Sitting of 21 May 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  HUMBERSIDE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.
  HUMBERSIDE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

    GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday 4 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Mr. Strangasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has had any discussions with the French Government on fisheries since the Presidential election; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): We have had no discussions with French representatives on fisheries since the French Presidential elections.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition welcome the election of President Mitterrand? Does he accept that the robust stand that the President promised during the election campaign to take on fisheries should not lead to any scaling down of Britain's position in the negotiations? Will the Minister make it clear that a 12-mile exclusive limit means the phasing-out of French historic rights, as well as the historic rights of other countries?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The change of President in France makes no difference to Britain's position in the negotiations. We negotiate on terms that are in the best interests of the British fishing industry. On the question of the exclusive limit, as I have made plain on several occasions, and again this week, we must have an exclusive zone, but we should consider historic rights.
    Mr. Myles: Will my hon. Friend say categorically that there will he no fishing up to the beaches after 1982?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Certainly. I do not believe that any British Government could tolerate any other situation. Although the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) referred to the new French President's tougher line on fisheries, it is significant that in at least one interview that the President gave to a newspaper that aspect was not raised.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: As nothing can be done or begun to be discussed with the French until after the elections in
    402
    June, what contingency plans are the Government making as it becomes increasingly unlikely that there will be a settlement of the common fisheries policy that will be satisfactory to British fishermen?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The negotiations must wait until we can meet the new French Government. We have that responsibility. That is a realistic and sensible way in which to proceed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, as interim measures, last year and this year we have given substantial aid to the fishing industry because the negotiations have not yet come to a conclusion.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: As there will be a prolonged period before agreement can be reached, will the Minister undertake to introduce the independent national measures that were promised in the Conservative Party manifesto in 1979 in the event of a deadlock in negotiations? Secondly, will he in the interim introduce a long-term plan of aid and development for the British industry?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not pay attention to what I said in the House earlier this week. He must realise that under The Hague agreement, which his Government negotiated, the unilateral measures that were introduced were proved to be illegal. The Government have made sure that those unilateral measures have been taken over in a universal Community measure so that they now have the force of Community agreement.

    Farming Industry (Weather Damage Compensation)
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what help he proposes for farmers affected by the April snowfall.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): The farmers unions have made an application to the European Commission for special assistance. The Government are helping this application by providing necessary information to the Commission, and I hope that it will be dealt with quickly and sympathetically. In addition, the advisory service will do all that it can to assist farmers and I have asked for capital grant applications arising from storm damage to be given priority treatment.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many farmers are deeply concerned that the effects of the April snowfall have been underestimated, and that some farmers, often in marginal areas where they are already suffering from other difficulties, have lost hundreds of lambs? When does the right hon. Gentleman expect that those farmers will hear from the European Community about their applications?
    Mr. Walker: I had a word at last week's Council of Ministers meeting with the Commissioner, who is aware of the problem and has promised to consider it speedily. The funds available in this sphere are fairly limited, but I hope that decisions will be made quickly.
    Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that some of the worst-hit parts of the country were in the East Midlands, where some areas were cut off from electricity for four or five days and many lambs were lost and agricultural crops damaged? Will he consider whether he ought to do something for that part of the country?
    Mr. Walker: I am aware of the bad flood damage in parts of the East Midlands. The NFUs have given evidence of that in their submissions to the European Commission. We have provided all the information available to us and my staff in the region have been giving all the help that they can.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Minister aware that the effects of the snowfall were particularly severe in Northumberland, where the lambing season is later than in many other parts of England? Consequently, many young lambs were lost. Will the right hon. Gentleman take that into account?
    Mr. Walker: The effect of climatic conditions on sectors of agriculture has, alas, always been one of the hazards of the industry, in the same way as good climatic conditions have been one of the benefits. Disastrous effects were suffered by farming communities in some areas, and we are doing all that we can to help.
    Mr. Maclennan: In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's warning that the assistance available from the Commission may prove inadequate, what steps are open to the Government to make good the financial losses that have been incurred?
    Mr. Walker: There is an element of disaster, particularly in the East Midlands and in one or two areas of late lambing, but it has been agreed by successive Governments, correctly in my view, that one cannot compensate for bad weather conditions. If one did that, it might be necessary to claw back the benefits during good weather. There is a balance of effect. The Commission has a fund, albeit small, for helping with such problems, and the NFUs have rightly made a submission to the Commission.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Following on from that, is my right hon. Friend aware that many farmers in the Vale of Ancholme to the south of Brigg in my constituency lost all their crops? As many farm fewer than 100 acres, they will have lost their livelihoods unless some help is forthcoming.
    Mr. Walker: I am aware of the problems in my hon. Friend's constituency. He has been active in bringing them to our attention. We are giving all possible help, in terms of grants and advice on how to replant quickly in such areas, but no Minister of Agriculture can compensate specific farms for adverse weather conditions. The NFU once considered the possibility of setting up a disaster fund, as a sort of insurance policy, but I understand that the majority of Members were against it.

    Agricultural Land Classification
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he has had to his consultation letter setting out proposals for change to the agricultural land classification maps, as announced in his parliamentary answer on 5 May to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): As always, my hon. Friend is ahead of events. I cannot comment on the response until all the replies are received, and he would not expect me to do so.
    Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread welcome for his proposal to reclassify the
    404
    grading of agricultural land so that grade 3 land, the vast majority of which is good agricultural land, is not thought of as third-class land? Will he confirm that that minor, but important, step is the first of a number of initiatives that the Government intend to take to try to conserve our good agricultural land from urban development—a highly commendable objective on environmental as well as economic grounds?
    Mr. Wiggin: As my hon. Friend knows, this is a battle that we are always losing. The question is whether we can lose it progressively more slowly. I am grateful for his comments. A number of difficulties are involved, and although the change is relatively cosmetic I believe that it will have a psychological effect on some of those who do not understand the importance of maintaining this natural resource.
    Mr. Hicks: I welcome my hon. Friend's suggested changes, but can he inform us of the attitude of the farming communities, which will derive maximum benefit if the change of nomenclature goes through?
    Mr. Wiggin: I cannot anticipate that. There is a difficulty with the individual farmer faced with the vast profits that would come from developing his land, but in general both the NFU and the CLA have consistently defended agricultural land and I hope that they will take the same view as my hon. Friend.

    Farming Industry (Young Entrants)
    Mr. Heddleasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the prospects for those young people wishing to enter the farming industry.
    Mr. Wiggin: So far as openings are available, I am satisfied that there is good provision for young people to acquire the skills and experience needed for a worthwhile career in the industry.
    Mr. Heddle: I am heartened by my hon. Friend's reply, but does he agree that there is an enormous untapped reservoir of talent within agriculture waiting to get on to the ladder of self-employment, not necessarily as farm managers? Does he agree that if the CLA and the NFU can agree on how to make more land available for letting to enable young people to get on to the ladder he should consult all other parties, including the Labour Party, to determine how the land can be brought on to the market for letting?
    Mr. Wiggin: Rigid security of tenure, whether of housing accommodation or land, always means that the market for letting dries up. So many people will have to come to an agreement before the Government can intervene that I cannot promise that success will be achieved. Of course, we welcome the good news that has come from the CLA and NFU talks.
    Mr. Freud: Will the hon. Gentleman state what prospects there are for young farmers who went into horticulture and were persuaded to convert their greenhouses to heating by gas and are consequently missing out on the oil subsidies?
    Mr. Wiggin: I am aware of that problem. A total of 92 per cent. of glasshouse growers will have been helped by the Government's recent announcement, which had to take account of EEC rules. Only 1 per cent. of growers use

    405
    gas. One is sympathetic to their problem, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not heard the welcome news that the Dutch have recently announced a small, but nevertheless significant, increase in the price of their gas.
    Mr. Dormand: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Northern region, despite its heavy industry image, provides many jobs in farming, and that four of the five northern counties could be described as rural? Is he aware that there are fewer jobs available to young people in farming, as in every other industry, in the Northern region? What special provision is the Ministry making for the hardest-hit region in the country?
    Mr. Wiggin: I do not believe that agriculture has been more exempt than any other industry from advances in technology, and the hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that employment in the industry has decreased. I have had the privilege of visiting the North on a number of occasions recently and I do not believe that it is less privileged. If the hon. Gentleman were to examine our record on hill farm subsidies he would find that we have consistently done more than any previous Government.
    Mr. Pollock: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great strengths of efficient farming in this country is the ability of a farmer to hand on a farm to his son? Does he agree that our capital tax structure must always take that fully into account?
    Mr. Wiggin: Certainly, and it is one of the factors that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took into account when alleviating part of the capital transfer tax on let land, which is something that we have been urging for many years.
    Mr. Mason: As the CLA and the NFU have been making representations to the Minister with a view to making future farm tenants less secure, which would necessitate a repeal of the tenancy laws in the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, what has been the Government's reaction so far?
    Mr. Wiggin: We have received nothing from the talks between the CLA and the NFU, and until we do I can make no comment.

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Mr. Hicksasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he is making towards achieving an acceptable common fisheries policy agreement.
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement about negotiations over the common fisheries policy.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have nothing to add to the statements I made to the House during the debate on 18 May.
    Mr. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is increased concern in the South West fishing industry as a result of remarks made by M. Mitterrand during the French election campaign about the attitude adopted by the previous French Administration in respect of the common fisheries policy, specifically regarding access? Is my hon. Friend able to assure fishermen in the vulnerable parts of the United Kingdom that there will be no weakening of the United Kingdom position?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I understand the point that my hon. Friend puts. I know the concern of fishermen in his part of the country. I met many fishermen from that area when they visited the House a month or so ago. I assure my hon. Friend that despite the change of Government in France we shall continue to negotiate as vigorously as in the past on behalf of the British fishing industry.
    Mr. Brotherton: On the assumption that this problem will be solved, the solution will have to be enforced. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that we have sufficient fishery protection vessels and resources to implement any solution?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend is correct. Effective policing must be one of the most important elements of any fishing policy, both now and in the future. I assure my hon. Friend that relations between my Department and the Ministry of Defence on this matter are excellent. We shall continue to work together closely to ensure that within the waters for which the United Kingdom is responsible we have the most effective policing that is possible. I pay tribute to those in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force who contribute towards that policing.
    Mr. Maclennan: As there is unlikely to be an early settlement, what steps have the Government in mind to stabilise markets and protect them from the impact of inadequately regulated imports from third countries? Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the predicament of the shellfish industry?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: While matters such as access and quotas are of vital importance in any fishing agreement, matters of marketing are almost of equal importance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured to know that we regard effective marketing measures as one of the most important elements in the negotiations. Certain proposals have been made to the Commission. They include much more effective control over imports from third countries, which we regard as vital. We shall strongly support such control, in the interests of the stability of our own market in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister accept that the inability to agree a common fisheries policy is having far-reaching effects on every section of the industry? Is he aware that the members of a deputation representing fish merchants in Aberdeen who his noble Friend, the Earl. of Mansfield, saw earlier this week came away from that meeting angered by the lack of sympathy and response by the Government to their plight?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is wrong when he talks about a lack of sympathy or response. In recent weeks the Government have given |£25 million to the fishing industry above what is paid in normal continuing subsidies. It came on top of £17 million paid last year. I do not think that such action represents either a lack of understanding or a lack of sympathy, or, indeed, any lack of belief in the future of this industry.
    Mr. Mason: In view of widespread suspicions in the House and in the fishing press that the Minister is reneging on the unanimous resolution of the House on a Common Market fisheries policy package, will he allay those

    407
    suspicions? Will he assure the House that in the next round of talks he will press for a 12 to 50-mile dominant preference zone for British fishermen?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have made it clear on a number of occasions that the fishing plan proposals which the Government have put forward, and which have been discussed, show a firm commitment to the need for preference in areas where fishing is important between 12 and 50 miles. It shows the shallowness of the right hon. Gentleman's case when he has to rely on an erroneous and incorrect headline in a fishing newspaper, which he knows to be wrong, and which I have denied in the House.
    Mr. Mason: I said that there was widespread suspicion in the House, as distinct from that in the fishing press. I take the hon. Gentleman's robust reply to mean that he intends to give a guarantee to the House that he will adhere to and not renege on the unanimous resolution, passed by all parties in the House, on a common fisheries policy package.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry to have to keep repeating to the right hon. Gentleman, who does not seem able to understand these things, that there is provision in the discussions in Europe, which we shall pursue to our utmost, for preference beyond the 12 miles in relation to the proposals on fishing plans. If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the issue, it is at least understood by those in the fishing industry, and they are the people who matter.

    Agricultural Prices
    Mr. Marlowasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether it remains his policy to freeze the agricultural prices for those items in structural surplus.
    Mr. Peter Walker: It remains the Government's policy to contain output of products in structural surplus through action on price and such other measures as are appropriate and negotiable. Over the period since we took office, average support prices for the three main surplus commodities, milk, cereals and sugar, have fallen in real terms.
    Mr. Marlow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he and I gave a solemn undertaking to the British people on 3 May 1979 that we would not permit an increase in prices for agricultural commodities in structural surplus? There was no mention of future inflation in financial terms. As the poor, the unemployed, the elderly and one-parent families have to pay up to twice world market prices for foodstuffs, will my right hon. Friend ensure that during the negotiations on the restructuring of the CAP this year the Government will refuse to permit any increase in the price of foodstuffs in structural surplus?
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend refers to what he adhered to in the Conservative manifesto at the last election. I am delighted to hear that he adheres to all the enthusiastic passages about the Common Market that appeared in the manifesto. I shall remind him of them on frequent occasions. What matters in real terms is that we have succeeded in reducing the price of all items in surplus. That is a considerable achievement. My hon. Friend is totally and completely wrong about the difference between prices here and world prices.
    Mr. Jay: Has the Minister informed the Prime Minister of his various U-turns, because she goes on saying that the CAP should be reformed?
    Mr. Walker: The Prime Minister and I are totally at one on this issue, as on all others.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Will my right hon. Friend try to explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that in many cases surpluses are good housekeeping? Will he try to explain to him the fact that if expressed in terms of weeks' supplies there is no problem; indeed, that this helps the consumer?
    Mr. Walker: A dairy surplus is not defensible on the grounds of good housekeeping or anything else. It is an expensive surplus that is not required. Sugar represented the second worst surplus when I took office, but there were crop failures in other parts of the world and it became a commodity in great shortage. The European price turned out to be well below the world price. That is an illustration of what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Minister go back to his constituency this weekend, make a speech like that of his hon. Friend the former Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy and say that he loyally supports Conservative statements in the election manifesto for keeping down food prices, and risk getting the sack, as happened to his hon. Friend?
    Mr. Walker: I should much prefer to go to the hon. Gentleman's constituency to describe how the rate of increase in food prices has halved since the Labour Government went out of office.
    Mr. Skinner: Prices are still rising in Bolsover.

    Dogs
    Mr. Mylesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the control of dogs in the countryside, having particular regard to the problems of sheep worrying.
    Mr. Wiggin: Apart from inquiries from hon. Members, including requests for statistics of livestock losses, there have been representations from the National Farmers Union about the need for improved control of dogs in the countryside.
    Mr. Myles: Will my hon. Friend use his powers under the Local Government Act 1966 to introduce a better system of dog identification, which would be a great help in contributing to the overall control of dogs?
    Mr. Wiggin: As my hon. Friend knows, there has been an interdepartmental working party on dogs and all the problems that go with them. The Government are still considering its report.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Government ensure that any measures introduced to deal with the problem are on a United Kingdom basis?
    Mr. Wiggin: The Government are still considering the interdepartmental report. I am sure that that point will be taken into account.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the answer to the whole problem of dog control is to implement the terms of the 1976 report, increase the dog licence fee and have a proper dog licensing system?
    Mr. Wiggin: I must repeat that the Government are still considering the report.

    Beef Cows
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the number of beef cows in the United Kingdom compared with a year ago.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The provisional results of the December 1980 census show the number of beef cows in the United Kingdom to be 1,469,000 compared with 1,536,000 in December 1979.
    Mr. Mills: Does my hon. Friend agree that the trend seems to be serious and that it is developing into an imbalance in British agriculture in that corn is up and stock is down? What steps can be taken to reverse the trend in the interests of farming and the consumer?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the relationship between the livestock and arable sectors of our farming industry. We can be encouraged by two matters. First, the trend was recognised in the price review in Europe this year, in the price awards for different commodities. Secondly, the Government have put more money into the hill areas and hill cows than at any previous time. I do not read much into it, but I hope that my hon. Friend will be encouraged by the fact that the numbers of in-calf dairy heifers and in-calf beef heifers were slightly increased at the end of last year. The increase is slight, but it is an increase.
    Mr. Cockeram: Does my hon. Friend accept that nothing would be gained if Britain were to add to its unemployment by including farmers engaged in the milk and beef industries? Will he ensure that those industries continue to prosper, bearing in mind that Britain's consumption of these products is below their production figures?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I agree. That is why we believe that, in the interests of the economy as a whole, a strong agriculture industry has an important part to play.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister confirm that the switch is not so much from beef to cereals but out of beef in the hills and uplands? Does he agree that that is a disturbing trend? While the Minister has taken some steps, does he agree that he must continue to make more help available in the hills and uplands if the trend is to be reversed?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I know the hon. Gentleman's constituency and I am sure that he will welcome the fact that, for a hill cow, taking into account the suckler cow subsidy, the hill farmer this year receives slightly over £54 per cow, compared with £29 two years ago.

    Poultrymeat
    Mr. Colin Shepherdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the measure of support he has provided to United Kingdom poultrymeat producers is sufficient and is equivalent with the support given to European competitors.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The aid that I recently provided was a short-term measure to help our industry meet its hygiene inspection costs in 1980–81. I am pressing in
    410
    Brussels for Community arrangements that will ensure that our industry can compete on reasonable terms with those of other countries.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the urgency that is creeping into the problem in that the major customers of the poultry industry are thinking about placing their orders for the Christmas trade, especially for turkeymeat? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong evidence that the French are, even now, able to undercut substantially the prices quoted by United Kingdom producers? Is he aware that United Kingdom producers face the future with great fears?
    Mr. Walker: I am aware of that. A particular plant in Brittany has been supported by heavy regional and central Government aid. It is now offering on the London market for delivery at Christmas substantial supplies of turkey at prices way below the costs of production. We have given full details to the European Commission. If such turkeys were allowed to come in with such subsidies it would be in violation of the trading spirit of the Community.
    Mr. Torney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, due to the unfair competition from the EEC and America, the British poultry industry is still suffering from a tremendous recession which is creating high unemployment among members of my trade union in the industry? Will he take steps to ensure that action is taken to abolish unfair competition to give our industry a fair chance?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman rightly mentions what was unfair competition from the American industry. I took the necessary action on that and banned all imports from America that did not comply with European standards of hygiene. In spite of fierce protests from the American Government and a reference to the GATT authorities, I believe that that action was correct. In terms of the differences in hygiene inspection I have given substantial grants to the poultry industry. We are taking up the current disparities with the Commission.
    Mr. Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if we go on this way for much longer we shall not have an industry to boast about? When can we expect some action from the Commission?
    Mr. Walker: In terms of the current position of the industry—for instance, the imports in the last year-—we still maintain the great proportion of trade and we deserve to do so,. due to the efficiency of our industry. I hope that the Commission will take action quickly against the specific French plant.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: If the Commission is too slow, will the Minister assure the House that he will allow for national provision to enable the turkey industry in particular to supply British turkeys to British housewives this Christmas?
    Mr. Walker: With the hon. Gentleman's experience of European matters, he knows that it would be the height of stupidity for any Minister to say what he would do if the Commission does not do what it should do. I look to the Commission to act quickly.

    Fish Marketing
    Mr. John MacKayasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet received recommendations from his special advisers about improving the marketing of fish.
    Mr. Peter Walker: No, Sir.
    Mr. MacKay: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the marketing problem is real and that the new sea fisheries industry will have to take marketing seriously, especially in relation to wet fish? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if North Sea herring fishing is opened up, in addition to the Clyde herring fishing, good herrings might be landed but the market might not be there to cope with them?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. I expect positive proposals from the marketing advisers. Widespread talks with the trade have taken place, as well as with the fish and chip shops and fast food industries. I have no doubt that improvements can be made in the marketing of fish in Britain.
    Mr. Mason: If the right hon. Gentleman has not received the report on the marketing of fish, has he received the report on fish imports? If he has, what are its findings?
    Mr. Walker: We have received a report on fish imports. We are meeting the industry to discuss the subject of that report at the beginning of June.

    Hedges and Woodlands
    Mr. Newensasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the policy of his Department towards the removal of hedges and woodland in order to achieve a high level of production in agriculture.
    Mr. Wiggin: Decisions about the removal of hedges or woodland are for individual farmers and landowners. We do not grant-aid the removal of hedgerows except where it is necessary for the proper functioning of a field drainage system. The felling of woodland usually requires a licence from the Forestry Commission.
    Mr. Newens: Does the Minister agree that the destruction of hedges has gone much further than is necessary for agricultural efficiency? Does he agree that under the present grant system farmers remove the hedges first and apply for grants later? Is he aware that that means that they do not receive advice unless they are in areas of special scientific interest in a national park? Does not the Minister think that it is time that we took advantage of the opportunity to make it clear that excessive removal of hedges and woodland should be deplored in the interests of preserving the amenities of our countryside?
    Mr. Wiggin: That would not be the only pendulum to swing too far. I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view. The Department has not grant-aided the removal of hedges since 1976. There is good evidence that the rate of removal has slowed to almost to nil.
    Mr. Lyell: Does not my hon. Friend agree that if there is a sensible discussion, such as that being promoted by the Wildlife and Countryside [Lords] Bill, there will be a community of interest between conservationists and farmers, which my hon. Friend's Department can do much to promote?
    Mr. Wiggin: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Antagonism between the two interests, which are inevitably separate, makes matters much worse. My Department does everything to seek proper discussions between the agricultural and countryside interests.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Minister aware that clause 34 of the Wildlife and Countryside [Lords] Bill, now in Committee, is of significance in respect of this question? Will he assure us that he will discuss that clause with the Minister responsible at the Department of the Environment to find out what can be done to help?
    Mr. Wiggin: I keep in close contact with my colleagues at the Department of the Environment about this matter.
    Mr. Leighton: Is the Minister aware that there is much feeling, among those concerned with the beauty of the English countryside, about the removal of hedges which converts vast areas of land into areas resembling prairies? Will he comment on the fact that last year more trees were destroyed by the removal of hedgerows—often with grants from his Department—than were destroyed by Dutch elm disease?
    Mr. Wiggin: I cannot accept that point. There has been no grant aid for the removal of hedges since 1976, except in association with drainage schemes. Few hedges are removed as a result of that. I agree with the general tone of hon. Members' questions. My Department is doing everything possible to ensure that our advisory services, leaflets and work for the countryside groups promote the interests of both those quite disparate views.

    Agricultural Support
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much is spent annually, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product, on agricultural support by the European Economic Community, the USA and Japan.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Such comparisons are difficult to make, but the Commission has recently published figures suggesting that annual expenditure on agriculture is 1 to 1·5 per cent. of gross domestic product in the Community and the United States of America and 5 per cent. in Japan. The figure for the Community includes both national and Community expenditure.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not clear from those figures that all the talk about the crippling cost of the CAP is ballyhoo? Is it not of greater importance to concentrate on correcting the absurdities, many of which have been exposed during today's Question Time, rather than trying to destroy a policy that clearly is essential if effective European co-operation is to continue?
    Mr. Walker: It is important that where there is unnecessary wastage of expenditure, such as the cost of unnecessary surpluses, it is in the interests of Europe to take action. It is good that the proportion of the Community budget connected with the CAP has come down from more than 80 per cent. to 69 per cent. since the Government took office.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in world terms it is absolute nonsense to speak of food surpluses when a large proportion of people in the

    413
    world have far too little food? Does it not make good sense to support food production, especially in countries such as ours which have to import about half the food that they eat?
    Mr. Walker: It is correct that there are food shortages world-wide. It is important to increase world food production. However, it is also important to understand which products we should increase and which we should reduce. I see no point in having a substantial surplus of dairy products in Europe that, basically, nobody wants.
    Mr. Jay: Is there not some distinction between support designed to keep down consumer prices and support designed to hold them up?
    Mr. Walker: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman rejoices because the Government have doubled the butter subsidy, the sheep premium scheme and the beef premium scheme.

    Liquid Milk
    15. Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage change in the United Kingdom consumption of liquid milk over the past 10 years; and what is his estimate of the aggregate cost of liquid milk distribution at the beginning and the end of that period, respectively.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Total liquid milk consumption in the United Kingdom fell by 2·9 per cent. between 1971–72 and 1980–81. My estimate of the aggregate costs of liquid milk distribution in the United Kingdom in these two years is £244 million and £1,046 million respectively. In the same period, the retail price of milk has declined by about 4 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. Does not he agree that that lends some colour to the suggestion that the present arrangements for the distribution of liquid milk are not good either for the producer or the consumer? Can he assure the House that he will take careful note of the point made by his marketing adviser, Sir John Sainsbury, that the present system provides a featherbed for the incompetents in the dairy distributing industry and a gold mine for the efficient?
    Mr. Walker: I very much disagree with that analysis. Britain is fortunate in having a doorstep delivery service which is socially good, good for the dairy industry, and which delivers fresh milk to the doorsteps of the majority of houses in Britain every day at a cost in real terms that is 4 per cent. less than it was 10 years ago.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call one more question from the Opposition Benches. I shall allow an additional one minute at the end of Prime Minister's questions.
    Mr. Douglas: The Opposition welcome the ruggedness of the Secretary of State's reply. Is he fairly confident of the success of the British case now before the European Court?
    Mr. Walker: I would be the last to predict decisions of the European Court. Obviously, I consider our case to be fully justified and feel that the European Court should decide in our favour.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Moateasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 21 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Kenyan Foreign Minister.
    Mr. Moate: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study the report that the treasurer of the Labour Party plans to apply strict cash limits, to impose a tough pay policy on its employees, to privatise Labour Weekly and to increase subscriptions to the old and sick by 300 per cent.? Now that the Labour Party has seen the economic facts of life, may we take it that the official Opposition will support the Government's economic strategy?
    The Prime Minister: If I know anything about the official Opposition, they will find a way for the Shadow Cabinet to move two different amendments.
    Mr. Foot: Let us move aside from those trivial questions. The right hon. Lady treated them with proper contempt—almost as if they were Under-Secretaries of State for the Royal Navy the way she cast them aside. May I ask her a serious question about a serious matter? At the Cabinet meeting today, did she have the opportunity to look afresh at the appalling unemployment figures? Did she have before her any report from the Secretary of State for Employment along the lines of the evidence that he submitted to the Select Committee about a much higher figure than the Government have so far mentioned as being possible, indeed even probable? Will she now reconsider the reply that she gave a day or two ago to a request from the representatives of the People's March for Jobs? Will not she have the grace, courtesy and courage to meet them and discuss the issues with them?
    The Prime Minister: I read what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was reported to have said before one of the Select Committees. He is worried, as I am, about the number of school leavers who will come on to the employment market. This year as a whole about 700,000 school leavers will be looking for jobs or some form of youth opportunities.
    My right hon. Friend wishes, as I do, to try to secure a scheme similar to that in Germany under which every 16-year-old school leaver either has a job, further education or training. We are trying to achieve that, but I am afraid that it will take some time. My right hon. Friend is working very hard on that matter—[Interruption.] It will not make matters worse. It will make the unemployment figures better. It will give school leavers training and jobs. I am sorry that the Opposition do not appear to like the scheme. It is an excellent scheme.
    With regard to the march from Liverpool, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has agreed that he will meet representatives of that march on 1 June.
    Mr. Foot: I ask the right hon. Lady once again: will not she meet the representatives with the Secretary of State for Employment or any other Ministers responsible? Will not she consider that? What she has given them so far is

    415
    a pretty mean and miserable reply. These are people who are voicing not merely their own opinions but the opinions of growing millions of people throughout the country who are protesting against the outrage of mass unemployment. Apparently she agrees with the figure mentioned by her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment—namely, 3 million. That is the first time that that has been mentioned officially by a Government spokesman. Will she define exactly the precise circumstances in which her Government are contemplating an increase in unemployment to 3 million?
    The Prime Minister: I did not confirm that as a forecast and neither did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Last year, there were about 700,000 school leavers. There will be another high number this year and there will be another high number next year. We are doing our best to try to provide work opportunities and training for these young people. We shall continue to do our best. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would accept it in that spirit. After all, he faced very similar problems of increases in the unemployment figures. With regard to the offer of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to meet the march, I do not regard that offer as mean and miserable.
    Sir Timothy Kitson: During the course of the day, will my right hon. Friend give some thought to the anxieties and sufferings of many families due to the growth of religious sects, the Moonies especially—
    Mr. Cryer: The most dangerous sect in this country is the Tory Party.
    Sir Timothy Kitson: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether a Royal Commission or some form of inquiry should be set up to investigate their entry, their activities, their fund-raising methods and their charitable status in the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: I note that my hon. Friend is obviously very concerned about the activities of the Moonies, as indeed are many of us. He will be happy to know that the Charity Commissioners are reconsidering charitable status. The Attorney-General has also considered what action might be appropriate to take in relation to trusts. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has asked his officials to examine the evidence as presented, as far as it relates to mental health and family life. These are three very positive things that are already taking place. I shall, of course, consider my right hon. Friend's suggestion with regard to the other matter.
    Mr. Dubsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 21 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some time ago.
    Mr. Dubs: Will the Prime Minister confirm today's reports that the Cabinet intends to axe £900 million from local authority spending because of alleged over-spending by certain local authorities? Is the right hon. Lady aware that this decision will cause great damage to local authority services, be they education, housing or employment? Will she explain why the announcement of this decision has been delayed until after the local authority elections?
    The Prime Minister: If I were asked to confirm or deny every report of what Cabinet is supposed or not supposed to have done, I would be giving a great deal of misinformation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will give his decision when he has made it. One of the real problems is over-spending by local authorities, which bears heavily on both the taxpayer and the ratepayer.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the Prime Minister advise those of us who have been saying to civil servants that they should not go on strike and should accept 7 per cent. now that the Ministers negotiating with them, and Members of Parliament, are to get an 18 per cent. increase? Will the Government make it clear that they do not consider themselves bound by previous arrangements about pay? Does this mean that they will examine these matters again?
    The Prime Minister: I do not very often find the right hon. Gentleman giving what I consider to be a very unfair account of increases for hon. Members and Ministers. I hope that he will accept that civil servants had their last staged increase, the third stage, last year. Hon. Members and Ministers did not have their last staged increase, which Edward Boyle accepted that they should have, two years ago. They have had to wait two years for it. The last stage comes into operation this year. I think that it would have been grievously unfair if hon. Members and Ministers, having forgone that increase for two years, were now to be criticised for taking it, and therefore for adding what other people are getting—6 per cent—which is less than that which has been offered as an increase to the civil servants.
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: As 30 per cent. of our imports are paid for in dollars, will my right hon. Friend consider the effects that high American interest rates are now having on the value of sterling? Will she assure the House that, in our determination to fight the battle against inflation, she will take whatever action is required to protect our currency?
    The Prime Minister: I think that American interest rates are probably having an effect on the value of the dollar in relation to the value of several European currencies. At the same time, I think that if the United States were to go in for a policy of inflation that, too, could be important and could have a devastating effect on world currencies. I do not think that we can argue with them about the measures that they should take to protect their currency. I think that it would be most unwise to do so.
    Mr. Leighton: If the Prime Minister wants to increase trade, will she withdraw the Employment and Training Bill, the purpose of which is to destroy the training boards?
    The Prime Minister: No. What we are trying to do is to find very many more training places for young people who leave school, and we are already looking at the facilities that the education service offers.

