my Front Bench, I can only say that I was intending to be brief. However, the more interruptions that are made, the longer a speech tends to drag out.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Instead of shouting at the Back Benches, the Front Benches should observe advice to be brief and cut their speeches shorter.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I did not shout a thing.
  Mr. Bennett: I should perhaps start again. The first matter that concerns me is why the motor vehicle should be selected for special attention. It seems illogical to me that the bicycle is not included. The theft of bicycles seems to be one area where crime is growing. I am opposed to the whole clause. It poses the central question of what is the duty of both police and the general public. Is it to try to establish that a crime has occurred or is it to prevent crime in the first place? This is a difficult area. Often, it is the duty of the police to try to detect a crime—in other words, to watch it take place and to try to arrest someone and bring a prosecution. On other occasions, it should be their duty to stop it happening in the first place.
  I have talked to policemen over the last fem, months. They are in a dilemma. Whether or not it is true, they tend to feel that they receive far more approval from senior officers for the number of people that they detect committing a crime that produces a prosecution than they do for the number of people that they deter from committing a crime. What is the duty of a member of the public or of a policeman if someone is seen trying car doors? Is it to keep out of sight and to observe what goes

  245
  on, in the hope that a prosecution can take place? Or should the policeman make himself known and so deter the criminal?
  I suggest that in this fairly minor area the duty of the police is to prevent a crime taking place by making clear to anyone contemplating a crime that the policeman is present and watching. The young person will therefore not commit the crime. That will stop the more serious offence rather than allow a situation in which the policemen waits until an offence has occurred and then attempts to make an arrest and bring about a prosecution. I do not believe that prosecution in these cases has any deterrent effect on other people.
  It cannot be argued that by catching one person in 100 the other 99 are deterred. It would be better not to have the offence on the statute book. The police should be encouraged to stop people attempting crime instead of ensnaring and catching someone committing an offence. I hope that the clause will be deleted.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Mayhew: I should be discourteous if I did not reply to an interesting debate.
  The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said that the working party was against the philosophy of the clause. However, paragraph 203 of its report shows that the working party proposed to keep "sus" on the statute book, albeit with qualifications. It is easy to determine whether the offence in clause 8 has been committed, since interference is a more overt and unambiguous act than anything that is required to establish the offence of "sus". That is the distinction. The working party proposed a modern language version of "sus" embracing all types of suspicious or antecedent conduct.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of the need to avoid overcrowding in prisons. It was misleading, no doubt unintentionally, to suggest that the Home Secretary had in
  246
  mind that the statute book should be amended so that magistrates should not be able, even in the most persistent or serious cases, to send people to prison when all non-custodial ways had been tried and had failed. We cannot carry our determination to reduce unnecessary overcrowding in prisons to the extent that would, in bad or persistent cases, deprive magistrates of the ultimate sanction of imprisonment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) made that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) hit it on the head when he said that there was no compulsion to send people to prison and that that would happen only in rare cases. It is right that the power should remain.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), who knows much about these matters, made an uncharacteristic mistake when he said that the burden of proving innocence would lie upon the accused person. That is not right. The prosecution does not have to show which of the three theft-related offences was intended but it must show that there was one. Magistrates will require that burden of proof to be discharged.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) spoke of the high proportion of "sus" cases established by the police evidence related to motor offences. That is why the gap must be filled with the offence contained in clause 8. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) thought it better to prevent crime than to put people in prison or secure convictions. He is right. The purpose of the clause is to create the offence of motor interference with the object of preventing the full offence of theft or taking and driving away.
  I am confident in urging my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government. The arguments adduced against clause 8 do not hold sufficient water to justify a contrary view. Clause 8 is established as an important clause, and it is important that it should remain in the Bill.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 155.

  Division No. 130]

  [10.18 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Howells, Geraint

  Anderson, Donald

  Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)

  Ashton, Joe

  John, Brynmor

  Atkinson, N(H'gey,)

  Jones, Dan(Burnley)

  Beith, A. J.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

  Lamond, James

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Leighton, Ronald

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

  Lewis, Ron(Carlisle)

  Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)

  Litherland, Robert

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

  Lyons, Edward(Bradf'd W)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  McCartney, Hugh

  Cartwright, John

  McElhone, Frank

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

  McGuire, Michael(Ince)

  Cook, Robin F.

  McKay, Allen(Penistone)

  Cowans, Harry

  McKelvey, William

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Cryer, Bob

  Marshall, Dr Edmund(Goole)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Maxton, John

  Cunningham, G.(Islington S)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

  Mitchell, R. C.(Soton Itchen)

  Deakins, Eric

  Morton, George

  Dempsey, James

  O'Neill, Martin

  Dixon, Donald

  Penhaligon, David

  Dormand, Jack

  Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)

  Douglas, Dick

  Prescott, John

  Dubs, Alfred

  Price, C.(Lewisham W)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Race, Reg

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Richardson, Jo

  Eastham, Ken

  Roberts, Albert(Normanton)

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

  Rooker, J. W.

  Ellis, Tom(Wrexham)

  Ross, Stephen(Isle of Wight)

  English, Michael

  Sever, John

  Evans, John(Newton)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Flannery, Martin

  Smith, Cyril(Rochdale)

  Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)

  Snape, Peter

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Soley, Clive

  Foster, Derek

  Steel, Rt Hon David

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

  Stoddart, David

  George, Bruce

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Golding, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann(Bolton W)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)

  Grant, George(Morpeth)

  Tinn, James

  Hamilton, James(Bothwell)

  Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

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

  Welsh, Michael

  Hardy, Peter

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Whitlock, William

  Haynes, Frank

  Woolmer, Kenneth

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

  Home Robertson, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Homewood, William

  Mr. Walter Harrison and Mr. Joseph Dean.

  Hooley, Frank

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Arnold, Tom

  Chapman, Sydney

  Aspinwall, Jack

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

  Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

  Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Benyon, Thomas(A'don)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Best, Keith

  Crouch, David

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Blackburn, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Dover, Denshore

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Bright, Graham

  Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

  Brinton, Tim

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Eyre, Reginald

  Brotherton, Michael

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Farr, John

  Buck, Antony

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Budgen, Nick

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Carlisle, John(Luton West)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  248

  Fraser, Peter(South Angus)

  Parris, Matthew

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Pawsey, James

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Pollock, Alexander

  Gorst, John

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Gow, Ian

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Greenway, Harry

  Rathbone, Tim

  Grieve, Percy

  Renton, Tim

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

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Griffiths, Peter(Portsm'th N)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Hawkins, Paul

  Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Roberts, Wyn(Conway)

  Heddle, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Henderson, Barry

  Shaw, Giles(Pudsey)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

  Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

  Holland, Philip(Carlton)

  Shelton, William(Streatham)

  Hooson, Tom

  Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

  Howell, Ralph(N Norfolk)

  Silvester, Fred

  Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)

  Sims, Roger

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Speed, Keith

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Speller, Tony

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Sproat, Iain

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Stainton, Keith

  Lang, Ian

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Stanley, John

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Stevens, Martin

  Lester, Jim(Beeston)

  Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)

  Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)

  Stewart, A(E Renfrewshire)

  Luce, Richard

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  MacGregor, John

  Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)

  Madel, David

  Townend, John(Bridlington)

  Major, John

  Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)

  Marlow, Tony

  Trippier, David

  Marten, Neil(Banbury)

  Trotter, Neville

  Mates, Michael

  van Straubenzee, W. R,

  Mather, Carol

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Viggers, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Waddington, David

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Wakeham, John

  Mellor, David

  Waller, Gary

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Ward, John

  Miller, Hal(B'grove)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mills, Iain(Meriden)

  Watson, John

  Moate, Roger

  Wells, Bowen

  Morgan, Geraint

  Wheeler, John

  Murphy, Christopher

  Wickenden, Keith

  Neale, Gerrard

  Wilkinson, John

  Needham, Richard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Nelson, Anthony

  Young, Sir George(Acton)

  Newton, Tony

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Normanton, Tom

  Onslow, Cranley

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Osborn, John

  Mr. John Cope and Mr. Donald Thompson

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G.(Crosby)

  Page, Richard(SW Herts)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendments made: No. 17, in page 5, line 12, leave out "in a public place".
  No. 18, in page 5, line 13, leave out "in such a place".—[Mr. Mayhew.]
  Amendment proposed: No. 4, in page 5, line 27. leave out from `to' to 'a' in line 28—[Mr. George Cunningham.]
  Question, That the amendment be made,put and negatived.
  Amendment made: No. 19, in page 5, line 36, leave out from '1972' to end of line 39.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

  Schedule
  Amendments made: No. 20, in page 7, leave out lines 12 to 14.
  No. 21, in page 7, leave out line 17.
  No. 22, in page 7, leave out lines 21 to 27.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

  Amendment made: No. 23, in title, line 8, leave out 'in public places'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

  Criminal Attempts Bill
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  10.31 pm
  Mr. Mayhew: This is a substantial Bill. It has brought about a codification and a clarification of the law of attempt. It has repealed the law of "sus". The Government are entitled to considerable credit for repealing the law, which has met with considerable criticism for a long time. We have filled a gap in an important respect with the new offence of motor interference. I believe that the public will be better protected than hitherto. This has been a useful operation.
  The Bill was considered in Committee in a useful way. I am grateful to my hon. Friends and to Labour Members for the way in which they dealt with the Bill. The Bill has been dealt with in quite a short time and I believe that it will be a useful addition to the statute book. I commend it to the House.
  10.32 pm
  Mr. George Cunningham: Much could be said about the Bill on Third Reading, but we shall say less than we should because we are impingeing on time for other business.
  Some things need to be said. The first is that the proceedings on the Bill are a vindication of the procedural reforms that have been introduced by the House in the last two years. The proposal to repeal "sus" has been successful because it was recommended almost unanimously by one of our new Select Committees. It was work that the old-style Select Committee could not have done under the rules of the House.
  Secondly, the complete reversal of the policy embraced in part 1 of the Bill also resulted from the new procedure of Special Standing Committees, which on this Bill was so successful and worked so well that it was not really necessary for either the Minister or the Opposition to say anything after the consideration of the business in Special Standing Committee. The taking of the evidence was proof in itself of the necessity to reverse the policy that the Home Office had previously adopted.
  The Home Office, if I could just have the attention of the Minister of State for a moment, should take on board the fact that after the time of the production of the Law
  250
  Commission report there was not that degree of consultation between the Home Office and the Law Commission about the Home Office's desired changes to the Law Commission draft that ought to have taken place. I feel confident that the Minister recognises that that was the case and that he will take steps to ensure that in future, when the Home Office wants—not to put too fine a point on it—to muck about with the careful draft of the Law Commission on a matter like this, it will at least have consultations with the Law Commission in advance. It is noticeable that when Sir Henry Skinner gave evidence to us upstairs he was emphatic that even if one agreed with the policy that the Home Office was trying to pursue the language that it had stumbled upon was language that did not achieve that objective. The substantial changes in the law of attempt as compared with the Home Office's first draft, and as compared with the law of attempt as it stands at the moment, are extremely important. Disputes continue about the law of attempt, whether or not on the words
  "more than a merely preparatory act",
  along with those on the issue of impossibility.
  By adopting the words
  "more than a merely preparatory act"
  we are finding a clean keel on which new barnacles can attach, rather than clearing away any possibility of barnacles attaching in the light of courts' decisions. All the old issues of stabbing dead corpses, and the like, might raise their heads again, despite the tidy formulae in the Bill.
  What was wrong with the offence of "sus" was that it permitted a person to be found guilty on the basis of acts that were too equivocal, that were susceptible to the interpretation of being innocent, and that subjected a person to trial not with the option of jury trial but before stipendiaries, as in London. If the law of "sus" had been properly tried always, it would not have been so bad as it turned out to be. The courts, as much as the law, let us down.
  There is no need for the new offence, about which we have spoken adequately. We hope that the House of Lords will have another look at it in Committee. However, let no one imagine that the new law of interference with a motor vehicle detracts from the enormous improvement of getting rid of "sus". The new offence is not the same as "sus". It has some of the disadvantages on a narrow front, but it has been greatly approved in Committee, not least as a result of the new procedure. We can congratulate ourselves on those changes that have been made. On that basis, and with those qualifications, we shall not oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third Time and passed.

  National Health Service (Dental and Optical Charges)
  10.37 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Dental and Optical Charges and Remission of Charges) Regulations 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 307), dated 2 March 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 March, be annulled.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): It will be for the convenience of the House if at the same time we take the other prayer:
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Dental and Optical Charges and Remission of Charges) (Scotland) Regulations 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 359), dated 2 March 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 March, be annulled.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I must frankly say that I am not too delighted to be moving a matter of some considerable importance in what will be a foreshortened debate. I warn the Minister that if it is his intention to come to the Dispatch Box and to give us his normal, rather smooth, but not tremendously straightforward, appreciation of the reasons that he is putting forward for increasing the charges, that will not be acceptable.
  The regulations are clear demonstrations of the attitude of the present Secretary of State and the Minister for Health and of the desire of the Conservatives to destroy the fabric of the National Health Service in any way they can. The Secretary of State thinks that that is not a defensible point of view. Let me tell him that when we look at the picture of change over the last two years, we can see certain clear facts.
  The Conservative Party does not have the guts to attack the National Health Service head on, so it ceases to provide the right conditions in which the majority of our population can receive good health care. When the Black report showed clearly that there were enormous discrepancies between one social class and another, the Government made it plain that one of the problems arose because the access to good dental care and to good care in the provision of glasses was also lacking.
  Why are we praying against these two inadequate sets of regulations? We may be told that the changes in the amounts are small and that there are so many exemptions that they cannot affect many people. The Government are good at tinkering with exemptions to make it look as if there has been some basic alteration, when they are trying to put off the majority of people from seeking proper health care when it is most needed. We ought to be talking tonight not only about the minor changes but about the political implications.
  Before the creation of proper ophthalmic services, it was quite common for working class families—and particularly working class mothers—to buy spectacles over the counter in a chain store. That is very easily forgotten, and I have the impression that the Government would rather like us to return to that sort of practice.
  There is at present a concentrated attack on the provision of proper ophthalmic services. One can enter on optician's premises in the High Street and have one's eyes properly tested by a qualified optician, and it is not always certain that spectacles will be prescribed. The optician has the early warning system at his command, so that, where
  252
  there is eye disease, he not only refers the patient to a consultant but is able in many instances to give some indication of the sort of problem that a patient is likely to face.
  That service would be materially changed if, by constantly moving away from that type of arrangement, and by changing the law, we encouraged large multinational companies to come into this country, making it easy for people to buy spectacles that are not specially prescribed for them.
  The Minister may say that that is ridiculous and is something that I have thought up. But there is clear evidence that American multinationals, which are keen to expand their services in in-store department store units, are most anxious to do away with many of the restrictions on the way they operate. They would like to be able to advertise whenever and however they wish. They would like to have a very large throughput of people buying spectacles without any great difficulty in a department store.
  Such practices would be entirely contrary to the sort of ophthalmic service that has been built up since the beginning of the National Health Service. The people who would be most damaged by that sort of change would be the ordinary families. People with a very high income never have difficulty in obtaining private health care. It is the people who are outside the exemption ranges but who are on a low income, who consequently cease to try to obtain for themselves proper spectacles or proper dental care.
  It is plain that in social classes 4 and 5 the general level of dental care, even now, is not the same as it is among social classes 1 and 2. That has been made evident time and time again.
  When the Government talk about a relationship of 75 to 25 between private health care and the National Health Service, they are really talking about lowering the standards. They are determined that the testing of eyes should go back to being a wholly commercial arrangement. They have not been prepared to increase the fee that is given to the opticians for carrying out proper eye tests. The sorts of changes the Government are suggesting will inevitably result in a reduction in use of the service.
  The Government should be considering ways of making the average optician's practice very much more balanced in terms of the work that he does. At present, the NHS work is a very large part of the optician's work but represents a very small part of his income. An increase in charges will not encourage people to go to the optician with greater frequency. What is far more likely to happen is that in the future there will be a positive move—we see it already in many newspapers and in women's magazines—towards propaganda for reduced eye care under the National Health Service.
  If we return to a situation in which one can go into a department store and buy over the counter by self-selection what is really a very large twin magnifier, we shall not be providing proper health care for our people. As usual under this Government, we shall simply be seeking to create a two-tier system in which those who have the money can obtain proper health care while those who have not are dissuaded in every possible way from seeking help at the moment when it is most desperately needed.
  What goes for ophthalmology certainly also goes for dentistry. There is absolutely no indication that the Government are seeking to deal with the provision of

  253
  dentistry or to encourage dentists to undertake a greater proportion of National Health Service work. In some regions, such as my own in the North-West, there are considerable gaps in provision and many people have great difficulty when they wish to go to a National Health Service dentist. That will certainly not be changed by the price increases before the House tonight.
  We should be asking the House to throw out both sets of regulations. Before the Minister intervenes, I should say that this is not because of some political hang-up about prescription charges. On a day on which he has had the effrontery to announce, almost as an aside, that in future prescription charges are to rise in line with inflation, he can hardly suggest that it is the Opposition who have a hang-up about prescription charges. We oppose the regulations because we believe that they demonstrate an attitude by the Conservatives that is inimical to good health care. The Government are not interested in providing a service free at the point of use when it is most needed.
  Mr. John Major: Will the hon. Lady explain to the House how the Government can be damaging the National Health Service and at the same time providing more money for it in real terms?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, when one considers the amount of money provided in the new allocations, despite the brave words of the Secretary of State today, because of the changes taking place in the population what is really occurring is a drop in the level of provision. If he has not noticed that, I can only say that he has not been looking at what is actually happening.
  Both sets of regulations clearly demonstrate the attitude of the Conservatives. They think that if one has a privileged income and is capable of paying for good health care, one should enjoy a high standard of care. If, however, one is outside one or two very small means-tested groups, one should be dissuaded from going for proper care, either to the dentist or to those who would supply one with proper spectacles.
  We shall be taking very positive action if we throw out these sets of regulations which lower the standards of care available to the majority of our people.
  10.48 pm
  The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): I have listened with great care to what the hon. Lady, the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) has said. I do not think that she has distinguished herself this evening. I believe that she will come to regret her speech. Much of what she said was either irrelevant or misinformed.
  Of course the Government are concerned to see higher standards—indeed, the highest standards—for dental and optical care in this country. I cannot believe that the dental profession or the optical profession, both of which have very high professional standards, will feel much flattered by what the hon. Lady has said. The Government wish to have a viable, flourishing National Health Service. We are very proud of the National Health Service. I shall explain to the hon. Lady how the Government have restored morale in the National Health Service, and how we have reversed the trend under the previous Government, when waiting lists went up every year. We have now reduced them by more than 111,000. I should also like to explain
  254
  how we have increased in real cash terms the amount being spent on the NHS, because the hon. Lady does not seem to be able to do her arithmetic. There has been a 46 per cent. increase since 1979.
  Mrs. Dunwoody rose——
  Dr. Vaughan: I shall not give way. The hon. Lady did no credit to herself or the Opposition.
  I never cease to be amazed at the hyprocrisy of the Labour Party's policy on health charges, prescription charges and dental charges. In Opposition, Labour Members regularly say that they will abolish charges, yet they know that it was they who introduced them, and subsequently reintroduced them. In 1974, the Labour Party manifesto stated clearly that they would abolish all charges. Not only did they continue them, but within a few years of coming into office the had increased dental charges three times.
  I have with me a host of speeches made by previous Labour Ministers—I shall not weary the House by going through them—each of which says that the charges must be continued. They run right through from Kenneth Robinson and Richard Crossman to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) who was then Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. He made what he thought was a splendid speech on 3 February 1976 in which he said that there was no question of removing charges, and that they were necessary for the running of the Health Service.
  On 21 July 1969, when charges were going up, Richard Crossman said:
  "This is an increase in charge which is an adjustment of charge to cost".—[Official Report, 21 July 1969; Vol. 787, c. 1393.]
  That is what we are doing. We are increasing the charges to fit in with the increassed cost of the Service. As we announced in the public expenditure White Paper, if necessary these will now be increased annually as the costs vary within the Service.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Vaughan: No, because I do not have much time. Before we have any more speeches of the kind to which we have just listened, it may be helpful if I explain briefly the changes which the regulations are designed to make.
  The changes in the Scottish regulations are identical to those for England and Wales. The main reason for these two sets of regulations is to provide for increases in charges for dental treatment and dentures, and for spectacle lenses, to take effect from 1 April. This is the first increase in charges for ophthalmic services introduced by this Government. One other change effective from 1 April is the modification of the age exemptions from dental and optical charges.
  Opposition Members will remember that when we debated the Health Services Act last year, there was a good deal of discussion about this. The dental profession said that we should alter the ages to include people at school and full-time students under the age of 19. That we are doing. Because of that Act, these regulations are necessary to provide for two small consequential amendments.
  The Government's general policy on Health Service charges has always been that in suitable cases, and where the user can afford it, he should bear a reasonable amount of the cost of the Service. Moreover, we take the view that charges should keep pace with the rising costs of providing

  255
  these services. That was spelt out in the recent White Paper on public expenditure. In deciding to increase charges in order to maintain and develop services I am sure that we have made the right choice.
  The hon. Member for Crewe did not refer to any of the details. Of course, we recognise that there are groups of people who cannot afford to pay these charges. It is very much part of Conservative policy and philosophy that where people are unable to meet the charges there should be exemptions. I refer, for example, to the case of children—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I note that those cries came from this side of the House.
  I turn to the subject of dental charges. These regulations increase the maximum cost of a routine course of treatment from £8 to £9. A full set of resin dentures will go up from £30 to £33 and a crown will go up from £18 to £20. By any standard, those increases are modest and reflect merely the rising cost of providing general dental services. The most important charge for the majority of patients who pay for their dental treatment is the maximum for an ordinary course of treatment. The new charge for this has deliberately been kept as low as possible.
  As hon. Members may know, more than 60 per cent. of all courses of dental treatment are provided free of charge I should remind hon. Members that, for example, a check-up is free for everyone. In addition, the figure of £9 for routine treatment is not a basic but a maximum charge. Many patients pay less. In 1981–82 dental charges are expected to raise an additional £24 million over the revenue yield in 1980–81. The total revenue from dental charges will be about 25 per cent. of the gross costs of the general dental service. At present that is £464 million. Patients contribute £116 million.
  I turn to the subject of optical charges. These increases represent the first changes since 1977. We have not increased the charge for the cheapest ordinary lens, which will remain at £2·90. There has been only a small increase in the other charge for single-vision lenses. The majority of National Health Service patients—over three-quarters of them—have single-vision lenses. Together with the most popular NHS frame, a complete pair of glasses with single-vision lenses will still cost the patient less than £10.
  The charges for bifocal lenses have been increased by a slightly greater amount than those for the ordinary single-vision lenses, with the price of the most expensive lens increasing from £6·15 to £8·30. However, I remind the House that the majority of bifocal wearers—if they did not have bifocal lenses—would have to have two pairs of ordinary single-vision spectacles. As I said, there are arrangements for exemption from charges for children and for help with the charges for those on low incomes.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose——
  Dr. Vaughan: I shall not give way, as this is a short debate. The sight test is still free to patients, so nobody who thinks that he needs glasses should be deterred from consulting an optician on the ground of cost.
  The increases in charges will yield about £4·5 million. The total revenue from charges should represent about 29 per cent. of the gross costs of the general ophthalmic services. At present, the gross cost is just over £128 million and the charges yield about £38 million.
  I have referred to the changes in the age exemptions from both dental and optical charges. The main changes, which were contained in the Health Services Act 1980,
  256
  lower the upper age limit for free dental treatment from 21 to 18. They allow free dentures to all full-time students under the age of 19 and they extend free glasses, in the children's range, to all full-time students until they reach the age of 19. These changes were fully debated before the Act received Royal Assent in August 1980.
  In conclusion, we believe that it is right to keep the charges in line with the cost of providing the services. I have no apology to make for the modest increases that we have been discussing.
  10.59 pm
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I differ from the hon. Gentleman in all that he said. We do not have time to debate the whole of his case, but I am willing to discuss his facts at any time. For example, he said that the Labour Party first introduced the Health Service charges. They were first introduced by the late lain Macleod, in the Conservative Government of 1951, when the Labour Party voted against them solidly and the late Hilary Marquand made a pledge to abolish them at that time.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend forgets Roy Jenkins.
  Mr. Pavitt: I wish to concentrate entirely upon the dental section of these disastrous regulations. The Minister did not say that the whole of the dental profession was opposed to the charges and the increases.
  Mr. Lewis: I was here and I know. It was Mr. Gaitskell, ably supported by Mr. Roy Jenkins—who was then angling for position—who introduced the charges, and the Social Democrats are now supporting Mr. Jenkins.
  Mr. Pavitt: My hon. Friend is partly correct, but not wholly. He is correct in saying that three senior Ministers resigned over the empowering to charge carried out by Mr. Hugh Gaitskell, but we lost the Government before it became operative. The late Mr. Iain Macleod put the Act into operation. I do not want to go over the history.
  The consequence of the regulations will be that the charges will mean the deferment of treatment, an increase in oral disease, much more treatment and far less prevention. The taxpayer is already paying £300 million for his dental services. As a result of the increases 18 months ago already there are whole areas of the country where NHS dental treatment is not available. There are items in respect of which the dentist will not give treatment under the NHS but will charge for it. The dentist has the option either to give NHS treatment or to charge for each of his patients.
  One of the consequences has been the report that the hon. Gentleman received from the citizens advice bureaux, giving facts and figures. What reply has he sent? What reply has he sent to a similar report that he has received from the National Association of Community Health Councils, showing the falling availability of NHS treatment?
  The Minister explained that regulations mean a reduction from the present situation of free treatment up to 21 years. I congratulate the British Dental Association on the negotiations that it had with the hon. Gentleman. The original proposal was to reduce the age to 16. At least it has now been raised to 18 years. Nevertheless, that still means that many people from the age of 19 onwards who should receive treatment will not get it.

  257
  My main concern is about the raising of the charge from £54 to £60. I sometimes wonder whether the Government have any regard for the elderly. The hon. Gentleman knows that the total number of treatments has increased each year, but if he makes an analysis of where they have increased and where they have decreased he will find that the charges have affected the elderly more than any other section of the community. Current teaching of dental students demands that as the mouth shrinks after the age of 60 fresh dentures should be fitted, but because dentists are refusing to treat under the NHS and are charging privately it means that a series of treatments and particularly a change for dentures for the elderly are not being taken up. The shame of a person whose dentures do not fit means loneliness for the elderly. He does not go out, because he is frightened that his teeth may fall out at the Derby and Joan club and he is frightened of the shame that he will feel because of that. He is aware of speech impediment caused by ill-fitting false teeth.
  The order is a disaster for dental treatment for the elderly. The Government's policy of returning to the market place and the power of the purse affects dental care more than the other section of the National Health Service with which they have been dealing. The basic concept of the NHS that all treatment should be given on clinical need and not on the power of the purse has been eroded. That has been eroded in the hospital service, but not so much in the general dental service. Despite the increase to 1,200 beds in the private sector in London, compared with the impact on the dental services, it is not on the same proportion.
  Practically every member of the community at some time or other calls on the dental services. But there is now the possibility of there being no NHS dental practice available in a few years, because it has been declining at a fantastic rate in the past two or three years. All general dental practitioner services will be for payment by the patient. The tragedy is that in 20 years we could eradicate diseases that affect the mouth. Yet, in order to save £24 million today, we shall give the Chancellor of the Exchequer a much larger burden in 10 years.
  The Government have a deplorable record. They say that they are thinking of an improved and enhanced NHS, but while we differentiate between first-class citizens who pay for and receive treatment and second-class citizens to whom treatment is denied because they cannot afford it, the Government cannot claim to have any understanding or compassion, or to know what the National Health Service is about.
  11.6 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: In debates such as this, one knows, almost as soon as he gets to his feet, whether the Minister has a good or a bad case for the regulations. When the Minister abuses the Opposition and claims as the excuse for increasing charges that the Labour Government introduced the enabling legislation, one has the feeling that he is somewhat shamefaced about the charges that he is proposing. The Minister claimed that the increased charges, in gross terms, were modest.
  I suggest that the Minister might almost have an arguable case if these were the only charges being increased by the Government, but since they came to office they have increased prescription charges, and in
  258
  every aspect of social policy they have increased charges across the board. One might imagine that the Government felt that earnings were increasing at such a fantastic rate that people could afford to meet the increased charges because the general costs that they had to meet were taken care of.
  The Minister cannot take these regulations in isolation from what is happening generally. He cannot brush aside as not worth mentioning the fact that rents, rates, bus fares, gas prices, and so on, are being forced up. All these factors affect pensioners.
  Mr. James Lamond: National insurance contributions are going up.
  Mr. Hughes: National insurance contributions are going up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) reminds me. All these factors add up to a considerable sacrifice being made by ordinary people. The Minister knows that. Remissions of charges do not excuse these increases.
  There are 2½ million people out of work. Those people depend on social security or unemployment benefit. Many may not be receiving benefit at all because of the regulations.
  The Government are mean and petty. They claim to have paid pensioners 1 per cent. too much last year, and they will not give them the proper increase this year. The Government are saying "We gave a single pensioner 25p a week too much and we gave married pensioners 40p a week too much." It is sheer hypocrisy to say that they are compassionate because they are exempting certain people from these increases. I cannot understand how the Minister can claim that there is an air of hypocrisy on the part of the Opposition in seeking to reject these increases. The fact that charges were increased by Hugh Gaitskell and Dick Crossman does not make these increases right. If the Minister had a sound argument he would defend these increases on their merits, and not make remarks about what happened in the past.
  The Minister said that these charges would go up annually, as costs rose, but he has not told us this evening how much they will go up, and I suspect that next year he will bring forward regulations providing for much bigger increases than this, because the Government are in total disarray in terms of their social and economic policy.
  I shall certainly vote against the regulations. I have no hesitation in saying that the increased charges that they provide for will be a burden on poor people in our society. Many people feel that they cannot afford proper optical treatment or dental treatment. It may be that to the right hon. Gentleman, as a Minister, £8, £9, £20, and so on, are minimal sums, to be considered as trifles. he has no idea how ordinary people are living and struggling to survive in the kind of climate and disorder that he and his Government are creating.
  I shall certainly oppose them with all the energy at my command.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I believe that I am right in saying that I am one of the two hon. Members present—my right hon. Friend Leader of the Opposition is the other—who were here when the Bill was first introduced and I believe that we are the only two now who voted against the charges. I well recollect—and I agree that it is regrettable that it was the Labour Party that did it—that then the Treasury, always the adviser of all

  259
  Governments and wanting to get its hands on this money, said that it was temporary. It is nothing to smile about, because we are taxing the sick; they are being taxed by well-heeled people sitting in this place—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Speak for yourself."] I am speaking for myself and speaking for all of us, and the poor, the sick and the infirm. Believe me, there is no man or woman in Britain that I know of who goes to the dentist to have all his teeth pulled out because he likes to do so. In fact, I do not know of anybody who gets spectacles because he likes doing it. They go because they are medically advised to do it and they have to do it.
  If a man drops down dead we do not ask for the medical fees to be paid or where the money is to come from. If a person is sick outside in the street, do we ask him to pay for medical attention?
  I heard the Minister say that of of course the Government are in favour of the Health Service. What a load of tripe. They voted against both the Second and Third Reading and the introduction of the Bill. Hon. Members know what that means. They are against the principle of the Bill. They were against the Second Reading and the Third Reading and they have never been in favour of a free Health Service.
  In The International Year of Disabled People the Government are shedding crocodile tears. Let us see to it that when a person is sick or disabled we give him the best treatment we can and do not worry about the cost. There are plenty of other ways of finding the money.
  The right hon. Member may smile, but I say that if he is a Christian gentleman, if he really believes that we should help the sick and the disabled, we should not charge for treatment of this sort. I do not know of any man or woman who would have his or her teeth all drawn out or who would have spectacles because it was cheap.
  This is the wickedest thing that any Government have done. I say it in 1981 as I said it in 1951. It was wrong of Mr. Gaitskell, ably supported by Mr. Roy Jenkins. He was well up in front, that man who says he is in favour of an incomes policy—an incomes policy for others but not for himself. If the Government want some money, they should tax these people. A quarter of a million pounds—there is a nice little bit that would help; let the Government stop some of that.
  It is a shocking business and I think all those on the Government Front Bench ought to be ashamed of themselves.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I did not intend to make a speech. I hoped that the Minister would allow me to make a brief intervention to press him on the question of exemptions. His whole case rested on the argument that people in need were entitled to exemptions. I suggest to him that that does not happen.
  A substantial number of people are put off from applying to use the services because they believe that it will cost them money, even though they are entitled to exemptions. What is the Minister doing to make sure that those people particularly those who have recently come on to benefit because they are unemployed, disabled or sick, are aware of the exemptions to which they are entitled?
  Is the Minister certain that all who are entitled to exemptions are benefiting from them at the point when they apply for the service? Is he certain that the people who operate the service are aware of the entitlement to
  260
  exemption? The impression I have been given from several constituents is that when they have been to the dentist or optician they have not been given accurate information by the dentist or optician, or by the receptionist, as to their entitlement, or they have been told to ask somewhere else. Some people do not pursue that and so they do not get the exemption to which they are entitled.
  Is the Minister satisfied that everyone who should be getting an exemption is getting one? Has the number of people classified as exempt changed over the past 12 months in view of the changing economic circumstances? Will the Minster assure the House that his Department will run a campaign to ensure that all who are entitled gel an exemption?
  How much does it cost to administer the exemption arrangements? The last time I talked to the people in Stockport about it they said that it was very costly to check whether people were entitled to exemption. How far is that process necessary? Would a lot of money be saved by going to the "free" principle, rather than having a system in which some people are entitled to benefit and some are not?
  Dr. Vaughan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. He has raised a very important point to which we have given a good deal of attention. A revised version of last year's award-winning leaflet on dental treatment is available through the post offices. There is a long list of other organisations and offices through which it is available. I will look into the way in which information is provided to people.
  As to any possible deterrent effect, the number of dental treatments has gone up steadily, from 20 million in 1970 to 30 million in the last year. There has been no sign of any falling off in the amount of dental care.
  Mr. Bennett: I am glad that the leaflet won an award, but I wonder how far it achieves the desired results, Some of my constituents find it extremely difficult to read anything, let alone a leaflet. Very often they are the people who most need the benefit.
  It is important that it should be understood in popular folklore what people are entitled to. Many of my constituents believe the popular folklore that it is expensive to go to the optician or the dentist. That is what the Minister must get over if he is to be sure that all the people in need get the service that they should have.
  Question put:—
  The House divided, Ayes 77, Noes 136.

  Division No. 131]

  [11.18 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Dormand, Jack

  Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

  Douglas, Dick

  Beith, A. J.

  Dubs, Alfred

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

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

  Eastham, Ken

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

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

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

  English, Michael

  Cowans, Harry

  Flannery, Martin

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Foster, Derek

  Cryer, Bob

  George, Bruce

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Golding, John

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

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

  Deakins, Eric

  Hardy, Peter

  Dean, Joseph(Leeds West)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Dempsey, James

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

  Dixon, Donald

  Home Robertson, John

  261

  Homewood, William

  Prescott, John

  Hooley, Frank

  Price, C.(Lewisham W)

  Howells, Geraint

  Richardson, Jo

  Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)

  Roberts, Albert(Normanton)

  Lamond, James

  Robinson, G.(Coventry NW)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Ross, Stephen(Isle of Wight)

  Lewis, Arthur(N'ham NW)

  Sever, John

  Lewis, Ron(Carlisle)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Litherland, Robert

  Smith, Cyril(Rochdale)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Snape, Peter

  McElhone, Frank

  Soley, Clive

  McKay, Allen(Penistone)

  Stoddart, David

  McKelvey, William

  Tinn, James

  McNamara, Kevin

  Welsh, Michael

  Maxton, John

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mikardo, Ian

  Whitlock, William

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wilson, Gordon(Dundee E)

  Mitchell, R. C.(Soton Itchen)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Penhaligon, David

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. George Morton

  Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Arnold, Tom

  Crouch, David

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Dover, Denshore

  Benyon, Thomas(A'don)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Best, Keith

  Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Blackburn, John

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Brinton, Tim

  Farr, John

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Brotherton, Michael

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Buck, Antony

  Fraser, Peter(South Angus)

  Budgen, Nick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Gorst, John

  Carlisle, John(Luton West)

  Gow, Ian

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Grieve, Percy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Griffiths, Peter(Portsm'th N)

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

  Hawkins, Paul

  Clegg, SirWalter

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cope, John

  Heddle, John

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Henderson, Barry

  Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Holland, Philip(Carlton)

  Renton, Tim

  Hooson, Tom

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Roberts, Wyn(Conway)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Shaw, Giles(Pudsey)

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Shelton, William(Streatham)

  Lang, Ian

  Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Lester, Jim(Beeston)

  Speed, Keith

  Lloyd, Ian(Havant & W'loo)

  Speller, Tony

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Sproat, Iain

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  MacGregor, John

  Stevens, Martin

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)

  Madel, David

  Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

  Major, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Marlow, Tony

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Thompson, Donald

  Mather, Carol

  Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Trippier, David

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Trotter, Neville

  Mellor, David

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Miller, Hal(B'grove)

  Viggers, Peter

  Mills, Iain(Meriden)

  Waddington, David

  Moate, Roger

  Wakeham, John

  Morgan, Geraint

  Waller, Gary

  Murphy, Christopher

  Ward, John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Warren, Kenneth

  Needham, Richard

  Watson, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wells, Bowen

  Newton, Tony

  Wheeler, John

  Normanton, Tom

  Wickenden, Keith

  Onslow, Cranley

  Wilkinson, John

  Osborn, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G.(Crosby)

  Young, Sir George(Acton)

  Page, Richard(SW Herts)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Parris, Matthew

  Pawsey, James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pollock, Alexander

  Mr. Selwyn Gummer and Mr. Alastair Goodlad.

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Rate Support Grant (Rugby)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Newton.]
  11.31 pm
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey: My main purpose in this short Adjournment debate is to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to the severe financial and political anomalies in the new system of distributing rate support grant, particularly as it affects district councils, and to ask him to take action to correct a series of unforeseen but penal injustices.
  No one—least of all myself—doubts the gross inefficiencies in measuring need and resources under the old system, when high spenders were perpetually rewarded and encouraged in their profligacy while the quality of local services and the wishes of their paymasters—the ratepayers—were consistently ignored.
  Here it may be appropriate to mention the Rugby borough council. Rugby is a Conservative-controlled authority, which prides itself, with considerable justification, on its good housekeeping. For example, since reorganisation in 1974–75, the total rate increase has amounted to 36·12 per cent. That is well under the rate of inflation, and must be one of the lowest levels of increase anywhere in the United Kingdom.
  Perhaps the best way to highlight the Rugby borough council's performance is to compare it with a neighbouring local authority—the Nuneaton borough council. Nuneaton has a population of about 110,000, while Rugby's population is 85,000. Rugby has 600 employees, and has reduced its staff by over 40 during the past 12 months. Nuneaton has 1,200 employees, and has made no reductions. Nuneaton's total rate increase since 1974–75 in almost 100 per cent.—about three times the Rugby figure. Rugby has consistently tried to work within the guidelines established by various Governments, but it is now being penalised for its pains, while its free-spending neighbour gets a metaphorical and financial pat on the back.
  I blow my district council's trumpet not merely because I was once deputy leader. My constituency, with its excellent labour relations and highly skilled work force, allied to its geographical situation, is, to quote the borough council's slogan:
  "In the middle, where it matters".
  The strength of its work force has never been seen to better advantage than today. I mention that specifically because of the admirable order received by the GEC of about £600 million, the largest export order ever—a great tribute to Rugby. The new industrial estates under construction in Rugby, together with its stable rate, make my constituency very attractive to business. However, the debate is about rates and not excellence, so I shall end the commercial and turn to the matter in hand.
  The need for an improved system for distributing grant aid from the Government to local authorities has been acknowledged for many years. I had hopes that the provisions of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Act 1980 would be an improvement, but the new system has produced results completely contrary to what I and many other hon. Members anticipated, and certainly contrary to the objectives of the system. I appreciate that
  264
  there may be teething problems in the early stages of any system, but the problems affecting this system are more than transitional. They are not merely teething troubles for district councils. Block grant has become a benevolent despot. In theory, the system appears fine; in practice, it has led to a series of unforeseen and heavy penalties for district councils. I wish to champion their cause. It is no accident that this is the second of such debates in the past two or three weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) introduced a debate concerning his district council in the Vale of White Horse.
  I apologise for the inevitable technicalities of the debate. I am told that only three people in the country understand the block grant: one has died, one has gone mad, and the third lives in Marsham Street. It was with trepidation that I attempted to follow the Department of Environment report on local government finance. However, while the mechanisms may be obscure, the consequences for the ratepayers of Rugby are only too obvious. I do not wish to be parochial, but the difficulties that beset my constituency and borough council are reflected among district councils generally.
  First, I am concerned about the new provisions for the cost of collecting the rate. The amendment to the penny rate product rules dictates that the district council must now shoulder all the costs of the collection service. Since my district council provides the staff for the service, in the interests of economy and efficiency it should also have some of the responsibility, but it is difficult to justify to ratepayers why the district rate has increased by 11 per cent. or 1½p when there has been no change in services. and the precepting county council gets its rate income free of charge. Surely that is less of a responsibility and more of a burden.
  I accept that ratepayers have to pay the cost of collection whichever authority collects, but why should the costs lie where they fall when it is so grossly unfair? Furthermore, should there be a change in the political control of the Warwickshire county council following the elections in May, it is quite possible that the new council, if it is Labour-controlled, will levy a supplementary precept. That would mean that the five district councils in Warwickshire would be involved in finding an additional £100,000. That is £100,000 that has not been budgeted for but that they will be obliged by law to collect.
  Secondly, I turn to local contributions to rate and disability rebates, which are now to be paid for directly by the district council. These are established by statute on the basis of income allowances and the size of the rate bill. As the county council controls about 90 per cent. of the total rate bill by virtue of having the largest precept, we at district level face the task of having to extract from our ratepayers not a local contribution but a burden of subsidy towards a service over which we have negligible control and where we can be held financially responsible for the actions of another authority. That, effectively, is taxation without representation.
  The amounts involved are not small. For my local authority, after Government grant of about 90 per cent., the cost to be met in 1981–82 is estimated to be about £67,000—the equivalent of a halfpenny rate. I find it remarkable that, while charity relief under the provisions of section 40 of the General Rate Act 1967 is to be treated as a loss on collection and shared between the two

  265
  authorities in proportion to their share of the total rate income, that will not apply to rebate, and the cost remains with the district council alone.
  I submit that rate collection at district level is fast becoming a Pilgrim's Progress, with no salvation in sight. Does the system seem any simpler or more equitable than the one that it replaced? My ratepayers and I, and, I suspect, many other ratepayers throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, doubt it.
  Thirdly, the grant-related expenditure assessment calculations—or GREs as they are fondly known to the rate buffs in the House—are in theory a vast improvement on the old system, but they are causing far greater problems than could be attributed to the teething troubles of any new system. The means of assessing needs and measuring resources under the previous system was arbitrary and complex, and because of its links with spending it penalised economy-minded local authorities. My district council and county council fall very much into that category. On the other hand, the new block grant system was announced as a radical, fair and, above all, understandable system, which attempted to break the link with spending by setting up an objective assessment for needs related to resources.
  I and many others in the House welcomed the new proposals and accepted that there would be some difficulties associated with changes in grant distribution. However, the practical operation of the new system causes me a great deal of concern. For a start, perhaps my hon. Friend will explain why the assessment of GREs per head of population in non-metropolitan district councils varies nationally by about 232 per cent., from about £24 in mid-Bedfordshire to £80 in Portsmouth. Within my own county of Warwickshire the variation is over 60 per cent.—from £30 to £49. This wide variation causes me to question the equity of a system that can produce such wide differentials.
  My initial reaction to the data set out in appendices 1 to 3 of annex J of the report is that the original objective of having a simpler, more open and fairer system is completely negated, because the method of assessment requires no fewer than 19 pages of the report and a 30 page document from the Department. Even the district council requires two full pages of computer calculations to get reasonably close to the figures. That is some simplicity!
  For an illustration, I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to one area of grant-related expenditure that is particularly crucial to district councils. I refer to the housing revenue account. The assessment of GREs rightly does not seek to decide how a local authority chooses to split the housing costs between tenants and ratepayers. Instead, it takes average regional rents as a yardstick and calculates a national housing revenue account on that basis. What has happened in practice?
  In Rugby, for example, it has been the policy of the district council to fix rents at a level necessary to balance the housing budget with only statutory contributions from the rate fund. However, because the GREs are calculated on a West Midlands regional rent level, in Rugby we have lost about £309,000. That is a substantial sum for a relatively small district council. That loss has been made although my district council has always operated a wholly realistic and economic rent policy. That policy has been in operation since 1974. It is completely in accordance
  266
  with Conservative principles and has kept our rents lower than the national average, not through subsidy but purely through good housekeeping. Rugby borough council is an authority that prides itself on its good housekeeping.
  Rugby has therefore been penalised, although we have made no discretionary contributions to the housing revenue account, although we have kept rents at a reasonable level by avoiding any extravagant expenditure and have kept our rates increase for the coming financial year to only one-third more than that set in 1974–75, despite a wage and salary inflation of about 200 per cent. during that period. That is a measure of Rugby's success.
  When I consider other authorities in Warwickshire that have subsidised their rents with large rate fund contributions, I find that the GRE assessment has rewarded them for what I and many other Conservatives regard as sheer local government malpractice. The national housing revenue account formula seems to assume that simply because our rents are low we are automatically the culprits of some form of subsidy. A glance at our rate record instantly shows that that is untrue.
  The irony of the whole system is that if Rugby had been included in the East Midlands, as it often is, our rents would be higher than the regional average, and no deduction would have been made from the rent-related assessment. The laws of arithmetic must conform to the artificialities of geography, whilst the pure laws of economics have been thrown to one side. Surely it was not the intention of block grant to produce such an obvious anomaly.
  I ask my hon. Friend to consider those three points. It comes hard to a district council such as mine, which has struggled against unjust grant distribution systems, to find that by default it is the victim of a new system administered by its political friends. To my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, this is a cry for help and understanding, and one that I hope will receive my hon. Friend's consideration and, more to the point, his help.
  11.49 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) on the clear and cogent way in which he has put his case before the House this evening. It is not surprising that such a diligent Member should be acting on behalf of his constituents, at this late hour of the night, here in the middle where it counts. If I am not able to deal with all the matters that he has raised, I assure him that I shall write to him on the matters for which time may not permit an answer.
  I preface my remarks by congratulating the borough council of Rugby on the steps which it is taking to reduce its expenditure in the present climate. My hon. Friend referred to staff reductions made by the council during the course of the last year. This is a good start and I hope that the trend will continue.
  I also understand that the council is budgeting to spend in the coming year at slightly below the current expenditure target which was sent to it in January by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My colleagues and I are very well aware of the difficult decisions which are always involved in a policy of that kind. There is criticism in the council chamber. There is criticism in the local press. It takes courage and persistence to follow through such policies, so I warmly welcome the borough council's response to our calls for economy. It is indeed, as my hon.

  267
  Friend said, a good housekeeper. I hope, therefore, that it will receive the support from the ratepayers and voters of the borough that it deserves, and in whose interest its Member is raising this matter here tonight.
  However, my hon. Friend has called for this debate in order to focus on the block grant entitlement of the Rugby borough council, among other things, and that is the topic to which the main burden of his remarks was directed. I appreciate that the people of Rugby feel that they have done badly in this year's RSG settlement, and with an estimated grant loss for the borough equivalent to a 3·8p rate, I can well understand its point of view. But I must put that loss into perspective. In the first year of a new set of grant arrangements, there is inevitably a certain amount of readjustment of the way grant is allocated. But in the case of Warwickshire one of those adjustments has been a simple shift of grant between the district councils and the county council.
  Up till 1979–80 the whole of the needs element allocated to shire areas was paid to the county councils. It is only in the last two years that the Government have reallocated some of the money to the districts within each county. For the district councils this has been a windfall. Many have actually been able to cut their rates. In the case of Rugby, its grant gain was worth virtually £1 million, and the borough council was able to cut its local rate by a fifth as a result. But it has always been evident that the way in which the grant has been split was not fully satisfactory, and would have to be looked at again before very long. In the event, it has fallen to this Government to carry out the necessary review, to introduce a proper assessment of spending needs, and to correct at least some of the anomalies, although my hon. Friend feels that it has credited others.
  In Warwickshire, one of the effects of this has been to transfer some of that grant windfall back to the county council. Indeed, taken together with various other realignments in this year's settlement, Warwickshire county council has received a very substantial increase in its rate support grant, equivalent to a rate of 5·2p in the pound. So far as the ratepayers of Rugby are concerned, it is of couse, the combined effect of the grant settlement on both tiers of local government which matters, since they pay rates to both county and borough.
  My hon. Friend referred to Nuneaton as an example of an authority which appears to be rewarded by block grant for its "extravagant" housing expenditure in the past. Perhaps I might be allowed to tell the House that the average level of rents in Nuneaton during 1980–81 was £7·91 a week—which is actually above the regional average. Block grant assumes no more than that authorities below the average are in a position to adopt the course now open to them of increasing their rents to the average level—which, by definition, is already exceeded by half the authorities in the region.
  My hon. Friend referred to the change in the rate product rules, under which county councils will no longer contribute towards the districts' expenses in collecting their rate income. This change has been introduced in order to place the responsibility for the economical management of rate collection firmly with the rating authority which collects the rates. Generally speaking, it is it alone which can influence and regulate how efficiently and cheaply the rates are collected. I accept that there may be times when the county authorities will impose additional burdens on the rating authority by levying a
  268
  supplementary rate part way through the year. This possibility was raised in our discussions with the local authority associations, and we have left open the question of what terms the county and district councils might agree upon in those circumstances.
  I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks. If the traditional relationship between district and county is abused, and if there are onerous and unexpected transfers for collection on to the district authorities—the rate-collection authorities—I think that we would have to reconsider this matter in consultation with the district associations.
  Similar arguments apply to the residual cost of rate and disability rebates. In future, the local contribution will count as the expenditure of the rating authority and will qualify for block grant. Again, only the rating authority has discretion to vary the rebate scheme which is adopted in its area by granting an enhanced level of rebates to its own ratepayers. I accept that these changes will add to the borough's own local rate. I assure my hon. Friend that this has been taken into account in the block grant and that in both cases there should also be offsetting savings to the county rate.
  This brings me to the question of assessing spending needs—the grant-related expenditures. The House is very familiar now with the GREs. Yet I fear that there is still misunderstanding in some quarters that they somehow represent a target, or a Department of the Environment view of what every council ought to be spending. Yet we have repeatedly emphasised that the GREs are simply a reference point for distributing grant and do not: detract from authorities' freedom to take their own decisions about both the total and the composition of their spending. My hon. Friend criticised the new grant arrangements for being complex, and I must agree. I do not think that I am one of the three persons to whom he referred. I can only say that it seemed to me that the number of factors listed in annex J of the rate support grant report was important evidence of our attempts to be as fair as possible to all types of authority. Fairness, inevitably but regrettably, involves a degree of complexity.
  What we have tried to do is to put our assessment of districts' spending need for grant purposes on to a proper objective basis for the first time, in place of the crude and temporary arrangements which we inherited. Of course, for shire districts housing is a key component of their spending, and we have had to devise a way of representing housing in the GREs. My hon. Friend has criticised the results that we have obtained. I realise, too, that Rugby and a number of other housing authorities have strongly objected that it is quite unrealistic to present them with a GRE assessment which assumes a surplus on their housing accounts and to penalise them if they do not achieve it. I accept that the technicalities are not easy to follow, but I hope that my hon. Friend for his part will accept that the reasoning underlying this indicator takes account of the position in which authorities now find themselves.
  Perhaps I might remind the House that the GRE housing component E7 is intended to reflect a notional position on an authority's housing revenue account—be it deficit or surplus—on two critical assumptions: first, that it is selling council houses, and, secondly, that it is charging the average rents for the region. In Rugby's case, this indeed produces a negative component, reflecting the possibility of a surplus. The rent figures show that in

  269
  1980–81 the average weekly rent of a council house in the borough was £7.34. The average for the West Midlands as a whole was £7.81.
  I accept that many factors go to influence an authority's rent levels, and I would not wish to dispute that Rugby's management of its housing stock has been commendably economical and that this has contributed to its lower-than-average rents. I would only say that, in our view, it would have been wrong to have given more grant to some authorities just because they happen to have lower rents. For grant purposes we needed a standard assumption. That is why we introduced the regional average rent into the formula. It is not a matter of penalising certain authorities. The fact is that authorities now have enlarged discretion to create credit balances on their housing accounts, and the GREs recognise this. Perhaps, however, I should underline once again that, with GREs, what we are talking about is a notional assumption which is intended to secure a fair distribution of grant.
  Rugby, and other councils like it, remain entirely free to settle their own levels of rents and rates, and the balance between them, according to their own local circumstances.
  Overall, the ratepayers in my hon. Friend's constituency should therefore suffer no disadvantage. On the contrary, in districts where rating is run especially economically, the ratepayers should actually benefit.
  My hon. Friend asked for my understanding and help. Naturally, I can give no firm assurances now about how the rate support grant for 1982–83 will come out. But we have already spoken with the local authority associations in the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance
  270
  about some of the aspects which we shall want to take a further look at with them during the course of this year. I have noted the points which my hon. Friend has made, particularly about the indicator of housing expenditure, and we shall be pleased to consider any other constructive proposals which his authority may care to suggest.
  I must tell my hon. Friend and his constituents, that they have actually fared extremely well in the first year of a new and complicated system of block grant. I fully understand that the ratepayers in Rugby may feel differently, but in the coming year they will be faced with a rate increase of a little over 6 per cent. I am sure that this result will be warmly welcomed by the local electorate. Not that my colleagues and I would claim that this is an easy time for local government, or for anyone entrusted with the responsibility of spending public money. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made that clear to local authorities on a good many occasions. The reduced amount of money available from the Exchequer to local government as a whole is only one aspect of this. But we believe that in the block grant, the Government have been able to take a considerable step forward towards greater fairness in the way those funds are distributed.
  I urge councillors in every area to stick to their task of seeking efficiency and economy. There are many signs that voters—particularly in Conservative areas such as that so ably represented by my hon. Friend—are ready to recognise and to support those authorities, such as the authority in Rugby, which respond in an enlightened manner to the challenge of these difficult economic times.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Twelve o' clock.

CIVIL SERVICE
  Pay
  Pay
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Business Schools (London and Manchester)
  Business Schools (London and Manchester)
  Professorships
  Professorships
  Microcomputers
  Microcomputers
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Royal College of Art
  Royal College of Art
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners (Escorts)
  Prisoners (Escorts)
  Probation and After-care Services
  Probation and After-care Services
  Goods and Services (Prices)
  Goods and Services (Prices)
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
  Police Complaints Board
  Police Complaints Board
  Dr. Alan Clift
  Dr. Alan Clift
  Send and New Hall Detention Centres
  Send and New Hall Detention Centres
  Radar Gun "Muniavip"
  Radar Gun "Muniavip"
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Small Firms (Procurement Policy)
  Small Firms (Procurement Policy)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary (United States Arms Supplies)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary (United States Arms Supplies)
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
EMPLOYMENT
  Civil Servants (Dispute)
  Civil Servants (Dispute)
  Industry (Birmingham)
  Industry (Birmingham)
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Short-time Working
  Short-time Working
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  Family Support
  Family Support
  Economic Policy
  Economic Policy
  Pymoor
  Pymoor
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
  Budget Leaks
  Budget Leaks
  Engagements
  Engagements
ENERGY
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  New Delhi
  New Delhi
  Central Policy Review Staff
  Central Policy Review Staff
  British Gas (Heavy Duty Oil)
  British Gas (Heavy Duty Oil)
  Gas Prices
  Gas Prices
  National Oil Account
  National Oil Account
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Developing Countries (British Staff)
  Developing Countries (British Staff)
DEFENCE
  Army Camp (Milton Bridge)
  Army Camp (Milton Bridge)
  United States Air Force (Alconbury)
  United States Air Force (Alconbury)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Married Man's Tax Allowance
  Married Man's Tax Allowance
  Tax Change Ready Reckoner
  Tax Change Ready Reckoner
  Departmental Staff (Price Monitoring)
  Departmental Staff (Price Monitoring)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Licensed Premises (Revenue)
  Licensed Premises (Revenue)
  Cumbernauld Accounts Office (Vehicle Hire)
  Cumbernauld Accounts Office (Vehicle Hire)
  Married Couples (Taxation)
  Married Couples (Taxation)
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Expenditure
WALES
  "Care in Action"
  "Care in Action"
  Education (Report)
  Education (Report)
  Physical Sciences (Degree Courses)
  Physical Sciences (Degree Courses)
  Upper Afan Valley (Employment)
  Upper Afan Valley (Employment)
  School Leavers (Aberavon)
  School Leavers (Aberavon)
  Wool
  Wool
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
SOCIAL SERVICES
  District Heating Schemes (Supplementary Benefit Payments)
  District Heating Schemes (Supplementary Benefit Payments)
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Disability Pension
  Disability Pension
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Heating Allowances (Scotland)
  Heating Allowances (Scotland)
  Medicine (Career Structure)
  Medicine (Career Structure)
  National Health Service (Leicestershire)
  National Health Service (Leicestershire)
  Tobacco Advertising (Discussions)
  Tobacco Advertising (Discussions)
  Smallpox (Research)
  Smallpox (Research)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Pensioners (Discussions)
  Pensioners (Discussions)
  "Growing Older"
  "Growing Older"
  Long-stay Non-geriatric Patients
  Long-stay Non-geriatric Patients
  Medicines Inspectorate
  Medicines Inspectorate
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Claimants (Advice)
  Claimants (Advice)
  Child Support
  Child Support
  Mental Hospitals (Prisoner Patients)
  Mental Hospitals (Prisoner Patients)
  Non-payment of Fines (Imprisonment)
  Non-payment of Fines (Imprisonment)
  State Retirement Pension
  State Retirement Pension
  Diabetics (Disposable Needles)
  Diabetics (Disposable Needles)
  West Cumbria
  West Cumbria
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Part-time Workers (Benefit Payments)
  Part-time Workers (Benefit Payments)
  New Hospital, Goole
  New Hospital, Goole
  Northwick Park Hospital, Middlesex
  Northwick Park Hospital, Middlesex
  Problem Drinkers at Work
  Problem Drinkers at Work
  National Blood Transfusion Service
  National Blood Transfusion Service
  Royal Western Counties Hospital (Deaf Persons)
  Royal Western Counties Hospital (Deaf Persons)
  Wessex Health Region (Spinal Unit)
  Wessex Health Region (Spinal Unit)
  Progesterone-only Pill
  Progesterone-only Pill
  Kidney Failure (Treatment)
  Kidney Failure (Treatment)
  Census Forms (Welsh Households)
  Census Forms (Welsh Households)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Mutliple Sclerosis
  Mutliple Sclerosis
INDUSTRY
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  Engineering Council
  Engineering Council
  Regional Development Grant Scheme
  Regional Development Grant Scheme
  Private Telephone Exchanges (Maintenance)
  Private Telephone Exchanges (Maintenance)
SCOTLAND
  Departmental Staff (Price Monitoring)
  Departmental Staff (Price Monitoring)
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  School Leavers (Govan, Glasgow)
  School Leavers (Govan, Glasgow)
  Lead Screening
  Lead Screening
  Southern General Hospital, Govan (Neurological Institute)
  Southern General Hospital, Govan (Neurological Institute)
  School Leavers (Job Prospects)
  School Leavers (Job Prospects)
  Police Stations (Tape Recordings)
  Police Stations (Tape Recordings)
  Inland Revenue (Mail Movements)
  Inland Revenue (Mail Movements)
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing (Co-ownership Societies)
  Housing (Co-ownership Societies)
  National Mobility Scheme
  National Mobility Scheme
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
TRANSPORT
  Vehicle Excise Duty (Evasion)
  Vehicle Excise Duty (Evasion)
  Heavy Vehicles (Damage)
  Heavy Vehicles (Damage)
  Lorry Operating Centres
  Lorry Operating Centres
  Overloading
  Overloading
  Lorries (Checks)
  Lorries (Checks)
  Local Authorities (Concessionary Fares)
  Local Authorities (Concessionary Fares)
  Underground Railway (Epping-Ongar)
  Underground Railway (Epping-Ongar)
  Port of London Authority and Mersey Docks and Harbour Co.
  Port of London Authority and Mersey Docks and Harbour Co.
  Motorway Cafeterias
  Motorway Cafeterias
  Port of London
  Port of London
NORTHERN IRELAND
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Departmental Staff (Price Monitoring)
  Departmental Staff (Price Monitoring)
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Small firms (Procurement Policy)
  Small firms (Procurement Policy)
  Subsidised Butter
  Subsidised Butter
  Farm Price Review
  Farm Price Review
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Wool
  Wool

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

British Aerospace: Market Floatation Cost
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the total cost of floating 0British Aerospace on the market, including legal fees, commissions and advertising costs, and by whom was this cost borne.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the amount so far paid by Her Majesty's Government to meet the cost of floating British Aerospace is £4·06 million, excluding VAT. The total costs, again excluding VAT, are expected to be between £4 million and £5 million.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Earl feel that this is an exorbitant price to pay for selling off a valuable national asset?
The Earl of Gowrie: No, my Lords, I do not. I think it is a pretty small commission in relation to the amount of monies that were raised by selling this asset and in relation to the excellent idea of privatising an industry and getting it off the PSBR.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most people would not wish the Government to be deterred from making these very sensible alterations just because of the legal costs, particularly when the legal costs are in keeping with the general rate that has always applied to business transactions of this kind?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am fortified, as always, by support from my noble friend.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, may I take this opportunity to pay a tribute to those of my former colleagues who performed the responsibilities thrust upon them in such a splendidly professional way? Does the noble Earl realise that the figure which he has given is some 10 to 15 times greater than what it cost to bring together the competing companies and to forge them into one on-going and expanding concern? Does he also agree with me that it is a little sad to think that this expenditure did not forward any new research, that it did not buy any new piece of equipment, that it did not produce even one part of one new aircraft? Is this not further proof that it is not those who actually make things who get the biggest reward in the society which we are creating?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I find the noble Lord's logic most curious. There is not the slightest bit of evidence that there will be any less research done by a great British private sector company than by a company which happens to be in the hands of the state sector. In terms of the overall cost, the noble Lord is leaving out of account the cost of capital borrowing and the rest upon the public sector borrowing requirement which would have accrued had British Aerospace remained in the public sector.
Lord Morris: My Lords, arising out of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would not my noble friend agree that he has conveniently forgotten the incidence of inflation which was so ably fuelled by the previous Administration?
The Earl of Gowrie: Yes, my Lords.