    European Passport
    Mr. Marlowasked the Prime Minister whether she will reconsider the decision to introduce a European passport.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal pointed out on 8 April, the proposal is not for a European passport but for a British passport in a European Community common format.
    Mr. Marlow: Can I say to my right hon. Friend—
    Mrs.Fenner: No.
    Mr. Marlow: Can I ask my right hon. Friend—
    Mrs.Fenner: That is better.
    Mr. Marlow:—and put a point of view and ask for her
    response to it—
    Mrs. Fenner: No.
    Mr. Marlow: If we have a burgundy coloured passport —
    Mrs. Fenner: Claret.
    Mr. Marlow: —with the European Community stamp, whatever anybody says it will be looked upon, not as a British passport, but as a European passport. However far in the future it may be, it will be looked upon by many people as a threat. It will bring joy to very few and offence to a great many people. Can my right hon. Friend put many hearts at rest by saying that she will reconsider her decision and stop the introduction of this European passport?
    The Prime Minister: The common format is in maroon. The cover bears the Royal Coat of Arms, which, of course, has on the bottom on it, in Latin:
    "Evil be to him who evil thinks".
    It is headed:
    "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
    In very small letters on the top it has "European Community". One needs a magnifying glass to see it. Immediately inside it has the usual rubric, which states:
    "Her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary."
    Mr. Greville Janner: Rather than worrying about the colour of passports, would it not be better to worry about whether people are free to pass from place to place? On this, the sixtieth birthday of Professor Sakharov, will the right hon. Lady deplore on behalf of all of us his lack of freedom to move out of Gorky and the Soviet Union?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly join the hon. and learned Gentleman in doing so. I deplore the way in which the Helsinki Accords have not been honoured by the Soviet Union, which signed them.

    Engagements
    Mr Needhamasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Needham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the catering services of British Rail are currently running losses of £8 million a year? Does not she accept that those services are always expensive and invariably appalling, in stations and trains? Does not she agree that it is high time that those services were turned over to private industry, to improve the standards and to make sure that they make money?
    The Prime Minister: It is true that the catering services on stations and on trains are losing substantial sums of money. I think that it is about £6½ million. I believe that British Rail is looking at privatising same services. It would be much better value for money if that were done.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Prime Minister know that the male unemployment rate in the town of Flint now approaches a disturbing 38 per cent.? Why are the Government vacillating on whether to give the go-ahead to the coal liquefaction plant in North-East Wales? Would not the go-ahead help technology in Britain and help to tackle rising unemployment in North Wales?
    The Prime Minister: We must consider those plans along with other demands for capital spending. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have tried to help in many ways, with finance to his area to try to create new jobs. We have done so through advance factories and the area is also a special development area.
    Sir Anthony Kershaw: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that after the withdrawal of the grant to Covent Garden by the GLC it is now threatening to withdraw grants to the Royal Opera and the Festival Ballet? Does not that show the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the new government of London? Is not the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) right in what he says about the GLC?
    The Prime Minister: Substantial grants have been given to Covent Garden and to the ballet by the Arts Council and hitherto by the Greater London Council. Many of us believe that it is important that this country should continue to have one of the best opera houses in the world and some of the best ballet facilities in the world. They add to and enhance the reputation of this country as a great centre for the arts and opera.
    Mr. Speaker: Business Questions, Mr. Foot—
    Mr. Faulds rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that I heard the hon. Member stammer. With the permission of the Leader of the Opposition, as it is the last day for questions-—but not as a precedent, however much the hon. Gentleman stammers in future—I shall call the hon. Member.
    Mr. Faulds: Stammering is not my usual mode of speech. I shall deal with those other matters in my own time when I feel so inclined. Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her earlier misguided obstinacy? When the people's march reaches London, made up—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Like everyone else, I was misled, but I called the hon. Member. He must have his question and then we can move on.
    Mr. Faulds: When the people's march, made up of people of most political persuasions and of every faith, reaches London on Sunday 31 May, would it not be more advisable for the right hon. Lady to forgo her Sunday roast and go out to meet them, because she is directly responsible for their plight and for the many millions of unemployed whom they represent?
    The Prime Minister: If you were misled, Mr. Speaker, your faith is greater than mine. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is "No, Sir".

Business of the House
Mr. Michael Foot: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for the week after the recess?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): The business for the first week after the Spring Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY I JUNE—Second Reading of the Companies (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
Motion relating to the Education (Schools Information) Regulations.
TUESDAY 2 JUNE AND WEDNESDAY 3 JUNE AND THURSDAY 4 JUNE—Remaining stages of the British Nationality Bill.
At the end of Tuesday, proceedings on the Animal Health Bill [Lords], which is a Consolidation measure.
At the end of Wednesday, motion on EEC documents 8144/79 and 4124/81 on insurance contracts, and the Supplementary Memorandum of 30 October 1980.
FRIDAY 5 JUNE—Motions on Members' salaries and allowances.
On Wednesday 3 June, the relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee are:

Insurance Contracts 16th Report, 1980–81 HC 32-xvi, para. 2.

22nd Report, 1980–81 HC 32-xxii, para. 8.

Mr. Foot: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman about two matters which I consider to be extremely serious. The first concerns the request that I have made to him on numerous occasions, that he and the Government should provide time for a debate on the unemployment figures. Fresh unemployment figures will be published during the recess. The right hon. Lady the Prime Minister has just said that she believes that the figures over the coming period will show a prodigious increase in the numbers of unemployed young people. Part of her case was the great, growing number of young people who will be on the register. The Secretary of State for Employment had made a fresh statement on the subject. Therefore, some days ago, we put forward the request that the Government should provide time when we return from the recess for a special debate on that subject. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will still be willing to reconsider the timetable for that week in order to provide time for such a debate. The right hon. Lady should still meet the people's march for jobs. At any rate, let us have the debate in the House as soon as possible after we return.
The Opposition take extremely seriously the second matter which I wish to raise with the right hon. Gentleman. Representations have already been made to Ministers on this subject. In our opinion, it involves the honour of the Secretary of State for the Environment, who gave an assurance to the House on 31 March that the Greater London Council (Transfer of Land and Housing Accommodation) (No. 2) Order 1981 would be withdrawn if requested by the Greater London Council. Such a request has now been made and is supported by the eight boroughs involved. Unless the Secretary of State keeps his word, as we believe the House as a whole would require that he should, we shall be forced to bring back the matter to the House on a specific motion.
We cannot deal with the matter merely by tabling a prayer against a resolution. If the right hon. Gentleman has not had a chance to look at the details of the matter, I hope
420
that he will consider the undertakings given by the right hon. Gentleman and the requests that we have made. We have considered them seriously and we believe that the honour of the right hon. Gentleman is involved, and, therefore, the honour of the whole Government is involved.
Mr. Pym: On the first point, as the House knows and as I have said on previous occasions, the Government share the concern of the whole House over the high level of unemployment. One of our top priorities is to get the economy right. We have had a number of debates on unemployment. I have already provided one day in Government time this year for such a debate. I am sure that there will be further opportunities for a debate, but I cannot promise one in the near future because, as the right hon. Gentleman will understand, it is important and almost inevitable at this stage in the Session that progress should be made on major Bills. That does not mean that I reject outright the right hon. Gentleman's request, but I cannot undertake to provide time in the near future.
On the second matter I have had time only to glance at the report of the exchanges. I understand that there has been a meeting between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) and one of his hon. Friends. I understand that a satisfactory resolution of the differences between them was not possible at that meeting. Any future proceedings or motions that the right hon. Gentleman may wish to contemplate must be discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. Foot: As regards the GLC transfer order, a meeting was held which ended in a completely unsatisfactory state of affairs. Therefore, we believe that we cannot deal with the matter under the normal procedure of a negative resolution. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the whole issue and the representations that we have made. I hope that he will ensure that the Secretary of State for the Environment will at our first meeting after the recess make a statement to the effect that he will carry out his promise. If he will not do so, we shall have to take steps to deal with the issue.
The right hon. Gentleman's reply to my request for a debate on unemployment was entirely unsatisfactory. Is he not aware that we have been demanding such a debate for weeks? He tells us that he has given us a day. Britain has a record post-war unemployment rate, yet the right hon. Gentleman says that he has provided one day. The Opposition have given a series of days to enable us to debate such topics. We shall have to continue to try to find time for the House of Commons to debate the matter. When we return from the recess, the Opposition's attitude to Government business is bound to be influenced by whether the Government are prepared to give proper time to discussion of the scandalous unemployment.
Mr. Pym: As regards the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I shall take careful note of the representations that have been made and I shall, of course, discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. We shall have to see how we should return to this subject after the Spring Adjournment.
The day that we provided was a special day for unemployment. However, other entirely appropriate opportunities have been given in Government time. There are natural occasions for such matters to be raised, such

421
as the debate on the Budget and the debate on public expenditure, as well as other occasions such as discussion of Bills that deal with public sector industries. On several occasions the very important subject of unemployment has been highly relevant to our debates.
I cannot promise a debate in Government time on that subject in the near future. However, I am mindful of the right hon. Gentleman's request and of the problem. Whether in our time or in Opposition time, I wish to find appropriate opportunities for proper debate of this very important issue. I have no doubt that between our return from the Whitsun Recess and the Adjournment for the Summer Recess we shall have several debates on this extremely important and serious matter.
Mr. Michael Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House is interested to know whether time will be found this side of the Summer Recess for Canadian business? Will my right hon. Friend break his normal rule and speculate on that?
Mr. Pym: I think not. As my hon. Friend knows, this matter is now before the Supreme Court of Canada. When that court has announced its verdict, the matter will return to the Federal Government of Canada in Ottawa. At the conclusion of those proceedings—whenever that may be—we shall have to consider the position. I am sorry that I cannot speculate about the possible outcome.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is 12 months since we had a statement on the air tragedy that Britain appears to have forgotten, namely, the Tenerife air disaster, in which 146 package holidaymakers—including some of my constituents—lost their lives? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in the week of our return a statement will be made on that tragedy? I recognise that the report is being prepared by the Spanish authorities. If that report is not available, may we have a statement on why the British air attaché at the British embassy in Madrid sent a telex message to London in March saying that the report would be forwarded next week?
Mr. Pym: I shall take up that important matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. The right hon. Gentleman has raised the subject before. He knows the background and that inquiries are still going on. The evidence has not been collated in a form that would make that statement possible. However, I shall consult my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Archie Hamilton: Although I do not wish to minimise the importance and significance to this House of discussing the European documents, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on choosing Wednesday for the debate, which is, of course, Derby day?
Mr. Pym: The debate will be late in the evening. I think that the race will have finished by then.
Mr. David Alton: Is the Leader of the House aware that representatives of the Merseyside victims of violent crime group are lobbying Parliament today? Will time be made available, perhaps before the Summer Recess, to discuss the increasing problem of the mugging of elderly people as well as the plight of victims of violent crime?
Mr. Pym: Although I cannot undertake to find Government time for such a debate, I hope that there will be some other way in which the hon. Gentleman can find time.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that at Question Time the Prime Minister referred to the crucially important policy decision that is about to be taken about the education and work training of 16 to 19-year-olds? That is linked to the discussion that has been going on about national community service and service in the Armed Forces. May we have a debate about the whole issue before the Cabinet makes a final decision about the form that the policy should take?
Mr. Pym: I am sure that that would be a suitable subject for debate, but I cannot find Government time, at least in the first few weeks after the recess.
Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have asked for comments by the end of July on the Home Office study on direct broadcasting by satellite. Will he undertake to provide time for a debate so that hon. Members may comment on this important subject before the Summer Recess?
Mr. Pym: I shall have to see whether I can find time. I am not sure whether that subject is relevant to today's debate. I think not. However, I hope that there is some way in which time can be found.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Following the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the transfer order, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those in the eight boroughs concerned face great anxiety because of the uncertainty involved? Now that the Secretary of State for the Environment is in the Chamber, is it not possible for him to seize the opportunity to be a little more forthcoming and to announce that an opportunity will be given in Government time to debate the subject so that the situation can be resolved?
Mr. Pym: As I told the Leader of the Opposition, I have undertaken to consult my right hon. Friend. I think that I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend said on 31 March that it was open to Sir Horace, then leader of the GLC, to request a withdrawal. Perhaps these matters will be returned to when I have consulted.
Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: As regards the business on 5 June, will my right hon. Friend tell us when he expects the Government's motion to be tabled so that hon. Members will know how to table amendments in due time, thus enabling debate?
Mr. Pym: I expect to do so at the beginning of the week in which we return.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Has the Leader of the House read of the strictures of Mr. Glyn England, the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, concerning the statement made by the Minister for Consumer Affairs? It indicated that the Minister's statement was highly misleading and that her strictures on the board showed that she had either not read

423
the report or was guilty of wishful thinking. In the light of this clash between two public servants, will he arrange for the Minister to make a statement to the House and for a debate on it?
Mr. Pym: I am not sure whether a statement is appropriate, but I shall certainly consult my right hon. Friend. I am not aware of the details of this dispute.
Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is great annoyance because he has not allowed time for the House to discuss the motions and amendments that have been tabled on the conduct of Scottish business, despite repeated requests, Thursday after Thursday, from hon. Members including my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan)? In all courtesy to the House, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when those motions and amendments will be discussed?
Mr. Pym: After the Whitsun Adjournment, I shall find an opportunity as soon as possible. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall not be able to do so in the first two weeks. I am sorry, but that is the way the programme is.
Mr. Tom McNally: Is the Leader of the House aware that this afternoon the Department of Trade published a report in response to the report of the Select Committee on Industry and Trade on British trade? Is he further aware that much of industry will find that response complacent and inadequate? Would it not be appropriate to use those two documents as a basis for a comprehensive debate on British trade policy?
Mr. Pym: Yes, it would, when we can find the time to do so.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House encourage the appropriate Minister to make a statement of coal industry finance, especially in view of the promises and pledges made by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy several months ago? Is he aware that the miners' conference will take place at the end of June and that it is high time that a statement was made about the financial arrangements with regard to imported coal, financing industries which will use coal and all the other necessary arrangements?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also prevail upon his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to reach a conclusion on the question of the Vale of Belvoir? Is he aware that it has taken this busy, efficient Secretary of State for the Environment, who seems to muddle everything, more time to reach a decision about the Vale of Belvoir than it took for the entire planning inquiry to be completed?
Mr. Pym: It is not long since the House considered a coal industry Bill. I know that things move on and that a further opportunity to debate the matter would be appreciated. I cannot find that time in the near future, but I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the subject.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would remind me what his second point was.
Mr. Skinner: It is quite simple. The Vale of Belvoir inquiry was to deal with the question of providing new coal
424
reserves. The planning inquiry took several months. The Secretary of State for the Environment has had the report since 14 November and has not yet reached a conclusion. What sort of game is he playing?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has seized the point now.
Mr. Pym: I simply wished to be reminded of the second point without going into the whole history of the matter. However that may be, my right hon. Friend will announce his decision as soon as possible. I cannot say precisely when that will be. The hon. Gentleman is right that the matter has been considered for some time. My right hon. Friend will announce his conclusion as soon as possible.
Mr. Guy Barnett: Does the Leader of the House agree that on 5 May the House received one of the most impressive lobbies ever, namely, the lobby against world poverty? Does he also agree that before the House rises for the Summer Recess there should be a debate on the Mexico summit, first, because his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Melbourne, and, secondly, because she will presumably also attend the summit? Is he aware that that lobby represents enormous concern in this country as to what line the Government are taking? May we therefore have a debate on the Mexico summit and world poverty before the Summer Recess?
Mr. Pym: I understand that the House would appreciate that, but it will be a question of time. We shall have to see how the programme looks and what time is available when we reach that point.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate on the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the Central Electricity Generating Board, as it has been the subject of controversy and misleading statements by the Minister? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the matter is urgent because the CEGB proposes to close several conventional coal-fired power stations this year? Does he realise that, as those stations are located near urban centres, this will end the possibility of district heating schemes using those power stations? May we also discuss the astronomical cost of nuclear power stations in terms of fuel, maintenance and construction? Does he agree that the House should have an urgent opportunity to discuss this matter in relation to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report? May we therefore have a promise of time to debate that report very soon?
Mr. Pym: I am afraid that I cannot give that undertaking. During this Session, the House has had a number of opportunities to debate energy matters. The hon. Gentleman's last point would have been relevant to those debates and no doubt was raised on those occasions. I am sorry that I cannot give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
Mr. Frank Hooley: As the practice of Ministers making a full statement to the House after ministerial meetings in the EEC seems to be falling into disuse, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that we shall be accurately informed and kept up to date on the extremely important discussions in Brussels?
Mr. Pym: I am most anxious that the House should be kept fully informed on all these meetings. I think that my

425
right hon. Friends usually, if not invariably, make a statement after a ministerial meeting. Some meetings are of such a character that a statement would not be particularly appropriate or necessary. In those cases, I think that it is in the interests of the House to avoid a statement. Wherever and whenever significant decisions are taken or there is an important meeting, however, my right hon. Friends endeavour to make a statement to the House.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On 5 March, the Leader of the House undertook to consider whether the White Paper on biotechnology could be debated. In view of the controversial reception of the White Paper and the important decisions which have to be taken, and in view of the possible economic benefits to this country of developments in biotechnology, has the Leader of the House decided whether the matter can be debated before the Summer Recess?
Mr. Pym: When the hon. Gentleman raised this matter with me before, he requested that our White Paper and the European document on biotechnology should not be debated together. As he knows, the European document has been debated separately. I have no date in mind for a debate on the White Paper, but I shall look for an opportunity.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise this with you, Mr. Speaker, as a guide for Parliament. You may recall that yesterday the Lord Privy Seal claimed that there was some indication from the House to the effect that statements about EEC meetings should be made less often. The Leader of the House has just confirmed, however, that statements will continue to be made at regular intervals for important meetings. I am pleased that the Leader of the House is present and has assured the House that such statements will be made. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use your influence to ensure that this takes place, because I believe that you, as the guardian of the House, have a duty to ensure that the opportunities for scrutiny of these important matters are not allowed to decline through Ministers assuming, on no evidence whatever, that the House does not wish to exercise its democratic endeavours.
Mr. Speaker: Although the House is aware that the order of business is not decided by me, it is also aware that since I have been Speaker I have never hidden the fact that I am very jealous of the rights of this House to question what goes on in Europe. I believe that it is part of the upholding of the authority and dignity of the House.

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

1. Energy Conservation Act 1981

2. Disused Burial Grounds (Amdt.) Act 1981

3. Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1981

4. Judicial Pensions Act 1981

5. Western Isles Islands Council (Berneray Ferry) Order Confirmation Act 1981

6. Barnsley Borough Council Act 1981

7. British Railways (Victoria) Act 1981

Adjournment (Spring)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising to-morrow do adjourn till Monday 1 June. —[Mr. Mather.]
3.58 pm
Dr. David Owen: The House is asked to adjourn until 1 June when the situation in Northern Ireland is still one of considerable tension and there is no opportunity in sight for a discussion about that situation. In my view, it necessary to try to generate a discussion about Northern Ireland in the House. For that reason, I oppose the Adjournment of the House.
Nobody can believe that there is a simple or easy solution to the situation in Northern Ireland. It would be utter folly to pretend that there was. Although it is right to say that over the last few weeks the House has demonstrated its support for the Government in the serious and difficult situation that they face, and although I believe that it has been wholly right for the political parties in the House to have made it clear that they support the Government in their stand with regard to political prisoners, it is equally right that we should make it abundantly clear to the Government that they cannot expect that full-hearted support, which is given in full knowledge of the need for us to sustain them in their fight against terrorism, unless it is accompanied by a political initiative. The absence of the political initiative and the absence of any time in the House to discuss what could be the framework for such a political initiative convince me that the House should not adjourn without discussing the issue.
If the House is to maintain its standing and status, it is important that speeches on this issue should be made in the House. Many of us have found it far easier to make, speeches—and have them reported—outside the House, but the House ought to be the forum for discussing an issue that divides the people of the United Kingdom and divides two of the member States of the European Community It is in the House that we should attempt to put forward what I hope will be seen to be constructive suggestions.
How do we demonstrate, not only to the people of Northern Ireland but to the people of Ireland as a whole—and the people of Irish descent living in many parts of the globe—that there is a readiness to think again? The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), when he was Prime Minister, took an extremely bold initiative in 1973. Whatever views were held in the House about the prospects of power sharing working, no one could deny that it was one of the bravest and most imaginative political steps taken to grapple with the Northern Irish problem. The 1974 election ensured that that package of proposals fell. The political climate changed. The dimension and dynamic that might have been sustained fell away, and instead we saw industrial action and other things happening. The change of Government was another factor. The changed political situation in Northern Ireland was, however, the decisive factor. Irrespective of how and why it happened, there is no doubt that the initiative began to run into the sand, and there has been no political initiative since 1974.
Is this a good time at which to launch a political initiative? Some might say that, while we are witnessing hunger strikes, the deaths of prisoners and the blowing up of soldiers, this is no time at which to discuss the political

427
initiative. My view is that it is the right time at which we should be demonstrating that, just as we stand resolute in our resistance to terrorism, and just as we are determined that terrorism shall not force a solution, so we are prepared in the House to think through the essentials of a new and different approach to the problem.
The Leader of the House has considerable experience of the problem. I do not expect him, in his reply to the debate, to give an instant, snap, answer to my proposition, but I hope that he and the Government will also think about it deeply.
The first essential for success is to recognise that the House, the British Parliament and the British Government will not of themselves and by themselves be able to solve the problem. That was to a great extent recognised in the involvement of the Irish Republic in the Sunningdale arrangements. It has been recognised by the Prime Minister in her meetings with the Taoiseach, and in the discussions and arrangements that were set up in the wake of the earlier discussion. But we have only to watch what has happened over the few months since the meeting took place to realise how much suspicion there still is between the two countries.
There have been different interpretations put in Dublin and Northern Ireland upon the meetings between our Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. Considerable anxiety has been aroused. There have been rumours that various commitments have been entered into. That demonstrates that it is not enough to have a bilateral dialogue, but that the bilateral dialogue has to be put within the context of a wider international framework.
What should that framework be? Many would claim—and with some justice—that the problem of Northern Ireland is not a foreign policy issue, that it is essentially an internal issue within the United Kingdom; but no one can deny that it is an issue that affects the Community. One cannot have two member States with a common border in the European Community without there being a considerable intimacy in their relationships. It is an issue that the Community should consider.
Mr. Skinner: It has cocked up everything else.
Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman is well known for his views on the European Community.
Mr. Bob Cryer: The right hon. Gentleman is well known for his fanaticism for the Community.
Dr. Owen: I am well known for my support for it.
It is a fact of life that the Government of the Irish Republic believe that their decision to enter the European Community was a wise one. They believe that it has been for the benefit of their country. It has been demonstrated in their economy. Membership of the EEC is not a matter of political dispute within the Irish Republic. There is a readiness within the Irish Republic to think in a Community dimension and to grapple with difficult issues within that dimension.
Does a similar will exist in the United Kingdom? Within the European Community there is a framework designed for just this issue. Some of the issues that affect the two countries are, of course, related to the Treaties. I refer to the economic, social, unemployment and
428
investment issues. Those issues are firmly within the province of the Treaties and can be discussed and are discussed between the respective Ministers and officials. But for those discussions on economic, social and employment matters to carry weight it is necessary simultaneously to grapple with the political issue.
The European political co-operation framework was deliberately designed to be able to move across the frontiers of the Treaty, to embrace the political dimension of the Community and also its economic, social and fiscal aspects. The specific design of European co-operation was to have a framework within which the member States could discuss differing aspects of problems. Indeed, they have done so very successfully. They have discussed many world issues.
The present European initiative in the Middle East stems from discussions in the framework of European political co-operation. So have the various attempts to try to resolve the problem of Cyprus. In those instances the Community is concerned with not only the political situation but the trading relationships of the Community with the countries concerned.
There is no reason why that framework should not be applied to the problem of Northern Ireland. Political cooperation works by consensus. There is no way in which, by putting the issue into the context of European political co-operation, the British Government or the Government of the Irish Republic have to give up any of their sovereignty or any of their independence. They are able to have a dialogue within that framework as wholly independent sovereign nations. There are no votes if there is no agreement; nothing comes up that is not mutually agreed.
There are, therefore, many opportunities for a bilateral dialogue. It would be foolish to pretend that the main discussion would not be between the two countries. Yet within that wider context it would be easier for the Irish Republic to think afresh on the problem, and easier for the British Government to think afresh. The Irish Republic would find it easier in such a context to face some of the difficult issues.
In a bilateral dialogue there are all the old hostility and suspicion dogged by history. There cannot be the flexibility which can be achieved in the wider dialogue. I take some comfort from the fact that that has been the view of Irish politicians with whom I have discussed the matter. It was the view of the present Irish Commissioner when he was the Irish Foreign Minister.
The next question is what sort of issues would be discussed within that framework. It would not be sensible to propose now a detailed plan, but the European Community could provide a wholly novel arrangement for Northern Ireland. When the issue of Northern Ireland is posed as a matter of whether one believes in a united Ireland, it is polarised along the divisions that already exist. The issue should be put in such a way that neither faction can answer the question quite as specifically as it does within the current framework.
It would be a complex solution. The inter-relationships of the various aspects would be deliberately divided. The purpose is to find a status for Northern Ireland that is unique. I suspect that we shall have to find a similar status for Gibraltar when Spain's entry into the European Community is further advanced. Possibilities exist for including regional autonomy for Northern Ireland in