Wages Council: Cost
2.40 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many wages councils are now functioning; how many wages inspectors are employed; what is the cost of financing the wages councils and inspectorate and whether any significant reduction in these costs has been made in the light of Government policy on spending cuts.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, at present there are 33 wages councils; on 31st December 1980 there were 148 outdoor inspectors and 122 other staff in post in the Wages Inspectorate; and the estimated cost of financing the wages councils and the inspectorate is £3·68 million for 1980–81. There will be a substantial reduction in cost in future years as a result of the Government's decision last year to reduce the number of posts in the inspectorate.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply, which is encouraging so far as it goes. Will the Minister tell us how many independent members of wages councils sit on more than one council? Even though, by doubling up, there may be a saving of expense, would it not be true to say that it is very difficult for somebody who sits on four, five, six or seven wages councils to be truly impartial in his consideration of the problems of any one?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, when I became Minister with responsibility for wages councils, representations were made to us as to whether the judgment of independents was impartial. We had a look at the record of their judgments over a number of years, and we came to the conclusion that indeed they were and that, if anything, they slightly favoured the employers' side. As to the number who sit on more than one council, I should need prior notice of that question.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that wages councils were set up to protect those in work

111
who had no industrial muscle with which to protect their wages, and that as a result of wages councils a decent wage has been established for many people who were not otherwise covered? I hope the Government will not reduce the number of inspectors or the number of wages councils, thus leaving a number of employees at the mercy of rapacious employers.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I recognise that wages councils cover people who are not otherwise collectively represented. As believers in free collective bargaining, the Government recognise the good work which the wages councils do. That said, at a time of high unemployment and high inflation there must be worry, whenever there is any form of national minimum wage, that people immediately below the margin will not find employment.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, did I hear the Minister say that under this Government there is high inflation and high unemployment? If so, what are the Government going to do about it?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, as the noble Lord is perfectly well aware, there is at the moment raging currency inflation around the entire Western world.

Wages Councils: Awards
2.40 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many wages council awards have been back-dated during the last twelve months and how many have been post-dated.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, in the last 12 months wages councils have made 36 orders changing the statutory minimum rates of pay in their trades. Of these, 25 were issued after their effective date of operation and 11 before their effective date. The date of effect of a wages order is a matter for each council to determine, but the date must not be earlier than the date on which the council agrees its proposed changes in minimum rates.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Would the Minister not agree, though, that the fact that many of these awards were ante-dated is an encouragement to inflation which would otherwise not arise? Would he not also agree that the fact that these awards are spread over the whole country and give the same award over very large numbers of small and medium businesses in different areas must not only be inflationary but likely to be restrictive of job opportunities?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not agree that the wages councils' awards are likely to be inflationary, because they tend more to follow inflation than to create it. We are speaking about an economy where
112
the national average wage for men is now about £130 and for women about £85 and the statutory minimum imposed by wages councils is round about £58, so I do not think that is an inflationary affair. As I said in reply to a supplementary to the previous Question of the noble Lord, I do think that, particularly where the young are concerned, there are some job opportunity losses as a result of any statutory minimum.

Nigeria: State Visit by the President
2.45 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the conclusions of their discussions with President Shagari of Nigeria.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we warmly welcomed President Shagari on his State Visit. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister had extremely valuable and constructive discussions with him covering African problems, especially Namibia, as well as other international and bilateral subjects. Both Governments welcomed the excellent state of bilateral relations and expressed determination to strengthen them further.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that a very wide range of subjects was discussed? May I raise two separate questions with him?—one, the fees for the students and, secondly, Southern Africa. On fees for students may I ask this: while welcoming the decision to freeze charges for students who are at present here, did not President Shagari point out the danger in the long run, when, despite their preference for this country, many students will go to America, where the charges are half what they are here? Also, can the Minister say whether he thinks it right that there should be lower charges for students from comparatively rich Europe and higher charges for poorer Commonwealth countries?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the question of the fees payable by students coming from Europe is of course related to our membership of the European Community, but, as to the question of students' fees payable by Nigerian students, of course we appreciate the Nigerian Government's very real concern over this matter. The issue was indeed fully discussed with President Shagari during his recent visit. On several occasions, and again during this recent visit, we have expressed our deep regret at the necessity to charge the full fees. We greatly value the contribution of Nigerian students to the British educational system. We have explained that the effects of the increase are being closely monitored and I should perhaps point out that some postgraduate grants for exceptional students are of course available from the Department of Education and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, is there any prospect of the Government's modifying their wretched policy in respect of students coming from poorer countries?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I may say so, that is slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper, but in the general way our policy in connection with student fees, as with the rest of our economic policies, has to be related to our economic resources.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, may not the comparatively successful outcome of these talks have something to do with the fact that the President of Nigeria was once an overseas student himself in this country and does that not indicate that the calculations should not be entirely financial?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course we welcome the fact that over many years students from Nigeria, including a number of very distinguished ones, have attended our schools and universities, which no doubt is one of the reasons why our present relationship with them is so strong. We hope and believe that that relationship will continue, but it is not likely to continue very effectively if our own economy in Britain remains in disarray.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the discussions led to any progress being made as regards the difficulties of British companies which have manufactured goods for export to Nigeria and are still awaiting payment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not aware that that is a significant problem. A good many of our exports to Nigeria, as elsewhere, are of course covered by the ECGD arrangement.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the President comment on the Government's failure to pronounce a single word of discouragement to sportsmen who play and coach in South Africa, thus encouraging apartheid, and did he mention in particular our obligation under the Gleneagles Agreement to discourage by every means possible such sportsmen from indirectly giving aid and comfort to apartheid?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, our opposition to apartheid is of course well-known. We do not always agree with some of our African friends on precisely the best way to counter it but the noble Lord may be sure that the Nigerians are well aware of our views, as we are of theirs.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend be willing to look at particular cases? He said just now that these matters were not in significant proportions. Would he be prepared to look at cases where exporters have manufactured goods for Nigeria and not received payment?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, I would readily undertake to look at any case my noble friend draws to my attention.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, could the noble Lord the Minister expand on what he said about the present Government's opposition to apartheid? Is it the case that President Shagari said publicly that he hoped that Britain would stop supporting and strengthening the
114
South African economy? Do the present British Government agree with this policy or disagree? Do the present British Government believe in strengthening and supporting the South African economy under apartheid, or do they disagree?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that goes rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper; but I think the noble Lord is aware of this Government's view on apartheid, as indeed are the Nigerian Government.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, in view of the importance of Nigeria and its immense potential, especially in Africa, both diplomatically and commercially, would the Minister assure the House that the closest possible consultation will be maintained between us and Nigeria in the future, especially in regard to the future of Namibia, so vital to the future of the West and Western industry, and in regard to the expediting of the end of apartheid in Southern Africa?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course, the question of Namibia is slightly different from the question of South Africa, although they are often discussed in the same context. In fact, our views vis-à-vis the Nigerians over Namibia are not very far apart. So far as South Africa goes, our views on apartheid are well known, as of course are those of the Nigerians.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, surely, on consideration, the noble Lord would withdraw his suggestion that my question was outside the bounds of the Question of my noble friend Lord Brockway. I was referring specifically to a statement made by President Shagari during his visit to this country. Could the noble Lord answer that question?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I indicated in the first Answer, the visit was a great success. On the question of sanctions against South Africa, which is, I imagine, what is at the back of the noble Lord's mind in pressing his supplementary, it is, of course, the fact that we have not taken up a position on sanctions against South Africa at this moment; but we have consistently made it clear that we believe that sanctions would cause grave damage to the prospects of a resumption of negotiation on Namibia, for example, and indeed to the process of peaceful change in Southern Africa. Furthermore, it would create considerable economic problems for other African countries.
Lord Barnby: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that at a moment when there appears to be considerable discussion as to the relative merits of trading with Nigeria as against South Africa, the fact is that in 1979 the total trade with Nigeria was considerably less than that with the Republic of South Africa? It was only last year that the total trade with Nigeria was £1,200 million as against £1,000 million with the Republic of South Africa. But the economies of both are equally important, and probably the prospect of trade with the South African Republic is more encouraging to exporters because they get better paid.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would not want to compare the future prospects of Nigeria with South

115
Africa; but on the question of whether or not the trade would have any relevance to our position vis-à-vis apartheid, I am wondering whether a total trade embargo on Southern Africa would in fact have the effect that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, thinks it would have.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, so far as welcoming overseas students is concerned, do we make any distinction whether their origin is Nigerian or South African? But again, with regard to their future when they return home, has the noble Lord any figures as to how many returned students have been hanged by the succession of Nigerian Governments and as to whether any have been hanged on their return to South Africa?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not quite sure of the relevance of that question. The noble Lord may be assisted if I say that there are about 5,000 Nigerian students in this country at the present time.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, other noble Lords have raised the question of Southern Africa. May I ask the Minister a question about the discussions on Namibia? Is it not the case that the President urged reactivity by the Western group of five nations instead of waiting for a decision by the United States, because delay enables South Africa to increase its illegal military domination of Namibia?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is indeed the case that Namibia was discussed with the President during his recent visit. As is well known, both our Governments are very disappointed at the breakdown of the Geneva talks. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister expressed our determination to continue to work with our partners of the five and with our friends in Africa for a peaceful and negotiated settlement. We hope that all concerned will look for a positive way forward.

GLC: Transfer of Housing Stock
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Bellwin will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the transfer of Greater London Council housing.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Water Bill
Report received.

Fisheries Bill
2.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. This is an important piece of legislation for our fishing industry. It deals with a wide range of matters: the setting up of a new Sea Fish Industry Authority; powers to provide continuing financial aid to the industry; improvements in the arrangements for securing effective measures for the conservation of fish stocks; fish farming; and the conservation of whales. This is something of a mixed bag. But each section of the Bill reflects one simple concern: the Government's determination to do all in their power to provide a framework within which the interests of our fishing industry can be protected and its rational development can be fostered.
For too long the industry, particularly the catching sector, has had to operate in an atmosphere of uncertainty. This has been caused essentially by the difficulties we have encountered in negotiating a satisfactory common fisheries policy. I am sure that the House will share the Government's disappointment that the Council of Fisheries Ministers which met last week was unable to make any progress in the negotiations for a comprehensive revised common fisheries policy because one delegation was unable to discuss the crucial question of access. It is important for the sake of the fishing industry to reach an agreement which will provide a sound basis for structural and marketing policies, enforceable conservation measures, adequate quotas and reasonable exclusive and preferential access arrangments to safeguard our vulnerable coastal fishermen.
The Government will continue to make every endeavour to reach overall agreement on a common fisheries policy this spring. We look to our partners in the Community to approach further negotiations in a similar positive spirit, to the advantage of the Community as a whole. It will then be for the industry to make the best of its opportunities.
But Government too have a role. This Bill will provide the means whereby the Government can continue and develop the support they give the industry. This is not just a matter of providing financial assistance where this is appropriate and justified, but involves providing for services, whether through the agency of the proposed new authority or directly, which the industry, made up as it is to a large degree by small, independent units, cannot provide for itself but which are essential to its future.
Part I of the Bill provides for the replacement of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board by a single new statutory authority for the whole sea fish industry. There is a general consensus that this is a sensible step to take. The present authority and board already work in the same premises with much of their work being carried out in common. There is a strong case therefore for replacing them by a single authority which can operate as economically as

117
possible. At the same time the new authority can be provided with the appropriate mechanisms to enable it to serve the fishing industry effectively in the years to come.
The Government have carefully consulted the fishing industry about our proposals. Before drafting this legislation we gave all sectors of the industry a full opportunity to express their views about the functions, membership and financing of a new authority, by issuing a consultation paper. Numerous comments were received. I do not claim that there was unanimity of view within the industry on all points. Indeed it was to be expected that differences of emphasis would be expressed. Nevertheless I believe that the Bill takes account of the concerns of the fishing industry and it is clear that the new body is wanted by the industry.
The new authority will retain a number of the features of those it replaces; for example, the industry favoured retention of a number of the functions currently exercised by the White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board. I take this public opportunity of expressing the Government's thanks to the chairmen, members and staff of both bodies for their work over the past years. The decision to replace these bodies is in no way a criticism of their achievements, which have been considerable. They indeed have been prominent among those who have seen most clearly the need to replace the present legislative arrangements with statutory provisions which reflect more appropriately the needs of the fishing industry in the future. With new powers the Sea Fish Industry Authority will be able to build further on the solid foundations laid down by the present authority and board.
I would draw the attention of the House to certain particular clauses in Part I of the Bill. Clause 1 provides for the membership of the new authority. The composition of the authority's membership is a departure from the provisions for the present bodies in that under our proposals the industry will take a direct role in determining the policies of the authority. Up to eight representatives of the industry will sit on the authority together with four independent members. This is quite different from the present system under which all members of the existing bodies are independent of the industry and are advised by large advisory councils of industry representatives.
We make the new proposal in response to strong views expressed from all sides of the industry that its representatives should take a direct part in the authority's decision-making. Ministers will appoint the representative members after full consultation with the industry. Our policy in making the appointments will be to obtain the fairest possible representation of the various sectors of the industry and the various regions of the country. The result will be to bring the experience of the whole industry directly into the decision-making process of the authority, with resulting benefits to its work.
Clause 2 lays on the authority the duty of promoting the efficiency of the sea fish industry and of serving the interests of the industry as a whole. Clause 3 gives powers through which this duty can be exercised. The range of powers covers functions for which a considerable body of opinion in the industry expressed support during the consultation exercise we carried out. It will be for the authority itself to determine its priorities
118
and thus the use to which it puts each of these powers.
Much of the remainder of Part I of the Bill relates to the provisions for financing the new authority. A considerable part of the new authority's financial resources will be raised from a levy on the industry as indeed is the system at present. Clause 4 provides the powers. It will be for the new authority, including its representative members, to propose the rates of levy which they will need to raise to fund the tasks they set themselves. The authority will also propose the sectors of the industry on which the levy should fall. The responses to the consultation paper showed a general acceptance by the industry that a statutory levy was the fairest and most appropriate means of raising the necessary resources. There was some interest expressed in changing the form of the levy from the basis used at present, which relates the levy to the weight of fish sold, to a system which would relate the levy to the value of the fish. The powers are drafted to enable the authority to decide which is the more appropriate method. As is the present procedure in respect of the WFA levy, the authority's proposals on the rate of the levy will be subject to confirmation by the fisheries Ministers and Parliament.
In addition to the power to raise finance by levy, Clause 6 provides for the authority, should it so wish, to borrow funds for the exercise of its functions. This power to borrow is subject to statutory controls. In addition there are powers in Clauses 7 to 9 for Government to assist the authority in its borrowing should this be appropriate.
Part II of the Bill provides new powers which are needed to enable the Government to make financial aid available to the fishing industry. New powers are particularly needed to enable the Government to take full advantage of financial aid measures which may be agreed by the Community as part of a revised common fisheries policy.
It is not yet clear what financial measures will be agreed in the Community, but the Bill as drafted should enable whatever measures are agreed to be applied in this country. This matter is of considerable importance to the industry, since it is clear that a measure of restructuring will be needed, and changes in the fishing fleet will be required when the shape of future fishing opportunities can be properly determined.
Part III of the Bill contains provisions to improve the conservation and management legislation for sea fisheries. The clauses make a number of detailed amendments to the existing legislation, which is already a complex area into which to venture. I hope that in my remarks today I bring out some of the main considerations which underlie the provisions; and I will arrange to make some written explanatory material available to noble Lords well before Committee stage on this part of the Bill to assist their consideration of it.
There will be no dispute in this House about the importance of conserving and managing the fish stocks in our waters. Quite simply the long term future of our fishing industry depends on effective conservation, and firm enforcement of the legislation is essential if conservation is to be achieved. After a careful review of the existing provisions we are clear that the measures

119
in this part of the Bill are needed if we are to be able to fulfil our responsibilities to the industry.
The need for the changes to the legislation is fundamentally straightforward. The main powers to manage the fisheries are in Acts passed in the late 1960s, which were partially amended in 1976. Since 1976, and certainly since the late 1960s there have been considerable developments on the fishing scene. The need for effective but flexible controls has grown with the pressure on fish stocks. The common fisheries policy will place on the United Kingdom the responsibility of enforcing Community controls on vessels of all nationalities in our waters and we must ensure that we have fully effective enforcement procedures. The development of the western mackerel fishery and its large transhipment operation brings with it the need for further powers of control over these activities.
These arguments are not new; and they have been put forcefully to the Government. There has in particular been strong pressure for better powers to control the fishing by foreign vessels in our waters and to achieve better control of transhipments. This part of the Bill responds directly to those needs.
Several provisions of the Bill are to provide more flexible powers to manage the fisheries. Present powers are sometimes "all-or-nothing"; for example, our powers to prohibit fishing for a particular species can only be used to prohibit all fishing by all nationalities in vessels of all sizes. Where there is a need for only a limited prohibition the existing powers are therefore inadequate. The present options are not to impose a prohibition, to the detriment of those stocks for which a prohibition is justified, or to extend a ban further than is strictly necessary and thus unnecessarily restrict the operations of some fishermen. Clauses 19, 20 and 22 will reduce these difficulties by giving more flexible powers in respect of setting minimum size limits for fish, including different sizes for different areas, and in respect of licensing fishing vessels, and prohibiting fishing.
There are several provisions to enable better control to be exercised over fisheries in which transhipment occurs. There are powers in Clause 23 to prohibit transhipment operations, and Clause 21 would give Ministers the power to licence all vessels which receive fish by transhipment.
There are powers in Clause 25 to enable enforcement officers to gain access to the receiving vessels to which fish are transhipped so that the transhipment operation can be closely monitored. Powers to obtain documents relating to catches transhipped are important where vessel quotas are in force. Clause 25 will enable officers to seek documents on board the receiving vessels. It will also enable them to seek documents held on shore. The transhipment operations of our fishing fleet are frequently controlled from on shore, and increasingly the documentation recording the catch taken and transhipped by fishing vessels is held in shore premises. Their powers of entry will greatly improve the authorities' ability to monitor the industry's operations.
Considerable stress has been laid on the need for effective enforcement of fisheries legislation against vessels of all nationalities, and in proposing amendments to the legislation we have taken this point fully into
120
account. We have reviewed the general level of maximum penalties for offences and some revised provisions are made in Clause 24. In reviewing penalties the Government have taken into account the high cash returns which can be obtained from illegal fishing operations. We also took into account the rate of inflation since the last review of penalties five years ago. Cases involving foreign fishermen are normally taken in magistrates' courts in England and Wales and sheriffs' courts in Scotland; and it is necessary, therefore, to ensure that maximum penalties available to these courts provide an effective deterrent. Among a number of amendments made in Clause 24 a new maximum fine of £5,000 would apply to certain offences; and the courts' present powers to impose additional fines up to the value of the illegal catch are extended to some additional offences in order that courts can prevent offenders from obtaining any financial benefit from illegal catches.
Clause 30 will also make an important contribution to the Government's powers to enforce fisheries legislation. Its main purpose is to enable our enforcement officers to take action against vessels breaking Community fisheries regulations within British fishery limits immediately such regulations are imposed. Under our present legislation we could not take immediate action against vessels of other EEC countries, because a statutory instrument must be made before fishing by EEC vessels in breach of a Community provision can be made an offence punishable in our courts. The procedure for making a statutory instrument inevitably takes some weeks. We consider that it would be indefensible to rely on existing enforcement powers and to accept that for a period of weeks such Community fishing controls could not be properly enforced in our waters. Our lack of powers would be to the disadvantage of United Kingdom vessels as our existing legislation gives us more effective powers to act immediately against United Kingdom vessels than against foreign vessels.
I turn to Part IV of the Bill, which includes a number of useful provisions for fish farmers. I must pay tribute to the work done by the late Lady Emmet of Amberley in relation to fish farming and to her untiring efforts to bring to the attention of successive Governments a number of problems and difficulties in this field.
The clauses in this part of the Bill meet a range of concerns expressed to the Government by fish farming interests, and therefore I hope that this part of the Bill will be welcome to them. The need for the amendments arises primarily because fish farming on a commercial scale is a relatively recent development in this country so that our existing legislation does not, in general, make specific provision for it. Nor does fish farming fall neatly under the headings either of fisheries or of agriculture; as a result legislation applying to those fields sometimes extends unsuitable provisions to fish farming or fails to give adequate powers in the fish farming sector.
Clause 31 gives powers to make grants for fish farming. The provision of national grant is a condition of eligibility for EEC grants and the provision will, therefore, enable fish farmers to benefit from European Community grant aid in the way that farmers and fishermen already can. Clause 32 provides specific powers for fisheries Ministers to under-

121
take research and development into fish farming and to provide advice on fish farming matters. Fisheries departments already carry out work under both these heads under general powers, but it is preferable to take specific powers where possible. Let me emphasise that this technical clause does not signal any intention to change our policies in respect of the volume of research and development or advisory work we are carrying out in the fish farming area; it will simply underpin our powers to undertake it. Provision is included to charge fees for advice given, but I should make clear that as a matter of policy there is no intention to exercise the power in respect of advice provided by ADAS in England and Wales, which will continue to be free of charge.
In Clause 33 we recognise that many provisions of present legislation for managing and conserving wild freshwater and sea fish have no relevance to fish which are farmed. These regulations unnecessarily restrict the normal operations of fish farmers, and the clause therefore exempts fish farming from the scope of many of them and gives Ministers powers to make exemptions from others.
Shellfishermen are extending their cultivation techniques and now breed shellfish on a range of structures as well as on the seabed. Clause 34 enables shell-fishermen to be given the same protection they currently enjoy in respect of their operations on the seabed to their stock being cultivated on these structures.
There are, I know, a number of other points on which fish farmers would like to see legislation in addition to those in the Bill. We are considering now those issues that have been put to us, in the context of a wide review of inland and inshore fisheries. We shall be issuing a consultation document inviting views on these fuller issues with a view to considering whether further legislation in due course would be appropriate. Meanwhile, the provisions in Part IV of the Bill constitute a useful step in recognising the position that fish farming holds in this country today.
The final provision to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is in Part V; that is to say, Clause 35. This extends the whaling conservation legislation, which already bans the taking of whales both in British fishery limits and, by United Kingdom registered vessels, anywhere in the world. The clause extends these bans to cover all cetaceans, including therefore porpoises and dolphins, and raises penalties for whaling offences. This is an initiative by the Government to strengthen controls against whaling, particularly by giving protection to all cetaceans in our fishery limits, and as such it should be welcome to conservation interests.
There will be an opportunity in Committee to examine the details of this Bill. I have tried here to draw attention to some of the principles on which our proposals are based. The provisions of the Bill are diverse but, in the Government's view, necessary to enable the fishing industry of this country to take full advantage of the opportunities open to it and to enable the Government to play their part to protect and promote the industry's future. I commend the Bill to the House, and beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
3.19 p.m.
Lord Peart: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has presented this Bill. It is an important and a very detailed Bill which we shall examine carefully in Committee. But it is a Bill which I believe the industry will welcome. I hope that speeches will be such that that spirit will continue and that this Bill will become a milestone, if I may use that term, in the history of the fishing industry. Having been a fisheries Minister over a long period, I know the problems of that industry; but I think we can now see a way ahead. Admittedly, we still have problems with the Community. I was never involved in any discussions with the Community on fish as such. I am not certain whether my noble friend Lord Ross was. I think he was several times.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I just said, No.
Lord Peart: Well, my Lords, there is no reason why he should not say, No.
We had yesterday a preview, and I congratulated the Government then for giving the aid which was necessary; the £37 million worth of aid which was also on top of the £25 million which had been granted previously. In other words, the Government are showing their earnest desire to make certain that this great industry should be helped. We still have our problems—the problems in Europe. As the House will know, at the meeting which was arranged to discuss fish at the European Council at the beginning of last week it quickly became apparent that one delegation was not able really to try to come to an agreement. In other words, they had to face the intransigence of the French Government. I hope that we shall be firm and continue to play our part in Europe, but we must see to it that our interests are fully protected. I believe that in the end the countries of Europe will accept basically our approach because we have a long history in this field.
The Bill itself is a long Bill. The White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board are to be abolished and replaced by a single new body. I should like to contratulate all those who have served those authorities over the years. They have done a magnificent job, but the time has come when we have to make changes. The Bill contains new powers to make financial assistance available to the sea fishing industry and provides, as the Minister said, a more effective fisheries conservation and management measure; extends restrictions on whaling; and includes provisions on fish farming. This is unique and has been welcomed by many sections of the industry and other industries outside, including the farming community, who are involved in this.
The key proposal is the creation of a new authority, the Sea Fish Authority. I welcome this. The Bill provides for the abolition of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board and the establishment in their place of a single statutory body with a range of functions appropriate to the future needs of the sea fishing industry. The Government have taken an early decision to replace the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board, and I know that wide consultations have been held with the fishing industry and other interested organisations during the summer

123
on the functions, membership and financing of the new authority.
This is a very varied industry. I have here a note which I propose to develop when we come to the Committee stage. Clause 1, for example, provides for the establishment of the Sea Fish Industry Authority consisting of not more than 12 members, four of whom would be independent of, and eight of whom would be representative of, the sea fish industry. The duties and powers of the authority are largely those of the White Fish Authority and of the Herring Industry Board, which bodies the authority replaces.
Here I must give an example. The industry is very varied. The industry comprises catchers; salesmen; buyers and merchants; freezers; canners; smokers, and other processors; distributors; wholesalers; retailers; fryers, and many other parts too numerous to list. The ratio of onshore and offshore employment is thought to be in the region of 5 or 6 to 1, so one can see that here is an industry which is varied and touches on many large sections of our community.
I agree with the Minister. I think it about right for the Sea Fish Authority that eight of the 12 members will be representatives of the fishing industry. It may well be that this will be questioned. I know it was questioned strongly in another place during their Committee stage. But the authority will have powers to undertake research and development advisory work and training. It will also give financial assistance and undertake work in the important area of developing the marketing and consumption of fish as well as exports. The authority can provide services for overseas interests so long as these do not prejudice its activities for the benefit of the industry in the United Kingdom.
The Minister will appreciate that we shall be discussing much of this in much more detail later. The Bill consolidates, as the Minister knows, and extends existing powers to make financial assistance to the fishing industry by way of grants or loans. I understand, though, that for the creation of aid for the new body this will take the form of a levy. I would hope that we would have a reply on this matter as to how this will necessarily be financed. The schemes would be made statutory, by statutory instruments subject to the approval of Parliament, and there are powers for the new Sea Fish Authority to administer schemes as required on behalf of the fisheries ministries.
I believe that this is an important matter. I welcome Part III of the Bill. This makes new provisions which will enable the Government to enforce effective controls on fishing by foreign vessels within our fishery limits, and by United Kingdom vessels in all areas. Amendments to existing United Kingdon provisions are made to ensure that any breach of the European Community measures will be an offence and punishable accordingly. Maximum penalties for a number of offences are increased. I welcome this. It is right that we should make a tough line, and we must stand up to those people who sometimes fish in our waters and break regulations. We have to be much stronger in our approach on this matter than we have ever been before.
As I look through the Bill itself I see there are many proposals which are important. But I know that during its passage on Second Reading in another
124
place there were arguments about certain details affecting the industry. For example, there was a great complaint that we do not train our fishermen; that we have no training boards such as we have in the agricultural industry. In other words, they argue that now that we are seeking to become available from the Common Market to develop fish farming, to give one example, there is now likely to be a surge of interest in the subject of fish farming.
If that is not to be frustrated, major promotion by the Government, the Ministry, the National Farmers' Union and the National Water Council will be necessary. In other words, we shall have to have more discussions, and many of these discussions must later be linked to a desire on the part of the fishing authorities to provide adequate training for the people who will be affected by this. I believe that this is important. I know that my right honourable friend Mr. Mason in another place has stressed it. He argues that one of the first jobs of the Sea Fish Industry Authority should be to launch a study with a view to recommending to the Government how best the employment legislation can be amended to bring this industry abreast of other national industries.
There is also an urgent need to develop training of fishermen on a much wider programme than at present. Here the Sea Fisheries Training Council may be involved. I should like to know whether what was put forward by my right honourable friend is right or wrong, and I ask the Government for an answer. Will the authority take over the implementation of the training council's recommendations? I have noted a welcome increase of training programmes in the past two years, and in the number of fishermen attending them, but there is not yet enough emphasis on safety. Many of their courses are on the use of fishing gear (which is all right in its way), the introduction of new technology, fish detection methods, and engineering and hydraulics.
However, I gather the training council has drawn up a five-year strategic plan with a view to developing schemes involving new entrants and safety training. In its last report it said that at least half of the existing labour force of the seagoing industry had never had training, for example, in survival, fire fighting, or first aid. It added that 60 per cent. of existing fishermen began their working lives without any formal training and that many young people continued to enter the industry in that way. The trade unions, particularly the Transport and General Workers' Union, want training and working conditions improved for the safety of their members, and I am sure noble Lords would agree that that is a worthy aim which we should support.
The safety record of the fishing industry is unbelievably bad, the worst of any industry in this country. The rectification of that state of affairs will necessitate a major effort on the part of the Government and their new agent, the Sea Fish Industry Authority, if we are to tackle the whole question of safety at sea. I know the unions involved would like a public inquiry to be established to examine and recommend how best the appalling casualities in this industry can be reduced. The Health and Safety Executive Report for 1978 showed there were 380 fatal accidents per 100,000 employed in the near and middle

125
distant fleet, compared with 15·8 in Britain's coal-mining industry. The Department of Trade's statistics for 1978 showed there were 247 accidents per 100,000 employed in the fishing industry, whereas in coalmining the rate was 25·4. Both reports prove the absolute necessity to increase the emphasis given to safety training and the development of safer working practices on board seagoing vessels. I could go on citing the problems that will face the new body.
We must remember that it is the fishermen who in time of war always come to our support. It is an industry which has a very fine record. For that reason it is right that we must now seek to modernise the industry. We now have a great opportunity to do so. The Government have done well to introduce the Bill. They have also done well to give the grant aid which we discussed yesterday at Question time. It is fair to say that we are now branching out into a new area which will be of help to our fishermen when they go to sea and even when they stay inland and wish to trade. I congratulate the Ministers concerned for what they have done, and the Bill deserves our full support.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am glad to speak following the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and to hear him express approval of the Bill. I was able to support him wholeheartedly from the Bench he now occupies when towards the end of 1976, as Leader of the House, he was the Minister piloting through a fisheries Bill for the benefit of the British fishing industry. When I was a fisheries Minister, as Secretary of State for Scotland, I was involved in negotiations with the EEC and the problems of Iceland. I too give the Bill a warm welcome.
These are anxious days for the fishing industry, an industry which has been passing through traumatic times. In the last six years the world's patterns of fishing have been drastically changed, mainly as a result of the international adoption of a 200-mile fishing limit in 1976. Other countries have had to face drastic changes also. We have been affected more than any other major fishing nation because in the past most of the fish caught by British fishermen were caught near distant shores, notably Iceland. Those fish, mostly cod, were what consumers in the United Kingdom preferred, and that still applies. Tastes have changed very little, if at all.
As much, and sometimes more, fish of the same kind is still arriving in the United Kingdom from the same sources, but now it is being caught by Icelandic and other foreign vessels. British fishermen's access to fishing grounds for cod has been much reduced, but the fish is still coming in, and that is one of the main reasons why prices at the fish quays have remained low against the background of a slump in the North American market in the past two years. A large quantity of fish which in the past was sold in North America has been seeking a market elsewhere in the world. British fishermen have wondered whether they could even cover their costs, which have been continually rising, however successful they might be in their fishing operations. That is why I suggest the Ministers concerned were completely right to hold up the agreement between the EEC and Canada until
126
related arrangements for the home market had been made. Otherwise there would simply be more fish caught by other people, in this case the Germans, landing at United Kingdom ports, creating difficulties and local gluts.
In the last four years, since the 200-mile fishing limit has been internationally adopted, the United Kingdom has had to conform to the new principle of fishing primarily in home waters. More distant fishing off the shores of other countries can be undertaken now only by special agreements with those countries, and so far there have not been many fish available under those agreements. Ten years and more ago, however, our situation was entirely different. We in the United Kingdom had built up one of the world's principal fleets of large ocean-going vessels carrying out distant fishing, for example off the shores of Iceland and Northern Norway. Those boats supplied most of the fish for the United Kingdom market.
What a change there has been since then! Now, few of those large vessels are operating. Most of the catch landed by our boats today is from smaller vessels fishing in home waters. There are now more of these vessels than 10 years ago. Moreover, the total number of fishing boats has risen. There are now more British fishing boats than before. However, that should not be allowed to mislead; the large distant water trawlers which caught most of the fish for British consumption in the past have almost disappeared, with desolating effects on particular ports, such as Hull and Grimsby. Other causes of the decline, besides the 200-mile limit and reduced world market, are the depletion of fish stocks and the costs of fuel.
None of those four principal causes for the difficulties of the fishing industry is the fault, noble Lords will note, of the EEC. The present negotiations within the EEC arise from the 200-mile fishing limit being shared by all the members. I would remind your Lordships that in 1970, shortly before our negotiations to join the EEC were started, the first common fisheries policy between the then six members was concluded. The result of the negotiations, and before our entry in 1973, was that a 10-year virtual standstill of the position was negotiated, and that lasts until the end of 1982.
As part of that, the historic rights at that time of certain European nations were continued, so that some nations could fish between the six and 12-mile limits round British coasts. Now, I understand, France is unable to agree to a revised common fisheries policy, apparently on the same issue of access. My noble friend Lord Carrington, when answering a Question of mine last week, referred to these historic rights as being one of the difficulties in the negotiations. These historic rights have been recognised by this country, and I have with me the charts and records from 1971 of the historic rights registered as they then were. For example, France could fish for demersal fish (that is, broadly, white fish) along the South and South-West coasts of the United Kingdom, and Belgium could fish for demersal fish in the Moray Firth, up to six miles from the coast. But it now seems that France is expecting much more than those historic rights. Indeed, it is expecting that the rights should be spread from individual countries fishing for particular species to other countries—indeed to all the EEC countries.

127
I do not ask that the Minister comment at this stage, when the Government are clearly in the middle of negotiations; I simply draw attention to the problem.
Ever since early 1970 other members of the EEC—the existing members as they then were—had much more to gain by access to our coastal waters than we could ever gain from access to theirs, because the stocks of fish had virtually disappeared around their shores. Our coastal areas are now the most fruitful and most promising for the future. Conservation is essential for those areas, and it is needed for all European fishermen; otherwise the stocks will diminish and disappear.
Had the United Kingdom not been a member of the European Communities, we would now have for our own fishing area, within our 200-mile fishing limits, about 60 per cent. of the whole EEC pond. That point should be taken into account when these matters of access and quotas are considered within the total allowable catch. Moreover, we still have the largest fishing industry in the EEC. Our Government are rightly insisting on certain sea areas where local British fishermen will have priority and where large vessels will be prohibited or restricted. This Fisheries Bill is required for the new arrangements now in prospect.
Part III of the Bill provides for licensing and control. Wider and more flexible powers are to be granted to British sea-fishery officers. As I have said on previous occasions, I believe that licensing will have to play a part in the new règime within the EEC. Furthermore, entry into the fishing industry, and participation in it, must be controlled. The catching power is too great for a free-for-all. However, there is room for both the modern methods, with their formidable and deadly catching power, provided that they are regulated, and the older, traditional methods. Unless there is control, however, there will be either over-fishing, or frustration when conservation bans require vessels to be kept idle for weeks or months in port.
I am glad that, besides the national fishery officers, for which the Bill provides, the British Government have espoused the idea of a corps of Community inspectors. That was one of the recommendations in the report of your Lordships' Select Committee, which was debated on 22nd October last year, and it now seems that on the initiative of our Government the other members of the EEC have accepted that as a part of the new system.
I welcome the clauses on the transhipment of fish, which I note were strengthened while the Bill was passing through another place. For several years the practice has been to sell to foreign fish cargo vessels fish which have been caught in our own waters. These vessels have been called "Klondikers". They might or might not be "factory" ships. The term "Klondiker" simply covers a ship that does not catch fish, but buys fish caught by British fishermen. Since the 200-mile limit was adopted there is more reason for the East European "Klondikers", which cannot catch fish within the 200-mile European limit, to buy fish from us. Many British fishermen have found "Klondikers" rewarding in the past. "Klondikers" represent an alternative market to that of the quayside,
128
and often provide a better price. Fish caught within the 6-mile and 12-mile limits, where only British fishermen can catch them, are available to the East European vessels. In particular, in the North-West of Scotland, at Ullapool, the practice has been operated for some years.
There are disadvantages to this system. In many cases the fishermen might have liked it, but the first disadvantage is that the quota system could not be strictly observed. There has been no proper check on the quantities which were disappearing after being caught. The second disadvantage is that the United Kingdom fish handlers and processors have been by-passed, and they have been losing the work and added value. Therefore in future we must have a system which licenses and controls the transhipment, and what has been proposed in the Bill should be welcome.
Part II of the Bill puts forward financial arrangements which should cover the restructuring of the industry when the shape of it becomes clearer. In the meantime, I welcome the extension of the support scheme announced yesterday involving a further £25 million. But that can merely continue to cover the gap until a common fisheries policy is concluded.
As regards Part I of the Bill, a single, new authority has certainly been needed to replace the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. I applaud the work and the achievements of those two bodies. The present chairmen of the bodies, Mr. Charles Meek and Dr. Lyon Dean, have made remarkable contributions to the fishing industry during the recent times of upheaval and momentous change. Some noble Lords will remember the Fleck Report which came out 20 years ago, and I recall taking part in the debate on that report in the Commons. Sir Alexander Fleck was asked to head an inquiry into the future of the fishing industry, and he was able to look ahead about 10 or 12 years; but of course it was impossible for him to look so far ahead as to have been able to predict what has happened in the last six or seven years.
I end with an appeal to the media. I would ask them to take more trouble in reporting the fishing industry. The industry is exceedingly important to our country and the negotiations are very delicate. Simple instances, such as the use of the word "trawler" as if it covered all fishing boats, or the use of the word "trawlermen" as if it covered all fishermen, can be misleading. A trawler is a fishing boat, but every fishing boat is not a trawler. There are other fishing boats: for example, seine net boats, known as "seiners", and drift net boats, known as "drifters". One does not need to mention them all, but serious mistakes can be made due to not knowing the terms. Last night on television, when the £25 million grant was being announced, it was stated that it would be paid to trawler owners. It was clear to me that this was intended to mean all fishing boat owners, but many in the fishing industry who were trying to understand what it was about would have been misled. The first thing such a person would have wondered was: is the grant going to be available to the owners of other fishing boats, too?—for seiners, drifters, shellfish boats. So I ask the media to take more trouble. That may mean arranging for someone with some knowledge of the fishing industry to cast an eye over the texts and the scripts before announcements are made.

GLC: Transfer of Housing Stock
3.49 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement is as follows:
"In May 1980 the Greater London Council requested me to make an order under Section 23(3) of the London Government Act 1963 transferring the council's housing stock in the London boroughs of Brent, Camden, Hackney, Haringey, Hounslow, Lambeth, Lewisham and Waltham Forest to the borough councils. These boroughs were unwilling to accept the transfer of the stock. In these circumstances the Act required me to consult the boroughs before reaching a decision.
"There have been intensive consultations. I am now satisfied that it is right for the housing to be managed at borough level. I also believe that terms can be determined which will not only enable the stock to be assimilated smoothly but also lead to more effective housing management in London. My department is today conveying this decision to the borough councils.
"I shall be making an order transferring the stock to the borough councils on 1st April 1982, and intend to lay it before Parliament in the near future. A copy of the decision letter has been placed in the Library together with a draft of the proposed order. The order will take into account the boroughs' views on the GLC's proposals, and in particular will impose an obligation on the GLC to bring the property up to an acceptable standard over 10 years.
"The needs for housing mobility in London have changed considerably. The GLC's own mobility scheme for the transferred stock, together with the Inter-Borough Nomination Scheme, which is now to be part of the National Mobility Scheme, provides an adequate framework for meeting these needs, without the necessity to retain the GLC as a housing management authority. These transfers, together with those taking place by agreement, will largely fulfil the recommendations of the Herbert Commission in 1960 that, to the fullest possible extent, council housing in London should be owned and managed locally by the borough councils".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for repeating to us the Statement which has been made in another place. Having said that, I fear that I must first point out that the Statement contains very few details. I have only just this moment been able to get a copy of the decision letter, which I have not even had a chance to finish reading, but having had a glance through it I see that this also does not cover many of the very important and relevant points. I should first like to ask the Minister this: What is the hurry about this? Having asked him that, I think I can give him the answer. It is the GLC elections coming up next month, when the greater probability is that there will then be a Labour GLC whose hands will be tied by this statutory instrument. That is the reason for this.
130
In the third paragraph of the Statement there is a reference to "intensive consultations". As I understand it, 5,000 units out of 100,000 units of accommodation were costed, and I would not call this intensive consultations. Further down in the same paragraph, the Secretary of State says:
"I also believe that terms can be determined which will not only enable the stock to be assimilated smoothly but will also lead to more effective housing management in London".
The word "can" raises a great many doubts and queries. Certainly it does not appear to us that the Secretary of State has the total understanding and agreement of the boroughs and the GLC.
It has been estimated that it will require £450 million to bring the stock up to standard. I should like to know from the Minister whether the Secretary of State is prepared to make this sum available, and to make it available without any cuts in the HIP. Further, will any increased expenditure that will be required both on housing and on staff, and on other expenses, be exempted from the RSG? As to the equalisation of rents, as I saw from my brief glance at the decision letter there is a reference to it there, but, again, it is rather oblique; and I would point Out that the GLC rents are higher than borough rents, and the borough rents will have to go up. Although there is a reference to it in the decision letter, it still says that something like 15 per cent., I think it is, will not be covered if that goes towards rehabilitation expenses, or something of that nature.
Since 1976 over 16,000 lettings have been made by the GLC to tenants moving across the borough boundaries; and by 1979 the number of moves declined to 10,760. The GLC has been Tory-controlled since 1977, as we know, and part of the decline has been due to cuts and the sale of houses. But what is quite clear is that if there is not a mandatory statutory mobility scheme, then the chances of people from the inner London boroughs having a chance to live in houses or flats in outer London boroughs are going to be nil. In fact, it is true that the number of those which are empty has increased among those boroughs which have already entered into the scheme and have left, so to speak, the GLC. The reason given by people—not only Labour members of council, but Tory members as well—is that under the present GLC scheme this is computerised, and it is far easier to make these changes and to enable mobility to take place, whereas under the new system the whole thing is so much more clumsy and long-winded that the mobility will not work.
The whole purpose behind this scheme, it seems to me, is to take away the powers of the GLC and to take them as far as possible right out of housing. This is going to be a tremendous loss to the tenants in the inner London boroughs, who are going to have precious little chance of being able to move out from the buildings that they are in at the moment and housing conditions which they do not enjoy—they certainly do not enjoy them—into some of the boroughs in outer London.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome this Statement in principle as transferring the control of housing to the boroughs, where it is

131
closer to the people who are meant to be served by it, but that we are concerned that in so far as it is humanly possible to do so the consent of the boroughs should be obtained? There is some ambiguity in the Statement as to that. The noble Lord will recall that it says that the views of the boroughs will be taken into account, but it would appear that the final agreement has yet to be forthcoming. Do the boroughs have any veto under Section 23(3), or in the last resort could the Secretary of State make this transfer against their will?
With regard to the consultations, can the Minister say whether they have also discussed these matters with the tenants concerned and with the associations which represent them, particularly in view of the remarks made by the noble Baroness on the differentials in rent, which could affect some of these tenants who find themselves, after the modernisation which is promised in the Statement, faced with enormous rises? Further, is the figure of £450 million which was mentioned by the noble Baroness anywhere near correct? How is this to be financed? Is there to be a special provision transferred by the GLC to the boroughs, and will they recoup the £450 million, or whatever the sum is, from the savings that they make on their housing administration? Can the noble Lord say whether any calculation has been made on that matter?
What is to be the acceptable standard to which these houses are to be brought, and who is to judge that? Might it not have been better, in fact, to have left these matters to the boroughs, since they are going to be the controlling authorities for housing, and simply to require that the GLC would make available whatever money is required for the boroughs to bring them up to the standard?
Finally, the Statement mentions that housing could be managed more effectively at borough level, and I accept that that is correct in general, but recently the noble Lord has given the House figures of the large number of vacant properties in certain areas; and in particular there were several London boroughs which had more than 1,000 dwellings lying vacant for over 12 months. I am sure that the noble Lord takes this as seriously as do the tenants and the people on the housing waiting lists in these areas. Is he satisfied in making these transfers that the boroughs will pull their socks up and will make sure that these properties, like some of the others that they own, are not kept vacant for long periods of time pending their modernisation?
3.59 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked what the hurry was, and she then answered the question herself by saying that it was the GLC elections. I would respectfully suggest that that is not necessarily the case. The fact is that these discussions started about a year ago. A formal request was made by the GLC under Section 23(3) of the Act, and I would not have thought that a year or so later we should be talking about "a hurry". In any case, so far as the GLC elections are concerned, that is not really the point because the Secretary of State in fact has powers and could make such an order if he wished, regardless of the outcome of the GLC elections.
On her point about consultation I would only say
132
that the GLC requested these transfers in May 1980. The boroughs have used as many delaying tactics as they could. They have twice taken the matter of consultation to the courts and have been unsuccessful. My department gave an additional two months' extension of the period of consultation on the principle of transfer from September. In recent consultation on detailed terms, we offered to consider an extension if the period allowed turned out to be too short and, in the event, the boroughs asked for, and we gladly gave, only an extra five days.
As to the important point about the cost of updating the stock, may I say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating? The boroughs have extracted favourable terms on the matter of updating the properties. The order will require the Greater London Council to bring all the properties to acceptable standards over ten years, to deal with all serious design defects and to carry out environmental and external work to the estates concerned. The GLC will be required to cover the boroughs' transitional costs such as new depots, computerisation of records and so on, and the GLC will make adequate financial provision to cover the additional cost to the boroughs of making up for the shortfall in maintenance and management input by the GLC in the price.
On the point of rents, it will be for the receiving authority to determine the appropriate relationship between the rents of existing and transferred stock. The councils will wish to balance carefully the interests of all the tenants and the ratepayers in determining the appropriate rent levels. On the mobility scheme (which is a very important aspect of this) I would say that these transfers will not inhibit mobility. The GLC has the right to nominate tenants to up to half the vacancies arising in all its transferred stock—and by that I mean the 112,000 houses additionally which have been transferred voluntarily, including stock transferred by the other agreement. This arrangement, with the inter-borough nomination scheme, provides an adequate framework for movement within London. I look forward to seeing the GLC scheme and the inter-borough nomination scheme tied in with the new national mobility scheme which is to be announced today. We are anxious on this matter of mobility. It is important, and, with the three aspects covered in that way, we are taking care of it.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, welcomed the principle. His party are always anxious that the level of control shall be as near as possible to the people concerned; and in this case we are talking about tenants. I was glad that he welcomed that. He asked whether the boroughs have a veto. They do not. As to the tenants' views, I gather that discussions have taken place with the tenants. The Secretary of State would say that he has had regard to those in reaching his decision. But it would be fair and proper to say that some tenants have expressed doubts about the effect of the transfer. That is very understandable. I am confident that, under the more local management and given the obligations on the GLC to bring properties to acceptable standards, the tenants will benefit from the transfer.
I take the noble Lord's point about vacant dwellings. That is important. Hopefully, this should enable better management. It is true that some ofthe boroughs

133
concerned will, as I said in the Statement that I made yesterday, be getting some of these properties, but they are properties which are occupied. In any case, we are now involved in taking on the whole vacant premises matter, and we hope that will help not only these dwellings but the whole of the lettings of council houses.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that in capital cities there are a number of specialised problems—people coming in for employment, students and people from overseas—and these affect some of the London boroughs much more than others and, consequently, they cannot be dealt with solely on a borough basis? This was the whole point of having a housing authority in the capital city other than in the boroughs. If that is too remote an authority, that was simply because the Herbert Commission created this monstrous GLC instead of the London County Council which was doing the job very well.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, that was precisely why the GLC are retaining the right to make transfers and allocations (if you like) to the extent that I mentioned previously.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the better opinion of those experienced in London government—and by that I mean those who agree with my point of view!—the Statement that he has made today represents a very retrogade step in more ways than one? Is he aware that local government in this country can scareely be deemed to be democratic local government where the Minister has to announce that when the GLC called upon eight local authorities to take a transfer of the housing stock, all eight of them declined to do so; and the Minister has decided, after what is termed, somewhat euphemistically, consultation, to order them to take the stock. Is that what he means by consultation? Is that what he thinks is democratic local government?
I will not refer to the old LCC—and I was going to do so—because my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham did so in moving terms. I would merely say, God rest its soul!
So far as the GLC, which took over the Herbert Commission recommendation, is concerned, is he aware that the splitting up of staff in the children's department and in various other departments has been catastrophic in spoiling a real specialist department which was in the service of London? Is he aware that that is likely to be the same situation in regard to housing. May I put my last question before the noble Lord loses patience with me? Does he not know—and has he not had sufficient experience to verify the statement that I am now making—that bureaucracy in local government is unfortunately in this day and age a very cumbersome affair? Does he really think that mobility is going to be strengthened, or even equalled, if one has to leave it to the inter-bureaucracy of the local authorities to have the spread of housing which the GLC was able to have?—and, as part of that final question, is he aware that one of the great uses of the GLC—
Lord Denham: My Lords, the noble Lord is stretching the Orders of this House which call for brief questions for elucidation.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sorry if I embarrass the Front Bench opposite by an elasticity that I promise to bring to an end. Is the Minister aware that one of the great advantages in regard to the officers of the great GLC—not as great as the old LCC but still great—was the ability to offer housing to officers who otherwise might not be available in the service of London? Will that not be spoiled by the present order?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that he does not embarrass me in the slightest by the points he raises. He knows that I would not have agreed for a moment that this was a retrograde step. On the contrary, I consider it to be a great step forward. I have never found local authorities in the normal way to be unwilling to take on additional responsibilities. Certainly, if that means managing houses within their own geographical borough area, then I would normally expect they would only be too pleased to do so. The fact that in this instance they are not, I suggest reflects the matter of the discussion on terms and conditions. If the consultation period to which the noble Lord refers has not, he feels, resulted in the answers that the boroughs may have liked and therefore the Government have taken action, I respectfully suggest that there is no shortage of precedent for that. As to the effect of the bureaucracy on the mobility possibilities, that is a matter of opinion. I am not worried about the mobility side in view of what we now have and what we are announcing today regarding a national scheme, the inter-boroughs scheme, plus the right of the GLC to go on making nominations to the extent that I mentioned earlier. It will be much better than it has been in the past.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I have two brief questions for elucidation. When the noble Lord the Minister said that the boroughs did not have a right of veto, surely that is only another way of saying that they had no right of consent, either? This means serious inroads on the democracy of local government. It is one more example of the apparent intention of this Government completely to destroy local democracy.
My second point concerns figures. I am very bad at figures and I was trying to follow the financial implications of the Statement. Am I right that the total cost to the GLC of this exercise is something like £450 million over the years? Is that to come out of the pockets of the ratepayers of London, or are the Treasury going to make this money available over and above the existing finance?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if I may answer the point on the figures first, it is correct that it will be £450 million spread over 10 years. The funds obviously will come from the GLC which will raise their money in the normal way. They receive grants in one form or another in the normal way. Regarding the extent to which this is, if you like, an impingement on local democracy, an erosion of local democracy, I would only say that when I look around and see all the things

135
that are taking place today in local government I, with my great interest in it, have considerable fears for the future of local autonomy and therefore local democracy. But it is not because of the kind of steps that we are taking today in this matter.

Fisheries Bill
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.13 p.m.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, may I first apologise most sincerely to my noble friend that it was not possible for me to get here in time to hear his opening speech. I assure him that I shall read every word tomorrow morning in Hansard. I had an engagement of six months' standing which I could not break. One has sometimes all too little knowledge in advance of debates in which one wishes to take part. So I do apologise most sincerely that I was not here at the opening of the debate.
May I say, however, that I warmly welcome the new Fisheries Bill. As noble Lords have already said in the debate, I believe that it will make a very great contribution to the future of the fishing industry, which has been going through a desperately hard time. I am not wholly certain why we had to get rid of the White Fish Authority and turn it into the new Sea Fish Industry Authority. Speaking for the harbour board of which I am a member, we have had the closest co-operation and help throughout from the White Fish Authority, and we should like to pay a tribute to the excellent work which they have done in the years that they have acted—certainly in our area—in the South-West.
I should like to speak about the composition of the new authority. There are to be four members who are completely independent of the industry. That leaves eight who could be thorough-going, experienced members of the authority. We most sincerely hope that one of those eight will be somebody with very real knowledge and experience of the particular problems of inshore fishing in the Channel Ports and in the South-West.
Over the past three years I think that I have attended nine or 10 conferences, meetings and all-party delegations at which we have met the representatives of the fishing industry. In all but one case there has been no representative from the South-West. In general, the meetings have been dominated by the deep-sea fishermen. I do not complain about that. They have been better organised, and I say quite frankly that the very local independence and perhaps parochialism of the South-Western ports has been the reason why the area as a whole has not been represented. They are passionately proud of their own individual locations. In the past it has been almost "never the twain shall meet", and therefore their case for a long time has very much gone by default.
One good thing that the French, in their monstrous behaviour about fishing, have brought about is the much greater co-operation between the ports in the South-West. They now recognise that the common enemy is the other side of the water and not next door
136
to them. I am sure that there will be much greater co-operation. Possibly the two people who have done most to create that co-operation have been our two European Members. Indeed, because of their much wider constituency with four or five ports within their area, they have broken down the very local attitude of some of the ports. They have done excellent work. I should like to pay tribute to the work that they have done in pursuing the cause of the South-West fishermen and in supporting my right honourable friend the Minister in his efforts at the various committees of the EEC.
That brings me to this question: Will one of those eight come from the South-West? That is extremely important, not least because many of the ships hard hit up North are coming down to the South-West. We do not complain about that: we find berths for them; but with their larger boats they lessen the catches available to the smaller inshore fishermen, who are exclusively tied to those local areas. I passionately hope that one of those eight interested and experienced members will come from the South-West.
I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said about the attitude and the difficulties presented by the "Klondikers". Many members do not realise how numerous they can be. I attended a board meeting a few weeks ago and I asked how many factory ships and "Klondikers" were lying offshore just beyond the 12-mile limit waiting to take catches made by United Kingdom ships in our 12-mile limit. There were 55. Some 45 of them were from Eastern European countries, there were a couple from Portugal, there was one Egyptian and a few others.
That brings me to the question of the levy. We do not complain at all about the new authority being financed by this method, but we think that 1 per cent. of the gross worth of the catch going to it might be a little high, when one compares that with what the local port authorities get. In my own port, we get 2 per cent. of the gross worth of the catch. For that, we have to maintain the quays and docks, pursue and maintain all the safety and health regulations, have a harbour master with his supporting craft and staff, have more staff on the docks and buildings, supply offices, security, lighting, railings, canopies and fish boxes. You name it, my Lords, and we supply it, but for that we get only a 2 per cent. levy! We have to provide the berths and all the services that go with a fishing harbour. We would not mind so much if we had the landing charges, and this brings me back to the "Klondikers".
I am sure it will be readily understood that these small local ports sustain massive losses, due to the growing practice of direct sales to factory ships just outside the 12-mile limit. The other United Kingdom ships, which are quite often from the North and much larger than our local ones, get much greater catches. They then ring a gentleman who sits in an office in Falmouth and say "I have got so many tonnes of this or that fish. Have you a buyer?" Within 10 minutes, that person is told the location of a nearby foreign factory ship waiting three or four miles out, which is prepared to buy. The fish is taken directly there and sold and we lose all the landing charges. For a small South-Western port, this is a very serious loss indeed.