429
matters relating not just to local government but to wider issues such as health. There has already been a measure of devolvement in the past.
There is the question of sovereignty. I do not believe that that question will be solved by having an independent sovereign State of Northern Ireland. However, there is a whole range of indeterminate positions, as in the case of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which are very close to us. There are confederations and condominiums, and a variety of possible ways of looking at the Northern Ireland problem. Foreign relations, for instance, could still lie with the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom could represent Northern Ireland in all aspects of foreign policy, while its economic policy could be represented by a different arrangement—joint commissions. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) may laugh, but the question has to be faced by the House. There may be better solutions. One other solution involves the United Nations.
Mr. Skinner: I laugh because I have listened patiently to the right hon. Gentleman, and I put it in one phrase: it is called fudging and mudging.
Dr. Owen: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to a form of words that I have used in the past, but I do not believe that it applies in this case. There are two essential ingredients, both of which may be difficult for the hon. Gentleman to understand. They are not fudging and mudging. The first is to accept that there will not be a solution wholly within the United Kingdom, and the second is to accept that it has to be within the framework of the European Community.
It has been suggested that the solution should be within the framework of the United Nations, but that would involve formidable difficulties. First, I do not believe that there would be any enthusiasm for such a suggestion. Secondly, it would need a resolution of the Security Council. If it were supported by a majority vote, the Soviet veto would be involved, and that would involve a consideration of how the Soviet Union views the problem. The issue is not essentially one of peacekeeping, although that might be an element in the solution of the problem. The issue is political. In my view, the political framework would be better within the grouping of 10 countries, all of which have a vested interest in the success of the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom.
Many members of the Security Council have completely different political ideologies, different experience and different traditions. Many would see it as purely and simply a colonial problem. They would extrapolate from history in a way that I do not believe would be beneficial. I do not rule out the possibility of the United Nations playing a role, but at this stage the United Nations is not the first international framework in which to discuss the problem.
Mr. Frank Hooley: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, aware that the United Nations has many techniques at its disposal for mediation, arbitration and helpfulness which do not involve the Security Council or a veto. It is an exaggeration to say that the Security Council need necessarily be involved, and it is remote to suggest that the veto need be brought into play.
Dr. Owen: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), who knows the United Nations extremely well, knows that peacekeeping now requires a resolution
430
of the Security Council. Ever since Dag Hammarskjöld used his power as Secretary-General, his successors have all taken the view that United Nations peacekeeping cannot be deployed without involving the Security Council. The power of initiative that once lay in the hands of the Secretary-General has gone. It is true that the Secretary-General has the power of political initiative if he were asked to undertake a political investigation, but he would have to find a balance in the membership and, in my view, it would be difficult to reach a satisfactory agreement with the two countries most closely involved—the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. We must also face the fact that the present Government are most unlikely to put the matter to the United Nations—and there are good arguments against that.
Mr. Robert Adley: The right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that we must debate the issue in the House. His ideas are superficially attractive, but the question that must be asked is what one does when 1 million-plus people themselves insist on asking "Who is to determine our future?" Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he would push ahead with his idea in the face of what I suspect would be the complete opposition of the majority in Northern Ireland to the EEC, the United Nations, or anyone else determining their future?
Dr. Owen: They would not be determining the future. The hon. Gentleman wholly misunderstands what I am saying. They would be trying to develop a settlement proposal initially within that framework which would then need to be widened. If it is possible to get an agreement on a political settlement proposal in some detail within the Community, it would then be necessary to obtain the support of the United States and Canada, where there are important external influences on Ireland as a whole, and then mobilise support among the population. Perhaps that is impossible. But if one takes that view, one is saying that the present situation will continue and that there is no possibility of a negotiated settlement or of a political initiative and that the situation is deadlocked.
If we take the view that proposals which do not have the support of the different factions in Northern Ireland should not be brought forward, we shall continue to discuss the issue for decades. Experience of such issues shows that one must take a bold initiative and put on the table a detailed package which no one faction wall find totally favourable. The factions will attack various aspects of it. Then it is necessary to mobilise support and exert pressure for an agreement to compromise. Within a political framework, it is possible to mobilise the population against terrorism and the acts of brutality that are happening every day.
It is not enough simply to send the issue to the European Community. It would take three, six or nine months—I do not know how long—to get agreement on a package of proposals that was balanced and thought by people to be fair. Initially, there may be a hostile reception in Northern Ireland. We would need to stand firm against such a hostile background, both in Dublin and in London. The attack on terrorism would then have to be co-ordinated in a way that has never been done before. It would be easier to do that with a proposal that has the support of the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom.
Mr. Skinner: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman do it?
Dr. Owen: We therefore must ask ourselves: is this the time to bring forward these proposals?
Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman had the power.
Dr. Owen: I wish I did have the power. The hon. Gentleman might bear in mind the balance of forces in the House at that time; the Labour Government had no majority.
Mr. Skinner: Yes, they had. They had the Liberals with them.
Dr. Owen: I shall not waste time with the hon. Member for Bolsover, who is well known for injecting his type of politics into these issues.
Mr. Skinner: That is what is called hypocrisy.
Dr. Owen: We listen to the hon. Gentleman with our usual form of disrespect.
I urge the Leader of the House to give careful thought to these proposals. I ask him to recognise—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I am unable to see behind the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), but noises which I strongly deprecate seem to be coming from that end of the Bench.
Dr. Owen: I urge the Leader of the House and the Government to give careful thought to this issue over the next fortnight. We have not been promised a debate on this subject in the House during that period. Just another debate without a proposition from the Government would not achieve much. What is needed is a debate on Northern Ireland on the basis of a proposition that has a political initiative that commands the support of many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. If the Government do not do that, they will find great difficulty in sustaining public opinion over the months that lie ahead.
It is not enough, each time a disaster occurs, for Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and speak in anguish and pain—genuinely though they do—about what is happening in Northern Ireland. There is a growing dissatisfaction outside at the inability of the House to grapple with the problem. There is a feeling that there is a lack of resolution, boldness and new thinking. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Government come down against my proposition, it behoves them at least to put something more constructive, more innovative and bolder in its place.
4.22 pm
Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I shall refer to three issues which I think should be discussed before the House breaks up for the spring recess. The first is the hardy annual of the need to reform the rating system. Each spring, rates are very much in the news, and they are the most unpopular form of taxation. They are a source of great controversy and, as the rate demands arrive through the letterboxes, so the demands for rating reform grow. As the year proceeds, anger against the rating system will increase.
On 7 May the Labour Party gained control of many county councils. In fairness, the Labour Party made no secret of the fact during the election campaign that its aim
432
in the councils which became Labour-controlled was to spend, spend, spend. It is the poor ratepayers in these areas who will have to pick up the bill. I have no doubt that many people who voted Labour in good faith on 7 May will come to recognise the folly of their ways.
Spendthrift Socialist councils seem to be unable to comprehend that there is a limit to what firms and ratepayers can afford to pay out in rates. My local authority of Trafford has managed to keep rates increases down to a reasonable level, but only after making the most stringent economies—which were not popular. Some people believe that it is possible to have high expenditure at the same time as low rates.
Last year when my local council was trying to make economies to keep the rates at a manageable level, I received an irate letter from a constituent who complained bitterly about the economies that were being made. She signed herself as a teacher, a parent and an excessively high ratepayer. I wrote back to her asking her to explain how we could have high expenditure and at the same time low rates. I need hardly add, answer was there none.
It is because Trafford council has recognised that notice has to be taken of people's ability to pay that the rates in that area are so much lower than they are in the adjoining area of Manchester which is controlled by the Socialists, and where the rate burden on the average house is over £150 a year more than it is in Trafford. The Socialist spendthrifts control Manchester. Manchester must have a higher proportion than any other local authority in the country of people working as paid officials. That all has to be paid for. A large number of people are moving from Manchester into the suburbs. That is why the population of Manchester is falling. People cannot afford to live there because of the tremendously high rate bills.
My basic concern is the rating system. The present system is fundamentally unfair for several reasons. My main criticism is that it takes no account of a person's ability to pay. We all know of cases where a single person is paying exactly the same as the family next door with four or five wage-earners living in an identical house. Householders who pay rates have to bear a disproportionate share of the burden of paying for local government services. Our rateable values, which are based on infrequent valuations, are out of date for most of the time and, because the present system is based on hypothetical rental, there are many anomalies and inconsistencies.
I hope the Government have not forgotten that our October 1974 election manifesto promised a change in the rating system, and that they will do something to change a system that is so patently unfair.
What I find even worse is that water rates are assessed by reference to the rateable value of a property. At least with domestic rates the less well-off are entitled to apply for a rate rebate, but there is no rebate on water rates. The unfairness is therefore compounded.
Whereas domestic rates take no account of a person's ability to pay, water rates take no account of the amount of water used or the amount of sewage that must be disposed of from each house. A person living alone will pay exactly the same as the family next door consisting of four or five people. The substantial increase in domestic rates in recent years is as nothing compared with the increase in water rates.
I want to see the whole system changed, and I feel that the House should have the opportunity of a full day's debate on this subject so that we may consider the options

433
that are being put forward. In the meantime, as long as we have the present iniquitous system, I should like to know why rebates should be allowed on the domestic rate bill but not on the domestic water bill. If anything screams out for action, it is this.
The second issue on which I wish to speak is the proliferation of sex shops. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) finds that funny. A sex shop has opened in my constituency and has caused enormous offence to many people.
Mr. Hooley: I am sorry. I was startled at the way the hon. Gentleman jumped from one subject to the other. I assure him that I have no more enthusiasm for that form of pornography than I have for any other.
Mr. Montgomery: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman must have been asleep when I began my speech because I said that I wished to speak on three matters.
Many people are opposed to this sex shop, and 12,000 people in my constituency have signed a petition. It is called a private shop, and it has a window which does not display very much. When people complained about the opening of the shop they were told, quite rightly, by the local council that there was nothing at all that the local authority could do about this because no change of use was involved.
Perhaps as a starter the Department of the Environment could look at the planning laws to give local authorities more discretion on this subject. I did say that some people from my constituency came down with a petition signed by 12,000 of my constituents and they went to see the then Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew). He was very sympathetic and listened very carefully to what they had to say.
I realise that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has also recently met representatives from the Greater London Council, which is also plagued by this problem. I hope that from this we will get some legislation whereby a licensing system will be operated in this country to give local authorities the right to say how many, if any, sex shops should be allowed in their area and where these shops should be situated. Then, if the licence-holders broke the law, the licence could be taken away from them. To a matter of this kind, which causes enormous concern to many people, I think we have to devote some thought.
My third and final point concerns the question of the pay of Members of Parliament. I can only say to my right hon. Friend that I think that we have made a terrible mess of this whole business. We have come in for a great deal of abuse during the last week or so. When the Boyle committee was set up years ago, I appealed to the noble Lord, Lord Boyle that our pay should be tied to a particular branch of the Civil Service. For some reason this suggestion has never been accepted by the pay review body. Had it been, much of the sting would have been taken out of this issue, because whenever MPs' pay is increased it is never the right time. We have had a great deal of abuse from all sides. The Civil Service union leaders have had a field day, because they are claiming that we are getting an 18 pr cent. increase. The press has not been particularly helpful because it has also emphasised that our pay is going up by 18 per cent.
In 1979 the Boyle report recommended that our pay should go up to £12,000. My right hon. Friend the Prime
434
Minister felt that that was too big a jump so she suggested, and it was approved by this House, that instead of getting an increase to £12,000 at one fell swoop we should get it in three separate instalments, one in 1979, one in June 1980 and the third and final instalment in June 1981. Her hope was—I agreed with her—that this demonstration of restraint and moderation would have some effect on the rest of the country. It had no affect at all.
The facts are that in July 1975 it was recommended that Members of Parliament should be paid £8,000 a year. We got £5,750. In June 1979 it was recommended that we should get £12,000 a year. We got £9,450. The Fees Office has reckoned that Members of Parliament in this country have voluntarily sacrificed some £11,500 each during the six years ending in June 1981. That is the cumulative difference between the amounts recommended by Lord Boyle and those authorised by the House.
Let us take our pay out of political controversy altogether. I see my right hon. Friend shaking his head in disagreement, but I cannot see the argument against linking our salary with a particular level of the Civil Service. If that were done, it would mean that every time the Civil Service got a 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. a year rise, we would get exactly the same. That would do a great deal to take the sting out of the question of MPs' pay.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will at least be able to give me some hope that consideration will be given to the three issues that I have raised this afternoon.
4.35 pm
1Mr. Jack Ashley: I want to make a very brief speech on a subject that does not capture the imagination of the House of Commons and certainly will not capture the headlines, but a subject which nevertheless should be discussed before the House goes into recess. It is the implications of the vote at the World Health Assembly yesterday on the code of marketing of baby food substitutes in developing countries.
The vote itself was very important, because we now have for the first time a code of marketing on that important subject. The reason is that for years a revolution has been sweeping the developing nations of the world and there has been unscrupulous advertising by the manufacturers of these products right across the impoverished countries of the world. Vast profits have been made. I should like to make it clear to the Leader of the House that there is nothing wrong, in my view, with the products themselves. What is wrong is the ruthless advertising methods that have been used in the developing countries. That is why this campaign has been conducted for about seven years by OXFAM, War on Want and many politicians in Britain and abroad. Successive Governments have rejected every plea and the latest notable example is the Government of the United States who, to their everlasting discredit, yesterday voted against the code of marketing.
The code is a very long document and I do not intend to detain the House on it. But there are three essentials. First, it prevents advertising directly to the public about baby foods. That is perhaps the most important one. Secondly, it prevents sampling by pregnant mothers, which is a gimmick that these companies use. They offer a sample and then the mothers buy the product. Thirdly, it takes out of the hands of the companies so-called

435
educational material, which is yet another gimmick. In the guise of giving education, the companies flog their products to unsuspecting mothers.
The code is important because in Africa, Asia and South America millions of impoverished families have been duped into buying these products. There is nothing wrong with the products when there are good sanitary conditions, but when there are insanitary conditions, such as contaminated water, the result is often disablement of the children, or illness or even death on a massive scale. The House need not take my word for this. I will quote one man, James Grant, the executive director of UNICEF. He said:
"If we promote and protect breast feeding we can save 1 million infant deaths every year in this decade."
Therefore, if we can make a contribution—and we can—in this House of Commons by supporting that code, it will be a very worthwhile thing to do.
Over 200 hon. Members supported my early-day motion on this subject supporting the code of marketing. I want to pay a high tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Social Services, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). He has played a splendid role in this House and his reply to the Adjournment debate on this subject reflects great credit on him.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who opened this debate, was a Minister of State in the Department of Health and Social Security and I worked with him in former days, and the former Minister with responsibilities for the disabled, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), also worked in the same Department, so we know the problem of answering sticky Adjournment debates of that kind. However, the Under-Secretary's response was marvellous. He told me yesterday that the Government are committed to supporting the code of marketing. Full marks to the Minister. I wish to record my praise of him.
However, the vote of the United States Government was a cowardly surrender to corporate interests. They are acting in the 1980s in the way that some Governments acted in the 1890s, placing profit before principles. Their action was deplorable, and great suffering will result if it is supported. I hope that our Government will firmly resist their effort to oppose the code of marketing. There are splendid exceptions in the United States, like Senator Kennedy, who supports the code.
I hope that the Government will help to monitor the code. There is no point in voting at the World Health Assembly and then taking no further action. I hope that they will make their contributions. I hope, too, that the Government will insist that British firms obey the code. I hope that they will tell them that they must observe it, and, if they do not, that sanctions will be imposed against them. Finally, I hope that they will seek to make the recommendation into a regulation.
The Government are right to support the code, although we have a long way to go before we solve the problem of unscrupulous advertising, especially as it is in developing countries, where there is much greater illiteracy. To some extent the great multinationals have power over Governments, although not all the multinationals are bad. Some are good and fairly responsible.
436
The House has a significant role to play now that the vote has been taken. I hope that the Leader of the House will state today that the Government will back the vote in the World Health Assembly.
4.42 pm
Mr. Hal Miller: This is the first opportunity that I have had to express a few thoughts to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I was proud to serve him, and I am deeply appreciative of his kindness to me. It gives us a great deal of assurance to see him in his place, although that comment may invite the reply that it has taken him two years to put me in mine.
The House should not adjourn until we have discussed Nissan's proposal to set up a motor car plant in Britain. It is urgent to discuss the factors involved in the decision and to demonstrate our attitude to the Japanese. The outline proposal is to produce 250,000 cars a year with a work force of 5,000. From the figures given, even on the basis of the Japanese experience, it is clear that it would be an assembly operation; hence the anxiety among assemblers here and throughout the Common Market. The announcement was at first welcomed by our component makers, but they, too, are now anxious.
This is not the time to discuss the motor industry in Britain or in the world, although I would point out that it is still our leading export earner and largest employer outside the public sector, with 250,000 people employed directly in assembly and about the same number employed directly by component suppliers. Both sectors have experienced a sharp decline in the past year. Nor is it the time to relate the decline to the problems of the West Midlands, or for me to develop my thoughts on an industrial policy and the importance of proceeding on an industrial rather than a regional basis. Even on those grounds, however, the West Midlands has the highest increasing rate of employment, the highest number of people on temporary short-time working compensation and the highest dependence on manufacturing industry.
It is urgent for the Japanese to have a clear indication of our policy. I do not believe that they have yet made their decision. I fear that they may have been wrongly influenced by today's press reports on the reactions in the CBI council yesterday to Japanese trade. I believe that the reports distort the thrust of the CBI argument, which highlighted Japanese concentration on specific sectors, which they then pursue regardless of the damage done to the industries in other countries. That is one reason why I urge the adoption of a central industrial policy.
We are a major trading nation and enjoy a substantial trading surplus, so we should not be drawn into blanket protectionism. However, we must take account of the peculiar social and industrial structure in Japan that makes its concentration on certain sectors difficult to withstand, and which has important social and employment consequences in many regions that we cannot ignore.
The Japanese need urgently to make a decision and an announcement to dispel growing rumours that they are spinning out negotiations with our Government and other European Governments for similar establishments to protect in the meantime their increasing exports to Europe, and also because of the possibility of frustrated exporters diverting goods to America, consequent on the trade agreement reached only last week.
It is also urgent for the Japanese to reassure European component makers in the light of rumours that they have

437
found EEC components to be uncompetitive in price and quality. It is urgent, too, for United Kingdom assemblers, such as British Leyland, Ford, Vauxhall and Talbot, to know where they stand. If Nissan is to go outside Europe for its components, our assemblers will be driven to the same action to preserve their competitive position if Japanese cars are built here.
That will have a devastating effect on our component industry which, for too long and too lightly, many have assumed to be one of the greatest strengths of our industry, when in many sectors it has become a weakness. That will be serious, as will be seen from the employment figure that I have given. I gave the figure for direct employment and ignored employment in those firms supplying component makers and any employment downstream from vehicle assembly.
A decision is urgent in the EEC context. I warmly welcome yesterday's announcement by the Government that EEC Governments, through the Commission, are to involve themselves in the question of Japanese motor exports to the EEC, and that there is a determination that those exports should not be allowed to exceed the total volume for 1980.
We must examine what will happen to Japanese models built in this country. We are unsure whether they will be counted against quotas or whether they would be accepted as Community-produced cars. That will depend largely on the volume of components used from European sources and on the more tricky questions of content and origin rules within the Common Market. Such rules have not so far been defined for the motor vehicle industry.
Until some understanding has been reached, it would be unwise to assume that the BL-produced Honda model, or any model that Nissan produces, will be automatically accepted by our trading partners in the EEC as originating here. We must obtain that understanding and seek overall limitations on Japanese exports of motor vehicles to the Common Market before we can proceed to more detailed discussions. That should be undertaken urgently so that the Japanese are left under no misunderstanding. I regret, for our component makers, the motor vehicle assemblers and for our trading partners in the EEC, the suspicion that a decision is being reached behind closed doors. I am afraid that the results of that may not be acceptable unless there is more understanding of the position and more discussion of it.
I suggest that a paper should be put into the Library on the process of the negotiations and on the Government's attitude towards the project—which I do not think was sufficiently defined when the announcement was first made. Thereafter we should have an early statement, at least, and an early opportunity for a debate.
4.54 pm
Mr. Charles R. Morris: I am grateful for the opportunity of using the Adjournment motion to draw the attention of the House to the closure of a factory in my constituency. The factory is part of the Laurence, Scott and Electromotors Group in Openshaw, Manchester. The closure involves a work force of 650 losing their jobs. The workers are losing their jobs in a city which has seen a 70 per cent. increase in unemployment over two years and where 40 per cent. of the unemployed are under 25 years of age. Unemployment in Manchester is becoming the major political issue.
438
I want to emphasise that the closure is not just another case of a company suffering from cash flow difficulties or from the effects of the economic recession that the country is going through. Even though the factory is currently occupied by the staff and work force and is subject to an organised sit-in, I hope that, before the House dismisses it as just another case of industrial militancy. hon. Members will listen to the arguments that make this closure somewhat different from other closures that have precipitated sit-ins and occupations in other regions.
In my view, impartial examination of the case would vindicate the staff and workers currently occupying the factory. They are taking this stand because the workers have been dealt with in a shabby, insensitive, and almost callous manner. The company, Laurence, Scott Company Ltd. has existed in Openshaw for over 100 years. it has a long history of good industrial relations and a proud reputation as a centre for engineering excellence.
However, the company has had its difficulties. The group of which it was part last year recorded a loss of £1·9 million. An unusual feature of that recorded loss was that the factory in my constituency made a profit of £70,000. Laurence, Scott was taken over in October last year. In March 1980, the company was valued at £18·4 million. It was acquired for £5·8 million by The Mining Supply Company of Doncaster. The control of the company effectively moved to the managing director of Mining Supply Company—Mr. Arthur Snipe.
Mr. Arthur Snipe is in the great mould of industrial buccaneers. He treats the workers for whom he has responsibility with an arrogance that I find positively staggering. When Mr. Arthur Snipe and Mining Supply Company took over Laurence, Scott in October last year, the company was beginning short-time working and benefiting from the short-time working compensation scheme.
Paul Foot in the Daily Mirror yesterday, in a most illuminating article, records that he was told that a decision to close the Openshaw plant was made on 10 February this year. He is correct, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and myself were similarly informed that that decision was taken in February.
The House will recall that short-time working compensation is paid as an alternative to redundancy and not as a prelude to closure. Thus, the directors of the company were aware on 10 February that the company would close in July, yet they continued to claim short-time working compensation. The public are entitled to know why short-time working compensation was paid to Laurence, Scott (Electromotors) Ltd. between February and April, when the directors of the company decided to close the factory as long ago as 10 February.
A regrettable feature of the closure is that the directors who informed me that the closure decision had been taken on 10 February have, since talking to Paul Foot, been suspended by Mr. Arthur Snipe.
The House and the British people should be made aware that Mr. Snipe has made a considerable fortune out of a State-owned industry. He acquired his capital from the National Coal Board and has taken no account of the social implications involved in purchasing Laurence, Scott and Electromotors. When he acquired control of the company he said:
"In the event that the offer becomes unconditional, and in the light of these negotiations, it is the aim of Mining Supply

439
wherever possible to provide continued employment for the employees of Laurence, Scott on terms and conditions no less favourable than at present."
That undertaking means nothing in the context of 650 of my constituents losing their jobs.
Mr. John Garrett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a large Laurence, Scott plant in Norwich, which has also been established for the best part of 100 years, and that recently more than 90 employees were made redundant at less than two hours notice? Since then, Mr. Snipe has proved extremely elusive when the trade unions have wanted to meet him to discuss the situation. His buccaneering behaviour has caused the greatest distress among my constituents, some of whom feel that they have been treated as criminals in being excluded from the works. The experience in my part of the country shows that Mr. Snipe is a thoroughly bad employer.
Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for informing me and the House of the situation in his constituency. The circumstances that he has recounted are typical of the cavalier manner in which Mr. Snipe operates. He obtained temporary short-time working compensation for the Openshaw plant up to 13 April, despite having decided in February that the factory would be closed. He has not consulted the staff or the work force at Openshaw under the spirit and intentions of the code of practice laid down in the Employment Protection Act. He is attempting to deprive the work force and staff not only of their franchise under the Employment Protection Act, but of their minimal entitlements under the redundancy payments scheme.
Mr. Snipe has threatened the workers involved in industrial action that unless they cease that action they will lose their redundancy pay. I believe that that is the first time in industrial relations history that such a threat has been made. But the workers have sacrificed redundancy pay to show what they feel about the manner in which their employer has dealt with them.
An important point of principle is involved in another feature of the case. I have related how the chairman and board of the company have, for reasons best known to themselves and because of their industrial strategy, closed a profitable industrial enterprise.
In the process, they have made the taxpayers three-time losers. They have lost out on the short-time working compensation. The sum involved at the Openshaw plant was £296,000. If that sum had been taken by a collection of luckless individuals on supplementary benefits we would have had proposals from the Government for enlisting an army of inspectors to chase them.
Secondly, taxpayers will have to pick up the tab for unemployment benefits for the 650 people who have lost their jobs at Openshaw. Thirdly, taxpayers will have to make a contribution to any redundancy payments to those workers.
I know that the Leader of the House takes an understanding view of all the individual issues that are raised in such Adjournment debates and I hope that he will convey the substance of what I have said to the responsible Minister.
5.7 pm
Mr. John Stokes: I do not believe that we should adjourn for the recess until we have debated one of the fundamentals of government—law and order and, I must add now, terrorism. The prime objects of a Government are to defend the nation from foreign invasion and subversion from within and to keep the Queen's peace at home.
There is no point in our passing sophisticated laws such as those that we get from the DHSS and other Departments if people dare not open their front doors at night for fear of being mugged. England has almost always been a peaceful country, at least since Saxon times, and the desire for order and the respect for the law are deeply ingrained in our people. That is something that some of our immigrants must learn. Throwing petrol bombs is a new and ugly factor in our national life. Unemployment is no excuse. I remember the Jarrow marchers. Not only were they non-political, but they were extremely careful to ensure that there was no breach of the law at any stage of their long march.
People will obey the law readily as long as they do not see others breaking it with impunity. If we do not deal effectively with offenders, particularly those who wound, rob, steal, riot or cause damage, there is a danger that others will feel tempted to disobey the law in the hope that they, too, will get away with it.
We have to vary punishments not only to fit the crime, but to fit prevailing circumstances. When crimes are rife, such as now, the public rightly demand that the element of deterrence should be increased. We may therefore need to use the exemplary sentence with greater frequency as a warning to others. It has worked in the past, and it may very well work again. I appreciate the problems of the overcrowded prisons. I applaud the Home Secretary's efforts to remove from our prisons people who should have no place in them. Even so, there is a case for stiff sentences to cut down crime, although this may, unfortunately, put an additional strain on our prisons.
I have very much sympathy for those who cannot find work at the present time, particularly young people. I was caught up recently in the crowds going to the Cup Final at Wembley. They were making a lot of noise, waving flags and banners and crowding out the pubs. A good many of them undoubtedly were unemployed. There were many police about, but no disorders.
At first, I felt a slight annoyance at the singing and the noise, and also perhaps a little alarm. However, on seeing these young people more closely I felt sorry for them. I was sorry that so much youthful energy and sheer exuberance could be spent watching a football match. I am sure that I have the agreement of both sides of the House in suggesting that the State could devise a better and more satisfying outlet for the energies of these young people in some form of disciplined service to the nation. I know that the practical difficulties are enormous and that the cost may be high, but I am glad that the Government have promised to study the matter.
I am particularly concerned about violence, mugging and vandalism in certain parts of my constituency and, to a greater extent, in the Birmingham area as a whole. This causes much concern to my constituents. They expect the Government to act with greater firmness, as promised at the time of the general election. They want capital punishment to be brought back for murder, as I do, and

441
corporal punishment for young thugs, as I do. It is no good the Home Office saying that it has increased the numbers of police. That is good, but it is not enough. The need is for stern penalties and for firm magistrates so that all can appreciate that violence simply does not pay.
The reasons for the worsening situation are many and complex. One of the chief reasons, I am sure, is a decline in moral standards and in respect for persons and property. I wish that the Government would give greater emphasis to this matter in the many speeches that Ministers make in the House and in the country. Hon. Members seldom debate general social issues apart from unemployment. I am sure that boredom and lack of any positive belief or creed in life are to blame for much crime. The churches would perhaps do well to concentrate on these matters rather than subjects like the British Nationality Bill or the Brandt report.
The collections at seaside towns of skinheads and rowdy motor cyclists, which are extremely alarming, are an example of boredom and misdirected energy. At least in the Midlands, at the time of the last ambulance service strike, we were able to organise some of these young ton-up motor cyclists into squads to run messages to assist the service. They did a magnificent job, which only shows that such young people are very good material if only properly led.
I am afraid that some of our immigrants pose a threat to law and order. The Pakistanis and Indians are usually well disciplined, with a good home background, although their culture will always remain different from our own. The West Indians, on the other hand, with the possible exception of some who come from Bardados, an admirable island, usually tend to leave home early. Often there is no father in the family. These youngsters tend to roam the streets robbing and mugging elderly people and helpless women. When they riot, as at Brixton, the results are terrifying and something we have not experienced before in England.
These breaches of the law must be punished with extreme rigour. The unfortunate statement that the law of England could not be involved because of the need for good race relations was an insult not only to English people but, above all, to immigrants who wish, in the main, to behave properly and to obey our laws. Surely we cannot have one law for the English and one for the immigrants. I look to the Government and, above all, to the Home Office in all these matters of law and order.
I wish to see greater determination and stronger will in the Home Office to combat violence and crime. The Conservative Party is looked upon particularly as the party of law and order. Unfortunately, we have so far disappointed our supporters in this respect, particularly, I believe, our working class supporters, who are most directly affected by breakdowns in law and order.
I appeal to the Home Office, as I have done so often in the past, to tackle this problem now and to convince our supporters, and indeed everyone else, that it really means business in a matter of vital concern to all.
Terrorism now occurs on a world scale. The attack on the Pope by a Turk merely highlights it. We know that the IRA in Northern Ireland obtains some of its support from sources within the United States and from countries behind the Iron Curtain. I have recently put several questions to Ministers on the subject. I do not believe the bland reply that this is simply a matter of co-operation by different national police forces. It must be a matter for
442
Governments. Cannot the United Nations, which is often so futile, take the lead in this matter and perhaps for once justify itself? Cannot the EEC do more in combating terrorism? In the end, the defeat of terrorism is a matter of will. Either one gives way because the terrorist goes on from one horror to another, or one says "We will never give way".
The world is rapidly becoming a highly dangerous and most uncivilised planet. Those who waste their time on futile denunciations of nuclear arms should turn their attack on to the terrorists. Nothing less than civilisation itself is at stake. Governments have a duty to protect us ordinary people. I should like to see our Prime Minister, who is making such a magnificent stand against terrorism in Northern Ireland, taking a world lead and initiative. Governments can and should do more to suppress terrorism.
The House should debate the question of terrorism much more frequently. Otherwise the peril will grow, as has happened in the case of the hijacking of aircraft in recent years. No one will be safe. The remedy is in our hands if only we have the will.
5.18 pm
Mr. Frank Hooley: I do not think that the House should adjourn until a clear statement has been made by the Government in regard to the proposal from Brussels that it intends to disallow, prohibit or block massive aid for the steel industry which this House has approved. Of the £1·3 billion authorised to be spent on the financial reconstruction of the steel industry over the next two years until the end of 1982, I understand that the EEC Commission proposes to disallow the expenditure of about £750 million on the grounds that it disapproves of the maintenance in Britain of some 6·6 million tonnes of steelmaking capacity that we want to hold in reserve under the MacGregor plan.
In the last few days the House has debated the Iron and Steel Bill which gives power for a far-reaching capital reconstruction of the British Steel Corporation, the writing-off of capital already expended and the authorisation of further large sums for modernisation and completion in accordance with the MacGregor plan. The plan involves serious and harsh redundancies. The redundancy programme is not yet complete.
The plan also involves closures which have been going on for more than two years and plants, mainly at Scunthorpe and Port Talbot, being closed, but not taken out of commission totally. We are maintaining a reserve steel-making capacity against the day, which cannot be postponed indefinitely even by the present Government, when there will be some form of economic upturn.
Eight or nine years ago Britain was producing 28 million tonnes of steel. Our steel-making capacity was about 30 million tonnes. Even as recently as 1979 we produced 21 million tonnes of steel. That capacity has been cut under the BSC reconstruction plan, and in accordance with the Government's policy, to 15 million tonnes. Neither France nor Germany has cut back on that scale. We have virtually halved our capacity to produce steel, one of the basic raw materials of any industrial country. No other country in the EEC has made a reduction on that scale in the plant, equipment and factories necessary for the production of the various types of steel needed.