137
I am delighted that the Bill will impose a levy. As I read Clause 4(3)(a)—I hope that I have read it correctly but I am sure that my noble friend can tell me instantly if I have not—
"in respect of the weight of sea fish or sea fish products landed in the United Kingdom or trans-shipped within British fishery limits at a prescribed rate which, in the case of sea fish, shall not exceed …"
and so on, the authority will be able to impose a levy on those landings. But I also understand that a local port, which provides the berths and services, will get nothing. I only hope that I am wrong in my reading.
Also, I do not understand whether "within British fishery limits" means the 50-mile limit or the 12-mile limit. If it is the 12-mile limit, it will not catch the Klondikers who lay just outside that limit, and we shall not get what the fishing industry ask for, which is dues from these direct sales. I believe that that is very important, indeed, to the industry and to the authority, in lessening its dues.
My noble friend Lord Mansfield did not wholly agree with me, and told me that my question yesterday was wholly concerned with the Bill today. As he so told me, I am coming back to something which I asked then, but which he did not answer; that is, the question of fuel costs. We are deeply concerned that our fuel costs are greatly higher than those of our competitors abroad. It is one of the reasons why the deep sea fishermen have been less able to take advantage of the quotas allowed us in the Canadian fishing grounds.
First, the industry has been so run down that many of the great trawlers have been laid up or sold in the shrinkage of the industry, so we do not have the same size of fleet as could go out and take advantage of any quotas that we are allowed in those very distant waters. Secondly, it is far less economic for our trawlers to go these very great distances to the Canadian fishing waters, because of the very substantially greater cost of fuel to our fishermen compared with that operating in Germany. I understand that the fuel costs of German fishermen—this is why it is easier for them to go out to the Canadian waters—are about one-third less than ours. This is very important, when one considers all the hazards of deep sea fishing. Although you may go out and get a magnificent catch, you may on the other hand come back with very little.
Finally, I should like to say a word about the controls. There is still very great anxiety, indeed, in the South-West about the adequacy of the proposed controls of the fishing trawlers of all nationalities in relation to conservation. We believe that, in this sphere, Great Britain is stricter. When it undertakes to impose controls, it imposes them. If your Lordships will forgive me for digressing for one minute to give a very sound example of what we are up against, I have been involved in another sphere with regulations imposed by the EEC, agreed by all nations and imposed in this country by the weights and measures inspectors in every town and city in the country. Eight of the nine countries have no local weights and measures or controlling inspectors at all, and if you want to bring a case, or make a complaint, in Italy you must get it up to Rome before any action is taken. Therefore, in this country these controls are far more seriously and scrupulously imposed than they are in any other country in Europe.
138
To get back to the fisheries, we are equally concerned that the controls imposed by the people operating in the fishing industry in Europe, and particularly in France, will be nowhere near as vigilant as those operating from this side. Although we are told that there will be an EEC control and not a national control, the numbers so far suggested are so pitifully small that we think it quite impossible that proper controls will be imposed on both sides of the Channel. Even if they succeed in being imposed in the ports, we are still desperately anxious about the checks on catches sold at sea to iron curtain countries, which will refuse to allow a controlling officer from a small launch to board a boat and check. The ships will probably be so powerful that they will be miles away before any patrol boat can get to them, to check whether they have 1,000 or 10,000 tonnes of fish. We are deeply concerned about this in relation to conservation and maintaining the stocks which we think it so vital to maintain around our shores. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give me some reassurance on the points which I have raised.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I must apologise to my noble friend the Minister for having arrived too late to hear his opening remarks. However, I shall read them very carefully. I was informed that the Second Reading of the Bill would not begin before 3.15, but I am not blaming anybody for that.
I want to speak chiefly about conservation off the West Coast of Scotland. It is from the West Coast of Scotland that any practical experience of sea fishing which I have comes. I used to have a lobster fishery and I know the coast extremely well. I thoroughly welcome the Bill. It is very wise to amalgamate the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board into the new Sea Fish Industry Authority. It will streamline the operation and I am sure it is the right thing to do.
I should like to say a word or two about conservation and to follow up a point which was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith. I agree with what she said about quotas. As a means of conservation, quotas would be quite useless. People will cheat. If my experience of the French in my estate shop is anything to go by, the French will be the worst cheats. I understand that there are to be only 40 inspectors throughout the whole of the EEC. That is absurd. You need 400. Forty will be quite hopeless.
May I say something about "Klondikers". I have brought up this subject two or three times in your Lordships' House, and I do not like to repeat myself. However, about seven years ago I had "Klondikers" in my sea loch. They were legal "Klondikers". They were Norwegians and were to be found about a mile off the shore. The Government of the day presumably did a deal with them. These Norwegian "Klondikers" were buying herring fry from Scottish boats, sending it to Norway, canning it and re-exporting it to the United Kingdom. I cannot remember what they were sold as because I never bought a can. As a result of that, for years we have not seen a herring. They completely wiped out the herring stock around those

139
shores. It was the most extraordinary thing for the Government to do.
Since our stocks of fish are very depleted, and as yet we have no permanent fisheries policy within the EEC, surely we are bolting the stable door after the horse has gone. We are acting late in the day. But I suppose it is better late than never. Until we have a common fisheries policy, this Bill, which is a very good Bill, is not very practical. Apparently the Government are being quite tough with the Common Market over the common fisheries policy which we hope to have. However, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has said, this country has over 60 per cent. of all the sea fishing in the area of the EEC. Our coastline is longer than the coastline of the rest of the EEC put together.
There are only three methods of conservation, only one of which is 100 per cent. sound. In Part III of the Bill there are regulations governing the size limits for fish. Clause 19(1) says:
"… no person shall land in Great Britain any sea fish of any description, being a fish of a smaller size than such size as may be prescribed in relation to sea fish of that description …".
In English, that means that you cannot land any fish of a certain species which is under a certain size. But that regulation cannot be carried out in practical terms. If a fisherman runs into a shoal of fish of a certain species, he can easily catch fish which are under size for that species. The fish which he is out to catch may require a smaller mesh than the fish which he has caught by mistake. So you cannot blame the fisherman for that. This is a very difficult problem. Under the law as it stands, the fisherman is supposed to dump the fish back into the sea. That is rather wasteful, because most of them will die. He may break the law by selling the fish to a foreign boat. How one gets round that, I do not know. It is extremely difficult to legislate for this kind of thing.
There is another method of conservation but it is not very satisfactory. The problem is that fish know no boundaries. Even if there were a regulation governing the mesh size for what you were going to catch, you could easily catch the wrong fish. I do not see how you can legislate for that. The only true method of conservation is to have a total ban on fishing in certain areas. A temporary ban could be imposed in an area where no fishing would be allowed. The other method would be to limit by licence the number of fishing boats. That would have to be done when we have a new common fisheries policy throughout the EEC. It sounds rather drastic, but I believe that it is the only way in which one can conserve fish.
I should now like to talk for a moment about Part IV of the Bill, which relates to fish farming. Last summer, I started a fish farm on my estate in Mull. We are hoping to rear 200,000 salmon a year. I am rather confused as to whether fish farming is to come under the control of the Sea Fish Industry Authority or the Ministry of Agriculture. I understand that the Sea Fish Industry Authority are to be responsible for fish farming as regards sea fish, but that they are not to be responsible for salmon or for sea trout, brown trout or rainbow trout. If that is so, it seems a little untidy. I should have thought that one authority ought to be responsible for the whole of sea farming,
140
whether it is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Sea Fish Industry Authority.
Then, there is the question of grants. I understand that fish farmers can only get a grant if the Community gives grants for fish farming in this country. I am not quite sure of that regulation, but I understand that one cannot obtain a grant from the Sea Fish Industry Authority unless it is bound up with a grant from the Community. That does not seem to be very satisfactory. Of course, in Scotland the Highlands and Islands Development Board has given grants to fish farmers, but that is only a small area when compared to the United Kingdom as a whole. I hope that it can be clarified as to who is responsible for sea fish farming, the Sea Fish Industry Authority or the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I should like to say a few words on the question of disease in fish farming. It is imperative to have fish farms—and certainly salmon fish farms—as close to the sea as possible, where the river is very close to the sea. If, after the fresh water has been through the fish tanks, it is pumped back into the river, one is asking for disease in the lower reaches of the river. It is far safer to pump it out into the sea. I quite understand that that is very difficult to do if there is a fish farm miles from the sea.
I should like to say one thing about the Crown Estate Commissioners, my experience being in Edinburgh. I was amazed one day when driving along the shore of my estate to see a lot of buoys out. They were placed on an oyster bed of mine in which we had put down spawn for years. Of course I took the buoys up. Then the police came and saw me, and they I told me that a French Moroccan, who is now a nationalised Briton, had obtained a lease from the Crown Commissioners. This was extraordinary because the estate has had the shore rights down to spring low tide for generations—in fact in perpetuity; not that I stop anyone from taking mussels or anything of that sort on the shore, but we do rather draw the line at oysters. The Crown Commission Office in Edinburgh does not appear to do its homework. The offices appear to be staffed by extremely young people. I do not know where the senior people are—perhaps they are playing golf! This really requires looking into because I am frightened that if they are going to do this to me, they may start granting big companies rights on the seabed which will cause tremendous chaos. All sorts of things will happen: people will have their nets fouled, other people will be anchoring their boats and dragging up somebody else's cages. So I hope that more care will be taken in the future.
In conclusion, I should like to say that I welcome the Bill especially in regard to the organisation of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, which I consider to be a step in the right direction.
4.46 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I must confess an almost total ignorance of deep sea fishing matters, unlike some of my noble friends who have spoken this afternoon. In fact I think my only experience was twenty-four very happy hours that I once spent as—I am looking at my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy—I think the technical term is a "seine netter", out of Wick. So I shall concentrate very much on the fresh-

141
water fish farming aspect of this Bill, and here I must declare an interest as I have recently built and am developing a trout farm.
I give a very warm welcome to this legislation because I think I am right in saying that it is the first piece of legislation to affect fish farming as such, and I would echo what the noble Earl the Minister said when paying tribute to the late Lady Emmet of Amberley. I know that had she been sitting here in her usual corner she would certainly have been speaking this afternoon and she would have shown enormous enthusiasm because there was at last going to be something on the statute book on one of her favourite subjects, fish farming.
I was very pleased to hear the Minister say also that there is a consultation paper and that the Government may take future measures on this if they find it necessary, because I think that the present Bill—although, as I say, I welcome it—is a very humble beginning indeed. After all, there are only four clauses in the Part of the Bill which deals with fish farming and one of those is confined to shellfish in the sea, so I do not think that it has a great bearing on freshwater fish farming.
I became wildly excited when I read through this Bill when I read on page X the title of Clause 33 in Part IV, which is about fish farms, which indicated that the clause dealt with exemption from conservation legislation. As one of those in your Lordships' House who has just spent goodness how many days engaged on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, I was rather fascinated to think that as a trout farmer I might be exempt from the whole lot. But when I read what it actually stood for, it was something quite different. In fact when I turned to Part I of Schedule 4, on page 41, which is the conservation legislation from which we are to be protected, I found myself with rather a guilty conscience and wondering how on earth I was managing to run a trout farm at the moment without infringing a great many Acts. There seem to be a great many which it is necessary to repeal in order to make fish farming legal.
Clause 31 deals with grants, and again I should like to ask the question that was asked by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard—namely, why is this restricted to EEC grants? Obviously I welcome it, as I am sure fish farmers welcome any grants that are available. Obviously I realise that at the moment the money may not be available for fish farmers but perhaps it will be there one day and I should like to know why that is not being brought into this Bill.
I was also very puzzled by the expression that only fish "for human consumption" was to be eligible for these grants and I wondered how on earth one told the difference between the two. On my trout farm—and I am quite certain that I am not unique in this country—I have trout which go out as regular orders, some for the table and some that go out to stock lakes for fishermen. I suppose that one could say that trout in Pool X are going mostly for table and those in Pool Y are going for fishing. On the other hand, I get people who ring up in the morning and say that they want so many trout either for a restaurant or else for stocking a pool and, until the things go off in the truck, I have no idea whether those fish have been produced for
142
human consumption or not. I wonder how that is to be got around.
I should also like to say something on the clause which deals with grants, Clause 32, which is in regard to the research development and advice. I am sure this is much to be commended. I am very glad we are going to be given some technical help from ADAS and other bodies. But there is an anomaly at present, and I hope my noble friend the Minister will listen sympathetically, because I do not think it is something that will cause a great problem. At the moment the Agricultural Research Council can give grants to universities and in fact it does give them grants for study and research into the development of agriculture. But it is not at the moment allowed to do this for fish farming. There are a number of universities who are doing very valuable work in the field of research into the growth of fish for human consumption; in particular, I would single out Aston university, but there are others.
At the present time the universities—I am sure noble Lords do not need reminding—are under a lot of pressure. I think this is not an enormous piece of legislation. I was hoping that, when my noble friend Lord Mansfield comes to reply, he might be most sympathetic about this and the government might even consider introducing an amendment at Committee Stage; that would stop me having to do so. I think it is very much a technicality. I do not think it will cost much money, because, after all, the Agricultural Research Council need not give money to fish farming if it does not want to and does not think it a worthy cause. It is a small matter, but I think an important one and one which might be much welcomed.
Having said all that. I should like again, with all other noble Lords, to give this Bill a very fair wind. I wish our fishermen, so glowingly described by the noble Lord, Lord Peart—who nearly had me singing, "Fishermen of England", as he was speaking—nothing but good luck, and I must say again how delighted I am to see fish farming recognised in a piece of legislation.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am sure that the Government must be very pleased indeed by the general welcome that has been given to the Bill; this follows a similar welcome given in another place, and indeed co-operative efforts to improve the Bill, although it is true to say that the Government had second thoughts on one decision that was made in the Committee there. There is no doubt at all of the value of the Bill, but let us please not overestimate it. The trouble at the moment about the fishing industry arises from the changes that have taken place within a relatively short period: the changes in relation to the deep sea fleet, by the dispute with Iceland and the fact that we did not come to any settlement satisfactory to us. I must say that although it was urged on me at that time—I was a fishery Minister at that time—that we should allow the EEC to come in and help us, I am afraid that they did not help us to a very great extent. That was the first thing.
Then there was the EEC itself. I have heard people talk today as though there were no common fisheries policy. I would remind them that we all thought there was no common fisheries policy, but on the very eve

143
of us putting our name to and joining the EEC in 1972, we discovered that there was a fisheries policy, to which we were committed. The only thing was that I think we retained our own rights in respect of conservation, and we were given a 10-year moratorium in respect of changes in fishery limits. Then, of course, there came the world-wide sudden realisation of the value of fish and the shortage of fish and the extension of boundaries all over. We of course found ourselves tied in relation to this; we were not able to conduct bipartisan negotiations with Iceland, with Norway and other places; it was now an EEC matter. This is why, using the power of that now, we have got some influence in relation to the Germans and Canada, because it is now an EEC matter.
All these changes affected people who saw their traditional way of life going. They had to look for other outlets. I think it was Lord Campbell of Croy who drew our attention to the fact that there has been this decline in the industry, this great reduction in the deep sea fleet. I think even in these last three years it has halved; there are only about 52 ships left and they are not all at sea. Some of the middle water men had to find new areas and they started encroaching on what were the preserves of other sections of the industry. So the fact of the matter is that the 70s have been years of change and decline and frustration. People have been saying for years, and I can remember even the right honourable gentlemen telling me at one time, that we needed to restructure the industry. We could not restructure the industry until we saw what the future fishing pattern was going to be, and that depended on a common fisheries policy that was not agreed, and we have not got it yet.
The whole of Part II of the Bill is a prelude—it is not here yet—to what the common fisheries policy will be, to what agreements we will make in relation to where we will fish and how much fish we will be able to take, and also in relation to the whole aspects of conservation. We do not know. We may be enthusiastic and welcome the Bill, but please do not mention singing "Fishermen of England" if you want to keep harmony in the House today. Remember, half the fish is now landed in Scotland. This was a point I wanted to make. Although we have an increased interest and an increased number of vessels in the nearer waters, the deep sea fleet has been decimated. They now only land, I think, about 9 per cent. of the whole catch of all the fish in Britain. I heard the noble Baroness talking quite rightly, about the domination of the industry by the deep sea fleet. Their domination, of course, has changed. They always were able to speak with a much more united voice for their section of the industry than any of the others, because, as she rightly said, there was that element, not just of regionalism but virtually parochialism. Part of that has been eroded by the French threat and the French aggression in pursuit of their particular policies. It may well be that we will get a much more united voice at this moment front the fishermen of the United Kingdom. But once we come to do the restructuring, once the Minister comes to deal with the whole question of who is on the authority and who is not, watch that unity disappear and the demands for parochial or regional representation
144
come again to the surface. But I will come to that later on.
There is no doubt at all about it that the 70s have been declining years for the fishing industry, changing years. I am afraid the 80s have started virtually as despairing years. I was reading something sent to me the other day from a fishing port that has suffered very severe blows indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will know it well—Buckie—where in the last 20 months they have lost five ships. Even in the last fortnight they have lost eight men in two ships. When one reads the names and sees how the families are all tied up, one appreciates the importance of this from a family point of view, from a community point of view, and one can see why there is that local parochialism and, indeed, pride in their part of the industry. It has been a matter of pride for the industry and it may well be that it robbed them of the unity of voice in respect of interests that have been threatened over much more recent years. I sincerely hope that that unity will be there.
However, what they said was the following:
"There is now more general awareness of the nature of the problems afflicting the industry; central have been the uncertainty over our arrival at a satisfactory CFP "—
common fisheries policy. Let me at this point congratulate the Government on what they are doing. I was glad to see the Secretary of State for Agriculture backing up the sterling work that is being done by the Minister of State, whose father I am happy to see present. The noble Lord can tell him that I approve of all that he has been doing there. Mind you, he has something to live up to because he was the Minister in charge of fisheries in Scotland at the time when we originally went in and he knows all the feeling that was aroused in Scotland at that time. However, the Government are doing well there.
Secondly, the document mentions:
"massive imports of fish at ludicrously low prices".
That point was touched on by the noble Baroness. It goes on to mention spiralling overheads for our own boats. It is not just a question of energy costs, because we must bear in mind the costs of everything else. With all the gear the cost of a new boat is frightening. That all has an effect throughout this varied industry. Headline goes on:
"Despite measures of Government aid, the crisis has had a snowball effect, with orders for new boats drying up and consequent fears for employment in fishing boat building and repair yards around the country".
I think that it was my noble friend Lord Peart who mentioned the fact that this is not one industry, but many industries. For every one person involved in catching, there are six people whose livelihood is involved in repair yards, in supplying nets and engines and in processing, as well as the porters on the fishery harbours. Someone said to me the other day that it is an ironic fact that today Hull, which used to be the great centre of the deep sea industry and the port which was so concerned about the troubles over the Icelandic waters, is now dependent for work for its fish porters on Icelandic trawlers coming in with their fish. That is the nature of the change.
I sincerely hope that what I think is central to the Bill—that is, the provisions in relation to financial aid as well as what is proposed in respect of conserva-

145
tion on a wider sphere when we have power to deal with foreign boats as well as our own—will come from a satisfactory conclusion of the CFP. However, that does not entirely lie in our hands and it will not be done tomorrow. Please remember that, once we get the agreements in principle, we must then work out all the details. We all know that the restructuring has been required for about seven or eight years. It will be hard going. We shall hear phrases like "selling down the river" scrapping and "building". It will be hard for some people and hard for some ports.
That brings us to the importance of what we are now going to do in respect of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. I think that I am the fourth fishery officer who has spoken today: we have heard from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, my noble friend Lord Peart and myself. We have known the people who have served in these bodies and we have known them well. They have not been people directly involved in fishing. I remember that when I first became Secretary of State a distinguished ex-colonial civil servant, who was later a director of Fisons, was head of the Herring Industry Board. He was followed by a very distinguished Scottish trade unionist who was one of its most successful chairmen—namely, George Middleton. We have the work in the White Fish Authority of men like Charles Meek and the others who have been mentioned. Within their remit they have done a quite excellent job.
I may say to the noble Earl who spoke last that I have just been reading a report from the White Fish Authority in respect of the visit that it made to China at the request of our embassy in Peking. One of the matters to which it has been paying special attention is the very matter about which the noble Earl was speaking—namely, fish farming. We shall come to the amount of work that the White Fish Authority has done overseas during the Committee stage, because we know that the Government will support them in expenditure along these particular lines.
These were small bodies, but now we are getting one. It is a natural development. In fact the Fleck Committee suggested over 20 years ago that this should be the way. At present, with developments being sponsored by the two authorities, they are both in the same headquarters. They share staff and they have come together. I think that Governments have been hoping and hoping that there will be a common fisheries policy and that they could wrap everything up into one Bill at the right time. We have now decided to go ahead with it. These people are taking on the tasks that were respectively those of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. That will be very important because when we come to what aid may be available for restructuring the industry, when we come to the question of licensing, I have not the slightest doubt that use will be made of the new authority and that it will act virtually as agent of the Government.
The question then arises: is it right that we should have a completely independent body—the eight and the 12—or should we have an authority like the White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board which were completely independent? The Government have
146
tied themselves. The change was made in Committee in another place, and then the Government reversed that decision on Report in the Commons. They have come back to this authority of 12, eight of whom will be representative of the industry and four independent. I think that I am right in saying that the chairman and the vice-chairman must be two of the independent members. We have no information about whether they will be full-time or part-time, or how they will be paid or what they will be paid. Above all, we know very little about how they will be chosen.
This is an industry which is really six or seven industries, and yet we shall choose eight representatives. We know one thing. I think that it was the right honourable gentleman Mr. Enoch Powell who, in another place, as a result of an intervention which I think he made in Committee, got the assurance from the Minister that there will be one representative from Northern Ireland. So now we are left with seven. If the noble Baroness gets her way we shall be left with six, because she demands—and she demanded today—that there will be one from the South-West. I have been reading the reports of another place: Aberdeen wants its representative; the Highlands want their representative and the deep sea men want their representative.
There is not a split of the industry into deep sea, middle water and inshore—and inshore, of course, is now from a landing point of view, from a supply point of view, much more important. There is still a certain measure of voice domination from other parts. But when we take into account the spread and the parochial pride of and demands from the various ports—not just from areas but from actual ports—how are we to deal with the seven? There is not only the fishing industry from a catching point of view to be considered; there are the processors in which the Government have a great deal of money tied up, especially in Scotland with the support that has been given to new ventures in relation to fish processing. I remember the Minister of State himself presenting a new Bill, the Breasclete Harbour Bill, where a great deal of money was to be spent on building a new port in the West of the Islands. I shall not embarrass the noble Earl or expect any reply from him at the moment about the effect of, say, "Klondiking" on that. But this is where the importance lies in relation to these particular problems; we must take into account the interest of the catchers, the processors and the people who work in the harbours.
How will we get direct representation for them all in the seven representatives? I do not think that we will. Although they may all agree that they want direct representation, as soon as they discover that they are not getting direct representation, we shall receive complaints. I think that most Members who have been Ministers—certainly Scottish Ministers—have experienced this. I remember setting up the Highlands and Islands Development Board. We received demands that there must be a representative from Lewis, Shetland, Orkney, this place and that place. We would never have had the successful board that we eventually achieved by having independent people on it.
Decisions will have to be made by the Government, perhaps through their agents, the new Sea-Fish Industry

147
Authority. Let us not shorten that to sea fish authority and start calling it the SFA or we shall really get mixed up in Scotland, because those initials are still retained by the Scottish Football Association, in which I have a certain interest. Noble Lords must not try to sidetrack me on last Wednesday's game! When considering the decisions that will be taken, we must see whether or not all these people who want representation will be satisfied with what they will get. That is one of the difficulties with which we shall deal in Committee. However, I am not very happy about this question of representation.
Then there are the four independent members. From reading the Bill, we discover that as regards matters of finance and matters of levy, which will be of vital importance to the industry, the eight representatives of the fishing industry will not be consulted; those matters are to be left to the four independents. So that is one matter that we shall require to examine.
I am very glad that the Government have taken the opportunity to control, and it may well be to restrict, "Klondiking". I think that all the dangers are present, including the disadvantages of the harbours and the processors. We must bear in mind how much we have tied up in processing and the extent to which local employment is dependent on processing. Processors in the Scottish fishing industry are working at under 20 per cent. capacity; yet where I live I can see fish in the Bay of Ayr, on the West Coast of Scotland, but not a fish comes into the harbour. That suits some of the catchers; of course it does. But in the smaller villages the catchers' families are employed in other branches of the industry. From a long-term point of view we must tackle this problem, and tackle it firmly. As a result of action in another place, the Government took power to license the "Klondikers", but they have not laid down the circumstances under which they will use that power. That is the real biting power. In Canada they use the "Klondikers" when it suits them; when there is a surplus and their processing factories on shore are working at full capacity, they license the "Klondikers". We should do the same. From the point of view of a disciplined and prosperous industry, both offshore and onshore, this is something that we want to do.
I do not want to speak for too long, but I look forward to the Committee stage and I hope that it is conducted in a pleasant spirit. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, will forgive me if I do not go into the dire question of Crown Commissioners and what they are doing. I remember introducing a new Bill, a Crown Commissioners Bill, where we dealt with these particular points, so the noble Viscount might get some comfort there. However, I can assure him that many of the lairds of Scotland, who did very well out of the negligence of the Crown Commissioners in the past, by not staking their claim in respect of certain beaches and foreshores over a particular period, then discovered that they had passed, as a result of law, into the hands of the proprietors. I do not have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Viscount, but I wish him well in his battle for a monopoly of oysters beds and so on.
I think that the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, is right. There is confusion over
148
responsibility in respect of fish farming, between the Minister of Agriculture and the new authority, although there is no doubt that the existing White Fish Authority already has certain responsibilities in respect of fish farming for sea fish. It has the establishment at Hunterston for instance, and yet another place.
When we look at the whole Bill we see that some of it is natural development, and that we are only putting the stamp of statute on something that has already happened. In Part II we are anticipating and getting ready for what we all hope will be a satisfactory settlement in respect of the fishery limits, and, indeed, in respect of conservation. I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, who spoke as to the adequacy or otherwise of the 40 inspectors, but from my reading of the Bill it will not only be the 40 who will be concerned to ensure that people comply with whatever new regulations are produced.
We started on this business of conservation long before the EEC or anyone who is now in the EEC. I think that they have much to learn from us. If, as has been said, we can ensure that conservation is carried out within our own waters, knowing the quality of the people who are presently doing it and, indeed, the co-operation that they receive from the British fishing fleets—for they are seized of the importance of this for the long term, as it affects their livelihood—then I would be satisfied. But, quite frankly, I have some of the suspicions of the local Scottish fishermen, that we are the ones who comply and the foreigners do not. Indeed, I would not put it quite so bluntly as the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, and limit it to one section, because I have heard things said about the Dutch and the Germans as regards compliance.
Do not let us overestimate the value of the Bill. The Bill is necessary; the Bill is important. But if we want to wish well for the future of our industry we ought to wish well to those who are conducting our negotiations at present in the Common Market, and trust that they get a satisfactory solution to the problems. They know what is expected of them. I am hoping that they will not let the fishing industry down.
5.20 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords and the noble Baroness for the positive and constructive way in which they have taken part in this useful debate, and indeed to congratulate them on the points that have been made. I congratulate particularly those who were lucky enough to be here for my opening remarks. I do not say that in any sense of pique towards those who were not here, but if they had been they would have heard how I justified the Bill in the context of a common fisheries policy, as hopefully, in the words of my right honourable friend, it will become with the passing of spring. It is of course extremely important—and the noble Lord, Lord Ross, put this so well—that as the conditions have changed, and changed for the most part not altogether for the better so far as the fishing industry is concerned, then we must get our tack right so that we can continue to monitor both the fishing industry, and the conditions in which it fishes, and provide the best possible framework for the future.
A great many of the points put to me were matters which no doubt will be raised on Committee. Perhaps

149
May I reply to some of them, particularly the broader ones which really come into a Second Reading debate. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, asked about the financing of the SFIA—the new body—in the future. What I first have to tell him is that, of course, under the Bill the authority is given power to finance its activities basically in two ways. First, it can raise the levy on the industry. I shall come back to this a little later because my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith asked questions about the levy. Secondly, of course, the authority can borrow funds either from the private sector or indeed from the Government. It may use its borrowed funds, for example, to give loans to the fishing industry in a way similar to the WFA now. But I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Peart, that this is quite separate from the arrangements in Part II of the Bill which provide for financial aid from the Government for purposes of restructuring the industry. That is quite separate and apart from the ordinary grant and loan.
Then the noble Lord asked about the training of fishermen. The Bill gives power for the authority to undertake training. What its activities will be in that direction will be for the authority to decide having regard to the priorities which it lays down for the use of its resources. But it will have, as we have heard quite a lot this afternoon, a number of persons who will represent different viewpoints within the industry, and no doubt they will wish to consider carefully the use of the powers which they are going to be given under the Bill.
Then we had quite a lot of debate as to the composition of the new authority. My noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith was adamant that it must include somebody from the South West. If I may quote a little from my own experience in Government, where we have a pre-industry meeting of all the fishing representatives from the United Kingdom before each fishery council I attend, I am bound to say that there is a remarkable unanimity of view among the fishermen's representatives from different parts of the United Kingdom. Although, obviously, they have their different viewpoints because of their very different methods of fishing and different priorities, nevertheless there is not this almost selfish divergence of view which the general public might be led to expect.
In making the appointments to the authority the fisheries Ministers will obviously be concerned to ensure that the members of the authority are representative at least of the main areas of the industry. We shall have to take account too—as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said—of the different sectors of the industry; there are not only catchers, but also salesmen and processors, and sectors like that, to be taken into account. We want to provide an authority which will have the full support and indeed respect of the fishing industry. Unless we get that, it will not succeed in its task. But I have no doubt that this matter of composition is something to which we shall return in Committee.
My noble friend put the point about a levy on transhipment. I think she was basically concerned to know whether "Klondikers" either outside the 12-mile limit or outside the 50-mile limit would be caught by the transhipment levy. The answer to both her questions is, yes. All "Klondikers" within 200 miles will be caught, because that is our fishery
150
limit. From that she will see, even if she does not agree with it, that it is almost impossible in those circumstances to ascribe a levy to an individual port. It would be an extremely difficult process—indeed, I would go so far as to say it would be impossible—to lay down some kind of equitable way in which the transhipment levy might be applied to a port.
Yesterday my noble friend asked me about fuel costs. I rather brushed her aside, for which I apologise. One always feels that statements in your Lordships' House can take too long. We are conscious, the Government are very conscious, of the fact that the fishing industry is an intensive industry so far as the consumption of fuel is concerned. We are also conscious that, whatever the cost of fuel in other countries may be, that fuel costs represent a large proportion of the costs of a fishing boat putting to sea. It was partly in reflection of this appreciation of the industry's problems that we made available the sum of money that I announced in your Lordships' House yesterday—that is to say, £25 million—and we did take this matter of the cost of fuel into account both in determining the amount of money and how it was to be paid out. Although I know that some sections of the industry at any rate would have liked to have a fuel subsidy, having regard to various well laid down principles to which the Government have adhered during this most unsatisfactory turn of events, economically speaking, that we are going through, we think it was right in this instance to provide the aid that we did and not by means of a fuel subsidy.
Then my noble friend went on to criticise, if that is not too strong a word, the form of the levy which the SFIA might impose. She, having read the Bill, will appreciate that it can be either an ad valorem levy at a maximum rate of 1 per cent., or indeed it can be a levy on weight, as is maintained by the WFA at the moment. That would be on a per kilogram basis. If the authority in the future chooses to apply its levy on an ad valorem basis, it will be for the authority, bearing in mind that the majority of the authority will be representatives from the industry, to set an appropriate levy rate.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was right to say that the representative members would be excluded from the administration of financial aid schemes, he was not right to say that the representatives would be excluded when the levy was set. Therefore, they will have the opportunity to play their full part at that important juncture when the authority goes about its duties.
I was asked by a number of noble Lords about the control on fishing effort by other countries. Needless to say, we in Britain are always mindful of the fact that we obey all the rules and the foreigners do not ever obey any of them! The Government have given close attention to the need for effective controls. We have to ensure that conservation regulations are respected and once the common fisheries policy is settled and agreed, detailed procedures are being worked out which will regulate fishing activity. It is important to understand and appreciate, as one of my noble friends did not, that each member state will be responsible for enforcing the regulations in its own waters. That is to say, each member state will be responsible for enforcing Community regulations, so there will not

151
be some vague third force which will be responsible for imposing its authority so far as monitoring of the regulations is concerned.
The national legislation which we will need to enforce the law against vessels of all nations fishing within United Kingdom fishery limits has been the subject of much Government thought. That is reflected in Part III of the Bill and we think the powers we have taken in that part of the Bill should be added to our armoury in order to carry out this function in the future. Apart from our responsibilities, all member states must he seen to be enforcing the rules to the same high standards as we do, otherwise there would be allegations of unfairness, I have no doubt. Therefore, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has obtained the agreement of the Community to the setting up of a monitoring force of inspectors, and they will have the duty of ensuring that member states are carrying out their enforcement responsibilities effectively, fairly and without discrimination between fishermen of different member states. The point has therefore been taken on board and considered very seriously.
I come to the problems of fish farming, on which my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard was the first to comment. Sea fish farming is covered by the new authority as part of its general responsibility for the sea fish industry. Freshwater fish farming poses different questions and it would appear logical that it should have rather different arrangements provided for it. The noble Lord need have no worries for the moment; my department, the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, will look after his fish farm and see he does not spread disease, and it will be responsible in fact for all disease questions of that nature on Scottish fish farms.
I was asked a number of questions which amount to this: Why should the capital grants scheme which at present applies to the agriculture industry, to farms, not be applied to fish farms? The answer is that it is by no means certain at present that a capital grants scheme which is appropriate for agriculture would necessarily be applicable or indeed appropriate to sea fish or any form of fish farming. As I said in my opening remarks, we shall consider the matter. The question of grants of course will be on a United Kingdom basis, but the whole question of fish farming will be considered by both departments because the law of real property is different in Scotland, as is planning law, and therefore it will be necessary to have two consultative documents and two different lines of negotiation and discussion with the industry, and in due course two consultative papers will be produced and published and we shall see how we go from there.
A matter which the noble Lord raised and which will be part of this consultation process is that of the Crown Estate Commissioners, and I wish to answer the point because there has been some quite widespread dismay caused by this new or burgeoning industry, fish farming, which comes up against the rights of the Crown Estate Commissioners. The commissioners, as I have said, have rights on the seabed and they are statutorily charged with seeking to obtain the best return available on the Crown Estate, and it is right that they have
152
regard to that duty when they licence the mooring of sea cages.
The difficulty is that there are public rights in the sea—that is, rights of navigation and fishing—and in Scotland we also have private rights to take salmon, and none of those rights, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, hinted, should be lightly set aside. The fish farmers are of course criticial of the present arrangements because they feel that the first-come-first-served approach of the Crown Estate Commissioners is unhelpful to them and they feel that their lease, once they have got one, should override other rights in the area, which at present it does not, and so there is some controversy in this connection.
On the other hand, the salmon netsmen, who equally have their rights, and others, feel their interests are likely to be adversely affected by a fish farm, when it comes along, about which they have probably not been consulted. Thus, one gets some very different interests, each of whom have well-entrenched rights which they wish to preserve. Nevertheless, that is a matter to which we shall have to address ourselves and it will be part of the consultation process.
Fish disease is another matter of which we shall have to take account—that is, in relation to fish farms—because the present legislation is out of date. As I said, fish farming is an industry which is advancing and expanding very fast. We shall have to consider the question of effluent and no doubt that will be in the consultative document.
My noble friend Lord Swinton asked about the distinction between fish farming for human consumption and food production and other forms of fish farming. The reason for the distinction is that in its grant scheme the European Community rightly distinguishes between the production of fish to eat and the production of fish to throw into a pond and hoik out with a rod and line. It may well be that those who go to my noble friend's fish farm to buy fish do not make it altogether plain what they intend to do with the fish once they have purchased them. That is the reason for the distinction which has been drawn and the reason why the Bill has been drafted in its present form. We cannot therefore, in the context of EEC expenditure, as it were, impose our own thoughts about it as fisheries Ministers. In other words, we cannot, whatever we think, sanction public expenditure on fish farming for the restocking of lakes or sporting purposes. Nevertheless, I take my noble friend's point, which might be considered.
I have not answered every point that has been put to me, but I shall look at the Official Report with considerable interest. In regard to any point with which I have not dealt but with which I should deal before the Committee stage, I hope to write to the noble Lord concerned. As I said in my opening remarks, expect that Notes on Clauses will be available shortly, if not tomorrow, within a matter of days, as is my usual practice. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in saying that I hope that we have an interesting and fruitful Committee stage before too long.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Mental After-care
5.41 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take urgent steps to provide a more effective system of mental after-care.
The noble Earl said: I shall do no more than scratch the surface of this tremendous subject which has been neglected for far too long in this House and elsewhere. I shall confine myself to speaking about the mentally ill, though other speakers I believe will deal with the mentally handicapped and indeed with any other branches of the subject which occur to them. I have no doubt that the Minister will deal with us all judiciously at the end.
There is one aspect of the subject—apart from that of the mentally handicapped—which is certainly vital and can be rather tragic. I refer to the supervision of people on leaving mental homes, and in particular those people who leave special hospitals. But I shall not deal with that matter, either. I have visited Broadmoor fairly often over the years, and I wrote the introductions to two books about Broadmoor and its aftermath by my friend Peter Thompson, who has done so much work in this field, having himself been a patient in Broadmoor and who, 10 years ago, suggested a system of national after-care for mental patients.
The question is perhaps specially relevant today for two reasons, one immediate and the other long-term and semi-permanent. We are currently in the International Year of Disabled People. Most of us, when we hear of the disabled, think of those who are physically disabled or are suffering from mental handicap, and certainly we can never do enough to provide them with much fairer treatment than they now receive. But when one thinks of the disabled one must surely think also of the mentally ill. This applies all the more when we reflect that one in 12 men and one in eight women, I am informed, will enter hospital because of mental illness at some point in their lives.
It is worth asking ourselves whether there is any long-term issue involved here apart from the fact that this is the year of the disabled. I would submit that there is no area of national policy where the yawning gap between the stated intentions of successive Governments and their implementation in practice is quite so wide as it is here. We might ask ourselves why this should be. It may well be that because we are all aware, consciously or sub-consciously, of our vulnerability in certain circumstances to mental distress or even collapse, we are very reluctant to admit the whole existence of the subject. A natural tendency is to adopt the attitude which says in effect, "If I have coped, why shouldn't someone else?" In other words, we tend to see mental illness as a sign of weakness or inferiority in others, or as a self-imposed infliction, for which the sufferers must bear the consequences. Whether that is, or is not, the explanation, I am sure that your Lordships rise above such weaknesses; but I am afraid that that attitude is very widespread in the community.
Since the 1950s successive Governments have recognised that where appropriate mentally ill persons should be cared for in the community, rather than in hospitals or other instutions. We have all been saying that. Certainly the leaders of the authorities have been
154
saying that for a good 20 years. It would be a mistake to believe that simply closing institutions will solve the problems of the mentally ill in our midst. It would be inappropriate to say that no one should ever be in an institution, and it would be lamentable to refuse people facilities that they are promised when they are returned to the community.
In any just society mentally ill persons should receive the form of care most relevant to their needs. In the vast majority of cases this means either preventative care or, at most, short-term hospitalisation, followed by support in the community from family, friends, doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, and community psychiatric nurses. The trend away from hospitalisation has certainly been quite marked in this country. In 1955 there were 140,000 patients in our mental hospitals. In 1979 the number was down to 64,000, but even the youngest and most innocent Member of the House will not suppose that we are therefore twice as mentally sound as we were a quarter of a century ago.
The policy of taking people out of the hospitals is eminently sensible on all grounds, provided that it is accompanied by provision outside. There is abundant research to indicate that non-institutional care is at least as effective, both therapeutically and in terms of cost, as institutional care, and usually more so. The moral and social grounds for providing community care are self-evident and have been stated again and again. However—this is the first point that I want to stress; it provides the background to what I am saying, and I am sure that it will be said by other speakers who are expert in the subject—despite brave public pronouncements over many years about the need to step up community care provision, and despite the obvious merits of doing so, the implementation has been poor, indeed lamentably feeble.
In 1975 the DHSS published the White Paper Better Services for the Mentally Ill. In that document guidelines were laid down for provision of community facilities. Some progress has been made, but we are light years away from achieving even the modest goals laid down in the document. Let us take the question of hostel care for the mentally ill. In 1975–76 local authorities in England spent £4½ million on residential care for the mentally ill. Admittedly, the figure has doubled since. However, the higher figure is a reflection on more of inflation than of additional provision. If the DHSS guidelines were being adhered to, local authorities would be spending not about £10 million, but about £40 million. I am bound to say that, for a mixture of reasons, at the moment the local authorities are cutting back spending on and provision for the mentally ill. The same applies to day care provision, adult training centres, and facilities for the mentally handicapped.
So on the one hand the country is wisely and humanely choosing not to institutionalise the mentally ill. Well, so far, so good. That is a cheap way of dealing with the problem. But on the other hand we are not offering the mentally ill a viable alternative, and more by accident or negligence than by design we are returning to the pre-asylum attitudes which prevailed about 150 years ago. We are failing to treat many people outside hospitals who ought to be treated, and as a result of the failure to implement a

155
coherent community care policy many thousands of people have remained needlessly in hospital. Had they been liberated from hospital, it would have been found that no provision had been made for them. We have the absurd situation, which noble Lords may not be aware of unless they happen to be deeply versed in this question, that there are many vacancies in hostels but the local authorities cannot, or think they cannot, afford to take them up, so that thousands of people who ought to be in the community are left to decline in the mental hospitals, to their own detriment, of course, and also at much greater cost to the state.
Where do the solutions lie? I am, in a humble way, a pioneer this afternoon, starting up this subject. We shall hear contributions of various kinds, and, as I shall say at the end, I hope the matter will not be left there; so at this point I am speaking only in general terms. But I have consulted with the leading voluntary bodies, and what I am saying, therefore, is based on their wisdom rather than on my unaided genius. Where do the solutions lie? First and foremost, we must strengthen considerably the statutory duties of the local authority services in relation to the mentally ill. I am of course aware that any proposal of this nature will not be popular with the local authorities, certainly in the first place. They believe that it is for them to determine, on the basis of assessed local need, the nature and extent of the social services required.
However, there will always be a conflict of interest between the principle of local government freedom and an acceptable level of local authority provision for the mentally ill. Traditionally, the mentally ill have been politically and publicly unpopular. Although their interests have been effectively articulated by organisations like MIND, the Mental After-care Association and the Richmond Fellowship, the latest figures show that 33 local authorities in England and Wales out of 107—that is, less than one-third—have reached the guideline figure of 19 places per 100,000 for residential provisions laid down in the 1975 White Paper; and, of these 33 local authorities, 20 were in London, so outside London there were only 13. Only two local authorities (again in London) have reached the guideline figure of 60 places per 100,000 for day-care provision.
So that is the actual position; the failure of the system. In the short run, if you like, or in the immediate argument, you could say that it is the local authorities who have failed, but the state, the central Government, cannot absolve themselves of a heavy obligation. Clearly, any increase in the statutory responsibilities of local authorities towards mentally ill people would have to be met by an equivalent increase in central Government funding to those local authorities in order to assist them to provide the necessary expansion of services. I am setting out, if you like, the problem, and others will develop it today and later. I am also advised by some of the voluntary bodies that local authorities should be prevailed on to extend their responsibilities under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which at present can include the mentally ill on a discretionary basis.
The second major solution lies in forging closer
156
strategic planning and operational links between the health services for mentally ill people and the local authority social and housing services. One could go into that in considerable detail, but I will only say this for this afternoon. As the mental hospitals run down, it must be possible to begin a transfer away from the health service to the local authorities, and that means not only joint funding—and some steps have been taken in that direction—but joint planning, so that mentally ill persons may have access to adequate community provision.
Thirdly, we must do much more than we are doing to support the voluntary organisations. The contribution of the voluntary organisations to the provision of our national psychiatric after-care services has been remarkable. Here again, I mention the Richmond Fellowship, the Mental After-care Association and MIND. All of them have done magnificent work, and between them they have created a network of hostels, group homes and sheltered units up and down the country. The present Government—and here I am accounting it to them for righteousness—have made it an article of faith, as I understand it, certainly in words, to promote the cause of voluntary organisations generally. By common consent voluntary organisations have a flexibility, a grass-roots sensitivity and a capacity to pioneer which statutory authorities cannot be expected to match.
The voluntary sector is absolutely crucial to any proper policy of community care for the mentally ill. Indeed, voluntary organisations provide well over a third of all residential places. But far from encouraging them, the Government's present policy is having precisely the opposite effect—and I say that without any party animus; this is a subject which really does take us outside party. The whole voluntary effort appears to be in imminent danger. I do hope that the Minister, whose heart, I know, is in this subject, will be able to say something reassuring this afternoon.
The service rendered by the voluntary bodies is, of course, one may say, intertwined with that provided by the local authorities. As I indicated earlier, the voluntary bodies have a number of vacant places, for example, in hostels, and it is up to the local authorities how many of those places they are ready to pay for and fill. So we come back again to what I said earlier about the need to strengthen the local authorities, to induce them to play a larger part than at present, and if necessary to provide them with the required financial assistance.
There is one point that I have been asked to mention, though it is not one which I would have fully understood without assistance. The most productive partnership, I am assured, does not lie in trying to force the voluntary bodies to take on work now undertaken by the statutory services. It lies rather in encouraging them and in assisting them to pioneer new methods of care, and therefore, in that sense, to complement the statutory service.
I am coming to an end. It is always a sin, as we know—it is, indeed, a sin against the Holy Ghost—to despair, and I see no reason to despair in this field. The fact that we have not really tried very hard as a country is in a sense encouraging, because it shows what could be done, or at any rate it leaves a wider area open to us if we do at last make the effort. I

157
received a letter a day or two ago from someone with whom I have kept in touch for about 20 years and who in that time has been in and out of mental institutions, though now, and for some time, he has been living in the community. He begins his letter:
"God is in his Heaven. I am perfectly happy",
and then he sends me some verses which may not be great poetry but which express a courageous and happy spirit.
Of course, large numbers of people are not as afflicted as this particular man—their period of mental illness may be quite brief—but some people who spend their whole lives afflicted by mental illness, so that they cannot lead a normal life, can still be happy if they receive sufficient kindness and care. That cannot be done entirely by the state, by the local authorities or even by the voluntary bodies; we all come into it. But, still, talking in this place and appealing to the Minister for support, I am asking him to give us a strong lead.
I should just say before I sit down that I hope, when this debate is over, to take steps to initiate a voluntary inquiry into the whole subject. I have already been promised assistance—not financial assistance, but what is more valuable to me, personal assistance—from some of those who work within the voluntary field and who, on personal grounds, are deeply respected. I do not know whether the Minister would feel it possible to say a few kindly words of encouragement. They will not commit him to any expenditure, though we shall be looking for enough money to launch this inquiry. Therefore, I leave the matter there. I am anxious to learn from other speakers. As I said at the beginning, this subject has been neglected for too long, and we must make a start somewhere.
6 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Longford, with his very timely and, if I may say so, very necessary Unstarred Question. I must be mindful of the fact that this is an Unstarred Question and not a major debate, for were it the latter I would have no difficulty in detaining your Lordships for some hours on a subject in which I have been deeply involved for many years. I think the noble Earl will forgive me if I say that we share the same disadvantage in that this is a subject about which we both know rather too much, and therefore we have to be very careful in trying to concentrate our remarks into what is proper for an Unstarred Question. I think that in the main all I would wish to do would be to amplify one or two points in the noble Earl's Unstarred Question and perhaps point to some of the areas in which the Government might care to search for some of the answers.
In the course of his remarks the noble Earl spoke about the very clear and recent trend away from hospitalisation in the field of mental health. I would say that there is no doubt at all that in the public mind there has certainly been a trend away from the idea of hospitalisation. There is a growing number of people who, rightly, have come to terms with the reality of mental illness of one kind or another and have gradually come to an acceptance of the fact that
158
it is much more desirable for the community as a whole and for the patients individually for these people to be cared for at home or in the community wherever possible. As the noble Earl rightly said, there has been that trend. But, to be effective, there has to be another and corresponding trend; and that is a trend towards the greater provision of home-care facilities and provisions.
I am bound to say from my personal experience of many years in National Health Service general practice that the recent trend, so far as domiciliary services are concerned, has been in the reverse direction. If I go back over my years in the National Health Service general practice—and I can go back to a time before the National Health Service started—I recall that we then had a functionary who I think was known as the relieving officer. There are perhaps some noble Lords who are old enough to remember the relieving officer. At least, you knew who he was. He was the chap with whom the buck always stopped. He was always there; he was never away at weekends; he was never off duty. If you had a difficulty with a patient who was mentally disturbed you contacted the relieving officer. With the inception of the National Health Service we had new people. We had somebody called "the duly authorised officer". Rather later than that, he became the "mental health officer" and then, when we had the system of generic social workers (under which we no longer had the children's worker or a mental health officer) every social worker became a universal genius who was required possibly to do everything. I do not want to enter the argument about whether that was advisable or otherwise. I say from my own practical experience as a general practitioner who from time to time has had the job of endeavouring to mobilise the after-care services to which the noble Earl's Unstarred Question refers, that in recent times it has sometimes been very difficult to mobilise those services because you could not find them. It was very difficult to know who was responsible for what.
I would concentrate my remarks on two areas. First of all, substantially the responsibility for providing the kind of services about which the noble Earl is so concerned rests with local authorities. Like the noble Earl, I have no wish, once we establish local authorities, to take all power away from them and say they must do this, that or the other; but it is really very odd that we should have such an extraordinary diversity and disparity of provision as between one area and another. I would not take away the freedom of local authorities. Certainly, there will be different needs, different requirements and different desires in different areas; and local authorities ought to have the autonomy and the ability to provide services of a different kind to suit local needs and desires.
But should local authorities have a right to opt out altogether? It is a fact that at the moment there are 34 local authority areas in which there are no day-care centres or other day-care provision at all. If necessary, I could give the noble Lord a list of those 34 different local authority areas at some stage; but he will be able to find them out for himself. Of course, we also have some areas which do have day-care centres but which are at the moment under financial pressures of cuts of one kind or another, and they are threatening to close

159
certain centres which now exist. I am reliably informed that much of the energy and time of admirable bodies such as MIND, and some of the other voluntary bodies to which the noble Earl referred, are spent fighting off the threatened closures of existing day-care centres—occasionally with some success because they mobilise local public opinion on subjects which are very emotive and on which feelings run very high in local communities. The community health councils are able sometimes to alert local health authorities to the possible consequences of certain closures and it is a fact that, as a result of the work of some of these voluntary bodies, certain of these threats have been removed and some of these day-care centres have been reprieved when, as it were, under sentence of death. But I think it right to mention that there are some local authority areas in which there are no day-care centres at all.
If we are to care for mentally disturbed, mentally handicapped or mentally ill people in the community, we really must be conscious of the potentially damaging effect of (if you like) the psycho-geriatric patient or the mentally-ill child on the family and on the local community unless there is some kind of day-care centre to which the person can occasionally go so that the family can get a bit of a rest and so that other assistance can be brought to bear. I think that without facilities of that kind this trend away from hospitalisation, to which the noble Earl referred, will be reversed. There is already ample evidence that there are many mentally ill patients who could have been cared for in the community and at home but are having to be admitted to hospital or taken into other institutional care, at great cost to public funds, purely because of the inadequacy of services in the community.
Concentrating purely on the services provided by local authorities, I think that when the noble Lord replies he ought to be able to tell us what the Government intend to do about those areas in which local authorities are really failing to provide facilities. My recollection of the Mental Health Act (and I know there have been other Acts since) is that it is said that local authorities "shall provide" these kind of facilities. Some are not providing them, and I should like to know what the Government intend to do about that. Some are providing excellently. If some can do so well, how is that we have to put up with others that do almost nothing?
Going more specifically into what is provided, I personally would believe from my own experience of working in this field that there is a need for a little more integration of the social services provisions (which in some areas are excellent) with the hospital mental health staff. I have had experience of certain hospitals where that works very well (or did work very well at the time I was involved) at Winnick Hospital, for example, in Lancashire, where the local social services mental health officers worked closely in the hospital, assisting sometimes in the occupational therapy departments so that they got to know the patients well; they knew the patients' background and were able to deal with those patients much more effectively when they were eventually discharged to return home. They already knew them, knew about their case and very practical efforts were made to
160
integrate the two. The more that that is done the more effective will be the contributions that both can make.
A very minor point in dealing with hospitals is this. I do wish that hospitals could get away from the very common habit of always discharging patients home on Fridays—the very time when it suddenly becomes impossible to find anybody in the social services department. Sometimes it is not very easy to contact a general practitioner although you can sometimes find the emergency call service or some other body. Very frequently when a patient who has been mentally disturbed is discharged home he can suddenly have acute difficulties over the sudden change of environment. When patients are discharged home on a Friday afternoon it becomes almost impossible to mobilise resources until Monday.
Regarding local authorities and the Government, the Government at the moment, rightly and necessarily, are making certain cuts. But there are cuts in local authority spending which could, at the end of the day, prove very costly indeed. The less that is provided in the way of domiciliary care by local authorities and social services departments, the more will have to be spent by hospitals and other institutions financed in other ways.
Now I should like to refer to what the Government frequently talk about as the private sector but certainly in this field they really mean the voluntary sector. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that there will always be a place for voluntary work. I should like to look forward to the day when the National Health Service—using that term in its fullest possible sense—could provide free at the time of need all the services which are necessary for all the different kinds of patients that there happen to be.
Having said that, I wholly accept that at the moment it is necessary to rely to a considerable extent on voluntary work and various voluntary organisations. In this country we are very happily placed in having a vast potential pool of man and woman power in volunteers who are not thin on the ground at all, and who are not unwilling to come forward to carry out voluntary work in day-care centres with mentally handicapped children and with disturbed elderly people. There are many people willing to volunteer. But there is nothing more inhibiting to potential volunteers, having volunteered, than to find that they have their time wasted because the organisation is not sufficiently structured and developed to mobilise and use their work. It is my experience that for every volunteer in any organisation, be it MIND, the Richmond Fellowship or any other bodies to which the noble Earl referred, one needs about one full-time paid professional worker to every 10 volunteers. It is a little bit disturbing at the moment to find that some of these voluntary bodies, on whom the Government propose to rely so heavily, are themselves in great difficulties—sometimes as a result of Government policy.
For example, the recent increase in petrol prices—which is not altogether unconnected with Government policy—will cost the Spastics Society an additional £30,000 a year. Is the Spastics Society going to get that £30,000 a year from Government? We should bear in mind that it is the Government who require it

161
to pay it. There are other bodies with which I am connected. Let us take MIND. Twenty per cent. of their income comes from the Department of Health and Social Security. MIND's financial year starts tomorrow. For some time now they have been trying to set up a meeting with Ministers in order to find out what will be their grant for the coming year which starts tomorrow. They were told only yesterday that their application has not yet been looked at.
I am not saying for a moment that it will not be looked at with great sympathy and that they will not be given help. But they must be given help if they are to take on the duties which will inevitably fall upon them. MIND at the moment provides 1,470 places for the mentally ill in group homes, hostels and special bed sitter accommodation. The need is for 10 times that number. I am assured that there is no shortage of buildings. They could obtain extra buildings very easily without additional cost or public funds. But they would need additional volunteers to man them. However, they cannot have additional volunteers unless they have the structure that is there to train the volunteers, organise their work and make effective use of their work.
The National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults have branches all over the country and they are in the same kind of difficulties. I have seen over and over again the invaluable work that they do with day-care centres, removing disturbed children so that their families can have a little rest and so that the community can be kept together. They too are in grave difficulties. The Richmond Fellowship provides hospitals and therapeutic communities especially for recently discharged young patients. Unless they get the kind of financial support that they need—and it is all very well the Government talking about leave it to the voluntary sector—they will be in difficulties.
The pump must be primed. If the Government will put in sufficient in grants to these bodies they will find that these bodies will be able to mobilise an enormous amount of work and additional funds themselves. Unless the Richmond Fellowship get the kind of help they need then the young patients will find that they will not be discharged at all. They will have to remain in institutional care at very great public cost. I could go on—and I said that this is a subject that I know too much about. I must exercise a self-denying ordinance and come to some kind of conclusion.
I should like to have talked about the provision of regional secure units as recommended by the Butler Committee many years ago in the excellent report on mentally abnormal offenders. We have not heard much about those and nor has there been much development. I should like to see more provision for psycho-geriatric patients. That is a desperate need in many urban communities. Without adequate domiciliary provisions an intolerable burden is placed on hospital services which are very costly indeed and you block up hospital beds with patients who do not really require costly hospital treatment at all but merely require supervision and the kind of care which could so easily be given by the voluntary sector if the voluntary sector itself was given the kind of help by the Government which they will need if they are to do the job which the Government are going to leave to it.
The noble Earl asked the Government whether they
162
will take urgent steps to provide a more effective system of mental after-care. I hope that we have demonstrated that the present system is not wholly effective and therefore needs to be made more effective. My final point is that this is urgent. From personal practical experience I say that, unless the Government act rapidly, they will find at the end of the day that there will be a very big price to pay indeed. Saving money at the moment in these areas will cost a great deal of money later.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Richardson: My Lords, by a happy chance there was published last year a booklet called Psychiatric Rehabilitation in the 1980s. This was produced by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in response to a request from the Department of Health and Social Security. The committee was chaired by Professor John Wing who heads the Social Psychiatric Unit at the Institute of Psychiatry at the Maudsley Hospital. I have had the benefit of consulting him and the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Sir Desmond Pond, about the points that seem to them, as practising psychiatrists, of particular importance in this aftercare of mental sickness problem. Both these distinguished professors expressed to me the great gratitude that I personally feel to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for having asked this Question.
I am going to take a different line from the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and talk about matters that are nearer to the hospitals and not so far into the periphery as they have taken as their main subjects. Together with them, I must stress the word urgency and I must stress also the need for local authorities, and for those who vote for them, to recognise the strength of our duty to our fellow citizens in this particular area.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has pointed out that there are now half the number of patients in mental hospitals who were there in 1954. That, as he has said, is in itself satisfactory. These patients all fall into three groups, according to the length of time they have spent in hospital. The first group is that of patients who have been in hospital for under one year; over that group I can be very brief. It is sad that two-thirds of those in under one year are those who have been in hospital previously, perhaps more than once. This is sad, because it means that although there are outpatient facilities and psychiatric social workers there are not enough of them—or perhaps the time they can give is insufficient—to keep these people from having to return to hospital. The problem is one of numbers and of training—the invariable problem in medical matters of staffing ratios.
The second group is a very important one. It is the group of patients in hospital between one year and five years. Over half the people in that group are over 65 years of age and, unhappily, many of them are demented, and, because of their age, the majority of them are female. It is not those people I wish to speak about, because probably they are destined to spend the rest of their days in hospital. It is the smaller number of patients under 65 years of age who are really important. They are mostly schizophrenic and the treatment of schizophrenia by drugs and psycho-social treatment has been to a great extent responsibly

163
responsible for our ability to reduce the hospital population. With these treatments, and if facilities outside the hospital are available, there is a real chance that the number of patients in that second group, which is at present static, can be further reduced.
The third group is that of patients who are in hospital for five years onwards. Here, surprisingly, there are rather more patients under 65 years of age than over. This group is diminishing in numbers by the natural process of death. How far it will reduce is not yet recognised, but unhappily it is being fed to some extent by those from the second group, many of whom have just given up of any hope of getting back to the community, and have become hopelessly hospitalised in their institutions.
How are these problems being faced? There is a new experiment being undertaken in the unit at Maudsley Hospital which I have mentioned. It is called the bed-hostel, the ward-hostel system. In brief, it amounts to this. Instead of having a hospital facade and a large building, they have developed from an ordinary building with a door, so to speak, facing on to the community—in a private house—what inside amounts to a ward. The back faces on to the type of facilities that will help these people towards the community; the "day care-type" work facility that is well supervised. This experimental unit is staffed by nurses trained in psychiatry and is well supervised. The staff is resident. So far the results have been very satisfactory and, to my knowledge at any rate, the patients have not had to return to psychiatric hospitals. The numbers accommodated are few, with only 14 beds, but according to Professor Wing's calculations for Camberwell, which has a popluation of 130,000 people, they need only 30 such beds backed up with facilities in the community.
In addition to this experiment, there are, and have been for some time, hostels which have resident supervision. Initially these are paid for by the Department of Health and Social Security, as is the "experiment ", but after a seven year period they have to be paid for by the local authority. Here comes the difficulty—the question of willingness, the ability and the motivation for the local authority to do so. There is another useful form of accommodation, which is less sophisticated than the two that I have mentioned, called group homes. These are houses containing bed-sitting rooms, a communal kitchen and sitting room with a television, and so on. From these group homes, the residents can go out to suitable—and I stress, "suitable "—and meaningful protected work or to day centres. The point of these group homes is that the supervision need not be residential and this means that such homes can be set up and looked after by housing associations. In addition, as noble Lords have already heard, there are all the community facilities which are, one hopes, available and used. I need not touch on those at all, but what I want to ask the Minister is this. Can he give some hope that this concept of the ward-hostel may be extended and that the present hostels may be more widely used and set up, because, in view of the difficulties facing local authorities, which we all know about, this will need a strong lead.
Before I sit down, I should like just to tell you about one particular case history from this unit at the
164
Maudsley Hospital that will illustrate to you why it seems so very important that, even in this particular time of difficulty, special consideration should be given to persons such as the young man whom I have in mind. As long ago as 1966, he developed very severe and distressing schizophrenia—hearing voices abusing him and saying terrible things—and the effect on his family was devastating. He was admitted to a mental hospital and there he did not respond to the drug treatment that is often so helpful. He was discharged on three separate occasions and each time he had to go back. Each time there was despair and disappointment. He was allowed out and, with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I suspect that it was on Fridays. At any rate, he used to go home for short periods but he would come back accompanied by the police, because he had got himself into trouble and had tried to cope with life by drinking. Then despair set in upon him, and for seven years he stayed in a mental hospital with no wish whatsoever to leave it.
Four years ago, he went into this unit of the Maudsley Hospital and things are now quite different. Of his own initiative, he has asked to take part in running this ward hostel. He now goes out to day units and takes an active part in them. It is expected that he will be able to go to a group home where he will live in semi-, and ever-increasing, independence. Now there is hope, and not only for this now middle-aged man, because the effect on his parents is enormous. A burden has been lifted from them. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has pointed out, when we are talking about these most unfortunate people, we are also talking of the suffering of the family. So that this is a very wide problem indeed for which there is a solution in many cases, if we have the determination and the will.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Lloyd: My Lords, it is, I am afraid, many years since I last inflicted a speech upon your Lordships. Indeed, so long is it that I almost feel as if I am making my maiden speech all over again. But I feel that I must intervene briefly in this debate, because I happen to be a member of the management committee of the Richmond Fellowship, whose sole purpose in life is to provide the mental after-care which is so desperately needed and which is at present so inadequate.
One hundred years ago, people with mental problems used to be put into a lunatic asylum where they probably languished for the rest of their lives. Happily, those days are past and, with the progress of psychiatry, modern drugs, et cetera, it is possible for many people with mental problems to be cured. Yet to imagine that when a patient is discharged from a mental hostel the whole job is done is really to deceive oneself. There is an important part done, but there is an equally important part which remains to be done.
When a patient is discharged, he is probably lonely and depressed. Certainly, he feels quite incapable of coping with modern life and needs a period of rehabilitation, such as is provided by the Richmond Fellowship. The basis of the Richmond Fellowship's organisation is what we call the "halfway house", of which we have 34 in this country. Each of these halfway houses accommodates a small community of about 20 adults or 16 adolescents. We try, so far as possible, to put patients who suffer from the same kind of trouble—be