443
Far from being cut back, production in Italy and Spain increased in 1980. In Spain production was about 25 million tonnes and in Italy it rose above 20 million tonnes, although I do not have the exact figure.
I remind the House that the British Steel Corporation still has a turnover of £3,000 million and still employs more than 100,000 workers in one capacity or another. Our huge and important steel industry has been cut back ruthlessly in the past few years and its capacity has been almost halved. Nothing like the same reductions have taken place in other countries. In at least two European countries capacity and production have risen.
One must ask why the European Commission wishes to interfere with this great industry which has gone through traumatic reconstruction and on whose financial and physical structure the House has pronounced by legislation in the past few days. Why is the European Community so anxious to destroy or cut the BSC back further and to reduce the capacity of the United Kingdom to produce a vital industrial raw material?
The answer must be that there is ruthless pressure from our European competitors to ensure that, when Western Europe's economies expand again, they will be able to take over the British market and we shall not be in a position to meet the upturn in demand which inevitably must accompany a general economic expansion. Otherwise, I cannot see why the Commission wishes to interfere with a scheme agreed by the House. I cannot understand why it desires to disallow £750 million for expansion which even the present Government have been willing to authorise and which the Opposition do not oppose. I cannot understand why the Commission is so anxious that we should not keep a reserve capacity of 6·6 million tonnes against the day when we might need much greater output than is necessary now.
We have heard much talk about imports from Japan. Today the problem caused by the imports of Japanese cars was stressed. A more substantial threat to our manufacturing capacity is not from Japan but from Germany, France and Italy. Despite the so-called Common Market and the so-called common regulations on trade, those countries have taken individual steps to protect certain industries.
Italy has made special arrangements in respect of Japanese imports. In some circumstances it demands one-for-one arrangements. For example, Italy will not accept imports of Japanese motor cycles unless the Japanese accept Italian machines. The Italians and French have special arrangements for the protection of their cutlery industries. We have been unable to agree to a common policy on cutlery for that reason. Within the Commission, the Italians and the French are not interested in imposing restrictions on the imports of cutlery because they have made private arrangements for the protection of their cutlery industries.
Pressure will be put on our steel industry, through the European Commission, to deny us the capacity to produce the quantities of steel that we shall need when the economic upturn arrives.
If the Commission's prohibition of the expenditure of another £750 million is not resisted, not only will it have a disastrous impact on the steel industry; it will also be a futher nail in the coffin of British membership of the European Community. Industries and workers in Britain
444
will no longer tolerate the best schemes for preserving our basic industries being frustrated by the demands and presssures of the Brussels Commission which is interfering in our industrial policy. It should be our exclusive right to determine industrial policy.
We need a clear assurance from the Government before the House rises that they will not tolerate the directive from the Brussels Commission and that they will insist on the right of the House to determine the extent and range of the physical and financial reconstruction of the BSC, still one of the great public corporations in Europe.
5.30 pm
Mr. John Heddle: I have no wish to detain the House for any longer than is necessary. Nor is it my intention to deny hon. Members access to their Whitsun Recess. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) raised the urgent and necessary matter of the reform of the rating system in general. I wish specifically to concentrate on bringing to the attention of the House the rate burden borne especially and most heavily by the industrial and commercial sector, by business men nation-wide, and particularly by business men in the West Midlands.
I must tell the House of the deep concern felt by many firms about the increases in business rates that they have had to bear, not only from high-spending and extravagant authorities—of which we have heard much—but from authorities generally. I must also tell the House of the adverse consequences that those increases will have on firms' prosperity and productivity, and especially on employment. In the current financial year, the business and commercial sector has, on average, had to shoulder a rate increase of more than 20 per cent. Some firms have had to shoulder an increase of more than 30 per cent., and firms in one authority an increase of more than 75 per cent.
It is clear that many local councils have deliberately ignored the expenditure guidelines produced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and an overspend of more than £1 billion is possible in the current financial year, 1981–82. However, I do not wish to dwell on that point, because it is long and complicated. The prospect of a supplementary rate being levied by many authorities this October is a matter which industry and commerce view with great concern. In the face of that grim possibility, my right hon. Friend should take action to limit extravagant authorities from levying excessive increases. I do not wish to dwell any longer on that matter. Instead I want to be more practical and to examine precisely how the burden placed upon the shoulders of industry and commerce can be lightened so that they can get on with the job of making profits and creating work.
To put the enormity of the rate yield from the business sector in perspective, I point out that the anticipated yield in the current year from rates in the commercial and industrial sector is equivalent to the anticipated yield from capital gains tax, capital transfer tax, petroleum revenue tax, development land tax, estate duty and stamp duty—all rolled into one. Looked at from another angle, the rate burden on the industrial and commercial sector will probably be equivalent to at least one-third, possibly more, of the real profits earned by industrial companies during the current year.
I know that my right hon. Friend acknowledges that the most important way to keep down rates is to keep down the level of local government expenditure. He has acted

445
in a number of ways to achieve that. Before the House rises for the Spring Recess, I urge him to give consideration to providing immediate relief to lighten the burden borne by the business sector in the following sixfold manner. First, a ceiling should be imposed on business rates as a safeguard against extravagant, high-spending, profligate local authorities. Secondly, a system of mothballing relief for business premises only partly used during the recession should be introduced. Thirdly, there should be an end to the rating of empty business properties. Fourthly, the surcharge on empty commercial buildings should be abolished. Fifthly, the payment of business rates by instalments should be allowed. Sixthly, the Government should consider abolishing the rateability of certain classes of industrial plant and machinery.
I wish to dwell briefly on those six items. On the question of the ceiling on industrial rates, there is a need to safeguard businesses in areas where councils, such as the councils adjacent to Lichfield and Tamworth—but not, happily, covering those towns—that are extravagant and excessive spenders choose to ignore Government guidelines, and have reacted to the new rate support grant system by raising rates rather than by cutting spending. I do not accept the argument that the introduction of such a provision would be undemocratic. Nor do I think that it would be unfair.
The voice of business simply is not heard in the corridors of power in the town and county halls. That is because the Opposition, when in Government in the late 1960s, and through the Representation of the People Act 1969, abolished the business vote. I am not suggesting that the reintroduction of the business vote is necessarily the right answer. However, the sixfold plan would be a step in the right direction towards protecting the vital commercial and industrial sector against profligate local authorities. Commercial ratepayers contribute at least as much as, and possibly more than, most domestic ratepayers in most local authorities.
The provision of mothball relief should exclude from rating, pro tempore, those parts of premises that have been taken out of productive use, but have been maintained at the expense of the owners or the tenants during the recession. That would be especially welcomed by industrial and commercial ratepayers because the business sector, especially manufacturing business, is going through a difficult time. It would be a valuable contribution to the preservation of our industrial base. I urge my right hon. Friend to give further consideration to that suggestion.
The Government, by statute through the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, have reduced the power of local authorities to levy rates on empty commercial premises from 100 per cent. to 50 per cent. Nevertheless, there is a strong case for the total abolition of levying rates on empty business premises. I ask the House to consider the fact that empty business premises do not yield any income for the owners, but involve them in considerable upkeep costs. We have long left the road that led to Centre Point. There is no point in an owner leaving his premises empty of his own accord. It is sad that he should be punished. He is probably trying to let or sell the premises, but the current economic position brought about by the world recession is making it doubly difficult for him to do so. My right hon. Friend has rightly
446
recognised the unfairness of the provisions of the General Rate Act 1967, and has temporarily frozen those provisions. That part of that Act should be abolished.
I turn to the most important of the six proposals, namely, the ability to pay rates on commercial and industrial premises by instalments. The House will recall that in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 facilities were made available for owners of industrial and commercial premises with a rateable value of less than £2,000 in the provinces and £5,000 in central London to pay their rates by instalments—as owners of mixed hereditaments who live in flats above shops are entitled to pay rates by instalments, and as domestic ratepayers are entitled to pay rates by instalments. It is reasonable that the whole commercial and industrial sector should be entitled to pay rates by instalments. The Government should have equal regard to the cash flows of business and commerce and of local councils.
On the question of the rateability of certain classes of industrial plant and machinery, I believe that only manufacturing constructive, useful and productive plant and machinery should be rated, and that service equipment—necessary ancillary, but in a sense useless—should not be rated.
That leads me to the question of industrial derating. In view of the present economic climate and the severe difficulties still faced by industry and commerce, there is a strong case for the temporary introduction—perhaps for 12 months, and subject to a six-month review thereafter—of an element of business derating. The commercial community sees little merit in the rating system. Rates act as a burden on competitiveness. They are a blunt and unfair instrument. One thing that may, above all else, unite the House tonight is the fact that we all think that the present rating system is unfair and riddled with anomalies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale was sadly silent when it came to making a constructive suggestion for a substitute for the rating system. The Labour Party, which has been joined by the Social Democratic Party, has jumped upon the rates bandwagon and has decided that the abolition of the domestic rating system should be followed by the introduction of a form of local income tax. I do not consider that to be a constructive or satisfactory alternative. In the domestic sector, that would increase the standard rate of income tax by 5p. If we were to abolish the entire rating system, it would involve putting at least an additional 13p on the standard rate of tax. That would be a disincentive to work harder apart from the fact that it would involve another £100 million worth of manpower in the Inland Revenue to establish the necessary system.
For the commercial and industrial sector, the present rating system is unrelated to the ability to pay. It affects different types of business activity unevenly. The relative levels of rating assessment in different areas may affect choice of location either on the establishment of new premises or a decision to close down and relocate elsewhere.
Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale rightly said, small businesses have been adversely affected by the absence of regular and frequent rating revaluations. Rent levels in this sector have risen proportionately less than those of their larger counterparts, with the consequence that they tend to pay

447
more rates than they might otherwise do, and capital-intensive industries tend to bear a greater share of the rate burden than their labour-intensive counterparts.
I hope that the recess will afford hon. Members on both sides of the House time to consider the recommendations of the Layfield committee, which accepted that the industrial and commercial sector paid too high a proportion of the nation's rate bill and that the disparity between the industrial and commercial ratepayer and others was widening. This is not a good thing for local democracy. Far less is it a good thing for the wealth-creating and job-creating sector on the broad shoulders of which our recovery depends.
5.44 pm
Mr. David Winnick: In my view, there is a pressing need for a debate on Northern Ireland. Last week during business questions I raised the issue and the Leader of the House told me that it was not likely that there would be such a debate in the near future. I do not agree with the views advanced today by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). Those who take the right hon. Gentleman's position seek a solution through the EEC. That is, I think, not on. We must try to resolve the problem ourselves with the co-operation of the Government of the Irish Republic.
This week we have seen yet more deaths. There has been the slaughter of five soldiers. We learnt today that the third hunger striker had died. There is undoubtedly within the country—it goes without saying that it is the view of the House—a detestation of terrorism. Whatever views one may hold about Northern Ireland, there can be no justification for the terrorism, be it of the Provisional IRA, which is undoubtedly the major culprit, or the paramilitary units of the other side. Terrorism can only increase sectarianism within the Province as well as continue the deaths and violence that we have seen over the past 10 years.
If the situation continues for another five or 10 years, there may be little change. We shall be talking about further deaths. Basically the position will be as it has been for the past 10 or 11 years. There seems to be little hope that from the present position we shall find a solution. It seems that Ministers do not offer much hope that terrorism will be defeated or that there will be a political solution that will be acceptable to both sides of the community. If there could be found a political solution that would find favour with both sides, the fight against terrorism would become more successful.
There is much concern in other countries about our policy on Northern Ireland. Some may say that those who voice that concern are those in the United States, for example, who take an attitude of sympathy towards the Provisional IRA. I accept that there are those in the United States who take such an attitude. However, there are many others in other countries who find it difficult to understand our policy. I leave aside the mischief makers and those who want to find any reason to adopt an anti-British policy, but there are many who have difficulty in understanding our involvement in Northern Ireland and why hunger strikers are so determined to fast until death. These are questions to which we must try to find answers.
More than anything else we should learn from the recent by-election in Northern Ireland, which was of the
448
greatest political importance. Surely it proved beyond any shadow of doubt that a large majority of Catholics within Northern Ireland do not accept, after 60 years, the position of the six counties being separated from the Republic. They voted for Mr. Sands. They gave the late Mr. Sands over 30,000 votes. Did they vote for Mr. Sands because he was an IRA man? I do not believe so. I am sure that the majority did not. They voted against Unionism in the Province. They wanted to demonstrate yet again that the way in which Ireland was partitioned in 1921 is unacceptable to the minority community within Northern Ireland.
We know that, when partition occurred, three of the counties normally then associated with Ulster were placed in the South. That was done clearly to provide an inbuilt majority within Northern Ireland for a continuing link with Britain. The attempt of the Labour Government seven years ago to have power-sharing in Northern Ireland was destroyed. It was not such a radical scheme but it was destroyed by strikes by many within the majority community.
We must consider afresh the problem of Northern Ireland. There is a danger of saying, in effect, that we should not debate the issue and that the position of the six counties should not be questioned because, if we do so, we shall be giving in to the terrorists. That is an irresponsible argument. It means that we do not debate and we do not question the position of the six counties because by doing so we could aid the terrorists. I do not accept that view. If there were no terrorism in Northern Ireland and if there were no violence, we would have to recognise that a large majority of the Catholic population would not accept the links with Britain.
I hope that it will be possible, with the Government of the Irish Republic, to offer a solution for the six counties. Within the framework of a united Ireland, there could be a degree of autonomy for the six counties that would be acceptable to the majority community. One of the questions to be considered is how the civil rights of the Protestant majority can be safeguarded in any changed circumstances. It could be—I am not very optimistic about such a solution—that two or three of the existing counties within Northern Ireland could join the Republic if that were the wish of those concerned.
The other issue that would emerge in any debate is whether there should be any change without the consent of the majority in the six counties. While I believe that the rights of the people in Northern Ireland are extremely important and should be safeguarded in any negotiations with Dublin, I do not believe that a veto should be exercised over the future by any community within the present six counties.
There is an inbuilt majority against change. It is a deliberate majority and some might say that it was a gerrymandered majority, as a result of the partition in 1921. That may be so, but if we were to find a solution which would be acceptable to the Govenment of the Irish Republic and our own Government, such a proposal for the future of Northern Ireland could be put to the people of Britain and Northern Ireland in a referendum. One would see the outcome in such a referendum.
I implore the Government to look afresh at the whole problem. The people of this country are becoming tired of what is happening in Northern Ireland. There are some who say that the troops should simply be pulled out. That is not my view. I do not see how one could just pull out

449
troops from the Province as long as the Province is very much a part of the United Kingdom. It is necessary to find a political solution. Perhaps matters will change but I fear that the Government have closed their minds to any possibility of fundamental constitutional change in Northern Ireland.
I hope that that is not so, but that is my opinion. I hope that in any debate we are likely to have—I hope, in the near future—right hon. and hon. Members will be willing to speak out frankly and to understand that in debating the issue, we are not giving aid to the terrorists.
5.52 pm
Mr. Sydney Chapman: I shall endeavour to be brief. I can be all the briefer because I wish to raise an issue which has already been introduced by my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) and Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle). I do so in the knowledge that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is always sensitive to deeply held views, from whatever part of the House they may be uttered. I hope that he will feel that the fact that at least three hon. Members on the Government Benches have raised the issue of the rating system lends extra force to the representations which I wish to make.
Before the House agrees to adjourn for the recess, I should like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to give us an assurance that the Government are actively and urgently examining alternatives to the rating system with a view to its abolition as soon as is practicable. From a parliamentary question which I put to the Secretary of State for the Environment on 1 April, I know that the Government
"are currently examining all potential alternatives to the domestic rating system."
My right hon. Friend went on to say:
"I cannot yet say when the review will be complete, but I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be public consultation on the outcome, and I will certainly bear in mind the idea of issuing a consultation document on the possible alternatives."—[Official Report, 1 April 1981; Vol. 2, c. 271.]
I also recall an extremely helpful reply to a parliamentary question which I put to the Prime Minister a fortnight later. She said:
"I agree with my hon. Friend's description of the rating system."
I had described the rating system as unfair, illogical, undemocratic, inadequate and out of date. I could add some more alliterative adjectives—anachronistic and archaic come readily to mind. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
"My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering the options … I shall take into account my hon. Friend's remarks about a consultation paper."—[Official Report, 14 April 1981; Vol. 3, c. 149.]
I presume to raise this matter because there is an increasing urgency that it should be dealt with. I shall call in aid some evidence to that end. In the financial year 1980–81, the estimated outturn of rate revenue collected by all local authorities throughout the United Kingdom was £8,705 million. In this financial year 1981–82, it is estimated that that outturn will increase to no less than £10,285 million. Incidentally, that is an increase of about 18·2 per cent., well above the inflation rate during the year. Therefore, I make this simple point, that whatever the level and scale of the unfairness last year, it is greater this year.
450
This iniquitous impost should be abolished. The lost revenue will have to be recouped by other means. As a first step, the Government should publish a consultation paper setting out all the possible alternatives—whether a local income tax, a local sales tax, a surcharge on income tax or a surcharge on corporation tax, a tax based on turnover of a firm or business, or even a poll tax. I suspect that the answer will be a combination of at least some of those taxes, because I am talking about the abolition of the whole rating system, not just the domestic element.
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) in the Chamber. He will initiate an Adjournment motion debate on that issue on the day we return from the recess, on 1 June. If my right hon. Friend cannot confirm—I shall understand if he cannot—that the Government will publish a consultation paper in June or at the latest in July, setting out the options and, I hope, giving their initial comments on each alternative so that a national debate may take place to see whether a consensus can be arrived at, I respectfully ask him to ensure that his right hon. Friend or one of the Ministers at the Department of the Environment who may reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield will give that commitment or that confirmation in replying to that Adjournment debate.
5.57 pm
Mr. William Hamilton: I wish to raise only one matter. The House may not be surprised when I say that it is the question of nurses' pay,
On 15 March 1979, a week or two before the general election, the Minister who is now responsible for the Health Service, the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) used these words about the nurses in that winter of discontent, when we were discussing pay matters. He said:
"there is no doubt that the nurses are a special case and should be treated as such."
He went on to say that the nurses came
"within the same category as the police, the firemen and the members of other services which look after our essential needs".—[Official Report, 15 March 1979, Vol. 964, c. 800.]
I wish to consider how those people in the essential services have been treated by this Government and the previous Government. The answer is not unwholesome. They have been treated well. The Armed Forces, for example, received a percentage increase in their pay of 32·5 per cent. on 1 April 1979. That was the last increase under the Labour Government. On 1 April 1980, they received another 16·8 per cent. This year they have received about 10 per cent. In the past three years the Armed Forces have had wage increases of about 60 per cent. Good luck to them. No hon. Member would begrudge the Armed Forces those increases. As the Minister said, they perform an essential service.
What about the other essential services? How well have they fared? In March 1979 the Minister mentioned the firemen. In 1978–79 they received increases of 19 per cent. and in 1979–80 they received increases of 23·1 per cent. I suspect that the Government are trying to hold this year's wage increase to 6 per cent., because that is the incomes policy that is being applied in the public sector. Therefore, the firemen will have had increases of about 50 per cent. in the past three years.
Under this Government, in the period 1978–80 the police received increases of over 56 per cent. No doubt

451
they will receive a substantial pay increase this year. Let us consider those doctors and dentists who work in hospitals. In those two years, a house officer on the minimum scale received an increase of 58·9 per cent. A senior registrar on the minimum scale has had increases in the past two years amounting to 60·6 per cent. Doctors and dentists are now awaiting this year's increase.
In reply to a question that I asked on 7 May, I was informed that in the past two years doctors and dentists in the Health Service had received an average pay increase of 57 per cent. As the Minister said, they perform essential services. How have the nurses fared? The Leader of the House would not deny, nor would anyone else, that the nurses are as essential—some would argue more essential—as the Armed Forces, the police and some of those whom I have mentioned. If there were a public opinion poll there is no doubt in my mind that on a popularity basis, the nurses would come out top of the pops.
Last week, in reply to questions in the House, the Minister said that the Government's record on nurses pay was "outstanding". He said that in the past two years they too had had increases of about 50 per cent. I have ascertained that that is true from a variety of quarters. However, one must consider the salaries on which percentages are based. A nurse might take home about £50. But 50 per cent of £50 is £25. However, 50 per cent. of £200 per week is £100. It is deliberately misguiding, therefore, to quote percentages.
The starting pay for an enrolled nurse is £3,104 per annum, rising to a maximum of £4,561. A ward sister, who is one of the key persons in a hospital, can attain, at the peak, £7,124. The nurses are negotiating this year's salary increase. They reckon that they need a 45 per cent. increase now merely to restore their level of pay to the level found in comparable jobs outside. They are claiming only 15 per cent., which will keep them abreast of inflation. The Government are sticking to 6 per cent.
Even the Royal College of Nursing, probably one of the most genteel associations—I shall not say trade union—in the country is threatening strike action if it does not get more than 6 per cent. Nevertheless, the Government are sticking rigidly to 6 per cent., on the principle that the weakest can be hit hardest. In effect, the Government are telling nurses something that has always been said. They are saying "Thank you, dear ladies. You are doing the most wonderful job in the world. The Government, from the Prime Minister down, are full of admiration for your dedication and unstinted devotion to the care of the sick. We, the Government, know you are too devoted to your patients and too loyal to your country to strike. We therefore confidently ask you—indeed from the Prime Minister down we confidently demand of you—that as an expression of your loyalty and devotion, you accept—as an expression of the Government's gratitude to you—a substantial cut in your standard of living, with the cheerfulness and charm for which you are so well known, by agreeing to only a 6 per cent. rise in your wages. Rémember, we are promising you a taste of jam tomorrow, or some time in the future".
The Government are saying that they will, some time, find a way of breaking what the Minister described as the four-year ratchet, whereby over a four year period, nurses' pay falls behind. In effect, the Government are saying
452
"Meanwhile, take a clout over the ear as a token of our esteem". No wonder the Royal College of Nursing and others in the nursing profession are talking of strike action. No wonder the latest recruitment figures for student and pupil nurses in the statistical year 1980–81 show a substantial fall compared with the previous two years. Although girls find it difficult to get jobs now, they will not go into nursing, because over the years nurses have been treated scandalously.
It is no wonder that there is a dire and growing shortage of trained nursing staff, particularly for nursing the mentally handicapped and the geriatric. More detailed figures underlying these great scandals in our hospital service are recorded in the document "Manpower Availability", which stems from a working party that was established by the Royal College of Nursing Association of Nursing Management. The latest issue of "Health Services" which is published by my union, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, reports that the two-year old Freeman hospital in Newcastle, which was built at great expense, has 200 of its 800 beds lying empty because of cash shortages. The authorities simply cannot afford to pay the staff.
The same magazine states:
"Desperate staff shortages and wholesale cuts in services are putting patients at risk at Greenwich's three main hospitals … Nurses' conditions almost intolerable."
Such things are happening up and down the country. I hope that the Government will take cognisance of the profession's great worth and of the need to treat nurses no less generously—as the Minister has said—than the Armed Forces, the police and the others who provide essential services and who are, for one reason or another, extremely reluctant to take strike action. They must be rewarded for the services that they render to the community. I hope that the Minister will give a sympathetic reply and that he will forget all about his 6 per cent. upper limit.
6.9 pm
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I do not believe that the House should rise at this critical time in the fortunes of the Middle East without someone saying—it needs to be said, in the light of some of the more preposterous utterances by a persistent few in the Chamber recently—that the State of Israel has many more Friends in the House than sometimes appears to be the case.
I would guess that very few believe that Israel is conducting raids into southern Lebanon because it wants to extend its boundaries. Most would accept that unless Israel did something to stop the training and basing of terrorists in Lebanon by the PLO and Syria, its security would be seriously at risk and the State might well be destroyed. Again, I imagine that few Members of the House would believe that Israel's continued presence in the lands of the West Bank and Gasa, which it won in battle when it was attacked, is for imperialistic reasons. Most would accept that, until Israel obtains some convincing assurances from its dangerous and warlike neighbours that it will be allowed to continue to survive, it would be an act of national madness to allow an enemy that is sworn to destroy the State to have geographical control of its boundaries.
The absurdity of any argument based upon Israel being an imperialistic power is evidenced not by words but by its actions in relation to the land that it won in battle from

453
Egypt. In return for Egyptian friendship, and little or nothing more, it has given back, or is giving back, all of the territories, including the rich oilfields, which will make Israel completely dependent upon imported oil.
Israel, therefore, has many more Friends than enemies in the House. That friendship is illustrated by the 150 or more members of the Conservative Friends of Israel and the large number of members of the Labour Friends of Israel, as well as by the support of Liberal hon. Members. It is a friendship—and not everyone who is a friend joins organisations to prove it—founded upon admiration for the courage of those who built and who have defended the new State, upon revulsion at the death of millions of Jews in Nazi Germany and upon an appreciation that Israel is a fiercely pro-Western democracy surrounded by Communist-controlled dictatorships, mad Ayatollahs and authoritarian and unpredictable Arab kingdoms.
However, friendship by itself is not enough. It was not enough for Israel in 1956, in 1967 or in 1973, and there are unfortunately doubts about the extent of the friendship to the State of Israel shown so far by the Government. Those doubts do not arise because the Government are also friendly to the neighbouring Arab States. We have a tradition of friendship with those States which is well understood. It is also understood that peace in the Middle East will come only through friendship with those States.
The doubts arise from the Government support for the Venice initiative, the rejection of Camp David and the apparent moves towards recognition of the PLO. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal yesterday repeated the Government's abhorrence of terrorism. Rightly, he would not dream of talking peace with the IRA. Why, then, talk peace with the PLO, until it forswears its determination to destroy our friend, the State of Israel? The PLO is certainly a terrorist organisation. In the period from 23 July 1968 to 28 February 1981, 281 acts of terror were perpetrated or attempted by the PLO outside Israel in which 316 people were killed and 543 wounded. The PLO operated or attempted to operate in 50 countries, including 40 attacks in West Germany, 32 in France, 22 in Britain, 21 in Italy, 20 in Turkey, 13 in Holland, 12 in Greece and eight in Belgium. Eighty-five per cent. of the casualties were non-Israelis; 44 Israeli citizens were killed and 68 were wounded. In the peak year of 1973 in international terrorist activities, 50 attacks were attempted or perpetrated.
In Israel itself or in the territories administered by Israel since the 1967 war, 745 people have been killed by the PLO and 3,817 have been wounded. In the Gaza district alone, 281 Arabs have been killed, including 59 women and 39 children, and a further 1,499 have been wounded, including 120 women and 245 children. The PLO terrorists almost always attack civilians who cannot defend themselves, or have not the means to defend themselves—a nursery at kibbutz Misgav Am, a busload of children at Avivim, high school youngsters on holiday at Ma'alot, a Gaza holy man, holiday shoppers in a market place or passengers waiting to board a bus. They kill discriminately or indiscriminately foreigners, Arabs, Jews and Israelis alike.
I ask my right hon. Friend to recognise the logic of those figures, that the PLO is indeed an organisation of terrorists. I ask him to give some assurance to all those who are friendly with the State of Israel that there will be no dealing with the PLO until it publicly renounces its national covenant commitment to eliminate the State of
454
Israel and until it publicly renounces all acts of terrorism. I ask him to give an assurance that the Government, led by a Premier and a Foreign Secretary who command ever-increasing respect in the world, will do absolutely nothing to undermine the security of the State of Israel.
6.16 pm
Mr. Alfred Dubs: I oppose the Adjournment of the House so as to give us an opportunity to discuss a matter of increasing concern, namely, the consequences of the Government's encouragement of the sale of council housing. I do so with reference to an issue which has arisen in my constituency, although I believe that the conclusions to be drawn from it have a bearing on the housing policies of local authorities throughout the country.
Last week, Wandsworth borough council, the local authority covering my constituency, decided to incur expenditure of £300,000 to make so-called improvements to two brand new council estates, namely, the East Hill estate in my constituency and the Althorpe Grove estate in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). The purpose of that expenditure was to put those brand new estates, which the local authority has designated for sale and not for the people on the waiting list, into a condition more suitable for sale.
The bulk of the money is to be spent on improving car parking facilities on the two estates and to convert the district heating system on East Hill estate to individual heating. Those decisions were made by the council on the basis of "marketability studies" by a firm of valuers.
I do not dispute that, theoretically, Wandsworth borough council has a legal right to sell those properties and to spend that sum of money, although I am bound to make it clear that I disagree totally with the whole basis of the policy.
Nevertheless, even in the context of the Government's own policies of encouraging the sale of council houses, I think that something has gone seriously amiss in those decisions. It is my contention that the Government, at least from what they have said, never intended that money should be spent by local authorities in the way that I have described. I sought evidence of Government agreement with such a policy in, for example, circular 20/80, headed
"Local Authority Improvement for Sale Scheme", issued by the Department of the Environment on 21 November 1980.
Paragraph 4 of that circular states:
"The scheme provides that dwellings shall be eligible if they are in need of substantial repair or improvement. It will be for local authorities to satisfy themselves that this criterion will be met,"
and so on. There is no way in which it can be argued that two brand new council estates need to have extra money spent on them under that heading, for by no standards can it be suggested that they are in need of substantial repair or improvement.
Circular 21/80 from the Department of the Environment, issued on 8 December 1980, in dealing 'with heating schemes, says in paragraph 55:
"Grant towards the cost of central heating (up to Parker Morris standards) may reasonably be given when its installation forms part of the cost of a scheme for converting a property into flats or for the comprehensive improvement of a dwelling."
I should not have thought that the scheme to which I referred would come under that circular.
The Minister for Housing and Construction spoke to an Institute of Housing seminar on the Housing Bill on 24

455
April 1980. He went through the Government's seven-point home ownership programme, including, specifically, the improvement of homes for sale. He said:
"This is an important new area of activity. It provides a means of simultaneously improving the older housing stock, bringing empty dwellings back into use, and helping first-time buyers"—
and so on. The Minister went on to say:
"We do not propose to lay down rigid conditions of eligibility for the scheme … we should expect the properties themselves generally to be old, in need of significant improvement, and probably vacant."
They are certainly vacant in the instance to which I referred, because the estates are becoming ready for occupation. Some of the houses on one of the estates are ready for occupation. No one can say that they are old or that they are in significant need of improvement.
I argue that, in the absence of any clear evidence to the contrary, it was never the Government's intention that local authorities should spend their money in this way. It is, additionally, an entirely mistaken assessment of housing priorities by Wandsworth borough council that it should allocate its scarce HIP money on such schemes when, for example, there is a scheme in Battersea, North where there is a council estate in urgent need of re-wiring because the electrical system there is no longer judged to be safe. In addition, in my own constituency, in the Henry Prince estate, there are properties desperately in need of improvement, with many flats falling apart, and with a general state of decay overcoming the estate that is making life extremely unpleasant for the people living there.
I do not know how many local authorities are following policies similar to those of Wandsworth borough council. I hope that the instances I have quoted are unique, although I am not confident that that is the case.
The Secretary of State for the Environment has given powers to local authorities to make decisions of the sort that I have described. I do not think that he has any way, formally or legally, of preventing the contracts for tender going forward. Perhaps he could use his influence to prevent local authorities spending their money in an entirely improper manner.
I ask the Minister to pass on to the Secretary of State for the Environment the view that, if legislation is not to be forthcoming, guidance should be issued as a matter of urgency to stop local authorities indulging in this form of expenditure, which is an abuse of their responsibilities, a neglect of the real and urgent housing needs of the people on whose behalf they ought to be providing a housing service, and which is wasting scarce money that could be used for better purposes.
6.24 pm
Mr. Eric Deakins: I oppose the Adjournment motion on the ground that was put forward earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), namely, that the European Commission's attack on the Government and people of this country—and, indeed, on Parliament—in respect of the loans and grants to the British Steel Corporation, ought to be debated in this House before the Whitsun Recess.
I couple with this reason a speech made by the Leader of the House 10 days ago, in which he delivered an encomium on the Common Market and all its works. He said that it was untrue to say that in this House we are not
456
in control of our own interests as members of the EEC. I should have thought that the recent action by the European Commission gives the lie to that assertion.
There are other matters in the speech of the Leader of the House that should also be debated here as soon as possible, as the right hon. Gentleman was obviously speaking with some passion for the Government, even though his speech was put out as a handout from the Conservative Party Central Office. In the course of that speech, he made no attempt to take seriously the arguments of the anti-Marketeers. In this connection, I ask him to study carefully the attitude of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence who, in the recent Defence White Paper, made—for the first time by any Government of this country—some attempt to deal with the arguments of those who believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament.
I do not believe that members of the Government can any longer dismiss arguments on major issues of policy by waving them to one side and saying that they are minority arguments which do not stand up to examination. Those arguments ought to be submitted to rational examination.
The right hon. Gentleman said, for example, that the EEC had ensured peace in Western Europe. There was only one brief mention of NATO in his speech. I remind the right hon. Gentleman—who knows his history as well as I know mine—that NATO existed long before the EEC was thought about, and will no doubt continue long after that organisation has collapsed under the weight of its own bureaucracy. It is NATO, not the EEC, that has been responsible for ensuring the peace of Western Europe.
The right hon. Gentleman, emboldened by those words, went on to say that the EEC constituted a barrier to international Communism. Those words would be worthy of John Foster Dulles at his best, in the days of the cold war. In any event, they are not correct.
What have been the policies of the EEC with regard to the Third world? It has had a very restrictive attitude to Third world imports. It aids one-tenth of the population of the Third world in the ACP countries and neglects the nine-tenths of the Third world population living in Asia, Latin America and elsewhere. Its policies surely are not in the interests of the Third world—nor, for that matter, are they in the interests of people in Western Europe. They are policies which are likely to promote an instability in the Third world which will encourage the advance of international Communism, which is what the right hon. Gentleman wants to prevent.
Further, it is not even correct to say of Western Europe that the EEC has been a barrier to international Communism. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman—who, I am sure, is as pro-American as many people in this House, myself included—would at least have paid some tribute to the Marshall plan after the war, which preceded the EEC by a number of years. That ought to have been taken into account in the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the regional grants that we have had from the EEC, and about the grants for our declining industries from the social fund. That is all very good, but he did not explain that these grants come out of moneys that we have already paid into the EEC, and that, had we paid ourselves those moneys for the purposes for which the EEC chose to use them, we

457
should have been better off, as we are a net contributor—as the right hon. Gentleman freely admitted—to the iniquitous EEC budget.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that when we are outside the EEC—if we withdraw, which is certainly the policy of the Labour Party, and one that I heartily endorse—no one will take any notice of us. That is a very nationalistic argument from the representative of a party which still claims to be internationalist. There is nothing more nationalist than wanting to throw one's weight around in the world. Britain will be respected in the world, not for its economic or military strength, but for the lead that it gives in resolving the problems of the arms race and the North-South divide, which are the major problems facing mankind.
The last matter on which I take issue with the Leader of the House, arising from the Commission's action on steel, concerns the fact that he asserted that withdrawal would not be in the interests of Britain and implied that we should have a very raw deal if a Labour Government came to power. However, not all the cards are on the other side of the Channel. If the EEC took a tough line with us and a future Labour Government over a withdrawal, we should have at least one major card on our side, namely, North Sea oil—something that is of great value to Western Europe. I hope that we shall not have to play that card, but we may have to play it if the EEC acts tough.
I hope that the Leader of the House will not make such speeches in future or, if he does, I hope that he will make them in the House where they can be challenged and their contents pulled to pieces. I hope, too, that we shall have an early opportunity to debate the Commission's action on steel and the whole issue of Britain's relationship with the rest of the Common Market.
6.32 pm
Mr. David Mellor: I apologise, first, for my absence during the later part of the debate, although I was here earlier. I shall be extremely brief, but I want to raise a matter that I believe is of general importance, and one that has rightly commanded a good deal of attention during the past few days.
The causes of the tragic fire at Deptford are not for the House to go into, but it would be wrong if we did not discuss what happened at the inquest and what can be done to avoid what most observers regard as a thoroughly unsatisfactory inquest. To some extent its failures were due to what I can only call human error, and were avoidable.
It was probably wrong to hold the inquest in the chamber of the Greater London Council, which has more the atmosphere of a theatre than the sober atmosphere of a court room. Secondly it was unfortunate that a number of those who came to watch the inquest as a spectacle seemed more interested in it as a political event than as a serious inquiry into a great national tragedy.
It was also unfortunate, to say the least, that a number of witnesses treated the court with studied contempt. It was unfortunate that some of the lawyers in the case seemed predisposed to cry foul, even before the game had properly begun. It was extremely unfortunate that the coroner seemed unable to exercise proper control over the proceedings. It was little short of lamentable that throughout the proceedings he did not take a note. To seek to sum up the case properly for the jury without notes can only cause trouble.
458
This inquest is the last in a series of inquests on matters of major public importance that have not gone as well as they should. It shows that there is a need for reform, and I believe that a small reform would fit the bill. The Chief Justice of England is by virtue of his office, the Chief Coroner. All the judges of the High Court are, by virtue of their offices, also coroners, although in living memory they have never sat as such.
We all know what constitutes an important inquest. I do not say that any death is unimportant, but we all know the cases that raise issues of major public importance. It would be possible to adopt a procedure whereby, perhaps on application to a judge in chambers, any interested party could ask that the case be dealt with under special procedures. Instead of it going to an ordinary coroner, it could go to a High Court judge.
Keeping control and being fair and balanced in a court room is as much a skill as any other professional skill, It is wrong to expect a coroner, who may not be legally qualified, or, even if he is legally qualified, may not be used to conducting a trial which has all the panoply of a great State trial, to shoulder that burden. The whole of society suffers, because the implications run wide and deep if matters do not go well.
I do not expect my right hon. Friend to respond fully to the matter tonight because it is not his responsibility. However, I hope that he will note that a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about this matter. Whatever we may think about other issues, we are united in saying that the time has come for something to be done about the coroner system.
In considering coroners' jurisdiction—not, as it were, the exceptional cases, but the broad mass of cases—it may be time to take down from the shelf and dust off the 1971 Brodrick report. That report took six and a half years to prepare, and it repays careful study. Coroners' jurisdiction has evolved over eight or nine centuries, although it is true that even as recently as last year, it was looked at and, to a small extent, revised.
It is a matter that should be considered with great care. Anyone who cares for the reputation of justice and who wants to think that we in Britain are capable of conducting an inquiry that is seen to be fair and is conducted in a proper and calm atmosphere that is conducive to discovering the truth, will not want to see another circus like the Deptford inquest. I hope that we shall take steps to avoid it.
6.37 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It may seem a strange request that the House should not go into recess without discussing the question of the Royal ordnance factories in a week when we have had a two-day debate on defence. However, the Government's attitude to the Royal ordnance factories worries many people in my constituency.
In the Defence Estimates a section is devoted to the Royal ordnance factories. It praises the loyalty and efficiency of the industrial civil servants who work there. I have considerable reservations about the manufacture of weapons of war, whatever type of weapon they are, but we must be consistent. If we advocate, as I do, that this country should seriously consider whether it is either morally or politically sensible to continue to manufacture

459
nuclear weapons, we must also take the responsibility of saying that we should, nevertheless, have conventional arms with which to defend ourselves if we are attacked.
The whole history of the Royal ordnance factories is one of devotion to national defence. It was decided in the time of Charles I that we were not able to leave the creation of munitions to private enterprise. Successive Governments, both Socialist and Conservative, have understood that, in the interests of the realm, this was not a sector in which we could allow profits to be the deciding factor. Yet some months ago the Conservative Government announced—as far as I can gather, not for any factual reason, but because it was a matter of political importance to them—that they intended to look at the possibility of what they called privatisation in the Royal ordnance factories.
We were told that a report was to be made, and that evidence would be taken from all the interested parties. In fact, the Royal ordnance factories have been investigated not once, but many times. Changes have come about so that today there are only 14 factories, each concerned with the manufacture of a specific part of our arms and in no way overlapping with any other factory. The process of rationalisation has been carried out in such a way that we now have the exact number of Royal ordnance factories that we need to deal with specific aspects of the manufacture of arms.
The problem is that the Royal ordnance factories have developed a great deal of expertise and skill in certain manufacturing processes that are of interest to private enterprise. That seems to be more important to the Government than do the overall interests of Great Britain. Discussion of the report appeared to be proceeding quite calmly, and 12 Labour Members of Parliament went to see the previous Minister of State to talk about its implications. They gained the impression that nothing would be done with untoward haste and the fears of the industrial civil servants who worked in Royal ordnance factories were unreasonable.
Since the report was prepared, there has been a change of Minister. The present Secretary of State for Defence, if I may say so without being unkind to him, is wholly doctrinaire in his attitude towards private enterprise and State assets. He takes the simplistic view that the State should disembarrass itself of involvement right across the board. That attitude was also shown by him in his previous office.
Industrial civil servants by their nature are loyal and stable workers. They do not go in for industrial action. Their record is extremely good. They have a right to be consulted before any radical decisions are taken. Yet it almost seems that the Government are prepared to go ahead with selling off Royal ordnance factories and removing the work force from the realm of the Civil Service into the realm of private enterprise without proper consultation. Even when the Minister was asked from the Opposition Front Bench what were his plans, he was not prepared to discuss them in the defence debate. Although he said yesterday that he intended to talk about what was to happen in the Royal ordnance factories, he did not mention them.
Certain aspects are extremely worrying. It is obvious that the report will be considered and decisions taken before the Summer Recess. The Minister said that he
460
intended to announce his decision soon. It is also obvious that because the Secretary of State has extraordinarily bigoted ideas about privatisation, the process of selling off Royal ordnance factories is likely to go ahead without any notice being taken of the work force and of Britain as a whole.
It is ironic that the Conservative Government, who are eternally telling us how much they are concerned with the safety of the realm, and are eternally lecturing Opposition Members on their inability to consider the safety of Great Britain, should be prepared to think only in terms of earning a fast buck when it comes to the manufacture of arms. Their attitude is not just mistaken, it is highly dangerous.
At the beginning of the 1939–1945 war, an enormous amount of money and effort had to be put in to organising the manufacture of arms, because previous Conservative Governments had allowed the Royal ordnance factories to run down until they were incapable of meeting the demands of a country at war. I pray that we shall never again have to consider the manufacture of arms on that scale, but the House should at least be prepared to consider the implications of what the Government appear to be proposing. If the Conservative Government sell off Royal ordnance factories to the private sector, irrespective of their responsibilities to the country, they will be behaving in a frighteningly irresponsible manner, and I hope that the House will have an early opportunity to discuss this matter in considerable detail before any such decisions are taken.
6.45 pm
Mr. Bruce George: I had thought of delivering tonight the speech that I was hoping to make over the past two days in the defence debate, which was not a million miles from the speech I was hoping to make in the debate on Trident a few months ago. But I shall refrain from doing so in this interesting, though anachronistic, procedure for airing grievances.
I doubt whether many hon. Members—apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—would be prepared to forgo their holidays for the sake of the future of my constituency. I do not suppose that they will have the chance to do so. Among the subjects I should have liked to raise at length are the establishment of human rights in South Korea, and the need to license the private security industry. The Government, like the Labour Government, are obdurate on the subject. Another subject I should have liked to raise in detail is the need to establish control over telephone tapping and bugging, on which the Government are as obdurate as were previous Governments. I shall spare the House a discussion on my attitude to the repatriation of the Canadian constitution. We may or may not have a debate on that subject in the near future.
We are all rushing off on our holidays, philosophising on the future of the country, our respective parties and our constituencies. But before we go, I shall unashamedly raise again, albeit not at length, the considerable problems facing me and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, of the rapid decline in industry in our respective constituencies.
The unemployment figures will be coming out in a few days' time when Parliament is not sitting. I shall follow the advice of a Welsh coach who, when his team went out to play a tough New Zealand side, advised it to get in the retaliation first. In anticipation of the unemployment

461
figures going up inexorably again, I should like to comment briefly on that subject. Only two years ago, unemployment in my area was just over 6 per cent., and it has been a devastating experience for the figure to rise to 14·1 per cent. Hon. Members from Scotland, Wales, the North-West or the North-East may be used to such a figure, but my area hitherto has been a most prosperous part of the country, and unemployment of 14·1 per cent. indicates the decline of British manufacturing industry, a great deal of the blame for which can be placed on the Government.
Even 14·1 per cent. is bogus. There are in addition 12,641 people on the temporary short-time working scheme who do one-day, two-day, three-day or four-day weeks. One company in my constituency, F. H. Lloyd, is pulling a fast one on the work force, by not applying for renewal of the temporary short-time working subsidy, so as to put pressure on the work force. I do not like to see a Government scheme manipulated as part of management-union negotiations.
The job release scheme assists a few hundred people, and 2,500 youngsters are taking part in the youth opportunities programme. I do not quibble that the Government are subsidising 2,500 youngsters who would otherwise be unemployed, but that is an indication of the devastation that is being wrought in my area. I have spoken to many groups in my political and academic career, but I have had few experiences as unhappy as speaking to 45 unemployed youngsters on a job creation scheme recently. Most were polite; some others were sullen, bitter, resentful and angry. They sought to blame someone. As a Member of Parliament, albeit in the Opposition, I was a good enough target at which to aim their antagonism and hostility. I could see in those youngsters—some were black and some were white—bitterness and resentment. We shall pay a heavy price for the failure of Governments over the last 10 years to provide job opportunities for young people of this kind.
My experience was by no means unique and the more Members of Parliament talk to the unemployed in their areas, the greater perception they have of life on the dole. As Members of Parliament we are in a precarious job, but to witness youngsters who see themselves as having no prospects is tragic. They ask why they should go to college and get qualifications when there are no jobs and there will be none. Some asked what was the good of going on a job creation scheme. Was it just a form of digging holes, a slightly more sophisticated variation on the 1930s ploy?
We have to make sure that the job creation schemes are not seen just as an alternative to unemployment and merely financially slightly better than unemployment. We must try to make these schemes viable, teach skills, and try to create a sense of industry in young people who are losing that sense. We must try to create among young people a sort of work ethic—although that may be a rather outmoded expression. Young people who leave employment or who are never in employment will find it very difficult when, as we hope, jobs are created to develop the mood and the desire for work.
The number of unemployed in my constituency is probably double 14·1 per cent. By the time the Darlaston area is added—which is not even in the Walsall travel-to-work area—and the people who do not bother to register as unemployed and the housewives are included, the figure is even more desperate than the appalling 14·1 per cent.
462
Last week, with a great deal of pride, I walked with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, with the Bishop of Lichfield, with nuns, with trade unionists and with people who wanted nothing to do with the trade union movement or the Labour Party. They just wanted to express themselves. These were not political activists, but ordinary people, marching, maybe tilting at windmills, but at least doing something to express their hostility to the current economic environment. It was a six-mile walk, which did not do me a great deal of harm, although the Bishop of Lichfield was far fitter than I.
The saddest part was walking through The Green in Darlaston because almost the entire work force of that town was there to greet us. They were not marching because they were the lucky minority that have jobs. At one time the town of Darlaston had about 22,000 people in employment. Now it has about 9,000. Seeing them was like seeing the remnants of an army after a lost battle. When I went through Darlaston five years ago the sound of machinery was deafening. Walking through that same area now, the silence is equally deafening. Without attributing blame to one group or another, it was sad to see a town that used to be industrial and suffered because of its industry. It is now ugly and, in many ways, dirty, with rundown housing. Some of the ills of the past have been improved. When I went to the town eight years ago as a Member of Parliament I saw factories but there was no decent shopping centre. As a result of campaigning there is now a marvellous shopping centre, but hardly anyone can afford to use it, such has been the run down of industry in that area.
I would have hoped that Darlaston would have been scheduled for some form of Government assistance. I have been on deputations in the past, with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North. In a recent visit to the Department of Industry we sought to put the case for Darlaston, and Walsall as a whole, being given special status under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. Most of the surrounding towns—Birmingham, Dudley, Wolverhampton—have such status, but Walsall and Solihull do not receive special assistance. Now that Leyland is in deep trouble in Solihull maybe even that affluent town will need some form of assistance. Because of the problems of the area, could we not now be designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act, we asked. Unfortunately the reply was an unqualified "No". That is very sad for people living in an area that desperately needs greater Government assistance.
I do not see myself as a dogmatic Socialist. In fairness I concede that the Government have sought to take some action. Only today I received information in a Parliamentary answer that the Government are to cough up money to help fill in the extensive limestone caverns under the town centre. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the industrialists and business community sought to exploit the minerals without regard for the way in which the population would suffer 200 years later.
The alleged desire to create a Jerusalem of economic growth in England's green and pleasant land has so far resulted in a conspicuous lack of greenness and pleasantness in my constituency. Now, however, with a survey being commissioned jointly by the Department of the Environment, the West Midlands county council and the councils of neighbouring areas, we will identify the degree of undermining in the town—and I refer not to the Government's undermining of the town's economy but to

463
the physical undermining that has blighted a large area. We hope that when that report is finalised the Government will be able to offer some financial assistance for the infilling so that the land can be developed for shops, housing, and, maybe, factories.
I had hoped that, since Walsall is a town which specialised at one time in the leather goods industry, now decimated by imports from Taiwan and Korea, the Government would not set themselves so firmly against some form of import control. I share the view of the CBI that surely the time has come to call a halt to the virtually unrestricted import of foreign cars. Walsall does not make cars but it does make components for the British motor vehicle industry, and that sector is suffering desperately. The government's only policy to motor vehicles is to encourage the begging of crumbs from Japanese tables. I very much hope that we can curb the import of cars, especially from Japan. That would help the motor vehicle industry directly and the components industry in my constituency indirectly.
What we get from this Government, unfortunately, is dogmatism. Only today I had a letter in which the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
"I am contemplating the use of my powers of intervention under Section 23 of the Housing Act 1980 to take over the sale of council houses to tenants"
And in a letter to the local authority he said:
"I am therefore writing to give formal warning".
We talk about democracy in this country. Surely one precondition of democracy is that local authorities be permitted at least some powers. Now, by taking away this right, the Government are emasculating local democracy. When they go back into Opposition the Conservatives will start screaming again about local democracy. A commitment to democracy should not depend upon whether one is in Government or in Opposition. It should be consistent. Speeches by Conservative Members in the past about democracy have a very hollow ring.
Last week, when I spoke to the participants in the people's march I mentioned that I had been along to the local library and had been looking at some words which have fallen into disuse and abeyance because they are no longer felt to be necessary: belswagger, dundigrion, flayflint, to turdefy, widdershins, wimble and palaimolops—which sounds vulgar but refers to one who cannot be taught new tricks, a veteran in roguery. Will the words "factory" and "work" be as redundant as "palaimolops" in the near future? I do not wish to interrupt the conversations that the Leader of the House is having and I do not apply the word to him.
The House is listening to the president of the Walsall and district Gilbert and Sullivan society. I accepted that great honour after watching a musical last year, "The Pirates of Penzance" with two characters in it who attracted my attention. How could I refuse the offer when one was called "Mad Margaret" and the other was described as "confidential adviser to the greatest villain unhung". I am not referring to the Leader of the House.
Not all hon. Members will be heading for sunnier climes as we depart for the recess. Many work hard during the recess, which is often not understood. Our constituents' problems will carry on. Problems will remain in my constituency as in the other 634. They will preoccupy the thoughts of hon. Members of both sides of
464
the House in the next few months. I hope that after the recess the debate will be resumed not only between the two sides of the House but, I suppose, within the parties. I hope that the legislature will not be seen as superfluous, simply cheering or booing the Government's words, but will play its part in resuscitating the economy and creating the viable and vibrant economy, which we all, regardless of party affiliation, seek.
7.1 pm
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I rarely participate in these debates. After life in this pressure cooker, like most hon. Members I look forward to relief and to conversing with my wife and family. Hon. Members participate in the debate only because they see no other way to draw a vitally important issue to the Government's attention. When we return, the pressure of business in our normal programme will make it unlikely that we shall find time to discuss a specific subject.
There is a crisis in general practice in London, which has occurred only recently but which is growing. No one is paying attention to it. I drew attention to the problem in the House on 28 April, but, unfortunately, neither Front Bench took it up. As is the case with nursing, not enough importance is attached to general practice.
Before dealing with the problem of primary care, may I say how much I appreciated the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). When he is making representations to the Minister about the other Cinderella of the hospital service—nursing—will he draw special attention to the report on teaching nurses prepared recently by the Royal College of Nursing? There is a shortfall of 1,327 nursing teachers. There is no point in recruiting nurses unless there is someone to teach them. When the Leader of the House is reporting my hon. Friend's pertinent remarks, will he include that point, so that we may both have a reply from the Minister for Health?
Since the inception of the Health Service, all Governments have said that the first line of defence is the family doctor. We pay lip service to family doctors, but we do not co-ordinate the system. Neither the disastrous reorganisation by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) in 1973 nor the attempt to patch it up last year dealt with the service as an integral part of preventive medicine. We should be keeping people out of hospital instead of regarding general practice as a conveyer belt to get them there. My remarks on 28 April were given more point by two reports published only this week, which the Minister will be considering and doubtless making a statement on. I should like more time for debate than that.
The report by the London planning consortium reveals that the area worst off for doctors is London. About 75 per cent. of general practice premises do not have adequate waiting rooms, lavatories or heating, so part of the Health Service is more like a slum, which is a disgrace in a civilised community. The problem does not apply in all areas of London. Mayfair and Kensington are one thing, but I represent the inner city area of Willesden in the London borough of Brent, which has all the problems of such an area.
We cannot attract general practitioners because of the tremendous cost of housing and the difficulty of access using the commuters arteries such as the North Circular, the M1 and the A4. Recruitment of doctors is insufficient to replace those who move on or retire. One out of eight

465
general practitioners in the area is over 65. I am pleased that they are still working. I do not know what would happen if they all suddenly decided to retire, but, unfortunately, they cannot live for ever. If the service is not to break down we must have more general practitioners coming to inner city areas. If it broke down, the already overcrowded waiting list for referral to hospitals would increase. More people would become ill because they did not have treatment early enough. For example, more people are cured of cancer than die from it. The answer is early diagnosis, and that is where a good general practitioner comes in. People should not have to wait until a lump or bump develops before being referred to an outpatients department. It would probably then be too late.
The Government must take the problem seriously. General practice should not be looked on as a minor area, although, more people seem concerned about hospitals. We do not think of the NHS as a health service but as an illness service. We send people to hospital to be patched up after they are ill. We shall make an inroad into the problem of health care this decade only if we take action on the first line of defence—the general practitioner.
We also need to organise more ancillary services. In the next few weeks, the Minister for Health will be making a judgment on another report that came out only this week on the areas to be covered by the new district health authorities. In most areas, and mine in particular, coterminosity has been achieved by the social services department. We cannot divide the care of a person over 60 into two sectors—the DHSS and the NHS. Equally, it must be an overall consideration whether to accommodate elderly people in a geriatric ward, a part III home or warden assisted accommodation. Those problems are indivisible.
I know that the Leader of the House will not call us back on Bank Holiday Monday but if he wishes to call us back on any other day I shall be happy to join the Secretary of State for Social Services in discussing the problems. I ask him to take me seriously, to ask for a statement at an early opportunity, to meet the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council and to consider what is happening in the family practitioner committees, which have remained moribund for about 30 years, so that we begin to work towards preventing illness rather than curing it.
7.10 pm
Mr. John Silkin: If all the debates on all the important subjects that have been called for this afternoon by hon. Members on both sides of the House were miraculously granted by a stingy Government, so far from our adjourning or postponing the recess, we would not have a Whitsun Recess and probably the long recess in the summer would also be in jeopardy. Fortunately, very few hon. Members have suggested that we should go that far. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), if I heard him correctly, threatened to oppose, as I suspected from his speech, by voting against the motion, but as he departed after his speech I do not know whether that was accurate.
So many topics have been raised that I can briefly touch on only some of them. I reserve my fire and the main purport of my speech for two main subjects. My hon. Friends the Members for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) and Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) came together in what I thought was an admirable disclosure of what is happening
466
in the National Health Service—one speaking about nurses and the lack of recruitment due to shortage of pay, and the other speaking about the lack of teachers and the crisis in the general practitioner service in London.
It is interesting to note that the Government are not cutting public expenditure. That has been admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Ministers and the Prime Minister herself. They are switching public expenditure. For example, in the National Health Service there is enough money to reinstate private beds, more even than when Barbara Castle abolished them. There are more private beds now than there were then. There is more money for that but not money to improve the Health Service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) mentioned the money available to tart up council houses for sale in his constituency. But apparently there is no money available for the necessary house building and repair that is required in his constituency, in mine and in everyone else's. Those are points that we must bear in mind, even if we decide, as we will, to allow the motion to go through unopposed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) raised the matter of the sale of the Royal ordnance factories. That is part of a process of destruction of important and vital parts of our industry and economy. It is expenditure on the wrong basis because we shall sell instruments that could be used to create work, industry and competitiveness. Naturally, we sell them at knock-out prices, or at least the Government will. That is equally to be deplored.
Of all the bad luck, the one speech that I was, unfortunately, not able to hear, as I was called out at the time, was that of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). He referred to the tragic fire in my constituency two doors away from my party headquarters. Not only have I an interest in the subject but a deep interest in what he described. I agree with everything he said, as it was reported to me. The chamber of the GLC is not the proper place for conducting an inquiry into the deaths of 13 young people, whatever may have caused those deaths and whatever people may think. People jump to conclusions. The chamber of the GLC does not have the right atmosphere and is not the place for such inquiries. The inquiry should have been held in a court which has an atmosphere conducive to a proper survey and inquiry. I know that the Leader of the House is always obliging and that when he says that he will tell his right hon. Friends, I am sure that he does. On this occasion I hope that he will not just tell his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary but will buttonhole him, as I shall do. We must do something about the conduct of inquests.
The crowner, of whom we read in Shakespeare—I assume that it started in Elizabethan times, although it may have started earlier—conducted inquiries into local deaths, which everyone probably knew about. That has continued right through to our time. A doctor or even a solicitor—that is my profession so I am entitled to say that I do not think it is the most suitable basis for holding an inquiry—is not the person to deal with sensitive inquiries. Some may be dealt with in that way.
This case and many other cases where death is being investigated and where there is an important and sensitive issue is not the sort of case that should be given to a doctor to conduct. I do not attach blame to him but with the best will in the world the coroner in this case was out of his

467
league. A man who can hear day after day witness after witness and, as the hon. Gentleman said, not take a note is not dealing with a subject with which he should be dealing. The Leader of the House must talk with the Home Secretary to see whether both sides of the House can reach a better basis for dealing with inquiries of that sort in the future.
I said that there were two problems with which I wanted to deal rather more extensively than I have dealt with the others because they are immediate and topical. In one instance a number of hon. Gentleman on both sides of the House are involved. The first is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who spoke about having a debate on Northern Ireland. Approaching the subject for all of us is an extremely sensitive, delicate and difficult thing to do. It is difficult because it is tragic. We are not involved. The Leader of the House was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and must know a good deal more about it than most of us. Most hon. Members, myself included, look at what we believe to be the appalling tragic, needless loss of life on both sides of the religious divide. It horrifies us. Obviously we want to see it come to an end. It is easy to want to see it come to an end.
If a debate could solve Northern Ireland's problems, let us have a debate straight away. But it would not. A great deal of study will. I hope that much study is being done by the Government. It is being done in my party. I say this seriously and not in a party spirit. Somehow we have to solve the problem, and solve it as quickly as possible. If I am accused, as I shall be, of not being definite and fudging the issue, that is because it is a problem that so easily lends itself to that treatment. I wish I knew the answer to it. I only know that perhaps between us we do not have much time left in which to answer it. I want it to be answered quickly.
My hon. Friend said that it was necessary for the people of Ulster, of the United Kingdom and of the Rupublic of Ireland to agree. I accept that, and that is why I reject the rather ingenuous suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Devonport that we should throw the problem into the lap of the Commission in Brussels to solve it. If it can be solved north and south of the border, what is the point of bringing in the Commission or the EEC generally?
The right hon. Gentleman, who is a former Foreign Secretary, prayed in aid that the EEC had had policies on Cyprus and the Middle East. I do not regard its results so far as being so dynamic that we should throw the problem in Ireland to the Community. In addition, if we are talking about divided areas, I have not noticed that the EEC has been so remarkably astute in solving the problem in Belgium where the Flemish and the Walloon people are dwelling in some degree of hostility. I accept that the way forward must be by agreement between us and the Republic of Ireland. I think that in our hearts we all accept that and that, at least, is a hopeful sign.
I mention the EEC because the right hon. Member for Devonport referred to it. But so did a number of my hon. Friends, and rather strikingly. I shall miss the cheerful face of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) when I visit the Leader of the House for the discussions that do not take place, but the hon. Gentleman referred to the problems of the decline of the motor industry in the West Midlands and that relates strangely,
468
but directly, to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), who spoke about the EEC and steel.
Whether our joining the EEC was a major contributory factor to the decline of British industry, as my hon. Friends and I claim—though I make no strong point of it at this hour—there is no doubt that our membership prevents us from solving the problem. The Government are doing their damndest, if rather late in the day, to put money into the steel industry so that we retain that industry and are saying, as we have been saying for a couple of years, "Perhaps the steel industry will recover. Let us have the resources to deal with that", but the Commission says "You cannot have the money. We are against subsidies to industry, even when they may mean saving an industry in your country".
That is the first penalty of membership of the EEC. The second was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) in his interesting and moving speech. With his athletic background, he is more capable than I, or even the Bishop of Lichfield, for all I know, of walking that six miles. My hon. Friend referred to the decline of industry in the West Midlands and the need for import controls. But we cannot impose such controls against EEC countries. We can impose them against Japan, but sometimes we think that Japan and Japanese exports are the whole problem. They are not. The real difficulties in cars, tyres, steel and coal arise from the buccaneering free trade basis of the EEC.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) made an interesting speech in which there was an interesting intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). My right hon. Friend spoke of what I and most other hon. Members regard as a scandalous disregard of the code of industrial relations. We are always told during Prime Minister's Question Time that one of the great achievements of the Government is how markedly industrial relations have improved.
Mr Lawrence: They have.
Mr Silkin: Not, apparently, in Openshaw or Norwich. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) should get together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South after the debate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) made, as always, an important and moving speech and brought in not only the former Minister for the disabled, but the right hon. Member for Devonport, who is a former Minister of State at the DHSS. My right hon. Friend referred to the World Health Assembly and the new marketing code for baby foods. Anyone who has read anything about that subject knows that it looks like exploitation of underdeveloped countries by those seeking to sell baby food without a code. That has been a scandal. I hope that the Leader of the House will reassure my right hon. Friend and the House that the Government hold that matter dear to their heart and will do something about it.
On that universal note of agreement, I give the Leader of the House the satisfaction of knowing that we shall not oppose the motion.
7.27 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): There has been slightly more reluctance than I had expected to come to a conclusion about next week's recess, but important issues have been raised in the debate and I shall refer briefly to most of them.
I start with Northern Ireland, which was referred to by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), whose comments I appreciate. It is difficult to arrange debates on Northern Ireland. Much time is spent on Northern Ireland business, but general debates are not easy to fit in at the appropriate time.
The right hon. Member for Devonport criticised us for not taking a fresh political initiative. He said that there had not been such an initiative since 1974, though he praised the dramatic initiative taken by the Conservative Government in 1973, when I was Secretary of State, at the time of Sunningdale and the power-sharing executive.
There were no initiatives during the lifetime of the previous Labour Government, but this Government took a positive political initiative in 1979. It lasted for a year and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had countless conversations with the political parties in the Province. In the end, it came to nothing, but it was a political initiative. We regretted that politicians in Northern Ireland did not feel able to reach a greater degree of accord.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has taken an initiative with the Republic of Ireland and has had conversations with the Taoiseach. Relationships have been greatly improved in regard to security matters and trying to reach new proposals and ideas to help solve the problem. It should be noted that 1980 was a year of progress. We have had a difficult time in recent weeks and months, but 1980 was a year of improvement.
The right hon. Member for Devonport (Dr. Owen)—I am sorry he is not present—passed strictures on the Government for not taking an initiative. I do not believe that these strictures are justified. It is easy to throw out ideas. One was proposed only a day or two ago involving the United Nations. All hon. Members who have commented on that proposal see real difficulties in it. The right hon. Gentleman's own proposal was to bring in the European Economic Community. I am doubtful whether that suggestion could make any significant contribution to the solution of a problem which is very specialised. I shall not spend more time upon it this evening.
I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) for the kind remarks that he addressed to me. It is really, however, for me to thank him for what he has done during the past two years. What he decided to do last week is undoubtedly my loss. I thank him for all the support that he gave me.
My hon. Friend raised an important matter about which he is very knowledgable, namely, the car and engineering industries in the West Midlands. He expressed fears about the Japanese spinning out their talks and sought reassurance for component makers and assemblers. That was a reasonable request. As he knows, Nissan is currently engaged in a feasibility study in either a development area or a special development area. That feasibility study should be complete within the next month. Nissan is then expected to formulate its detailed plans which it will discuss with the Government. I am afraid that this means that there cannot be an early statement. However, I assure
470
My hon. Friend that the proposal is not being allowed to stagnate, as he suggested might be the case. We are watching the situation carefully.
My hon. Friend also referred to recent moves within the European Community on trade relations. He is aware, I am sure, that the Council of Ministers has called for an undertaking by the Japanese that there should be no diversion of Japanese cars to the Community following the United States-Japanese arrangements. The Government support this statement and the reference to the problem of imports concentrated in sensitive sectors. I understand that the Commission has been instructed to commence discussions with the Japanese. This is, therefore, a very live issue.
I also assure my hon. Friend that the Government are very conscious of the need for inward investment as well as investment from our own resources. There is no doubt that the United Kingdom has many assets and that it is a country well suited in many ways to inward investment. We shall exploit this situation as hard as possible. Nissan is a good example. We shall keep the matter very closely in mind.
The issue of rates was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) who described the unfairness of the system. I do not think that what he says is a matter of controversy. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) raised the matter of the industrial burden with the adverse consequences for the business world and the contribution to unemployment. My hon. Friend put forward a number of constructive ideas that will be studied carefully by the Government. There are also worries about rates among domestic ratepayers not least concerning the special levies that are likely to be raised in certain local authority areas, especially those won by the Labour Party.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) asked for an assurance that alternatives were being examined. I can give that assurance. Work started some time ago and is continuing. I cannot say at this stage whether we shall publish a consultative document. 'We are, however, considering the idea in view of the fact that it is likely to be useful.
It is because the Government are so concerned about the unfairness of the rates and the effect on various arts of the community and various interests that we are studying the matter actively with the determination, in the end, to change it. This has long been a commitment of our party and work is in hand.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooky) raised the matter of the British Steel Corporation and the attitude of the European Community to our plans to assist that industry. The Commission has not rejected our proposals for providing finance for the British Steel Corporation. It has agreed to Government financing of redundancy and closure payments. It has decided, however, to make an investigation of other aspects of the corporate plan and the provision of Government finance. Similar action has been taken in relation to other countries, for example, Luxembourg and Belgium. We supported fully the decision that the Commission took and welcome the fact that it seeks to apply firmly the decision on State aids for steel adopted in February 1980.
We are confident that the Commission will agree eventually but we are sure it is right that the proposal, like proposals of a similar kind in other countries, should be properly scrutinised.