165
it alcoholism, schizophrenia, drug addiction, et cetera—into the same houses.
Once a patient is in a halfway house, he does not need to feel lonely, because he finds himself among other people who understand his problem. Each house has a trained staff, who encourage the patient to work on his problem and to share in the running of the community. They also teach the patient to start accepting responsibility, not only for himself but for others, with the ultimate aim of finding a job and keeping it. The Fellowship does its very best to find jobs for people when they are ready to leave. The length of stay varies from three months to three years, an average of eight months.
There is much more that I could say about the work of the halfway houses, but, for the sake of brevity, I have given only an outline picture of what we try to do, a lot of which I think we do quite successfully. What I really want to do now is to turn to the financial aspect of the problem. These halfway houses are expensive to run. We provide not only full board and lodging, but a highly-trained staff. The kind of price that an adult pays is £86 a week and for adolescents that goes up to £150, because they are much more difficult to look after. None of these people can possibly afford that kind of money, unless they get a grant from the local authority.
There is a large amount of legislation dealing with the obligations of local authorities to provide after-care, including residential accommodation, for persons who have been suffering from mental disorder. Again, for the sake of brevity, I propose to refer not to individual Acts but to the effects of those Acts.
Until 1974, the power of a local authority to assist mental patients was, so far as I can make out, purely permissive. In 1974, the Minister concerned directed local authorities to provide accommodation. Yet although the Minister is provided with very strong powers to declare local authorities to be in default in carrying out the functions imposed upon them, and to take steps to enforce the remedying of such default, successive Ministers seem always to have shown a marked reluctance to take such steps. Thus, in March 1977, of 108 local authorities in England—I think that the statistics were mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Longford—only 31, or 29 per cent., had met the guidelines planning ratio for residential places, and 11, or 10 per cent., did not record any residential provision whatsoever. Nor does there appear to be any monitoring machinery by the Government to ensure that local authorities fulfil their obligations. All this is reflected in our own affairs in the Richmond Fellowship. We have a waiting list of applicants which would give us more than 100 per cent. occupancy, yet our present occupancy is only two-thirds of our capacity. This is entirely due to the inability of applicants to obtain local authority grants.
I feel sure that your Lordships will agree with me that this is a penny-wise, pound-foolish policy. Low occupancy increases our costs in the Richmond Fellowship, and therefore the cost to the local authority, and it denies care to many who would otherwise have received it. Such people often relapse and have to return to a mental hospital where all the good work already done has to be done again. This is what we call the "revolving door syndrome".
166
There are no votes in mental health from the point of view of the local authority. In an economic situation where there are strong pressures on local authorities to cut their expenditure, I suppose it is inevitable that mental health should be an obvious target for economy, though in my opinion many other less important targets are available. But from the national point of view it is a false economy. Those who do not receive after-care almost certainly return to mental hospitals. Thus any saving on the rates is more than balanced by an increase in the cost of the National Health Service.
I think the House should be very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for raising this matter. The present situation is extremely unsatisfactory. Urgent and positive action by Her Majesty's Government is, in my opinion, absolutely essential.
6.42 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I, too, thank the noble Earl and say that it is always a pleasure to speak in his debates. He always chooses such important subjects. As I am the speaker who follows the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, who said that he thinks he has just made his maiden speech, it falls to me to congratulate him and to say that as he speaks with such experience on this subject I hope he will be heard more often in your Lordships' House.
The death of a baby at birth is tragic and sad, but what is the reaction of parents when they realise that they have had a severely mentally handicapped baby? There will always be disappointment. There may even be revulsion and rejection. I have heard such varied reports of how the parents are told and of what advice and counsel are given. Some doctors say, "Put it into care". Others say, "Put the parents in touch with supportive agencies", and encouragement to keep the baby at home is given. From parents who keep their mentally handicapped children and bring them up at home I have heard expressions of concern over what will happen if something happens to them. These parents have a terrible fear that their child will be, put into one of the large, impersonal institutions.
For 365 days each year after-care has to go on in some way for these mentally handicapped people, from the day that they are born until they die. Throughout the country, the support and services offered are very varied. Sometimes the best services come from a voluntary source. Is it not time that this country had an acceptable code of practice for local health authorities, social departments and voluntary bodies to work towards so far as mental health is concerned?
I have been appalled by the clinical austerity in some mental hospitals. It seems to be quite unnecessary to have white walls, white beds and empty lockers so that each ward looks as if it is uninhabited. This is what I found at the Clifton Hospital, York. When I remarked upon how colourless and boring I found it, the charge nurse agreed that it had a "touch of the Army" about it. I find that there is no excuse for these unstimulating conditions. At least there could be some coloured walls and bright posters to cheer the place up. Coloured paint is no more expensive than white or grey paint. If our mental hospitals continue to be such large, impersonal places, then getting the patients back

167
into the community will not be made easier, as the contrast is too great.
A helpful asset to after-care in the health district where I live, which has no psychiatric beds, is the employment of some community psychiatric nurses. When I was on the Community Health Council, concern was expressed about the fact that there was no after-care follow-up service for patients who had been admitted to the general hospital as attempted suicides and with other mental problems. The waiting period to see a consultant at an outpatient clinic was, and still is, at least six weeks. We pressed for community nurses, and I am pleased to say that this service has been established. These nurses can visit patients in their homes and give support and advice which is of great benefit, especially in rural areas. A great deal of extreme worry and fear can be alleviated by an effective after-care service which psychiatric community nurses can organise. I hope that they will be employed in all districts.
I should like to tell your Lordships about a splendid project which is giving support to parents who have young, mentally handicapped people at home. This is a short-term family support unit which has been built near to where I live in North Yorkshire. The building of this unit was made possible by joint funding between the health authority and the social services. It is run by the social services, and from what I hear they are doing an excellent job. There are 16 beds, but they can take more, when necessary. There is a 24-hour emergency service.
The unit serves several purposes. It caters approximately for people from the age of three to 16 years, but there is flexibility, which is essential in an emergency service. It gives short-term residential relief, holiday relief, so that a family can go on holiday knowing that their mentally handicapped youngster is being looked after by caring, understanding people. There is an answering and advice service on behaviour modification dealing with psychotic children. There is a baby-sitting service, a day créche, assessment facilities and weekend relief.
When parents look after profoundly handicapped children, this service seems to me to be essential if the family is not to crack up. The normal children in a family need their parents for at least some of the time, otherwise there will be grave problems with them. This unit can relieve the family of the handicapped child for a period of time so that the parents may devote to their normal children the time that they need and can also take them on holiday. Just knowing that this family support unit exists gives parents the encouragement to soldier on. When problems become too great, they know they can ring in and get support. Some handicapped young people spend six weeks at home and two weeks in the unit. This enables the family to cope. It seems also that there is a need for an adult hostel for short breaks. This sort of support is saving resources and preventing mentally handicapped people from going permanently into full-time residential care. This support unit seems to be money well spent.
The last point I should like to mention is that of the tragic and bewildering condition of anorexia nervosa. As noble Lords will probably know, this is a
168
condition which seems mainly to affect teenagers, and most often girls. They start slimming and cannot stop. They go to all ends to make this effective. It is a condition which seems to be on the increase. The girls I know of who are anorexic seem to be attractive and intelligent. This is a very serious problem, as in their conduct they can be infectious to others in their classes at school.
I have discussed this problem with paediatricians and they have told me that the problems are so complex that they are now being dealt with in psychiatric units. But what after-care is there? What advice is given to parents, teachers and class-mates? Are there any guidelines to follow? I know that there are many worried parents, siblings, friends and teachers. These young people with anorexia nervosa seem to be possessed of an uncontrollable wish slowly to waste away. When their weight drops too low they are admitted to hospital for treatment. When they regain weight they will go back to school. What is the risk to other children being attracted to doing the same sort of thing? I hope that there will be a concerted effort by the Government, with co-operation from the health department and the Department of Education, to find out what is the most helpful after-care for the anorexics and those who are closely associated with them.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am pleased to be associated with the plea made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, this evening that the Government should take urgent steps to provide more effective support for mental after-care. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, stated that his was almost a maiden speech—and he will forgive me if I do not congratulate him on an "almost maiden" speech, but may I simply add that this debate on an Unstarred Question gives me the opportunity of making a maiden speech from these elevated Benches.
The speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, enables us to pay tribute to her for the impressive and spendid work which she has done in connection with the International Year of the Disabled. That leads me to the point that frequently the care of the mentally ill is not included in that category of disabled because the physically handicapped person's disability is perhaps more apparent than the individual who suffers from mental illness. It is possible of course for a mentally ill person to register as disabled, but on the whole that is not common.
I lack the professional knowledge and experience of some of the noble Lords who have participated in this discussion. My concern in this field arises from an association with the Glasgow Association for Mental Health and a very impressive voluntary organisation associated with it, called Link. If I quote the statistics of the problem in Scotland it is simply as a sample of what is in fact a national problem. We have a civilian male working population of around 1,400,000 and the admissions to mental hospitals and psychiatric units last year numbered 24,500. It is interesting to examine the diagnosis of the cases being treated. In the case of males, 34 per cent. of their mental illness could be attributed to alcoholism and 10 per cent. to depression. In the case of females the figures were 10 per cent. due to alcoholism and 19 per cent. to depression.

169
Alcoholism in my part of the world is a particular problem and these may not be exactly paralleled in national statistics but there is no doubt that alcoholism is a major contributor to mental illness and can be treated by after-care services.
The number of working days lost due to registered mental disorders among men last year was 3 million and the number of residents in hospitals and psychiatric units in 1978 was 24,000 admissions—a 19 per cent. increase on 1965, of which 10,000 were first admissions and 14,000 were readmissions. This was what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, referred to as the "revolving door" in operation. We have not coped with the people who are discharged from psychiatric units and mental hospitals in a way that prevents them from returning again and again, and that in fact is the nub of the problem.
In 1979 the proportion of all National Health Service hospital bed spaces in Scotland occupied by the mentally disordered was 45 per cent., which indicates the impact of this problem on the total expenditure of the National Health Service. The total cost of National Health Service in-patient care for the mentally disordered was £95,373,200. That gives one some idea of the magnitude of the problem and if we can contribute by sensible and well organised after-care we may in fact be able to effect economies in National Health Service expenditure.
The major problem in Scotland generally, as nationally, is the continuing reliance on hospital and medical approaches to care and treatment. No community mental care service exists and there is insufficient joint planning between local authorities and health boards, each preferring to leave the problem to the other.
Reference has been made to the Government White Paper, Better Services for the Mentally Ill, of 1975. It recommended that for the future the main aims must continue to be the development of much more locally based services and a shift in the balance between hospital and social service care. This shift must be accompanied by the co-ordination of local authorities, health boards, voluntary services, not only in terms of the use of resources but also in the pooling of the skills among the variety of professionals currently providing care.
A major requirement of an after-care psychiatric service is therefore to be community based, multidisciplinary in approach, and seeking to design recovery programmes which meet the emerging needs of the ex-patients in a graded and flexible way. Good aftercare reduces relapse and re-hospitalisation and is therefore preventive in the real sense. It requires the attachment of psychiatric social worker counsellors to health centres and GP practices; it requires a continuity of management between hospital and community services, including pre-discharge planning and supportive follow-up. It requires a flexible series of housing accommodation facilities,ranging from short-term hostels, group homes, joint tenancies and longer-term supportive accommodation, and so on. It requires facilities within which social, interpersonal, family and marital problems can be worked on by counselling. It requires in the field of employment, as in housing, a graded system of facilities from industrial
170
therapy to sheltered workshops, such as was described earlier in the discussion this evening.
Work experience schemes, manpower services schemes and quota systems would provide the best chance for individuals to reach their potential level of activity. I have found in this regard that by the establishment of resource centres, such as have been organised in my native city of Glasgow, former patients are brought to after-care and they work on a three-months' contract programme with counsellors who assist them and prepare them for employment. They have worked closely with the Manpower Services Commission, and despite the difficulties of employment at the moment they have been able to secure employment for a large number of these patients. This has brought them back into the community; this has achieved the necessary adjustment, and has avoided the all too frequent vulnerability which might bring them back again into hospital care.
In the activities of Link, with which I have some association, they have worked with one of these resource centres and have had a high success rate. In addition, the voluntary workers associated with the organisation have organised social clubs so that people who are discharged from mental hospitals can find social activity; they can combat the problem of isolation which is a major problem after they are discharged; they can regain some personal and social confidence as a result of being associated with others of similar experience. They can come to terms with having been mentally ill and they can gain access to information about how to use existing services with regard to particular problems of medication, employment, housing, income and so on.
That kind of work has been done successfully frequently by volunteers. The Link organisation, with its resource centre and with its six social clubs, exists on a state-supported budget of £50,000. How much more sensible it would be to spend more on this kind of after-care, rather than have patients return to a hospital bed as a further cost on the National Health Service. For these reasons, I commend the plea of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to the Minister.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, for many years the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has taken a very practical interest in the subject of mental health and allied causes, and once again this evening we are very grateful to him for raising this extremely important question. There have been in this debate Members of your Lordships' House who are far more clinically and professionally connected with this problem than I, but for nearly 20 years I served on the house committee of a large mental hospital in the Epsom area of Surrey, where, as some of your Lordships may know, there are seven or eight of these hospitals. I should like to say just a few words about the particular hospital in which, until the reorganisation of the National Health Service, I was concerned, because I believe it has an important bearing on this question.
Before doing so, I think we ought to acknowledge that since the Mental Health Act 1959 much progress has been made in the provision of after-care and in the recognition that those who are receiving treatment for

171
mental illness and mental handicap can frequently be returned to society, if not cured altogether. I recall shortly after the last war frequently visiting a hospital in Bedfordshire near where we then lived; the medical superintendent was a family friend. Of course, in those days the patients were classed as lunatics, and in many of these establishments, depending very much on the hospital superintendent, they received little or no treatment; it was simply custodial the whole time. In this particular hospital, even in those days, there was much more emphasis on therapy rather than keeping the patients locked up the whole time. It is really only since 1959, as I understand it, that there has been some kind of progress towards returning many of these handicapped people to society.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in a characteristically well-informed speech, spoke of a hospital in York which was, to say the least of it, seemingly very regimented in its appearance. There are all too many of these hospitals, and in this kind of règime one cannot really prepare patients for after-care. But the hospital with which I was concerned as a humble committee member is on the villa system. Every Christmas my wife and I still visit the hospital and go round the wards. Many of the patients themselves, helped by the devoted staff, have decorated these wards, not only at Christmas but the whole year round. It is an excellent form of therapy and it enables them to have a high standard of morale.
The real problem of this hospital is the vexed question of the catchment area. I was talking only yesterday to the chief nursing officer. As I understand it, under the present set-up of these hospitals they take patients, particularly in areas where there are a number of hospitals concentrated, from all parts of the country. If they were able to take exclusively people who needed treatment from the local catchment areas, it would save much cost, because parents and other relatives could visit far more frequently; it would give a great local interest in the general work of the League of Friends; it would mean that local people would take much more interest and would have an incentive to take much more interest in these hospitals. If one has a situation where patients from all parts of the country are admitted, there is, I think, a danger of lack of communication between the hospital and particularly those who work in a voluntary capacity concerned with these hospitals.
I have not given my noble friend notice of this question, so I do not expect a reply this evening, but I wonder whether he would look into this situation, particularly where there are these large groups of hospitals, to ensure that the catchment areas are more localised so that the services can be more localised. It also, of course, provides a more important asset to after-care. In many cases at least some of the patients who are able to work can work locally. Of course there are the industrial workshops within these hospitals. This particular hospital has an excellent industrial workshop which is very well staffed.
Some of your Lordships may have seen a very disturbing programme about one of the special hospitals. I fully realise that this question is not specifically directed towards the special hospitals where one has a very different type of patient, many of whom are
172
essentially under custodial care. However, in the hospital which was the subject of this programme, the television crews were allowed to go where they liked and to talk to whom they liked, where they liked. There were instances of youngsters swabbing floors and doing the type of menial tasks which would give no hope whatsoever of their every really contributing to society in later life. Some, I believe, had a modicum of schooling. But my impression of the programme was that custodial care and security were the main guidelines.
As I have said, for many of the inmates of these places such guidelines are essential; but where there are young people in these special hospitals it seems that there is much more needed at least to try rather more emphatically to get them into some kind of hostel training. When listening to some of these youngsters speak on being interviewed, one realised that they were not the sort of people who one would expect to be violent. Of course there are always risks in these hospitals of too early release, with unfortunate consequences. But certainly in some of the cases featured in this programme that was not so. Indeed, the visiting panels who one saw in action were themselves almost deploring the lack of hostel accommodation and the lack of suitable people to run these establishments. One wonders what the Department of Health and Social Security is doing towards this end. This is a very important point.
Often when one mentions special hospitals people say, "Ah yes, these people are being treated inhumanly". The point must be made, as was made in the programme—and one saw it—that the nursing staffs and all those concerned with the welfare of the patients were most human and solicitous, as far as they could be in the terms of reference, for the welfare of their patients.
The Warnock Report had a particularly interesting passage dealing with young mentally handicapped people who could be put into hostels for after-care treatment. I shall not quote the paragraph for reasons of brevity, but in Chapter 10 paragraph 114—and I hope that the Department of Health and Social Security will take note of this in due course—there is a scheme noted which takes place in Denmark, and in which it is generally accepted that, where possible, handicapped young people should leave home at 18 and live independently in flats where they can have the support of a home visitor who can visit them at least twice a week. My point is: how many patients in this category in our hospitals could be similarly treated so that they were able to live in reasonable conditions and conceivably do a proper job of work, and thus probably save the ratepayer and the taxpayer a great deal of money? Of course it may mean more social workers; it may mean more home helps. But it will, I think, help to allow these people, many of whom can work, to do so.
I think that there is much food for thought inherent in this Question and it gives the Government a real opportunity to look closely into a vital social problem.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, this is not the first occasion on which I have been glad to be led by my noble friend Lord Longford in discussion of matters which to me, to him and I take it to this House—even as sparsely

173
as it is now attended—are matters of great import. I am glad to take part in this particular debate. I perhaps ought first to congratulate my erstwhile noble friend on his maiden speech from other benches and perhaps I ought to add that my physical proximity to him tonight is not due to any political shift on my part, but because I am rather hard of hearing and want to get nearer to the sound of the gunfire!
I am grateful to my noble friend because he has introduced into this discussion the word, "alcohol" and I make no apology for inviting your Lordships to consider that the question of alcohol and alcoholism comes very properly into the ambit of this discussion. Certainly no one would doubt that alcoholism needs care and increasing systems of care, and it may be not irrelevant to remark that the problem of alcoholism is endemic and historically endemic. There is apparently as great an alcoholic problem in Soviet Russia as there was in Imperial Russia. There is a continuing and increasing problem of alcoholism in France. No civilisation so far as I remember, except the Islamic one, has dealt with it radically, even if it might be of the persuasion of your Lordships that that particular cure is worse than the disease. Nevertheless, I make no apology for attracting your Lordships attention, if I can, to the proper place that alcoholism occupies within the general circuit of this debate.
There are those who regard addiction to alcohol as a purely moral problem. They are wrong. I would not seek to evacuate it from its moral content and would give you no comfort that it is not a moral issue in many of its aspects. But anyone who has had any experience of trying to be with, as well as to deal with, alcoholics will be in no doubt that some alcoholics are of model behaviour in so many other fields, are thoroughly estimable people, and that it would be an impertinence, an insult, to regard them as sinners greater than the rest. What is more is that if it is a moral problem they are totally incapable of treating it as such and dealing with it as such. Is it, therefore, a moral problem which belongs to the realm of metabolism? I speak with great care because I am not qualified in this regard, but many years ago when I began to take an interest in this matter of alcoholism, I used to hear words like "apomorphine" and "antabuse". I was told that there are chemical reactions in some people's bodies which predispose them to alcoholism, whereas others have no such temptations to meet.
In endeavouring to put that so-called chemistry into practice, my evidence would be that it has been singularly and almost totally unsuccessful. After many years in this field, I am now quite convinced that the question of alcoholism falls very properly into that area of disablement which is mentally, spiritually and psychologically caused, and therefore I shall not delay your Lordships to claim that what I now say about the problem of alcoholism is pertinent to the basic meaning of this debate.
It seems to me that if you once agree that the problem of alcohol is a mysterious problem dealing with areas of our make-up which cannot be heated over Bunsen burners or plotted on graphs and which certainly defy exact definition, it is reasonable and sensible to think of the alcoholic and the perpetual drunkard alike as disabled by certain environmental circumstances and their own pre-disposition to react to them in a
174
particular way. The success that has come to such efforts as I have been able to think about and, to some extent, as I have been able to have something to do with over the past 20 years, has come when the concept of alcoholism has been treated, first, as something which needs a drastic recovery from an obvious effect—that is, the detoxification, the drying out of the alcoholic. Secondly, that there is the requirement for custodial or at least close treatment for a certain amount of time. But, thirdly—and this is the point which seems to me to be relevant to this particular debate—if the man or woman who has been detoxified—dried out—and who has recovered in health and wellbeing in some kind of hostel and who otherwise would have no normal kind of social life to which to return, is thereafter exposed to the world as it is, it is highly unlikely that the third stage of that process of reclamation will be achieved; even if it is temporarily achieved, it will be quickly forgotten.
The point of the argument is that a return to the community—as has already been advertised so often in your Lordships' House this afternoon—the requirement of seeking to recover these disabled people within the framework of the normal society from which they have become estranged, is of the utmost importance. Therefore, I totally agree with those declarations of intent, that community care, or recovery within the community, belongs in particular to this area of disablement which we call alcoholism.
But how do we do it? The community as it stands, or as it exists, is an amorphous body until it is broken up into its constituent parts and it is dealt with in particular categories. That is obviously true in the realm of the alcoholic. He requires some kind of protective housing if he is to be reclaimed. That protective housing must not be within a custodial environment which precludes freedom of activity, but it must be within the kind of environment in which he can quickly seek and find the kind of aid which he needs.
So I come to the practical considerations. I regard it as a major tragedy, all the worse because of increasing unemployment, that there are temptations and predispositions to intemperence in the beginning, drunkenness to go on with, and lastly alcoholism and the spirit drinker. I find this an increasing menace. Once upon a time in the hostels over which I had some charge, you could generally regard an alcoholic as getting a job within six weeks. That day has gone. The temptation—particularly among those who are younger—is an ever-increasing one, promoted or at least accentuated by indolence and inability to contribute anything to the society in which they live.
I would plead with the Government not to curtail the kind of services, in money in particular, which can keep alive voluntary associations—such as I could categorise, but I shall not—for if they do not, then I heartily agree with my noble friend, who spoke so convincingly about the perils that await a Government which, with a short-term concern for the maintenance of a particular monetary policy, fail to see that the long-term emergence of such a policy can not only mean a more costly but an even more dangerous and more desolate society than the one in which we now live.
I believe that there are two areas of concern, and when I have said this I shall sit down. There is the

175
area in which the local authority should accept in greater degree its own responsibility for setting up some of those organisations which can at least give an opportunity to the recovered or semi-recovered alcoholic to take his place again in the normal society from which he has been estranged. But I would make a final plea for that particular contribution which enlightened and sensible organisations can provide as the bell-wether of what later perhaps could be a reformed and totally efficient welfare service.
I include my next remarks because I think that they are due to the Minister. I know how ineffective and sometimes how sentimental local efforts on a voluntary basis can become, but I would commend to the Minister the ever-increasing knowledge in the voluntary sphere about the particular problem of alcoholism and to place it under consideration for a practical solution or for an increased contribution of aid seems to me to be the height of civilised behaviour and, above all, one of the greatest safeguards for some kind of future in which the aid for the disabled will no longer be required, for so few will be disabled.
7.28 p.m.
The Countess of Loudoun: My Lords, when the idea of discharging mental patients into the community was decided on a few years ago, it being a very new idea at that time, not enough thought was given to the follow-through by the community services, with the result that was a near-disaster. Many ex-patients found themselves much worse off in the community than they had been in the long-stay wards of mental institutions. Yes, they were provided with shelter, but that in itself would not solve their difficulties. For a return to normality they needed the availability of good daycare, access to work and the support of friends and neighbours, this latter in an uncaring and often hostile community.
Therefore, the whole subject has had to be thoroughly investigated, which has inevitably caused some delays and disappointments. However, this must be preferable to running the higher risks of relapse and readmission. MIND's "Home from Hospital" campaign was launched at the end of April 1976 with the aim of increasing the amount of accommodation in the community for former psychatric patients. Since the start of this campaign, which was financed by a very welcome grant of £20,000 from the DHSS plus a contribution from MIND itself, MIND's local associations for mental health have opened, or are planning to open, another 70 hostels and group homes providing places for 300 former hospital patients.
Thanks to the two Granada television programmes appealing to the public for offers of accommodation, 1,250 replies were received and a further 123 definite placements have been arranged by social workers, hospitals, and voluntary workers as a direct result. A large number of psychatric hospitals have assessed the numbers of patients who could leave now if they had somewhere to go. There is a marked increase in the number of patients discharged into sheltered accommodation of various kinds, many hospitals having their own well advanced resettlement schemes. But this increase in the discharge rate is likely to slow down, due to the present cutbacks in hospital expenditure.
176
To me the most exciting development has been the co-operation between MIND and the housing corporations, resulting in a sharp increase in the number of projects jointly organised by them. At least eight new schemes are in an advanced state of planning and many more schemes, using rehabilitated property, can be expected this year. With good press coverage, regional television and radio, plus two major conferences, many of those concerned in aspects of rehabilitation have been able to come together and share their knowledge and work out co-ordinated plans. This includes not only accommodation in the community but also work rehabilitation for those considered suitable for training or retraining, as the case may be. There are bound to be some severely handicapped patients for whom any work rehabilitation must, of necessity, be on humanitarian grounds alone; that is, to give them something to do.
Over the years we have had several committees and their reports. The Piercey Report in 1956, which stressed the need for organised rehabilitation, the establishment of regional rehabilitation units, and special training for doctors in the field. These recommendations remain largely unimplemented. Eighteen years later a sub-committee of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee was set up under the chairmanship of Sir Ronald Tunbridge to look into the same question and make recommendations. Having explored available rehabilitation facilities, the committee concluded that insufficient attention was paid to the problems, and this when employment prospects in the 1960s were relatively good, which is clearly no longer the case today. The Tunbridge Report recommendations for an integrated district service, based on every district general hospital, have not materialised, though there are a few rehabilitation units existing, but these are based on psychiatric hospitals.
The Government have set up a number of resettlement services. The Employment Services Agency runs 26 employment rehabilitation centres providing 2,500 places. Each year an average of 13,000 people pass through these centres. There are specially trained disablement resettlement officers to provide a service for people suffering all forms of serious handicap or disability, whether or not they choose to register as disabled. These officers are mostly based at local employment offices, although a few large psychiatric hospitals now have their own. It is the responsibility of these officers to put people forward for sheltered employment, either with Remploy or in schemes run by local authorities or voluntary organisations. So a great deal is being done already, but it is vital that we keep up the momentum.
To sum up, we must learn by our mistakes. Adequate housing in the community is a priority, but it must be with the full co-operation and backing of the social services. But we should make quite sure that any psychiatric patient discharged into the community is ready for his new life, trained for it to the best of our ability, and can look forward to a useful and satisfying life in the future.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I apologise for intervening when my name is not on the list. I did in fact put it in but I was rather late. I, with others,

177
should like to congratulate the noble Earl for bringing this matter before your Lordships' House today. Briefly, I should like to talk about whose is the responsibility. Where does the buck lie in the question of after-care of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped? The Department of Health and Social Security published in February a document called Care in Action. This document is a handbook of policy and priorities for the health and personal social services in England.
The book lays down certain principles. The principles are prevention; cost-effective community care; domiciliary care; planning collaboration and joint funding; the relationship between the statutory and the voluntary bodies; and the use of volunteers. They have laid down priority sectors of the community. Those priority sectors are elderly people, especially the most vulnerable and frail; mentally ill people; mentally handicapped people; physically and sensorially handicapped people; and in the Health Service the maternity services and neo-natal care; primary care services; and services relating to the care of young children at risk and the treatment of juvenile offenders. So the Government have given a lead to local authorities as to where they think their priorities lie. I personally think that there are one or two important sectors left out, but for the purposes of this debate let us take note that mentally ill and mentally handicapped people are considered, and advised to be, a priority.
There are various difficulties here. First, does the responsibility lie at central Government level or at local government level? What is the interaction and the inter-relationship between the two? May I first of all say that I wish to ask the Minister whether there is any possibility of calling a conference of the statutory and voluntary bodies on their relationship one to the other. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, talked about money for the Richmond Fellowship, and many other noble Lords have talked about the need for grants. We are in a dilemma in the relationship between the voluntary sector and the statutory sector.
In Care in Action, the handbook from the Department of Health and Social Security, it is advised that there should be this partnership. But as I understand it, it is not only in the area of mental health but in all areas that local authorities have used voluntary organisations to very good purpose, and have worked in partnership with them. They now find themselves cut back in certain areas by their own local authorities, and therefore although needing services of the voluntary organisations they are not using the services of the voluntary organisations. That means that the partnership is falling because there is not the money being paid to the voluntary organisations. Therefore, there is a dilemma here. I have found it in other fields, and particularly in the field of the care of children. I wonder whether the time has not come for there to be a clearly defined policy concerning the relationship between the local authorities, the voluntary organisations and the central Government departments.
The Government accepted the Jay Report, which was concerned with the care of the mentally handicapped, including of course the after-care of the mentally handicapped if they had been in a custodial setting. Although the recommendations of the Jay Committee
178
have been accepted, so far as I know no practical steps have been taken to implement them, particularly in the sphere of training, although one must pay tribute to the Secretary of State and the Department of Health and Social Security for having set up the Berkeley Committee to look into the training of social workers—this will interest the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley—and to consider the generic or specialist element. I am not sure—the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will know this better than I—about the training of nurses in the mental health field in the community. Certainly in my area training has been given to nurses who work with families in the community.
As for provision for the mentally ill discharged from hospital, I agree with noble Lords who have pointed out how few local authorities have set up a service in this respect and have not created good safeguards for patients who are discharged. For the mentally ill and, indeed, for the mentally handicapped, there cannot be just one facility; there must be a wide range of facilities to meet the wide range of needs of the mentally ill discharged from hospital. Again, whatever the Government may do and recommend, the responsibility lies at local level. One wonders whether there should be a procedure of joint planning at local level as between the Health Service, the local authority and the voluntary organisations. I appreciate that many local authorities have such a committee and joint planning, but I wonder whether such joint local committes of the three sectors have done enough to make known to the public the needs of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped.
The question of the implementation of the recommendations of the Butler Committee has been mentioned. We are all disturbed by conditions in our prisons, and we are deeply disturbed about the question of patients in prisons who could better be cared for and and helped in secure units attached to hospitals. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, has already spoken about children. I would only add in that context that many parents would be able to help their children coming out of hospital, or perhaps even help to prevent them going in, if they were helped at an early stage and if there were earlier assessment.
I call for a much more practical and structured approach at local level between the Health Service, the social services and the voluntary services—I would also include the volunteers, who are slightly different from the voluntary services—and I call on the Minister to make clear the relationship on a financial basis between the voluntary organisations and the statutory services. At the end of the day it is good practice and sensitivity to the needs of people that will bring about the change we want to see, but there must be a proper structure to achieve that.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I was very glad indeed that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, decided to take part in the debate. When I tell her about the excitement there was behind the scenes when it was discovered that her name was not down among the list of speakers, she will realise how pleased we always are to have her take part in a debate such as this, so much do we appreciate her expertise. The House will not wish me to be too long at this somewhat late hour.