471
I cannot say much about the factory closure to which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) referred. The right hon. Gentleman asked if I would convey the substance of his remarks to the appropriate Minister. I give an undertaking to do so.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) was good enough to send me a note explaining that he would not be able to stay for the conclusion of the debate. The position is that the World Health Organisation's proposed code on marketing has been a matter of close interest to the Government. This was stated clearly by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security in an Adjournment debate on 26 February. The United Kingdom delegation to the World Health Assembly was briefed to support the code's adoption as a recommendation to member States. I very much appreciate the warm tribute that the right hon. Gentleman paid to my hon. Friend.
On the issue of the pay of hon. Members raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, I remind him of the remarks of the Prime Minister at Question Time today. The House will be considering motions relating to pay on the Friday of the week we return after the recess, as I announced this afternoon. There are strong arguments why, I believe, the decision that the Government took was right. I shall be presenting those arguments on that occasion.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) raised the important matter of nurses' pay. The hon. Gentleman drew a comparison with what has been done for the Armed Forces and the police. He referred rightly to the great worth of the nursing profession. That is not disputed. I remind him that my party entered into a specific commitment in the case of the Armed Forces and the police. We believed that such a commitment was in the national interest. That commitment was given in the last Parliament. We have adhered to it. To single out the Armed Forces and the police in no way implies that the nurses or any other group of people are unimportant. The negotiations for pay have to go through the normal procedure. I understand that the nurses and midwives Whitley Council has engaged in some preliminary discussions but that detailed negotiations have not yet begun. The next meeting, I believe, will take place on 2 June when the process will begin. I shall, however, convey the views of the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) referred to the family doctor service, especially in London. This is obviously an important matter. It is known that there are problems in the Health Service. I will only say tonight that I shall refer the matter, that he has raised to the Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) referred to law and order, terrorism, mugging, vandalism and the rest. My hon. Friend was good enough to applaud the Home Secretary's efforts to ease the load on prisons. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gives a great deal of time to consideration of all aspects of upholding the law and how this can be done more effectively. The Government, under his guidance, have given both material and moral support to the police. The police today are 6,000 more numerous than two years ago. That does not exactly solve the problem but it makes a substantial contribution to it.
472
My hon. Friend referred to stopping or reducing violence. That is not a matter for the police alone. The responsibility belongs to the whole community. Everybody has a part to play. Unless and until that is better understood and we recognise that we cannot rely on the police alone, we shall not get on top of the problem. We know that there are reasons why some people are reluctant to play their part—but play their part they must.
I appreciate that there is a policy difference between myself and the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) on the general question of selling council houses. The local authorities must decide their own policies in the context of legislation. If the council referred to by the hon. Gentleman succeeds in disposing of the houses when they are improved it will be able to augment its housing investment programme by the full amount of the capital receipts from the sales. It will be able to use the resources, if it so decides, to meet what it judges to be the most urgent housing needs in the borough.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred to the important problem of the Middle East. I do not wish to make a long comment on that. I can assure him that the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary are doing nothing to undermine the security of Israel. They are bending their efforts, with other allies and partners, to work for peace and to make a positive contribution to establishing peace in the Middle East.
I agree with what the right hon. Member for Deptford said about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). His remarks were constructive. There is concern about the way in which the inquest was conducted—perhaps not about the individual circumstances but of the general circumstances surrounding it. I assure my hon. Friend that what he said, and other aspects will be considered.
The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to Royal ordnance factories. For over 18 months an examination has been made of policy options, one of which is the privatisation of the ordnance factories. I know something about them because I was once Secretary of State for Defence. They are extremely well-run and efficient. They are extremely useful to us. Nobody is criticising them in any sense. They are probably the most efficient factories and shops for producing weapons anywhere in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, in 1979 we embarked on an examination of other possibilities and other ways of running them. The Secretary of State for Defence will, in due course, make a statement to the House announcing his conclusions. No decisions have been taken.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) raised a number of important points about industry and job opportunities. One of the most worrying features of today's circumstances is the number of young people out of work. We have given high priority to the youth opportunities programme. It is public knowledge that we are looking at that again to see how we can improve and extend it. It is, perhaps, more important than anything else to try to find work or work opportunities for young people. We regard that as being of the greatest importance, as we do the resuscitation of the economy. The whole world is in deep recession. We want to revive the economy as soon as circumstances permit.
Dr.Owen: I apologise in that I was not in the Chamber when the right hon. Gentleman mentioned my speech. I tried to make arrangements to be here but I was outside the House. I meant no discourtesy.
Mr Pym: I began with the subject of Northern Ireland. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remark.
The happiest note on which to conclude is that made by the hon. Member for Brent, South who said that he was looking forward to the adjournment so that he could spend some time with his wife and family. That might apply to many other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and I hope that the House will agree to the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House at its rising to-morrow do adjourn till Monday 1 June.

Broadcasting
Relevant document: Draft of a Royal Charter for the continuance of the British Broadcasting Corporation (Cmnd. 8232.]
7.45 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move,
That the Licence and Agreement between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the British Broadcasting Corporation (Cmnd. 8233), dated 2 April 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 April, be approved.
The BBC's licence and agreement is the instrument by which I license the corporation under section 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 to use wireless telegraphy for the purposes of its broadcasting services and for related purposes. The licence and agreement deals with a number of other matters, including the financing of the BBC's external services by grant-in-aid. Because of this, and because the licence and agreement has the character of an agreement, it is a contract which, under Standing Order No. 96, is not binding until it has been approved by a resolution of this House. The licence and agreement which is now before the House was concluded on 2 April and I am this evening inviting the House to approve it.
The instrument which continues the existence of the BBC as a body corporate and regulates its constitution is the corporation's Royal charter. As is customary for these occasions, I have laid before the House the draft of the Royal charter for the continuance of the corporation. for which I intend to apply. The draft charter will extend the life of the BBC from 31 July this year, when under the present charter it expires, until 31 December 1996. This is the date to which last Session's Broadcasting Act extended the life of the Independent Broadcasting Authority.
There are two principal themes which I should like to address in my remarks this evening—that of continuity and that of change. There is rather more to the draft charter and licence and agreement than simply the extension of the life of the BBC for another 15 years. My aim in the new documents has been to preserve the essential character of the BBC as a public corporation which is at the same time independent in the conduct of its undertaking and accountable to Parliament and to the public for the services which it provides.
The draft Charter and the licence and agreement therefore continue unaltered the corporation's main functions and the method of appointment of the governors, and of the national broadcasting councils. They preserve unaltered the main progamme objectives—information, education and entertainment—and the obligation to different parts of the country. They preserve the programme standards which the corporation has to apply. And they make no change in the relationship between the BBC and the Government.
I think that it would be appropriate for me to take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's commitment to the licence fee as a method of financing the BBC's domestic services. Hon. Members will recall that this is in line with the recommendations of the Annan committee on the future of broadcasting. This element of continuity is reflected in the licence and agreement for which I am seeking the House's approval.
In November 1979, when I announced the last licence fee increases I made it clear that the new fees would have

475
to last for at least two years. I have no intention of increasing the fees before that two-year period has expired. Hon. Members will be aware that the BBC is already preparing its case for an increase in the licence fees, although it has not yet made any formal application to me. Hon. Members will also be aware that the corporation has proposed the establishment of an independent commission which would stand apart from the Government and provide an impartial assessment of any claim by the corporation for an increase in the licence fees. That proposal is under consideration, but I must make it clear to the House that the responsibility for fixing the level of the licence fees is one which Parliament has placed on the Home Secretary and which he cannot relinquish. I recognise that I have a duty to do all that I can ensure that the BBC is adequately funded. I also have a duty, however, towards the licence fee payer, and to take account of the resources that are available to the country at a time when the Government are working to restore the economy.
I do not intend to deal this evening with all of the amendments to the draft charter and the new licence and agreement. Before coming to the more important changes, I would single out for brief mention those amendments to the draft charter which acknowledge the board of governors' public meetings held up and down the country to ascertain the views of the public on the services it provides, and also the amendments which recognise the local radio councils which the BBC has established in those areas where it is providing local radio services.
I should also mention that the new licence and agreement provides for the BBC's contribution towards the costs of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Last Session's Broadcasting Act made corresponding provisions for the contributions from the independent side. I take this opportunity to draw Hon. Members' attention to the fact that I have now made the order which brings the remaining Broadcasting Complaints Commission provisions of the Act into force with effect from 1 June. And I announced earlier today the names of the four people who, with Lady Pike of Melton as chairman, will be the members of the new commission.
Mr Roy Hattersley: I am sorry to disturb the Home Secretary in his speech. Will he tell us who the the nominees are?
Mr. Whitelaw: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, if through some oversight he has not been informed of the nominees for the new commission. The members will be Lady Pike of Melton, as chairman, Professor Carberry, Mr. Terry Parry, Mr. Hardiman Scott and Sir Thomas Skyrme.
I shall concentrate in the remainder of my speech on what I regard as the three most important changes that have been made in the new documents—those concerning the national broadcasting council for Northern Ireland; those concerning the way in which the corporation's programme obligations are set out; and, finally, those concerning technological change, especially the use of satellites.
Under the existing charter the corporation is required to establish national broadcasting councils for Scotland and Wales. The chairmen of these councils are the national governors for Scotland and Wales and their members are selected for appointment by the corporation by a panel of
476
the BBC's general advisory council. The panel is nominated by the general advisory council. The main function of the national broadcasting councils is to control the policy and content of BBC programmes intended primarily for reception in these countries. For Northern Ireland there is an advisory committee which the corporation has appointed under its general powers to establish such committees but no national broadcasting council, though the existing charter enables the Government to direct the BBC to establish such a council for Northern Ireland. If it were to do so, the panel of the general advisory council charged with selecting members of national broadcasting councils would be required to make its selection for the Northern Ireland national council from a panel of persons nominated by the Government.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I, and indeed the board of governors of the BBC, believe that there should be a broadcasting council for Northern Ireland; that this council should be established in the same way as the Scottish and Welsh councils, that is on the face of the new charter rather than by means of a Government direction to the BBC; and that it should be appointed in the same way as the Scottish and Welsh broadcasting councils. Article 10 of the new draft charter provides accordingly.
I turn now to the changes in the new documents which concern the location of the corporation's programme obligations. As the debates last Session on what is now the Broadcasting Act, especially the debates in another place show, there is continuing concern about programme standards, especially in relation to the portrayal of sex and violence. Issues of that sort are legitimate matters of public debate, though, as the Minister with special responsibility for broadcasting policy, this is a debate in which, when it comes to certain programmes, it is not appropriate for me to participate.
I am entitled to express the view, however, that continuing public debate about programme standards and content is fundamentally healthy for it enables the broadcasting authorities, as trustees of the public interest in broadcasting, to perform their functions.
Mr Nigel Forman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way that members of the public, who are legitimately concerned about these matters, can make their views known and have some effect on the BBC is to write to producers and those directly responsible for programmes rather than to politicians?
Mr. Whitelaw: It is important that members of the general public who wish to complain should do so in future to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, or direct to the BBC. The BBC takes great account of those who complain and the number of complaints that it receives. When people complain to me, I consistently say "You should write to the BBC and complain because that is by far the best way to make your feelings known".
Mr Clement Freud: Will the Home Secretary explain the difference, once the commission is established, between a complaint sent to the BBC and a complaint to the commission? Surely they are one and the same thing.
Mr Whitelaw: I shall obtain the answer to that question and ask the Minister who is to reply to answer it.
This debate needs to be based on a clear recognition that the responsibility for deciding what is and what is not

477
broadcast resides with the broadcasting authorities, and also on the basis of an informed understanding of the broadcasting authorities' obligation in that area—not least because when one looks at their obligations one realises how large and complex is the responsibility which has been placed on them. Some of the BBC's obligations concerning programme content and standards are at present to be found in the licence and agreement itself, for example, the obligation to broadcast a daily account of parliamentary proceedings. Other obligations are set out in a ministerial prescription under clause 13(4) of the licence and agreement. These require the corporation to refrain from broadcasting its own views on current affairs and matters of public policy and from using subliminal broadcasting techniques.
The corporation's remaining obligations—for example, that programmes should maintain a high general standard and should not offend against good taste or decency or be likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder or be offensive to public feeling; and that controversial subjects should be treated with due impartiality—exist by virtue of a letter of 1964 from the then chairman of the corporation, Lord Normanbrook, to the then Postmaster-General. The assurances in that letter are "noted" in the ministerial prescription to which I have referred.
I believe, and the board of governors agrees, that while only one change is needed in the essential nature of these obligations and no change is required in the way in which they have been imposed—or, indeed, in the case of the obligations in the Normanbrook letter, self-imposed—it would be desirable if these obligations were more visible and more closely associated with the corporation's principal constitutional documents.
The obligations which are to be found in the current licence and agreement remain in the new instrument unaltered. The obligations which are now imposed in the ministerial prescription under clause 13(4) of the licence and agreement, however, have been incorporated as clause 13(6) and (7) of the new licence and agreement. One of these has been amended in substance. Hitherto the BBC has been required to refrain from broadcasting expressions of its owm views on current affairs or public policy, except in broadcasts which consist of parliamentary or local govenment proceedings. Until the Broadcasting Act of the previous Session the IBA was under the same obligation, but the Act amended the obligation so that it did not apply to expressions of the authority's views on broadcasting issues. A corresponding change has been made in clause 13(7) of the new BBC licence and agreement.
Finally, the obligations in the 1964 Normanbrook letter were reaffirmed in a resolution of the board of governors last January, and this resolution has been incorporated as an annex to the licence and agreement. In other words, instead of, as in the words of the ministerial prescription in which the assurances in this letter are noted, "relying" on the Normanbrook letter, the assurances are now to be found at the end of the licence and agreement. However, there is no change to the substance of the obligations themselves.
These changes both preserve the character of the BBC's programme obligations and at the same time establish them more visibly as the important aspect, which they undoubtedly are, of the responsibilities of the board of governors and, indeed, of public service broadcasting in this country.
478
I turn now to those changes in the draft charter and the licence and agreement which concern recent and current technological developments, and open up the possiblity, subject to important limitations and safeguards, of the BBC engaging in activities within or on the fringe of traditional broadcasting which take advantage of these developments.
When the current charter and licence and agreement were drafted, in 1964 and 1969 respectively—it should be borne in mind that they were originally intended to last only until 1976—many of these advances were only dimly foreseen. The current instruments were drafted, for example, in terms of broadcasting services in sound or in visual images with sound, and they did not anticipate, for example, teletext—a system, incidentally, which both the BBC and the IBA developed and of which both they and we can be justly proud. One of the changes which has been made to the draft charter and the licence and agreement is to recognise the possibility of broadcasting in visual images only, and thereby to regularise the position of the BBC's Ceefax teletext service. The House will recall that last Session's Broadcasting Act regularised the position of the IBA's Oracle teletext service.
Technology has also overtaken the existing documents in relation to satellites. The present charter authorises the BBC to establish wireless telegraphy stations inside and outside the United Kingdom, but it is stretching the meaning of these words somewhat to suppose that "outside the United Kingdom" includes space. The draft charter which I have laid before the House contemplates the possibility of the BBC acquiring a space transmitting facility, but this would be subject to the Home Secretary's consent and to any conditions which might be imposed.
As hon. Members will be aware, I published last Tuesday a report of the study I had initiated last year of the options for, and the implications of, direct broadcasting by satellite in the United Kingdom. In the foreword to this report, I have given an indication of the Government's approach to the question of direct broadcasting by satellite. We believe that a positive approach is the right one, and we are willing to consider the possibility of an early start, in the mid-1980s, with perhaps two television channels broadcast into the home by satellite. I have invited comments on the report, and on the indication I have given of the Government's attitude, by the end of July. In the light of comments, I hope that we shall be able to see more clearly whether there is sufficient interest in the possibility of direct broadcasting by satellite and whether this possibility might be taken forward in a way which is consistent with our existing broadcasting arrangements.
This latter condition is important. Last Session the House and another place devoted a good deal of time to, and endorsed, the continuity of the essential features of our broadcasting arrangements and their adaptation for the purposes of the fourth channel. We must not lose sight of the fact that, even if satellite broadcasting comes, for many years ahead the great majority of the public will continue to rely entirely on the existing arrangements and the existing broadcasting institutions for their television and radio services. However, our broadcasting arrangements must not be—and are not—inflexible. This is why the Government's approach to the question of satellite broadcasting is a positive one. I look forward to receiving comments on the report from both within and outside the House.
Mr. Philip Whitehead: The licence and agreement includes a phrase about operations in space. Will that allow, without further amendment, the BBC to own as well as to operate the facilities of direct satellite broadcasting?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am coming to the obligations as they are set out in the licence and agreement. If I do not cover the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall ensure that it is responded to later in the debate.
The report indicates that the BBC has put forward proposals for two services of direct broadcasting by satellite, one for a subscription service, and the other for a service consisting of the
"best of BBC1 and BBC2".
The corporation attaches great importance—as indeed I do—to the point that any subscription service which it might provide should not siphon off programme material from its existing television services. The corporation considers, however, that a subscription service of the kind it envisages not only would not reduce the quality of its existing television services but might benefit them, since the programmes made or acquired for the subscription service would later be available for transmission on the existing services. The corporation has also stressed that in its view any subscription service which it might provide should not be financed from the revenue from the television licence fee.
I considered that it would be right, without prejudice to the decisions which may be reached on direct broadcasting by satellite, to include in the draft charter and in the new licence and agreement provisions which would permit direct satellite broadcasting services of the kind that the BBC has proposed to be authorised.
However, any involvement of the BBC in direct broadcasting by satellite, and any subscription element in any new service which might be authorised, would require the Home Secretary's approval and would be subject to any conditions which he might impose. Furthermore, a subscription service could not constitute any charge on the licence fee revenue, though there is a power in the licence and agreement for the Home Secretary to waive this provision subject to such terms and conditions as might be appropriate, for example, to enable licence fee revenue to be used to assist in the establishment of a subscription service. Thus, the draft charter and the new licence and agreement might be said to unbolt the door to BBC involvement in satellite broadcasting, but they do not open the door. I consider this to be a sensible contingency approach at this stage, and I commend the relevant changes in the new documents to the House with the assurance that there is no question of the BBC or any other organisation, being authorised to embark on direct broadcasting by satellite without full consideration of the matter in this House.
I hope that the explanation I have given this evening of the main elements of continuity and change in the BBC's constitutional documents which are before the House will afford a basis on which the House can consider them, and proceed in due course to approve the licence and agreement. I do not think anyone will contest the importance of these documents, which will be the principal governing instruments which will continue the existence of the BBC until only four years short of the end of the century. Continuity is important, but flexibility, so that change can be accommodated, is also important. I
480
believe that the draft charter and the new licence and agreement provide both, and I commend the documents to the House.
8.11 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I begin with a direct declaration of interest. I write every week for The Listener magazine, produced by the BBC.
The presentation of the licence and agreement and of the draft Royal charter which accompanies it—the documents for the continuation of the BBC—provides the House with an opportunity, and perhaps creates for it a duty, to debate the powers, the structure, the performance and the finance of the BBC. I suspect that most of us take up that task from a position of open bias in favour of the BBC. That is my position. I am part of that generation which was brought up on Romany and Uncle Mac. That generation went on to be taught that Lord Reith's vision of a lofty educative, improving BBC was the ideal of public broadcasting. I still hold that view.
I believe that broadcasting should be judged by the standards set out by the BBC—set out by the assurances given by Lord Normanbrook to the Postmaster-General in 1964. Those assurances have since been repeated as a resolution of the BBC governors and are now added as an annex to the licence and agreement.
That annex speaks of the maintenance of high general standards, the provision of "a properly balanced service", response to the needs of different audiences and the treatment of controversial subjects "with due impartiality". I have no doubt that the BBC is, in general, highly successful in its attempts to discharge those tasks.
I have no hesitation in saying that no independent programme company in this country can compare with its performance in those four particulars. However, to say that is not to say that the corporation is either beyond criticism or beyond improvement. I offer some modest suggestions in both those directions from the position of a candid, yet affectionate, friend. It is in that spirit that I want to make some comments about the BBC's performance, its structure and its future. Those comments fall under four headings—the structure of the corporation as described or implied in article 3 of the draft Royal charter, the external services as described in clause 5 of the licence and agreement, the finance of the corporation as discussed in clause 16 of the licence and agreement, local broadcasting as referred to in article 11 of the charter and on numerous other occasions in both documents.
I make my comments on the basis of the four broadcasting principles laid down by the Annan report and now generally accepted by all who consider the future of broadcasting. Those four principles are editorial independence, public accountability and involvement, diversity and flexibility.
I shall refer first to the organisation of the BBC. There is and can be no doubt that the BBC enjoys a unique concentration of power—power to inform and power to influence. That is partly because of the number of families it reaches and partly because of the peculiar force of the medium by which it operates. I suspect that the BBC influences more people than do Lords Rothermere and Matthews and Mr. Rupert Murdoch added together. I do not suggest that the comparison should be taken much further than the ability to influence. The BBC struggles for standards and for an objectivity to which none of those gentlemen even aspires.

481
Despite those admirable qualities in the BBC's management and performance, the very size, importance and power of its abilities raise immediate questions about the propriety of a single corporation, a single board of governors and a single director-general controlling such a monolithic institution with such enormous powers.
It is not unfair to say that the Government have, in general terms, chosen to restrict the boundaries of public broadcasting. For example, I understand that the BBC could not apply for a cable television franchise. Inside the boundaries laid down by the Government, the Government are prepared to see the BBC's monolithic structure—I do not mean that as a pejorative term, but simply as a description of its unitary condition—remain unchallenged. My view is that perhaps the opposite conclusion is correct.
The BBC, or at least some form of public broadcasting, should be encouraged to enlarge its scope to move into new fields, but in doing so, it should also be encouraged to diversify the organisation with which it performs its many tasks. In general, the Annan report was devoted to the principles of diversity and pluralism. At the time of its publication, I was attracted to the proposals of the minority. However, it is not unfair to say that most of my colleagues in Government were not equally attracted to those proposals. The idea was that BBC television and radio should become separate organisations. I still feel an attraction to that proposal. Understanding as I do the substantial technical arguments which were advanced against it, I believe that the technical arguments can be much overstated. There are some potential economies of scale, but in the BBC there are also some potential diseconomies of size. In any event, a matter of principle is involved.
As the debate goes on, I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to give their opinions on how the BBC deals with specific matters of contention and political controversy. The real question is whether, a matter having been reported in a specific way, it is right for that specific report to appear on BBC 1 at 9 o'clock, BBC 2 at 10.45 pm and at 8 am the following morning on Radios 1, 2 and 3. Perhaps there is a simple issue of allowing more opinions to be expressed and for there to be more descriptions of the news, which are opinions, for there is no such thing as complete objectivity, by having a diversity of public broadcasting organisations.
Without wishing to be critical of the corporation in specific terms, its powers and size encourage the insensitivity—some would say imperviousness—to criticism that has characterised much of the public comment about it over the past 10 years. I know that this is an area of great complexity. All of us have our personal prejudices about individual programmes. For instance, I am smarting because of the decision to interrupt Sunday afternoon cricket—limited overs cricket, but nevertheless cricket—with motor racing and similar barbarities.
However, there is a distinction to be drawn between our individual criticisms of individual programmes and our feeling that the BBC is sometimes insufficiently sensitive to more generalised opinions about its performance. It should not bow in the direction of every wind that blows from the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association or anywhere else. It has been said that over the past 10 years the BBC has been marked by the growth of the machinery of self-justification. I suspect that it is less sensitive to criticism and less responsive to public opinion than a national broadcasting corporation should be.
482
The Minister will correct me if I am wrong. but I understand that the complaints procedure is restricted in the scope of the complaints that can be examined. I do not believe that the complaints procedure, the national broadcasting councils or the regional local advisory councils can, because of their structure and composition, provide adequate fresh air in the slightly exclusive corridors of Broadcasting House.
As my example of that, I take article 11(2) of the charter. As the Home Secretary told us, it formalises the new radio advisory councils for local radio. That article states:
"The function of local radio advisory councils shall be to advise the corporation on the policy and content of local sound programmes."
I wonder if those councils are capable of performing a task which they should perform—that of reporting to the BBC the growing concern about the nature of local broadcasting in Britain.
I confess that I am a recent convert to the extension of local radio, both in functional and geographical terms. At the time of the Annan report I doubted whether the extension of that area represented the best use of limited resources. However, I doubt it no more. Perhaps a realisation should have come to me earlier. The world in which we live is dominated by three potential sources of local information. The first of those sources of information is local newspaper monopolies of a single political complexion, which rely more and more on advertising, as opposed to news.
The second source is local commercial radio, which is often part-owned by the local newspaper monopolies. The third source is BBC local radio, which should 'De and was—but increasingly fails to be—concerned with local issues.
Mr Tim Rathbone: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has raised a query in my mind, and perhaps in the minds of other hon. Members?. He insinuated that because of their partial requirement to attract advertising local newspapers and local commercial radio stations are giving less than an objective report of the news, both locally and in terms of entertainment. I a m sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to leave that impression.
Mr Hattersley: That was not quite the impression that I wanted to leave. Perhaps I had better state the impression that I wanted to leave in categorical terms. I am rather more critical of those two media than the hon. Gentleman implies. Local newspaper monopolies are exclusively of one political persuasion, which must, in a democracy, be bad. Local newspapers are increasingly concerned with advertising. I am not saying that that influences their political judgment, but it influences their quality. We have seen a severe deterioration in the quality of local newspapers in the past 10 years. Perhaps, as a Member of Parliament for a Birmingham constituency, I might rashly be specific. The advertising content of the Birmingham Mail has continually increased over the past 10 years. Its treatment of serious news has deteriorated. Local radio, run by the BBC, should fill that gap.
I fear that local commercial radio will not fill that gap, because of its obligations to attract advertising revenue. My concern is that BBC local radio is not filling the gap adequately, not because of its judgment about standards—and certainly not because of any bias—but

483
because it is becoming less and less local in its presentation and content. At the end of the debate, I hope that the Minister will tell us for how many hours in a week, on average, local radios produce their own material. My information is that the figure has declined continually over the past five years. More and more stations take material from the national networks.
Paradoxically, and perhaps unwisely, the BBC has set up a special unit to produce material to be syndicated to local radio stations. The nationally syndicated material seems to me to be the antithesis of what local stations should be doing. Local radio should be more local. That explains my concern that the response that the BBC ought to be showing to the fears of its listeners is not being passed through either local advisory comittees or anywhere else.
On the specific issue of local broadcasting, I am sure that the BBC will say that money is at the root of the evil. I believe that Mr. Aubrey Singer called local radio the black hole of broadcasting, that is to say, the place into which money disappears. In the BBC, money disappears in a number of ways. Some of us fear that it will be dissipated in less worthy objectives than proper local radio.
One example is breakfast television. I confess my dislike in principle of the idea. That is a pure prejudice of no interest to the House. It is simply an autobiographical fact. I confess my personal prejudice against breakfast television, for exactly the reasons that the Home Secretary seems to be echoing. I understand, however, the Gresham's law of broadcasting politics, which begins with commercial television seeking revenue and often ends with the BBC having to make some approximation to the programmes that commercial television sets up for that purpose. Nevertheless, I believe that radiovision—at best a hybrid plant—should not be a high priority at times of financial stringency.
I turn to the financial position of the BBC. The BBC is making a bold and determined bid for a £50 licence. With great respect to the BBC, I suspect that the independent audit as an institution will almost invariably endorse whatever bold and determined bid the BBC makes at any given time. The Home Secretary of the day will have to decide whether he wants such an institution, which may occasionally argue on his side, but which I believe is more likely to support whatever the BBC believes to be necessary for appropriate programme extension.
The BBC, in its bold and determined bid reminds us publicly and continually that it is asking for less than 14p per day and that radio-television is a bargain at the price. In two senses, I have no doubt that the BBC is right to ask for a total revenue of about £50 per licence from subscribers. It has the virtue of being a round figure. I do not have the advantage of knowing the exact costing. The requirement may be for little less, but I suspect that a licence fee of about £50 is necessary. I believe that the BBC is also right to say that in one sense £1 per week, or a little less for all the services provided by the BBC would be extremely good value. Nevertheless, there is an undoubted problem in charging such an amount, if everyone is charged the same.
I know very well the argument against direct Government funding. I believe that it is sometimes overstated, and that sometimes the BBC establishment is
484
more anxious about the appearance of independence than about its reality. On balance, however, I do not want direct funding because I do not want the Treasury to examine the viability of specific stations, the cost effectiveness of maintaining orchestras or the appropriate cash limits for filming Shakespeare's histories. As all those things seem to me to be undesirable, I believe that the licence fee should be preserved.
I am reinforced in that view by what direct funding has done to overseas broadcasting. There has been the continual reduction in grant, the continual contradiction of programme errors, the abandonment of services—I am delighted to see the Home Secretary agreeing with this catalogue of misfortune—the cutback in capital expenditure and the relative decline of our services compared with those of the Soviet Union and the United States of America. They are all, I think, the direct result of reception of individual grant rather than any other form of payment, and I suspect that the Home Service would be subject to similar dangers were it to be financed by any other means than the licence.
But we are still left with the problem of the pensioners, the sick, the widowed and the unemployed. These are people for whom television is a particularly important service. For the old-age pensioners it is not a luxury but essential to their civilised and happy lives. These are people for whom £1 a week is a great deal of money. The Government have set their face against helping these people. The Government are wrong, and I hope that they will think again about the prospect of providing some assistance for them. If the Government feel unable to do that, they should not assume that the Opposition will support a licence fee increase which does not provide some specific help for the people who most need it.
I do not believe that it can be financed by the BBC. A subsidy of £150 million from the corporation for these groups would be a wholly unreasonable burden for the BBC to carry. It is the Government's obligation, the Government must face it, and unless they do they must not assume that my hon. Friends will support whatever increase they determine at the end of the two years. Even if the Government make that move, and even if there is unanimity—or something like it—between us about the increased fee, I hope that the increased fee will be set against specific objectives which the BBC is expected to fulfil.
The BBC has set itself six objectives. Four of them are the earlier evening start on BBC2, the afternoon programmes on BBC 1, later broadcasting on all television channels, and extended VHF coverage. I regard all those four as being highly desirable.
The other two are the expansion of home-produced drama at the expense of American imports, and an increase in local radio stations from 22 to 36. I regard those two objectives as essential. I hope that if an increase comes about it will be clearly linked to those objectives. I hope that the Home Secretary will make clear that the extra revenue—much sought after and much needed—will not be used for other ideas of grandiose conception but uncertain value.
I hope that nothing I have said to the House leaves it with the impression that I think that the BBC is incapable of improvement. On the other hand, I hope that nothing I have said suggests that it is anything other than the institution that I described in my opening paragraph—the broadcasting authority which fulfills its functions better

485
than any other broadcasting authority in the world. While we talk about the changes that might come about, it is essential that hon. Members on each side of the House should express that opinion, and make clear that we look forward to the prosperous continuation of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
8.33 pm
Mr. Peter Griffiths: I am sure that hon. Members on each side of the House would wish to give a warm welcome to the general principle of the continuation and updating of the charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation which, whatever weaknesses it may exhibit from time to time, is still the standard by which broadcasting is measured not only in this country but throughout the world. Nevertheless, I feel that the opportunity provided by the new charter has not been taken to deal with two particular aspects which are of special concern to me and to my constituents.
I welcome the comments that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made earlier about the financing of the BBC and about the improvement of the machinery for dealing with complaints from the public. We have missed an opportunity here to spell out the requirements of the public in these two areas, when they could have been established much more clearly. First, I am, of course, very much in favour of the improvement in opportunities for the public to express their views, and particularly, no doubt, their complaints, about BBC programmes. Nevertheless, it is important somewhere to enshrine a recognition of the view that early evening and Sunday programmes should be different, in quality and content, from those broadcast at other times. It is perfectly desirable to state that as a principle rather than leave it to the good offices of the directors of the BBC.
Whenever I have had cause to complain about programmes, they have almost always been programmes broadcast between 7 and 9 o'clock in the evening or on Sundays. I do not think that the public wish to take a narrow view of what broadcasting should contain. They merely want a clear recognition of the particular qualities of the family viewing period and of Sunday broadcasts.
On the funding of the BBC, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook spoke as though the only alternatives were an increase in the licence fee and a direct payment from the Government. That is certainly not so. There are other options. The most important is that the BBC should seek to increase its revenue by providing commercial services for which people are willing to pay.
Although I may not carry my right hon. and hon. Friends with me, I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the difficulty faced by pensioners, the disabled and others in paying the licence fee. This matter has been discussed in the House and I will not develop it tonight, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this problem has been made worse by the anomaly that many people in those groups, because of their peculiar home circumstances, do not pay the full fee, while their next door neighbours or the people on the floor above are expected to do so. I will not elaborate that point except to say that on this occasion I agree with the Opposition.
Article 3 of the draft charter, which deals with the objects of the BBC, both in radio and in television, relates to the provision of a public service. Clearly, "public service" means something available on reasonable terms
486
to a large section of the population. It ceases to be a public service if its cost makes it difficult for many people to maintain their access to it.
The objections to increases in the licence fee are now so strong and so immediate whenever such proposals are made that we must recognise that whatever the merits of licensing—I appreciate that there are many—it is probably coming towards the end of its useful life. The BBC should be looking to other sources of revenue to avoid the need to increase the licence fee element.
Where I part company with the right hon. Gentleman is that I can see little or no objection to the BBC seeking advertising revenue. Whenever I have said this in the past, I have received communications from the BBC pointing out that advertising might reduce its independence and the quality of its programmes.
I do not believe that that is necessarily so. The presence of advertising in quality newspapers such as The Guardian and The Times and at the same time in the Daily Mirror and The Sun does not mean that The Guardian and The Times are moving rapidly towards the methods of presentation and the contents of The Sun.
Mr Whitehead: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that every organisation accepting mixed financing which gave evidence to the Annan committee said that there was a deterioration in both independence and quality of service?
Mr. Griffiths: Yes, I accept that there is a strong body of opinion to that effect. I am arguing from the premise I put forward a moment ago, that the BBC is passing from the stage when it can depend upon licence revenue. I suggest, therefore, that it should look closely at the possibility of advertising. That does not necessarily mean the inclusion of commercials of the kind we have on independent radio and television, which either amuse or irritate us. There are other ways of obtaining advertising revenue; for example, the sponsoring of individual programmes.
Mr Whitehead: That is even worse.
Mr Griffiths: That is a matter of opinion. I can see no objection to the sponsorship of a programme, the content of which is established in advance.
Article 16(1)(a) and (b) on page 14 of the draft charter deals with the receipt of funds, and advertising is not necessarily excluded. In article 3 there is a clear right for the BBC under paragraph (k) to produce printed matter and under paragraph (l) to maintain or start libraries of printed matter which can be made available either for a charge or free. We should be moving beyond the stage of printed matter. We are in the age of the video cassette. Surely, the BBC could find a ready revenue in the production of video cassettes, the sale of such material and the maintenance of libraries of such material that would be made available to members of the public at a fee that covered the cost. I see the article as permitting that, and I would welcome an assurance that the term "printed matter" is not intended to be a limitation on the BBC. If it is, the words should be changed.
We are all agreed that the BBC has maintained high standards and we wish to ensure that these high standards continue. If we cannot avoid the increasing objections of individual members of the public to the rise in licence fees, I make a firm plea for an energetic approach to the

487
consideration of other ways of raising revenue. We wish to see a strong, stable, independent BBC and this would be one way in which it could be achieved.
8.43 pm
Mr. Tom McNally: I have two reasons for intervening in the debate. The first is that both Sir Ian Trethowan, the director-general of the BBC, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) opine that broadcasting is too important to be left to broadcasters. The second is slightly anecdotal. When I recently visited the United States I kept a log of what Americans asked me or told me about Britain. The first question I was asked was whether I had met Lady Diana Spencer. The second, which is perhaps only to be expected, was about Northern Ireland. The third remark was an expression of admiration for the quality and independence of the BBC.
I intervene this evening, therefore, rather like my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), as somebody with an admiration for the BBC, but also with a few criticisms. Whenever we make these criticisms, we need to have in the back of our minds that we have, by a British muddle-through, achieved a public broadcasting system that is the envy of others. We have seen in the French election how the French people themselves wanted to break out of the idea of political control of their public broadcasting. So there will be a thread of pride about the way the BBC has carried out its mandate over the last 50 years or so.
However, since, as the Home Seretary rightly said, we are taking our public broadcasting service right through to the twenty-first century in what we are doing tonight, it is important to ensure that the BBC is aware of public concerns. We are going through a broadcasting and communications revolution, rather like, as the Home Secretary indicated, the mid-1960s. We are probably only just perceiving what is going to happen during the next 15 years. We are setting things in motion this evening. I think it is right to lay down for the broadcasters certain guidelines as to what the public wants from them.
I was pleased to hear what my right hon. Friend said about concentrating any extra revenue on an expansion of real services. I will not go through his objections on cricket but I hope that we see a greater flexibility. I have always been amazed by the way people complain about repeats as though every single citizen spent every waking hour watching television. I miss lots of good programmes. I wish that television was on later, showing repeats. I wish that television would cater a lot more for the large number of people who do shift work. I think this would be showing much greater awareness of the community that it serves.
I also share my right hon. Friend's hope that television will become more local. Watching the local election results from Greater Manchester a week or so ago we were not very much aware that there was a great sweep of political indignation going on outside the capital. We thought that we were watching BBC London television, and I suspect that we were.
I should like to concentrate on three major points this evening. Although I suspect that I shall get some hoots from behind me, I must say that I follow a little way the arguments made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths). I really do believe that regarding the
488
licence fee as a kind of sacred totem pole that we are asked to dance around is no longer an applicable way of financing our public broadcasting. Indeed I believe that the BBC has brought on itself a large number of its problems by making it the licence fee, all the licence fee and nothing but the licence fee. I understand the worry about commercial interference in television programmes, not only in the corporation but among the public at large although, watching some of the sporting programmes, the BBC's scruples about advertising seem to go out of the window. At any rate, the producer's choice of camera shots of snooker players continually lighting up tend to pass the bounds of credibility.
There is a case, I think, for corporate sponsorship in the way that we get the theatre, ballet and orchestras sponsored by big companies. That should not necessarily be ruled out. The BBC is already indulging in certain co-productions with outside organisations and I do not think that we should worry too much about that.
Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, I have no objections to a grant-in-aid. The director-general called for some independent review body to settle the licence and I cannot see that there would be anything wrong with, or any argument against, some middle body settling or suggesting a grant-in-aid. However, the BBC is chasing a will-o'-the-wisp if it believes that it can take away from the House and unfortunate Home Secretary the final decision on the amount of its revenue.
Over the past few years we have not seen the escape from political involvement that the BBC claims. We have had a continuing political debate. Home Secretaries go through three phases, and I suspect that that will be true of this one. In the first year they are strong and bullish about the independence of the BBC and its right to be adequately financed. Midway through Parliament they want to be convinced and to examine the books, although they say that probably they will go along with the licence fee—and we heard a little of that tonight. About 18 months before the next election, their knees begin to wobble, their courage fails and the BBC is once again plunged into financial crisis.
The BBC may believe that the licence fee can increase to £50, £75 and £100, but let us not forget that we are embarking on a period of high expense for the corporation, at a time when the great increase in the number of colour television licences, which was a major factor in the 1970s, has passed its peak. If the licence fee alone is to be the source of finance, it is likely to increase by larger and larger leaps and bounds. I echo the plea of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North to the BBC to look again for alternative sources of finance.
If the grant-in-aid point is rejected, I adopt the line taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook. I agree with the director-general of the BBC that the corporation is not providing a social service and should not be expected to issue licences on the cheap for certain sectors of the community. However, there is an overwhelming case for the elderly and disabled to be given free or cheap television licences through the social services, and there is an attraction in that for the BBC. If those vulnerable groups are removed from the poll tax, which is what the fee is, the argument for a more expensive licence for the remainder of the community is more easily justified. However, while the BBC insists on a single poll tax that bears heavily on pensioners, the

489
disabled and the unemployed, the argument will recur. Far from escaping from political pressures, the corporation will find itself continually in the centre of political debate.
I hope that during its present charter the BBC will press the House to allow it to televise our proceedings. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our overwhelming vote in favour of television, in which you played a key part.
Mr Austin Mitchell: You were the overwhelming vote, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr McNally: Despite the supposed animal noises about which we are sometimes questioned, through radio people have become more aware of our proceedings. The editorial judgment of programmes such as "Yesterday in Parliament" shows that broadcasters can exercise responsibility. Access for television cameras is long overdue, and it would make us much more accessible to those whom we serve.
Finally, I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook in his plea for the BBC external services. Indeed, if technology is to develop apace, as is suggested, we may be seeking external services for television as well as external services for radio. Over the past 30 years, while Germany, America, France, the Soviet Union, China and South Africa have been expanding their external services the story of the BBC's external services has been one of retreat. It has retreated not because of the wishes of the corporation or the millions around the world who see BBC broadcasts as a beacon of truth, light and freedom, but because of the penny-pinching and short-sighted attitude of successive Governments towards the external services.
It is not because of political acts or for the benefit of trade from external services, but because, in difficult economic circumstances—at a time when communications and information are ever precious to many more people in the world—as a society, we should make the commitment that we will continue to broadcast the truth to the world. At a time when we have fewer and fewer abilities to give global gifts, the gift of information is still within our grasp and our economic capabilities.
There is good will in the House for the BBC. It is right that Parliament should be vigilant, especially in giving a charter for 15 years or more. We hope that the broadcasters will exercise proper responsibility with the immense power that we place in their hands.
8.57 pm
Mr. Nicholas Baker: I join in the tributes that other hon. Members have paid to the BBC, because the BBC has been responsible for standards and has shown its responsibility by the international preeminence that it enjoys. I cannot follow the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) in his advocacy of televising the proceedings of this House. We might even have problems about what copyright a television company might have in the drawings made by some hon. Members of other hon. Members. However, that is the least of the problems that such a reform would introduce.
I feel very much as the hon. Member does about the external services and their value. The way external services are financed is a good argument for maintaining the licences for BBC services generally. The public service ethic in broadcasting is as relevant today as it has ever been. I do not believe that the nature of that requirement is the same, but the need for a public service
490
remains, despite competition from commercial broadcasting and the changes brought about by that, some of which have been good and others not so good.
The BBC is in a special and pre-eminent position as a broadcasting body. We are entitled to expect higher standards of it. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary read the terms of the letter that is now incorporated as an annex to the licence because the duties spelt out there are high. That gives the BBC a special responsibility in relation to the institutions of our society, by which I mean Parliament, the Government and the Opposition of the day.
The BBC should not be expected to be a spokesman for any of those institutions, but it cannot be neutral about the existence of them as part of our society. It is valid to provide time for criticism of the institutions, but I see the role of the BBC as being not dissimilar to the role that you, Mr. Speaker, perform in the affairs of this House. I say that because I believe that there is a general feeling that, through occasional, but marked, lapses there has been a deterioration in minor respects of the standard of public service broadcasting.
I do not share the paranoia of many politicians about the broadcasting services, whether the BBC or the commercial companies. If the politicians of both sides object fairly strenuously, the political balance is probably being maintained. However, I am concerned about the fundamental question of the blurring of the distinction between facts and comment.
If we cannot get at facts, we do not have a free society. If we cannot discuss the state of South Africa or Northern Ireland in ways that give us a broad picture of those troubled parts of the world—though they are not as troubled as we might believe—the decisions that we make about them and the opinions that we form will be prejudiced.
The presentation of news is particularly important and it has become muddled with comment in various parts of our broadcasting services.
Secondly, the BBC, like other broadcasting authorities, has to recognise that, to a certain extent, interviewers represent the broadcasting authority. The increased popularity of the BBC's world service, which I am sure many hon. Members did not listen to 10 or 15 years ago, derives from the decline in objectivity and the blurring of facts and comments in the presentation of news by our broadcasting services.
I am also concerned about the news headlines on Radio 4. They are supposed to be the presentation of fact, but too often they are more like newspaper headlines than the headlines of broadcasting bodies. There is a job for stronger editorial control in that respect.
I still believe that too much American material is broadcast on television by both the BBC and the commercial companies. That affects the culture of our society and could ultimately affect the society itself. I recently discovered that at peak viewing time one evening American material was being shown on all three channels. Material from Europe is being ignored, and there is a continuing attack on native British culture, which is still rich and has been made even richer by those who have come here from other countries. We ought to be doing much more to reflect those cultures rather than the American culture.
My last point relates to the licence fee. One has to point to the irresponsibility of the Labour Government in not

491
tackling the issue. They simply increased the BBC's borrowing limit, which accelerated the problem now before us. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) about the BBC taking advertising. Greater efforts in selling BBC archive material abroad could produce greater revenue.
I do not think that it is right or constructive to try to take the licence fee out of the political system. The House must have the nerve to face the facts every three and a half years or so and to agree an appropriate amount. The consideration of the licence fee gives hon. Members an opportunity to discuss the job that the BBC and the broadcasting services generally are doing. We should not shirk that responsibility.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that the BBC is, in the end, accountable to Parliament. My view is that a request for a £50 fee, fixed for three years, represents a good bargain for the consumer. The correct method of protecting those at the lower end of the income scale is through the supplementary benefits system. The request that the BBC has made is reasonable. I hope that my right hon. Friend will view it favourably in the autumn.
9.7 pm
Mr. Clement Freud: This debate on the 15-year continuation of the charter is wide-ranging. I should like to confine my contribution to the financial aspects of the new television licence. I suppose that it would be right to declare my interest. Since the early 1940s I have received sums ranging from two guineas upwards from the Corporation.
Mr McNally: Too much.
Mr Freud: I have not progressed far from that.
By the terms of its charter and the licence and agreement the BBC has an obligation to fulfil regional coverage, external services and Parliamentary reporting. Although both the Government and the BBC agree that the BBC should retain its independence by not receiving direct grant aid—I agree totally with that—the BBC should be able to expect the Government to enable it to fulfil these obligations and to maintain high standards of service to the public by using their powers to fix a realistic licence fee.
If the BBC is at the mercy of Governments who decline to raise the fee to an adequate level because this is politically inconvenient, it can neither maintain existing services nor plan future developments with any confidence that it will be able to finance them.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) stated that continuity is important. I believe that continuity is important to an extent, but I also believe that the planning of future developments is an integral part of a successful administration. For that reason, the BBC must know what it is to receive not only in the short term but in the medium term.
In November 1979, the Government increased the colour television licence fee from £25 to £34 a year rather than the £40 to £41 requested by the BBC. They also indicated that the BBC should pay off some of its mounting deficit of about £40 million. As a result, the BBC cut £130 million from its estimated 1980–82 expenditure. The consequence was that £40 million was
492
saved by economies in administration and programme expenditure. The BBC home services provide 400 fewer jobs than in March 1980.
Another example is the North-West region. In the department devoted to "opt out" programmes dealing with regional interests, the reduced budget meant a reduction of eight posts out of a staff of 40 in 1979. A total of £90 million was cut from the BBC's planned development budget. That is one of the most damaging cuts in the medium term at a time when technological developments in video systems and cable and satellite broadcasting—as we saw in the paper distributed on Tuesday—make future investment vital if the BBC is to be able to compete with other organisations, earn its own revenue and so keep the licence fee down.
The BBC must be able to plan ahead with confidence, whether or not the future licence rates are worked out with the assistance of an independent review body. An increasingly diminishing number of people have faith in review bodies. It is essential that the system should allow some provisional understanding between the Government and the BBC about the level of expenditure which is likely to be acceptable.
If the BBC is to provide the service which the people who pay the licence fee want and expect, it must have the resources to compete on equal terms with commercial organisations. In the debate on the BBC two years ago the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) said:
"The health of British Broadcasting depends upon a BBC that has financial resources roughly equal to those of ITV."—[Official Report, 29 March 1979; Vol. 965, c. 696.]
In 1980 ITV's net income was £529 million to finance one channel. The BBC receives about £500 million to be spread over two television channels and to provide national and local radio services. Comparisons between the budgets of BBC and ITV for the same types of programme—that is, the cost of an ITV drama production and the cost of a BBC production of comparable length—are difficult because of the number of ITV companies involved.
For a programme such as the 25-minute regional news, for which BBC and ITV might be expected to use the same type of material, BBC North-West region has a budget of £4,500 a week. Granada allows over £7,000 for the same programme. Additional hours of broadcasting enable ITV to earn more advertising, whereas if the BBC increases its output it increases its costs. If the BBC is granted its request for a £50 licence fee to last for three years, it could open BBC2 early in the evening and extend its hours later most weekdays. That is what most hon. Members want. It is certainly what most of the public wants. The BBC could also restart afternoon programmes on BBC1. It could expand home-produced drama and extend BBC local radio coverage from 22 stations to 38. It could improve services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The BBC must maintain its breadth of coverage. However, quality is as important as quantity. Quality costs money. A BBC 1 drama series costs about £100,000 for a 50-minute episode. That is almost double what a similar series cost three years ago. Major BBC drama costs about £110,000 an hour. A light entertainment programme costs about £57,000, an educational feature about £38,000, sports coverage £15,000 and a purchased film or other programme £10,000 or less. In this life one gets what one pays for. Less revenue means less coverage of sport and national events, less drama, music and educational

493
broadcasting, more old films and repeats and more low-budget programmes. It certainly means more American films.
Were it not for the affection in which actors hold the BBC, the affection which politicians have for the BBC and the decency of the production staff, the costs would be infinitely higher.
I attended a producers' seminar at the BBC last week. I found not only concern among the many people who spoke to the BBC senior staff, but an amazing concern among BBC producers for the viewers. I found over and over again that the producers were concerned for those who pay the licence fee. They said that when they direct a programme it is with the viewers in mind, not the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary or the politicians. The Government constantly preach the importance of economy and the virtues of self-help, and say that services and organisations financed by public money should give value for that money.
I want to give the House figures that show some of the BBC's efforts to practise what the Government preach. The BBC had a deficit of £40 million in November 1979. By March 1980 it was down to £33 million, by November 1980 it had virtually disappeared and the estimated deficit for March 1981 is about £15 million. The average cost of BBC's first-run network programmes is £31,000 an hour. ITV's network costs are in some cases double—and usually more than double—that amount at £65,000. The BBC's external services are run on a grant of £50 million a year. It broadcasts in English and 38 other languages. It broadcasts more than 700 hours per week, which seems relatively little compared with 1,800 hours by the Americans and 2,000 hours by the Russians. But then the Russians spend as much in four days on jamming foreign broadcasts as the BBC spends on broadcasting to Russia in one year—about £500,000.
The BBC already helps itself financially through two commercial businesses. BBC Publications pays the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for doing a weekly column. It has a turnover of £38.4 million. BBC Enterprises made a net profit of £4 million in 1980. That money goes back to the BBC to finance new programmes. The BBC's recent agreement with the Rockefeller Centre for distribution of its programmes through American pay cable television will provide it with more revenue to finance programme production. By the terms of that deal, known as "Bluebird", the partnership will have first refusal of all BBC co-productions for 10 years. It is estimated that the BBC will earn $100 billion during that period.
At home, the BBC is negotiating to become a major programme supplier to the new cable networks now beginning to operate on an experimental basis. After seven years the BBC might expect to earn £60 million a year from subscription television, by cable and by satellite.
Mr McNally: Was the hon. Gentleman reassured when the Home Secretary said tonight that the BBC's efforts in the pay and cable services would not dilute its efforts in the general television services? It is a worry that it will seek to raise revenue through pay television, cable television and other efforts at the expense of its general television service. Is the hon. Gentleman reassured that that will not happen?
Mr. Freud: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. He made a point that I wish to make.
494
Unless the BBC is properly financed, it will have to use the money currently allocated to make programmes to get on to the bandwagon of creating further BBC finances. For that reason, I make my plea now that the Government give the BBC the money that it needs.
British television provides an unparalleled range of material. The BBC has proved itself more than capable of holding its own in a growing world market. The "Six Wives of Henry VIII" sold to 75 countries and "Horizon" to 51, and the Shakespeare series of 37 plays to be produced over eight years is already sold to 36 countries.
At home BBC Enterprises hopes to expand its coverage of sporting and other events by sales of subscription television and video material to the public through retailers. This will depend on agreements with unions. However, self-help of that sort cannot provide the ultimate answer to the BBC's financial problems.
Profits from BBC Enterprises and BBC Publications provide only about 1 per cent. of the BBC's annual net income. The profits that are anticipated from subscription television by cable and satellite cannot begin to make any real impact for several years. However, as we know, it can begin to have a real effect on BBC expenditure long be fore there is any return. The licence fee will still be the mainspring of the BBC's finances during the decade.
The BBC still depends for its financial support on the public who pay for licences and on the Government who fix the licence fee. I support the BBC's view that to take advertising would result in not only a loss of independence but a reduction in programme range and standards. Competition between the BBC and ITV to attract advertising would force them to aim more programmes at a larger market and lose for them the ability to make minority programmes, which for the moment give the BBC its rare distinction. That is a distinction that no other national channel has.
A service partially financed by advertising does not necessarily result in a cheaper service. For example, a television licence in Switzerland costs £65. In Eire, where RTE obtains 45 per cent. of its total income from advertising, the fee is £38. The only four Western European countries that have a cheaper licence fee than the United Kingdom are West Germany, France, the Netherlands and Italy. They all derive additional revenue from advertising, and not one of their broadcasting authorities can compete with the BBC in overall quality.
Commercial television is not free television. Companies that advertise pass on the costs to the consumer in increased prices, and advertisements are expensive. A 30-second commercial costs about £50,000. The BBC produces 30 seconds of an average network programme for £260. At £50 a year the BBC will offer good value. That is 131/2p a day. That sum does not buy much today—for example, a quarter of a pint of beer.
The main disadvantage of the licence system is that it falls hardest on those least able to pay, such as pensioners and low income families. Successive Governmemts have noticed, whatever they said in Opposition, that to promise to raise the 5p a week charge for old-age pensioners in warden-controlled accommodation is a poor way of attracting votes. However much they have tried to woo the old by promising them free television licences or cheaper television licences, they have never done it when they have been in position to do so when in Government. To exempt pensioners alone from the licence system would

495
cost the BBC £150 million a year in revenue, and would inevitably result in a large increase for the other licence payers.
The law does not allow the cost of a television licence to be taken into account when assessing supplementary benefit rates. Some relaxation of that rule would enable those least able to pay to afford their licences. There are 18·5 million licence holders, but £35 million a year is lost to the BBC by evasion. Anti-evasion measures that are organised by the Post Office, for which the BBC has to pay, produce some results. However, it is cheaper to devise methods of making licence payments less painful by spreading the load than it is to prosecute for nonpayment. The BBC has already introduced television stamps, and gift tokens will be available this summer.
The Home Secretary set up a working party in July 1980 to consider schemes for payment by credit card by monthly instalments. It would be sensible to investigate that area with perhaps even greater devotion. The BBC does not want grant-in-aid for the home service.
The Home Secretary has said that he agrees with the BBC's view that dependence on Government aid would seriously weaken the BBC's independence and do nothing to improve its standards. If the BBC is to remain dependent on the licence fee for its main source of income in the foreseeable future, that fee must be realistic. By restricting increases in the interests of political expediency and compensating by increasing the BBC's borrowing limits, as was done in 1979, the Government merely ensure that the BBC will ultimately need to ask for higher increases to pay off interest on loans. The BBC cannot maintain the standards of impartiality and quality demanded by its charter if it is, as at present, financially at the mercy of successive Governments.
I urge the Home Secretary to approve such sums as will be needed by the corporation. The Home Secretary talked of an independent commission to determine the level. I remind him that when the Pay Research Unit considered the increase demanded by the civil servants, no one was told of the unit's findings. It sat and it deliberated and no one heard what was deliberated. All we know is that the civil servants are now on strike. I hope that, whatever happens with the independent commission which the Home Secretary will set up, the figures will be published. I fervently hope that the Home Secretary will see his way to accepting those figures and that the BBC, which is so endearing to all hon. Members, will be able to continue as it is now, but with fewer financial worries.
9.27 pm
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) should know that whatever may have been done by the Liberal Party or the Labour Party, the Conservatives made no promises to people with poor means that they would receive from a Conservative Government free or cheap television. As no promises were made, no promises were broken.
I shall direct my remarks to Northern Ireland. I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about the setting up of a council for the Province analagous to the national councils for Scotland and Wales. There were interventions in my right hon. Friend's speech about precisely where complaints from the listening and viewing public should be directed. Although the Home
496
Secretary said that they should be directed to the complaints commission, it would be illusory to suppose that right hon. and hon. Members will not continue to receive complaints from their constituents from time to time. That has happened in connection with events in Northern Ireland that many members of the public, constituents of mine and fellow subjects of ours in Northern Ireland think have been worsened by certain activities of the media, including the BBC. I say that with regret.
The effect of television on the troubles was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in response to a debate at the Conservative women's conference. It has recently been discussed in another place. Not in the House of Lords, but in the correspondence column of The Times today there is a letter from Lord Hunt, who is familiar with Northern Ireland, but not hard-line in his attitude towards it. He says that he is not surprised at the complaints about the conduct of the news media recently in Northern Ireland because he recalls a time in 1969 when he
"witnessed the deliberate staging of an emotive incident in gutted and empty Bombay Street, off the Falls Road in Belfast by a television crew."
He raised that incident and another incident with the then director-general of the BBC. In his letter, Lord Hunt states:
"in view of the apparent persistence of such objectionable practices, which may have a most harmful influence upon the formation of public opinion, is it not time that they should be made actionable in law?
Is it not, in any case, the duty of newsmen, as with all other citizens, to help uphold the law rather than to aid and abet its overthrow?"
We are debating a draft of a Royal charter. The BBC, constituted under Royal charter, is the provider of a public service and must have regard to the public interest and to the safety of the citizen. I join those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have praised the work of the BBC's external services. I have been counted as one of those who have complained about the financial cuts to which they have been subjected. It is the truthfulness of BBC reporting—even when the facts reported put our country in a bad light—that has given the corporation a world reputation.
During the war there was argument and conflict between the Government and the corporation about how free the BBC should be. The programme about J. B. Priestley recalls how the BBC was accused of undermining the war effort. Now, as then, those who are subjected to totalitarian regimes will often turn from listening to, or watching their propagandist programmes to listen to the BBC. That was the case in the days of Nazi occupation and oppression.
However, Annan stated:
"Broadcasters cannot be impartial about activities of illicit organisations. Nevertheless, these organisations are a political force in Northern Ireland; and it would be unrealistic for the broadcasters not to take account of them. This does not mean, however, that the proponents of illicit organisations should be allowed to appear regularly on the screen…Terrorism feeds upon publicity;…publicity gives it a further chance for recruitment."
I am hastening through the passage. I hope that I am not distorting it. It continues:
"there is no reason to abet them by giving additional publicity."
Some Governments, including some democratic Governments, have seen fit to deny terrorist organisations the publicity that they so ardently seek by banning them from the media. One such example is the Irish Republic.