179
I do not pretend to speak as an expert on this subject, because I am not, although I have listened to experts in this debate. The House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Longford for his initiative in tabling such an important Question. He and others have put forward thought-provoking proposals, and while I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, will do so when he speaks, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have taken part, including one noble Lord the elevation of whom I am not sure is material or spiritual.
I must be frank straight away and tell the House that this subject deserves and needs a full-scale debate, for we have the problems of dealing with not only the after-care of the mentally sick but also the needs of the mentally handicapped. I support the call of my noble friend Lord Longford for an inquiry and I support the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for greater co-ordination. The trouble with inquiries is that, although they eventually take place and are finalised and issue reports, seldom is action taken on their reports, when action is what we need.
Many years ago the subject of mental illness was brushed under the carpet. With the passage of time there has been a change in the attitude of society to some extent, but more needs to be done to educate the public and secure the co-operation of local and national authorities, a point which has been emphasised by many speakers in this debate. We must face the fact that there are thousands of patients in mental hospitals who could leave if accommodation outside and after-care facilities were available, and I understand the official estimate of such cases is 20,000, but I stand to be corrected.
In the meantime, these people, many of them long-stay patients, have become, or are becoming, institutionalised, and facing the outside world can be a terrifying prospect, however much skilled care and attention they may receive in hospital. It is a fact that some have been released without proper accommodation or after-care, and many are sleeping rough, moving from one night shelter to another, and in some cases finishing up in prison. There is no humanity in releasing people under such circumstances and conditions. True, I am talking about a minority, but such a state of affairs does exist and must not be allowed to exist much longer. Thanks are indeed due to the voluntary bodies and to some understanding local authorities, so that there is a brighter picture for some others.
Some years ago, when I was the Member of Parliament for Norwich North, I visited a road in which the old houses had been restored in a joint effort by the city council and a voluntary organisation. Two of the houses had been diverted as accommodation for discharged female former mental patients. The accommodation was cosy, bright and cheerful. I stopped for tea and had a chat with the residents and their resident companion, a former nurse at their old hospital. All were happy and cheerful. Cinema and theatre visits were organised, as were shopping expeditions, all carefully designed to get them used to the outside world before going their various ways. That sort of preparation is vitally important. That is ideal, provided that there exists a continuing form of aftercare. I shall never forget that experience because it
180
was a practical example of what can be done and is being done in some cases. It is true that such facilities exist elsewhere, but they are far too few to meet the existing need, which is considerable.
There is also the question of delay in the provision of psychiatric units in general hospitals. A psychiatric unit is planned at a general hospital for the building of which I have spent the greater part of my public life fighting. The unit is planned, but when is it to be built?—probably not in my lifetime, because there is always the question of who is to find the money. Such provision has been a casualty of succeeding economy campaigns—and I am not throwing the blame on one side or the other.
The noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, referred to the MIND campaign, which started in April 1976. It was a magnificent effort, and similar efforts by MIND are continuing. The noble Countess also referred to the Granada Television appeal, which attracted 1,250 responses. The media can be a very important factor in tackling this problem, provided that it is properly used. Perhaps we can indulge in a campaign, possibly with the Government's co-operation, to organise programmes to bring home to the people of this country the needs that arise from this problem. One concentrates on MIND because it has sold itself fairly well in regard to its campaign, but of course it is not the only voluntary organisation operating in this field. Although the organisations are doing a fine job, they will be the first to admit that an enormous field has yet to be covered.
The noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, spoke, too, about the co-operation involving the Housing Corporation and the MIND campaign. That is the kind of thing that is needed. Yesterday at Question Time—I see present the noble Baroness who asked the Question—information was given regarding housing accommodation that has been empty for over 12 months. It is estimated that 20,000 units are empty. Will the Government drive home to local authorities the urgent need for some of these units to be adapted for use by patients discharged from psychiatric hospitals? The accommodation is there. I have seen with my own eyes old houses converted to meet the needs to which I have referred. Is it too much to ask for this, even in a period of severe financial restraint?
As has already been said, cut-backs in public expenditure, locally and nationally, are not helping in regard to housing, and grants to voluntary bodies tend to be reduced. It seems to me that the main source of inspiration and action in this vital field comes from the voluntary organisations. It is true that there have been committee reports and recommendations, but so far there has been no positive system of integrated rehabilitation schemes. Perhaps I am cynical, but that seems to be the usual fate of recommendations and reports following inquiries.
There is need for more employment training, but with unemployment at today's levels, even if an adequate system existed, chances of employment would be somewhat remote. I make no party point when I remind your Lordships that unemployment is on a large scale. I had personal experience of unemployment as a youth and again, later, when married. I know of the extreme mental strain that unemployment can cause. It is little wonder that some people, not perhaps morally fortified, and without any idealism

181
behind them, become mentally sick and break down. That, in turn, can lead to alcoholism, if they can afford to drink, and this can be dangerous in the extreme. One need stroll only from here to Charing Cross station to see some of the results of that kind of predicament. This trend must be carefully watched, particularly among young people. We must shake ourselves into reality. I know from personal experience of the dangers that can arise from unemployment.
Finally, I turn to the needs of the mentally handicapped—not much mention has been made of this aspect of the matter—and I shall confine my remarks to children. Very close to my home in Sidcup is a school for mentally-handicapped children. It is a fine, purpose-built building, in beautiful surroundings, and it has a dedicated staff and helpers doing a magnificent job. I often meet the children from the school in groups, carrying out little shopping expeditions, and it is obvious that they are devoted to their teachers and helpers. The school was originally started in temporary premises—the local labour hall, by chance—and it is now doing a fine job, the success of which is, as I know, reflected in a happier and useful home life for some of those involved; and later in some cases employment can be found. The school is well supported by parents and voluntary organisations. That is the ideal situation.
On 20th March, while waiting for Gardeners' World (one of my favourite television programmes, as your Lordships will probably expect) I casually watched the Oxford Road Show. Being an old square, I found most of it beyond my comprehension, but I was jolted into grave concern and alarm when before an audience of young teenagers the subject of the care of mentally-handicapped children was raised during the serious spot in the programme. The item dealt with schools for the mentally-handicapped. It was stated quite categorically that less than 50 per cent. of local authorities were carrying out their responsibilities in this field. It was stated that under the Education Act 1944 such children have the right to stay at special schools until the age of 19, if necessary. It was also stated that some local authorities—Oxford and Hampshire were quoted—are breaking the law, robbing children of their statutory right. Will the Government confirm or deny that that situation exists?
To return to the main theme of the debate, I would say that it appears to me that the bulk of the work in after-care is carried out by voluntary organisations. It is true that grants are made by central Government and local authorities, but in the present economic climate the grants have been cut and will continue to be cut. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, spoke about co-ordination. I would ask: what system of co-ordination exists among Government departments, local authorities and voluntary organisations? I might be wrong, but the present system seems to me to be patchy in the extreme. I hope that the Government spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, will be able to put our minds at rest. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, I should like to see the various bodies get together to tackle the problem through co-ordination, frame the guidelines, and get on with the job.
This is not a problem to be ignored after a short debate in your Lordships' House. It is a tremendous
182
social problem, and we must deal with it. It is our responsibility. This is, after all, the International Year of the Disabled. When I was in Hong Kong on a mission with a number of Members of Parliament I was given a tie, on which were the words, "The International Year of the Disabled". I was asked to wear the tie to show that the organisers there intended to put in 100 per cent. effort for the Inter-national Year of the Disabled. I wonder whether we in Britain could do the same? The question of the after-care of the mentally sick and the mentally handicapped is one that is overdue for energetic and positive action. We all agree about that. But is it just talk, or is there to be action? We cannot afford any longer to neglect our responsibilities. This debate, short as it is, is bound to be a challenge to the nation's conscience, and I hope that we shall indeed, in the not too distant future, have a wider debate and some demonstration on all sides that we really mean business in this tremendous problem, to which there can be a solution.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I be permitted to ask him a question? Did I understand him to say that Oxford were not carrying out their legal responsibilities with regard to the mentally handicapped child? This is not my experience.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I am only quoting the statement made in the programme, "The Oxford Road Show". I do not recommend it; it is mainly pop stuff, and, really, my mind does not go as far as that. But it said that two areas were not carrying out their legal responsibilities. This refers, I rather gather, to the facility of remaining until the age of 19 in handicapped schools; but they quoted Oxfordshire and Hampshire. I can only quote what they said, and that is the position so far as I know.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I think we have had a most interesting debate, and I hope the noble Earl is pleased with it. We have heard from so many people with such great knowledge that I think it has been very valuable indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that he suffered from too much knowledge on this subject. I am afraid I am the reverse, and all I shall be able to do is to give what I have been told by the department is the Government's line, and their views on these matters. I shall not be able to answer all the questions, but as soon as I can I shall certainly see that they are answered.
Before responding to the points which have been raised, some of which I shall try to answer, I wish to say that the Government welcome this opportunity to draw attention to what is a very important question; and I am grateful to the noble Earl for having given me the opportunity to set some comments within the framework of a more general statement of the Government's policies and intentions in relation to the development of services for the mentally ill. I should also like to thank the noble Earl for having postponed the debate from last Thursday, when we would have started at about half-past nine at night. Today has been a great improvement.

183
My Lords, the word "after-care" first appears in the National Health Service Act 1946. Section 28 said:
"A local authority may with the approval of the Minister, and to such extent as the Minister may direct shall, make arrangements for the purpose of the prevention of illness, the care of persons suffering from illness or mental defectiveness, or the after-care of such persons…".
So this was a power, and the Minister could, if he wished, direct that it should be a duty. But no such direction was made until after the passage of the Mental Health Act 1959. This enumerated the purposes for which care and after-care arrangements could be made, including, for example, among such purposes, the provision of residential accommodation and the provision of day centres; and under directions issued by the then Minister in August 1959, the provision of both residential accommodation and day centres became a duty. This statutory duty laid on local health authorities became in 1974, under a new direction, a duty of the local social services authority, and this it still remains, My noble friend Lord Lloyd referred to this in what he called his second maiden speech.
However, the duty is expressed in fairly general terms, and gives local individual authorities discretion to determine the needs of their own localities for the amount of such provision that is necessary. This is a sensible arrangement, since the needs of individual localities are bound to differ, as many noble Lords have said today, and to be affected by other forms of provision which are available.
Paralleling the development of legislation between 1946 and 1981 there has been a revolution in the practice of psychiatry and in therapeutic and rehabilitative techniques. There has been the "open door" movement, the new psychotropic drugs, the therapeutic community and an emphasis on the hospital as one component part of a wider community mental health service. There has also been a reversal of institutional attitudes, linked to a positive stress on the restoration of social skills. All these developments have led to a transformation of both the size and character of the in-patient population. This has led in consequence to major changes in the pattern of discharges and in the practice of after-care.
My Lords, 35 years ago many patients would have been detained under compulsory powers and would have spent many months or years in hospitals before returning, if returning at all, to the community. Today, the average patient enters hospital voluntarily on an informal basis and returns far more rapidly to life in the community outside hospital. I should like to quote two figures to illustrate the magnitude of the change. First, about 90 per cent. of first admissions in 1979 were discharged within three months of admission; secondly, at the end of December 1979 there were, as has already been mentioned, 76,000 patients in mental hospitals and units in England, compared with 143,000 on the same date in 1954. That factor was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Richardson.
These changes have a direct bearing on the task of after-care. It has expanded from a voluntary activity of the old local health authorities to become an important part of the work of both health and social service
184
authorities. Together they have to plan and provide a whole range of specialised services and facilities on behalf of the discharged patient. To the skills of the medical profession are allied those of psychologists, occupational therapists, social workers, community psychiatric nurses, the staff of industrial therapy units, disablement resettlement officers and many others—not forgetting the members of the primary health team.
My Lords, what is the task? Before going on to describe particular elements in that task and to reply to some of the points which have been made, I should like to suggest to your Lordships very briefly the extended nature of the task itself. This will make clear why we share the view of the noble Earl that what he calls "mental after-care" and what we would prefer to call more generally "community psychiatric care", is crucial to our mental health services.
In 1946, when the National Health Service Act was passed, after-care for mental illness seemed like an optional extra for the local health authorities of that time. Not only were many fewer people discharged annually, but the assumption then was that if they were discharged it was because they had recovered. People who still needed care would stay in hospital. In addition, people who had no home, or no home that would take them, often stayed in hospital. So it is not surprising that the number of in-patients continued to rise.
But the new philosophy, symbolised by the Mental Health Act 1959, implied three new major and very long-term tasks for us. The first, which rightly received much attention in the 1960s and 1970s, is to meet the needs of those who have recovered but who have no home: patients who have been described as being trapped in hospital. This task has been tackled in one mental illness hospital after another, and today we can say that we have nearly dealt with the backlog. Most of the non-patients responsibility for whom we inherited from the past have now left the mental illness hospitals. Many factors have helped. Nearly all patients were changed to an informal status after the passage of the 1959 Act and in the favourable employment situation of the 'sixties many in-patients were able to make an initial trial of the outside world in employment.
Later the position on employment declined, but there was an improvement of the housing situation. And let us not forget the benefits of our social security system which ensures that no patient is now trapped in hospital merely because of lack of a personal income. So now there are only a few people in this position to be dealt with each year. These recovered patients who need a new home may need considerable help to get them started, but once they have found their place they may need no further help.
But there is a second task, for a group which today makes greater demands on community services. These are the people who have a home, but are still suffering from some degree of mental illness. Today we appreciate that for many such people care in the community will be better for their mental health than continuing in-patient care. And almost everybody who spoke today underlined this. But this depends on their receiving the right care. And I think we also see, better than even 10 years ago, that this care may be

185
needed for many years. Few people now believe that mental illness will go away if we stop locking people up. There is evidence, both from this country and from other countries, to disprove that. So this group are going to need not only transitional care in picking up life again, but continuing care from both health and social services, just as they would once have received continuous support in hospital. But in the community they can receive it in a more flexible way, so that they resume control of their own lives to the fullest possible extent.
Many of these people with some continuing disablement are living in family homes, and so a large part of the burden of continuing care will fall on relatives. So our third task is supporting both the patients and relatives of this group of people—people who have returned to their ordinary lives, but continue to have special needs.
Fourthly, a fairly small group numerically have continuing psychiatric needs and also have no homes. The fourth task for health and social services is, therefore, a double task of providing for members of this group both the homes and the support they need to live in them.
For completeness perhaps I should mention two more groups. First, we must not let our concern for after-care obscure the fact that there are a few for whom continuing care can best be provided within the hospital. They will, therefore, remain as long-stay in-patients. Another much larger group will not require "after-care" in the traditional sense, because they never become in-patients, as psychiatrists are finding ways to treat more people without in-patient care. These people form an important part of the demand for the range of community care services which we try to make available.
I turn to some of the points made by noble Lords. Some of them I shall answer in general form and others more particularly. On the subject of residential accommodation, the 1975 White Paper recognised the need for a range of accommodation which could cater for short-term and longer-term needs. The White Paper guidelines on "desirable provision" were flexible. They differentiated between areas of high and more average need. For an area of average need the minimum suggested is 19 places per 100,000 population in long- and short-term accommodation taken together. Applying this to England, the possible need is approximately 8,830 places. Taking account of additional requirements in some of the "high need" areas, a figure of 10,000 places might be a reasonable "round figure" target.
The Department has figures for accommodation in local authorities' own premises, both staffed and un-staffed. There are also figures for places made available to local authorities by voluntary organisations and by private organisations. Adding these together, the total number of available places has risen from 3,322 in 1973 to 5,604 in 1980. We can add to these the number of adults known to be in private lodgings arranged and supervised by social services departments. These have risen from 551 in 1975 to about 800 in 1980. Altogether, the figures for residential places and supervised lodgings in 1980 totalled about 6,400.
To some extent those figures underestimate the total available accommodation. There has been an un-
186
quantified but significant growth in the provision of group homes. Voluntary organisations, we know, have been particularly active in promoting their development. One of the particular merits of group homes is that they merge imperceptibly into normal residence in the community and statistical returns do not necessarily "pick them up". Indeed, some former hospital patients originally classified as "group home residents" change over to having their own direct tenancies with the housing authority. Of course, national figures will conceal substantial local variations, and needs will be much higher in some areas than in others. Nevertheless, it is clear that there has been steady progress in the development of a wide range of residential accommodation for the after-care of the mentally-ill. According to the latest figures progress has been maintained. In 1979–80 expenditure on residential care increased by about 10 per cent. in real terms.
To turn to day care, the total number of day hospital places has increased rapidly from 10,206 in 1975 to 12,947 in 1978. Although this is still far short of the White Paper target of 35 places per 100,000 population for in-patients attending day hospital plus a further 30 places per 100,000 population for day-patients, at the present rate of growth the target should be reached by the mid 1990s. The growth in day centres provided by local authorities in England has been slower than hoped for, but places in day centres specifically for the mentally ill, together with places made available by voluntary and other organisations and including a proportion of places for the mentally ill in so-called "mixed centres", have risen from 5,374 in 1973 to 7,740 in 1980. This is still far short of the White Paper guideline of 27,810. There are, however, currently some doubts about the validity of the White Paper figures, and I will turn to this in a moment.
Not only is it evident that the figures conceal considerable local variations, but it is clear that the practice of day care varies widely. There is a fairly general view that not all clients require day-care on a five-day week basis. Some clients, depending on the degree of disability, may be supported on a one-plus day-a-week basis, or by even less frequent contact. There is, therefore, no exact correspondence between the number of places in day centres and the number of clients receiving active support and help from the centres. Much depends on local policies and on the way in which day care is integrated into the overall network of health and personal social services in any given area.
It may be that the fixed White Paper guideline should be replaced by a range of guidelines which discriminate between high need and low need localities—as the White Paper did for residential accommodation. It may also be better to think in terms of combined total for day hospital and day centre places. This does not imply that the two are interchangeable. There are some functions that seem clearly more appropriate to a day hospital, and some that seem clearly more appropriate to a day centre. But there is a fairly large intermediate area of tasks which it seems likely can equally be undertaken by a day centre or by a suitable peripheral day hospital. There is also some evidence to suggest that the combined guidelines for day hospital and day centre places may be too high. The guideline

187
figure perhaps more nearly represents the number of people to be supported at any one time rather than the number of places required. There have been many references to the voluntary sector. There have been suggestions—I think, not in the House today—that the Government are inclined to rely too much on the voluntary sector.
The Government do not see this as a question of "either/or" but of "both/and". There has long been a vigorous tradition of voluntary service in this country and the major voluntary organisations in the field of mental health. The Mental After-care Association, MIND, the Guidepost Trust, the Richmond Fellowship and many others, provide important services which contribute significantly to the range of facilities available for the care in the community of those disabled by or recovering from mental illness. We also recognise the great value of the voluntary sector's ability to use its freedom to innovate and pioneer. Voluntary organisations can direct their attention to the margins more easily than statutory bodies. They can identify needs which are not easily categorised and which do not fit into neat compartments. They can pioneer and innovate new methods of help and new patterns of service. This is why the Government believe in partnership and close co-ordination between the voluntary a statutory sectors.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked about the position of the co-ordination between the voluntary and the statutory sectors. I shall write to her about that. It is certainly the earnest wish of the Government that the maximum amount of co-ordination should develop. There are one or two points that I should make clear. First, despite all the economies that local authorities have had to make, Care in Action shows in England total grants by local authorities to voluntary organisations in the personal social services sector rose between 1978–79 and 1979–80 by 8 per cent. in real terms.
Secondly, between 1975–76 and 1979–80 the mentally ill fared relatively better than other client groups. Local authority grants increased by no fewer than 58 per cent. in real terms. Thirdly, the amount allocated by the DHSS for grants to voluntary bodies has increased by approximately 75 per cent. in real terms between 1975–76 and 1979–80 to almost £6 million at 1979–80 out-turn prices. Not only has the total increased but the share of the total allocation to voluntary organisations concerned with mental health has risen to almost 10 per cent.
The Government's intention is that grants for voluntary bodies will continue to be maintained in real terms. On the question of fees paid by local authorities to voluntary organisations for places taken up in facilities provided by voluntary organisations there is in the available figures no evidence that these have been declining either in cash terms or real terms. The most recent years for which figures are available are 1978–79 and 1979–80. Between these two years payments by local authorities to voluntary organisations actually rose in real terms by 5 per cent. So the figures do not show any downward trend in the total of local authority grants to voluntary bodies or any reluctance to make use of the facilities that they have developed.
Regarding the future, Care in Action commends the
188
closest possible collaboration between the voluntary and statutory sectors. I note with pleasure the local authority associations and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations have established a joint working party to prepare guidelines on working relationships between social services authorities and voluntary organisations. This is, I think, a useful and constructive initiative.
I have left until last the question of joint finance which is a particularly relevant source of funding for mental after-care enabling as it does transfer of resources between health and local authorities. At constant prices (November 1979) joint finance has grown from £30 million in 1977–78 to £54 million in 1980–81. Further real term growth is planned; £56 million in 1981–82 and £58 million in 1982–83. The rules governing the application of joint finance have already been significantly relaxed; but the suggestion of transferring cash with patients to local authority personal social services is currently under consideration by the DHSS in a wider context.
Various methods have been suggested, including attaching grants to patients or places in residential accommodation or centres. As to the meeting of the cost of such grants, it has been suggested that the cash might be found by the consequential closure of hospital wards. As announced in Care in Action, the Secretary of State for Social Services hopes to issue a consultative document later this year and views will be canvassed on a wide range of options.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, asked me about the grant for MIND. This was only submitted to the DHSS Ministers and officials a few weeks ago. The sum involved last year was £275,000. MIND is seeking a major increase. There are standing arrangements for continuing payment of the grant while the new level of grant is under consideration. These were exercised last year when the grant took 21 weeks in negotiation. But I am happy to say the outcome was an increase of £25,000 for MIND on that occasion. I am happy to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, that the experimental hostel wards and hospital hostels (as they are sometimes called) are seen by the department as important initiatives and their development is being very carefully studied and evaluated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, mentioned the subject of anorexia nervosa. The Government are aware that there is evidence that this distressing condition may have become more common in the past decade, especially among adolescent girls and young women. Treatment is normally regarded as best provided within the comprehensive range of mental health services. Some recent comparative research on a variety of treatment methods may yield useful results in identifying improved methods of treatment. I shall be writing further to the noble Baroness.
In conclusion, I believe the debate has illustrated that we need a wide range of residential accommodation and a variety of other supporting services. Some people need only brief help in re-establishing their ordinary lives. Some will need a permanent helping hand in coping with their ordinary lives, while others will need to build a new life, with which they will need continuing support. If this last group are to achieve a quality of life better than that of the traditional long-stay patient, much skill will be needed. The

189
supporting and care services and facilities will need to be carefully deployed so that each individual is rehabilitated to the highest possible level.
It is the most severely disabled patient who represents the greatest coallenge to the new pattern of services set out in the 1975 White Paper. There is little doubt that the average short-stay patient benefits from the new, district-based psychiatric services; he or she benefits from the developing multi-disciplinary therapeutic teams and from the flexible network of services, which enable him to get the treatment he needs with the minimum of disruption to his ordinary life. On the face of it, it is good that the number of chronic long-stay in-patients has fallen, but we must satisfy ourselves that we are meeting the needs of the patient who is now remaining in the community but who has chronic disabilities; this point has been made very strongly by several noble Lords today.
The challenge as we abandon old patterns of care is to be sure that the new network of services which the patient needs is fully established and readily accessible—otherwise there is an unacceptable dilemma: the patient may be discharbed or may discharge himself into the community although nobody has arranged suitable facilities for his continuing care and support; or he may stay in hospital, not because he needs in-patient treatment but simply because there are no suitable facilities for him outside. Both are unacceptable and the Government policy is to ensure that the National Heatlh Service, and local authorities in partnership with voluntary organisations, plan and develop networks of community care which are comprehensive yet flexible and responsive to the needs of the individual patient.
In particular we must concentrate more care on those with long-term needs. I commend to the noble Lords the recently published report by the Multi-Disciplinary Working Party on Rehabilitation set up by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, under the title Psychiatric Rehabilitation in the 1980s, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Richardson. This report makes very clear that rehabilitation is for everyone and not just for those who are obliging enough to get better. Every patient with chronic disabilities needs the help of a district rehabilitation team.
I have already suggested that as a generic term community psychiatric care may be better than mental after-care. It brings out more clearly that this is a task in its own right and not just something which is tacked on to in-patient treatment, which not everybody
190
needs. Looking at this slightly wider spectrum, how is our network of community care growing? I will conclude by bringing together a few of the most significant figures. Residential places are up from 3,332 in 1973 to 5,604 in 1980; day hospital places are up from 10,200 in 1975 to 13,000 in 1978; local authority day centre places are up in number from 5,374 in 1973 to 7,740 in 1980.
The number of nurses in community psychiatric services is up to 2,000 and a service is provided in nearly every health district. The total of local authority grants to voluntary organisations is up by 8 per cent. in real terms in 1979–80, and grants specifically for the mentally ill are up by 58 per cent. in real terms over the five years to 1979–80. In the light of these figures and although I know that your Lordships would like us to be going much faster than we are, as we would ourselves, I can give the noble Lord some measure of reassurance. Despite present difficulties the network is growing—unevenly but quite widely. With regard to the importance of the sort of care provided, I agree with what the noble Earl and noble Lords have said. We welcome the inquiry that the noble Lord is about to undertake and hope that we shall be returning to this subject after he has made his investigation.
I would thank the noble Earl for having raised this subject today, and I hope that this Question has done something to increase general understanding of the importance of this subject and that it has all been worthwhile.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, has of course spoken on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Security, whose responsibilities are for England and Wales. May I suggest to him that the concern that has been expressed this afternoon is equally applicable to Scotland? can I have the noble Lord's assurance that the content of this excellent debate will be conveyed to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Certainly, I guarantee to do that.

Charterhouse Japhet Bill
The order made on 30th March last discharged, and Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
  UN WORKING GROUP ON DISAPPEARANCES
  UN WORKING GROUP ON DISAPPEARANCES
  DIRECTORATES OF SCIENTIFIC SERVICES
  DIRECTORATES OF SCIENTIFIC SERVICES
  UN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME: WEST AFRICA
  UN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME: WEST AFRICA
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: RESTORATION WORK
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: RESTORATION WORK
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: DISPOSAL PROCEDURES
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: DISPOSAL PROCEDURES
  THE WILSON COMMITTEE REPORT: PUBLIC RECORDS
  THE WILSON COMMITTEE REPORT: PUBLIC RECORDS
  COUNTY COURT JURISDICTION
  COUNTY COURT JURISDICTION