497
In 1972, under section 31 of their Broadcasting Authority Act, the Irish Government banned Radio Telefis Eireann from carrying interviews with spokesmen and sympathisers of the Provisional or Official IRA, although the
Official IRA has not been prominent in recent violence.
In October 1976 the ban was extended to cover interviews, or reports of interviews with members of the political wing of the IRA, Sinn Fein, or with members of any organisation proscribed in the island of Ireland. The Minister who imposed the ban was Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien. He said:
"The propaganda activities of Provisional Sinn Fein in support of the Provisional IRA are in our view a danger to the state…It seemed to me that their presentation of their propaganda would suggest to the public that in some way Provisional Sinn Fein was accepted as a legitimate political party. I do not accept it as such. I accept it as the propaganda wing of a criminal organisation: a public relations agency for a murder gang."
Some hon. Members will have read a fascinating and illuminating book, "Terrorism and the Liberal State" by Paul Wilkinson. He goes so far as to say:
"It is surely crazy to allow spokesmen for terrorists out to destroy the state to enjoy all the advantages of broadcasting their message…For if there is an ultra-pornography of violence then they are its ultimate representatives."
That is an argument worth considering carefully.
Paul Wilkinson goes on to say—and I agree with him—that
"There is, in my view, nothing to be said in favour of attempts to control or censor the press in the reporting of terrorist campaigns."
I also echo his praise of the British and Irish daily press which, in his words,
"has in general shown extraordinary accuracy, fairness, humanity and common sense in covering Northern Ireland. They have not allowed themselves to be used as propagandists."
I wish that the same could always be said of the broadcasting media. It is significant that various branches of the world-wide Mafia of terror elsewhere have attempted to blackmail Governments into ordering that their manifestos and demands be put out on television or radio. Newspapers are of much less interest to them.
The House will remember that in March 1977 the BBC staged what I then described as "trial by television" of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the "trial" was conducted in the absence of the "accused". In July 1979, free advertising, which is how I would describe it, was given in the "Tonight" programme to the Irish Republican Socialist Party and its military—or murder—wing, the Irish National Liberation Army, which boasts of having assassinated Airey Neave.
The House will also recall the condemnation by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, reported in Hansard of 1 August 1980, of a team from the BBC for what happened in a staged incident at Carrickmore. He said that they were guilty under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, although he did not decide to initiate proceedings against them.
Since those incidents, I believe that there has been a marked improvement. Recent allegations that television teams rented a mob to attack the security forces with petrol bombs and other missiles were mostly directed not against the BBC or Independent Television but against foreigners. Nevertheless, to some of us there seems to have been a strange coincidence between the presence or arrival of BBC cameramen and the eruption of a riot.
I do not ask for the same powers that exist in the Irish Republic to be exercised here. I do not ask for censorship. I do not ask the Home Secretary to invoke his power under
498
clause 13(4) of the licence. Still less do I ask for Government control of broadcasting. If such censorship or control were imposed—and I do not believe that Parliament would allow it—the terrorist enemy would be delighted, for it is his aim to disrupt free institutions. I believe, however, that there are those at Portland Place who are sensitive to public criticism such as has been levelled against the BBC recently on account of the troubles over the H block affair.
In my right hon. Friend, we have a Home Secretary who knows the problem that I have raised as a result of his great experience at the Northern Ireland Office. I look forward to any observations that we may hear from the Treasury Bench. I do not ask for an answer tonight, but I wonder whether consideration could be given to whether adequate machinery exists, not of control but of communication between the Government and the broadcasting media, so that the broadcasting media can be promptly acquainted with the effect that their programmes may be having upon life and limb in Northern Ireland and upon the defeat of terrorism.
I wonder what has been done by the governors and by the director-general and all concerned in this great national institution, under Royal charter, to see that those it employs live up to the professional or ethical standards required by their calling. When it conflicts with the right to life, the right to know becomes a cruel and bitter absurdity.
9.40 pm
Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I shall follow briefly, in a moment or two, the thoughtful remarks of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) in the context of the need for due balance and impartiality. But I want first to speak about the BBC as an institution, following the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
When the Annan committee considered the BBC some years ago, it said that it was arguably the most important cultural institution in the nation. I see no reason now to abandon that judgment. It has had, in the twentieth century, an immense impact. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, if those of us who feel ourselves to be its candid friends sometimes find that our criticisms are taken amiss, that is the price we pay for having an institution with so many achievements to its credit. When we demand such high standards of it we are, perhaps, occasionally accused of being too demanding and too austere.
The points that have been made in the debate concern the institution and the way in which it must function over the next few years. The licence and agreement that is now being extended goes back—as we are reminded in the appendix to the documents that the House is considering—to the agreement signed between the corporation and the then Postmaster-General, Lord de la Warr, many years ago.
It is not often that the House has these debates, and they are not always as well attended as they should be. I say that particularly tonight because I do not think that there has been a single speech in the debate that has not been cogently argued and has not made a real contribution. It is a great pity that we do not take the opportunity often enough to have an audit of the work of this major national institution in the way that we should. The BBC employs nearly 28,000 people. It has a licence income, as the hon.

499
Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) pointed out, in excess of £500 million, and it receives £50 million directly from the Government for the external services.
The points made about the BBC in the debate seem to come under four headings. The first is balance. The second is the funding of the external services and of the BBC nationally. Third is the future international role, if any, of the BBC in terms of satellites. The last, which was raised from the Opposition Front Bench at the outset, is the role that the BBC ought to be playing in the small-scale world of local broadcasting, where some feel that a great national institution treads heavily and does not always tread very carefully.
I should like first to mention the issue of programme standards, raised in clause 7 of the licence and agreement. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has asked about the degree to which the BBC, in the agonised circumstances of Northern Ireland, is able to preserve a proper balance between those who uphold the State and those who would threaten it, subvert it or overthrow it by violence.
I covered the early days of the Northern Ireland conflict, before life was lost there, as a television producer and reporter. If the hon. Member looks at the record over the last 15 years of the BBC, and of the ITV companies, he will find that, with certain lapses—he referred to one of them, and I agree with what he said—the record has been good. Few broadcasting services have had to hold the ring in a debate which throughout has been tinged with violence between those who uphold the State and a small but significant section of the population who are entirely disaffected from the State and whose loyalties lie elsewhere.
My view is that those responsibilities have been discharged, but I wish to add one thing as an appendix to the remarks of the hon. Member for Epping Forest. Yesterday, the local elections were held in Northern Ireland. I wish that they had been covered with the same thoroughness as are the awful rounds of funerals, military salutes, men in masks, assassinations and explosions. Those events are hot news which catch the image, score the retina, and get the audience. The decent people who go to vote, the honourable politicians of all parties who, like some of our colleagues in the House, pistol in hand, have had to face mobs pursuing them and putting them in fear of their lives, deserve the support of the media at least equally with those who make the hot and dramatic news headlines. I hope that my words are heeded by the BBC, as, no doubt, will be the words of the hon. Member for Epping Forest.
In other respects, it is possible to make a political statement, as it were, by omission. It is possible to make a political statement by the way in which events are ordered. In the Labour Party there is a feeling of resentment—something that I hope will be heeded by the BBC—that in the coverage of the new Social Democratic Party over the past two or three months there has been an element of image building. I see that the Social Democratic Party has a representative present in the person of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), who may wish to challenge that. When the local elections took place in England and Wales recently and the Social Democratic Party did not put up candidates, it was surprising—to say the least—that a representative of the
500
party was invited to the studios to discuss the subject on the basis of parity with the Liberal, Labour and Conservative Parties. It seemed to me that a statement was being made there, and I hope that what I say will be noted by those who produced the programmes on that occasion.
I want to say a word about the other matters that are covered in the licence and agreement relating to the specific duties laid on the BBC. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) said that perhaps the corporation should consider putting out sponsored programmes and programmes financed by advertisers. I oppose that for the BBC. I oppose it as a means of financing our national instrument of broadcasting. So did the Annan committee. We thought the matter through very carefully.
On the issue of sponsorship, I take the opposite view to that taken by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North. There is already too much covert sponsorship on the BBC and on television in general. I do not suggest that there is anything conspiratorial. It is there because products are promoted as they help to finance the events for which television apparently has an inexhaustible appetite. That matter must be considered very carefully if the obligations under clause 12 of the licence and agreement are to be maintained, and should be looked at more carefully than has happened in the recent past.
As we are holding our own audit in the House tonight about the way in which the existing licence and agreement has been honoured, I must say that I was unhappy at the time, and am still unhappy, about the kind of deal that was entered into with the Time-Life organisation by the BBC. I see that that is to be prematurely scrapped by the BBC, and that the corporation is switching instead to an arrangement with the Rockefeller Centre television organisation. The corporation says, somewhat optimistically, in the information provided for this debate, that perhaps up to £100 million will come from that source of revenue.
There are dangers down that road, too. The corporation should be careful about the kind of international agreements that it enters into, particularly if there is any degree of reciprocity with regard to the products of the organisation with which the partnership is made. I hope that the corporation will look at this very carefully.
The overseas services are sustaining cuts of £6·2 million over the next two years, £3·1 million each year. In spite of that they are asked—and have responded—to provide services at short notice for the new flashpoint areas in the world. They are putting out additional services in Russian, Turkish and Pushtu which can be heard by a large proportion of the Afghanistan population. It is right to do that.
To provide the flexibility to make such adjustments at short notice, there are two requirements which this constant process of attrition of the overseas services does not provide. The first is an up-to-date system of transmitters. The programme for overhauling the transmitters, some of which are over 40 years old, is falling behind. Secondly, the BBC must be able to preserve and maintain a sufficient cadre of skilled people capable of mounting the service.
When I worked in Bush House a decision was taken by the then Government that the Thai service should be phased out. A year or two later the geo-political preferences changed, the Foreign Secretary went on a visit to Thailand and it was said that the Thai service should be

501
restored. Meanwhile, where had all the Thais gone? They had gone away, and it was hard to find them again at short notice.
Service must be maintained, even to areas of the world which are at the moment tranquil and placid. One never knows where the next coup d'etat will occur or where the pressures of totalitarianism may deprive the population of access to the news which the BBC is reputed world-wide for providing. For those reasons, we should give much greater buoyancy to the overseas services.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) will look carefully at the way in which the Annan committee attempted to argue the licence fee, he will see that the arguments that have been advanced in the debate today in its defence are correct. The argument for some form of grant-in-aid seems to me to be invalidated by the extent of political pressure which inevitably enters into the argument. The argument for some form of sales tax is made extremely difficult by the problem of collection, and providing the necessary buoyancy. Would the tax be put on transistor radios? Would it be put on a particular service provided by the BBC? It is difficult to see anything which gives sufficient flexibility for a proper adjustment of the licence fee.
I take my hon. Friend's point about the problems of the pensioner. The licence fee is a regressive tax, but we should be able to handle that in the context of the licence fee remaining the major element in financing the BBC. We should not allow the corporation even to flirt with the idea of getting a substantial part of its income from subscription. If it is to be the national service of broadcasting, its principal services should be equally open and accessible to all our citizens. The question of which service can be obtained should not be a question of money. Anyone in possession of a television set or radio should be able to get all the services.
If we go to a system of local pay TV along the lines of the experiments that the Home Secretary has authorised, provided by the BBC, or if in the future we have pay TV in the sky and a subscription service run by the BBC, there would be withdrawn from the mass of the population who do not pay the subscription the right to the full range of the corporation's services. It is the great glory of the BBC that it provides all its services for all our citizens, and so it should.
The Home Secretary was a little coy about the audit board to which he briefly referred. If there is to be such a board provision for it should be announced at the same time as the renewal of these two documents.
If he is to have such a board, how can he guarantee that it will have a measure of independence greater than those other dispensers of Government approved revenue such as the University Grants Committee, which even now is in the most supine way acting as the instrument of the Government? That is the real problem of any board. How is he able to have a board which is able not merely to act as an assessor but to make its recommendations stick? He cannot do so if he allows the funding of the corporation to take place on a year-by-year basis. If the funding were properly provided, the recommendations made by the assessors could be looked at in the slightly longer term and could perhaps also be decided in the light of events. Everybody knows that the licence fee has had its least effect as a source of revenue in times of highest inflation
502
under Governments of both parties in recent years. Therefore, I hope that we shall have an indication soon of what kind of board we are to have.
We have been told that we are perhaps to have in the fairly near future a modest start—I quote the Home Secretary—on satellite broadcasting. Probably we are right to look at that now. The Annan committee was rather dismissive about this and got rid of it in a paragraph or two. Yesterday the House was debating the problem of the "space invaders" that we now find in the corners of pubs and to which it seems our young people are addicted. Now it seems that there is another kind of space invader which can cover large areas without regard for national boundaries. If I belonged to a small European country such as Norway, with an identifiable language and only 4 million people, I should be much more worried about such a satellite and what the satellite could do to me than I am with English as our language. But it is undoubtedly the case that the document put out by the Home Office makes it clear that other people are getting into this and are in the early stages of development of their satellites.
I therefore think that it is right that we should not only make our own preparations to launch a satellite in the 1980s to go into service by the end of the decade but should begin to think about how the sevice should run. I make one suggestion on this point. If the BBC is to have a share in this, as I think that it should—that would be in line with the Annan recommendations—it ought also to have, and it could be a supplementary source of income, a share in the revenue that such a satellite could earn. It has been proposed in the United States that the satellite there might be used to earn revenue for the PBS television service through rental income.
If a satellite were to be put up in this country, would prefer it to be done by public expenditure. It seems to be one of those ways in which both our technology and our industrial expansion could be financed by the intelligent use of public revenue, rather than leaving it to the market and waking up to find that the Japanese are doing it. I should like to see such a satellite exploited for the public good and the rental revenue perhaps made available to public service broadcasting in this country.
I have one last point to make on the issue of local radio. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook referred to Aubrey Singer's now notorious remark that the local radio stations were financial black holes. Many of us are concerned about the degree to which the demand for the local element in radio is now being diminished and may be increasingly diminished by the new notions which are coming out of the BBC hierachy. In the Royal charter itself, the local radio advisory councils are described as being appointed for areas consisting either of one such locality or of two or more such localities in England and in the other areas where there is local radio. How many localities will be covered by a local radio council? If a local radio council is doing its job, it must protect the direct interests of the locality, and if it is covering a large number of areas it cannot do that.
The real problem about local radio in this country is that, although we have all paid lip service to it neither the commercial stations nor many of the BBC stations have that sense of the small community thinking and aching together that we all wanted when local radio was first mooted. Therefore we should look at article 9 of the draft Royal charter and say exactly how local councils will have

503
full regard to the interests of our people in that region, or, as the case may be, that locality. I believe that we are drifting away from that notion of locality.
The BBC's radio network working party put forward a number of options, working towards an organic change in local broadcasting. Option 4 suggested that there would be mandatory network programmes with a sustaining service of music, or muzak—one can take one's pick on the pronunciation, tone and content of what would be provided. It would not be local stations broadcasting for at least 10 hours a day, which is what local managers told the working party that they needed if the stations were to be genuinely local. If we move in that direction, we are moving right away from what the BBC was charged to do.
If that is what it is doing, the BBC should be told to leave a measure of local radio to some quite new service,
504
extruded into the middle of the existing system. Yes, it is breaking into the duopoly, which this Government and the previous Government set their face against. I regret it. In the cheap, flexible medium of local radio, we should be able to break into the duopoly and have genuine community services. If those small scale services cannot be provided by the BBC, they should be provided by someone else.
I hope that the debate has committed every hon. Member to the concept of public service broadcasting and to support the BBC as the national instrument of that broadcasting. However, we should tell the BBC that it should not only heed the points made in the debate but should also remember—taking my theme again from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook—that it is a time for diversity and perhaps for divesting itself of some of the interests that in its general territorial imperative it has tried to maintain.
10.1 pm
Mr. Tim Branton: I shall skid quickly over several areas and make a comment or two and then introduce two new areas to the debate.
First, the proposed licence fee of £ is well worthwhile. In fact, it is a bargain. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that some hon. Members would say that. I say it. If one considers the money's worth that one got 10 years ago for a colour television licence, at today's prices one was paying the equivalent of £39·70, as opposed to the £34 that we are paying. The value of the licence fee has diminished. It is high time—if I dare say it, like hon. Member's salaries—that the licence fee caught up with the fact of life.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) mentioned local radio. His ideas of local radio seem to be more in the line of community radio, which is a description that he used towards the end of his speech. I know one local radio station, Radio Medway, very well indeed. It does a signally good service for the area that it covers, but it is interesting perhaps to anyone in the BBC hierarchy considering expanding the service over half or the whole of Kent one day to know that the delimitation of the area that the station is given by its masters to cover is much too small for the listening public whom it serves. Its public is wide. The listeners are irritated when they find that their local radio station—as they would describe it, even though they may be outside the area—cannot cover them for news.
Dealing with hard news and comment, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) was absolutely right when he said that we get complaints that what is happening is not quite right. I should have confessed to my interest in the BBC many years ago. I was 10 years on the staff in the 1950s, when things were much clearer. There was no doubt that the news was factual and was the voice of the BBC. In no way did comment intrude.
Now, we have purposely appointed freelance presenters of programmes who can, and rightly should, inject a little personal opinion to give a programme life, reading the news in many programmes. If I were to issue a warning to those who complain about problems of opinion and lack of objectivity coming through, it would be that broadly the BBC has the balance right. I believe that because many of my supporters with conservative views object violently to the sorts of things they see and hear on television and radio. At the same time, my trade union magazine, the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians magazine, once a year regularly goes to town about the Right wing bias of the BBC. That is a satisfactory state of affairs if both scales of opinion feel that the BBC is wrong.
The problem is that the BBC and all broadcasters should consider whether a further look should be taken at comment intruding on the hard facts. That is where the viewer and the listener is puzzled, especially by dramas depicting true life stories. I had an interesting experience some years ago, when I was a performer in an elaborate practical joke for 1 April called "Alternative 3". It was an interesting programme to do for a practitioner in television and radio because the only target that I could meet, as the so-called presenter of the programme, was to be credible in a totally fictitious situation. The test of our
506
success—whatever people thought of the quality of the drama—can only have been measured in the intense interest of the press, the public and everyone who watched that programme, despite the cast list of actors put at the end of the programme and in spite of a caption saying "This programme should have been broadcast on 1 April". In one area, Yorkshire, the viewers were told beforehand that the programme was fiction. That is the power of television. It is not an intellectual power but a power that can persuade people, against all reason, to believe something that is false. It is a tender plant. That is why I plead for the hard news to be considered more carefully.
I want to introduce a bleak note on the financial front, but it is important that it should be mentioned. The feature film is being used extensively on television. Last year ITV used 328 feature films made for the cinema and the BBC proudly announced that over 60 feature films were shown over the Christmas holiday. That is the extent of the use of feature films. The British feature film industry hardly exists today, because no finance goes in that direction.
The broadcasters—reluctant though they will be in these times—must contemplate paying the right price for the purchase of feature films, or shortly, there will be no more feature films for them to show. Feature films are the backbone of broadcasters' material. The film made for the cinema is a different product from anything that the television director and producer can put together. It must have finance, time, care and love and a completely different technique.
A real and important proposal, which it would not be suitable to expand on tonight, is that some sort of Eady levy system should be transferred from the BBC and ITV to pay a contribution from the audiences who watch films on television instead of going to the cinema.
I pay tribute to the BBC for its huge contribution to the patronage of the arts. I have figures showing that £105 million was spent in 1979–80 on drama, serious music, popular music and arts features. Of that sum, £40 million went to the artistic community and the rest covered production costs. We must never forget that the BBC is one of the most effective and useful patrons of the arts.
I have spoken critically at various points, but I hope that I have ended on a happier note. I am a BBC old boy; and having worked for the BBC is rather like having been a Boy Scout. You never cease to love the organisation.
10.10 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: All the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have spoken as candid friends of the BBC—some more candid than friendly and some more friendly than candid, but all drawing a. balance between those two approaches. Perhaps the balance is geared to the number of appearances on the BBC and the number of fees collected, but every hon. Member has spoken as a friend of the BBC.
It is appropriate that we should have concentrated on finance and the licence fee. Whether we see the BBC going in for new technology through cable or satellite or coping with the more mundane problem of maintaining standards and current progamme output, finance is the central issue.
Like the pay of Members of Parliament, the licence fee tends to be decided through a mixture of prejudice and fear rather than through an assessment of economic realities. Successive Governments have shown a mixture of good intentions and bad actions on the licence fee. That is

507
worrying, because for some time the licence fee has been far too low to allow the BBC to improve its services or even to maintain current standards and output.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) was right to draw a comparison with European countries, but he was wrong to say that four countries have cheaper licence fees than that of the BBC. The figures that I have show that only Italy, with a fee of £27 for colour television—and that does not include the free pornography that is available in Italy—and the Netherlands, with a fee of £29, are cheaper than the BBC.
Ireland, with a fee of £35 plus two free BBC channels and one free ITV channel in much of Ireland, France, with a fee of £35 for indoctrination through the French television chains, West Germany, with a fee of £38, and Denmark, with a fee of £63, are all more expensive than the British licence fee, particularly when one takes into account the fact that the State television services in many of those countries also carry advertisements.
In passing, since other Members have mentioned it I would be sympathetic to the BBC carrying adverts on Radio 1—but only on Radio 1. I cannot see that there would be any degeneration in the nature of the service or the nature of the appeal to the audience if we recognised that Radio 1 is in direct competition with commercial radio.
The polluting effect—perhaps I should say the changing effect—of advertisements on radio would be inhibited on the BBC, because it is like a layer cake, with different sections of the audience turning their attention to different channels, and I cannot see Radio 1 being changed by commercials.
My main argument, however, is that the licence fee, as the BBC suggests, should be a fee of £50. A strong case exists for an emergency extra payment to be authorised by the Government to get the BBC out of the financial situation to which it has been reduced by a licence fee that has not been adequately raised.
The BBC is right to point out that, if the licence fee had kept pace with earnings since 1968, it would now be £57 rather than £34 for the good service that is available. My reservations about the licence fee arise in only two areas. I believe that pensioners should be exempt from payment of the licence fee, as proposed by the Labour Party at the last general election. The gap should be made up by the Exchequer. Anomalies that cause great annoyance among pensioners are produced by the fact that many in sheltered accomodation and group accomodation pay practically nothing for their licence fee while those living on their own pay the full licence fee. This amounts to a very regressive taxation on pensioners.
The BBC has an obsession with stamps. When one gives people something to complain about, one gives them, at the same time, something to lick. The same process applies with gas and telephones. As charges escalate out of the reach of ordinary people, compensation is given in the form of stamps to lick and to save, so providing the Government or the Post Office with money interest-free for the period during which the stamps are saved. This is not a good enough answer to the problem. Pensioners should be exempt from the licence fee. There is a strong argument for the independent review body—a Lord Boyle of broadcasting—mentioned by the Home Secretary.
Mr Edward Lyons: To provide a television licence free for pensioners would cost £150 million. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that this should be found by adding to the licence fee paid by others, including the unemployed, or is he suggesting that the Government should supply a subvention?
Mr. Mitchell: I assume that exempting pensioners from the licence fee is Social Democratic Party policy as it is Labour Party policy. The hon. and learned Gentleman, like myself, stood on that platform at the last general election. Since his party's position is that it is more loyal to that platform than the Labour Party itself, he is presumably attached to it, as we are. I have already argued that the gap should be filled by the Exchequer. There is a case for a Lord Boyle type review body to provide a cushion between the BBC and the Government. I see its role mainly as checking the constant tendency in the BBC to increase bureaucracy, which is one of my main worries. Another concern is the constant chorus of self-congratulation one hears from the BBC.
Such a body would allow the Government to soften the blow of an increase in the licence fee because it would be seen to be the result of an independent recommendation. Those paying the licence fee would know that the BBC had been audited and checked and that it was functioning in the most efficient fashion following audit by an independent body. I would have liked to see such a body incorporated in the proposals before the House today.
The licence fee, in times of inflation, is an inadequate means of raising money for the BBC. Under the present Government, the BBC is hit from both directions. If inflation goes up, the licence fee does not keep pace. If inflation comes down, it is the result of a depression so horrendous that its scale is used as an excuse for demanding outs from the BBC and for refusing to increase the licence fee. The corporation is hit both ways. We get excellent value and there is a substantial case for increasing the licence fee.
Both radio and television are becoming increasingly expensive. There is a tendency to stultification. When large sums of money are at risk there is a tendency to play safe; not to experiment and not to take risks, simply because of the rapid increase in costs. I heard yesterday of a television company which had an inspired idea for a Christmas programme. It was "Barbara Woodhouse meets the pets of the stars." That is a classic example from a broadcasting organisation not one hundred miles from Grimsby—in fact 82 miles from Grimsby.
Such an idea opens up limitless product horizons. There could be programmes such as "TV Psychiatrist talks to the children of the stars", "David Bellamy talks to the pot plants of the stars" and "Delia Smith re-cooks the dinners of the stars." They are all examples of the non-think in television because of the expense of programmes. The expense is leading to a production line approach to programmes and the guaranteed formula.
Television companies are playing safe when desperately the industry needs new ideas. The new ideas can and will come from smaller units and the BBC regions which often have been innovative in their approach to political programmes when the ITV companies have been cautious. But in the main the ability to take risks comes with a healthy financial position. To keep up, adjust and retain the flow of new ideas the BBC needs revenue.

509
As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) emphasised, the cuts are having an increasing effect on external services. A total of £3·1 million of economies must be found in the years ahead. That service is our voice to the world and it is important to Britain. That cut is a retrograde step. Because of that step, I am to lose the programme to which I listen every night—the BBC World Service on the medium wave. I listen to that when driving home. It whiles away the hours from midnight to 4 am when I arrive back in Grimsby. The cuts are a personal blow as well as a world blow.
I am glad that the BBC has not been turned into a whipping boy, as it often is when it is blamed for everything. We have heard only one complaint about bias, and that related to Northern Ireland. I shall not comment on Northern Ireland—I am not standing for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party.
It is odd that hon. Members on both sides of the House who complain about bias are not here tonight. I suppose that they are earning fees from the media by complaining about the bias in the media. It's odd that they do not put their complaints here. Even odder is that many of those who complain most about bias are those who are best covered by the media. They are covered on the basis of the news value, the shock and the sensational.
In journalistic terms "Dog bites man" is not news, but "Man bites Labour Party" and "MP bites Labour Party" is news. "Member of Shadow Cabinet bites Labour Party" is even bigger news in contrast to the norms of political association and activity.
I do not want to refer to bias, except to say that there is a problem because of the corporation's approach to industrial relations. We see a constant harping on about industrial relations problems and a constant emphasis on stereotypes of labour versus capital with the workers always being caricatured as demanding, aggressive, picketing, loud-mouthed figures and management as putting forward a reasonable view. That preoccupation and caricature is a form of bias.
There is also a constant "chaps like us" syndrome that comes across acutely from the BBC. It sees itself as an agency of the national interest, presenting the views that all sensible, thinking, people are supposed to hold. That especially comes across in programmes about Europe and the Common Market. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said, that approach is also taken towards the Social Democratic Party, which has been highly publicised not only for news value but because it is made up of "chaps like us"—the sort of chaps that decent, sensible people want to see on television. Frankly, I was amazed to see Shirley Williams appear on that lamentable BBC county council election night coverage, which was really coverage of the London election results and not of anywhere outside London. She was the spokeswoman for a party that was not fighting the campaign, and whose embarrassing role was only to say that if an SDP candidate was defeated he was not authorised to stand anyway, and that if he was successful the party would take the credit.
Most of the problems of bias are institutional and, therefore, affected by the charter before us. The annex to the licence and agreement effectively embalms some of the factors that produce bias by entrenching a provision for neutrality and impartiality, rather than allowing parties and interested groups to speak for themselves and politicians to do their own thing. The impartiality
510
requirement too often means that the corporation sees impartiality not as taking a lead but as taking its cues from the press, which it assumes to be the voice of the people. The press ventilate an issue and the corporation follows. The impartiality requirement is harmful and dangerous to that extent.
I want to comment briefly on party political broadcasts, which are useful in taking the heat of the politicians off the corporation by allowing politicians to put over party views and therefore diminishing the pressure on the regular programmes. Having criticised the Euro-fun party—the Social Democratic Party—I must say that there is a strong case for a Green Paper on the approach to party political broadcasts now that a new party has been born. There is no case for excluding it from party political broadcasts either between elections or during the election period. Yet the existing criteria—candidates, votes and number of Members—become confused when applied to such a party. It should have access to party political broadcasts, both during the election period and in between, as do other parties. The two-party channels that work out such matters will have to apply themselves to deciding what criteria will allow that to happen. That means a Green Paper. It means thinking now about the coverage that we need during an election period. We must do so now before it is too late and before it becomes an issue of such party controversy that nothing can be done. That is the personal view of this believer in party political broadcasts. It is important that the parties have direct access to the people, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the little gander. A new agreement must be formulated.
Local radio is a vital service. The BBC's local radio service has its faults. The audience is too middle aged and too middle class. The approach has often been too public service and too dull because the key to promotion in the BBC is to present exactly that type of programme. Reporters and producers in local radio see themselves as pleasing the hierarchy by presenting that type of programme. However, despite those faults, BBC local radio has been extremely successful. It has brought an approach, a form of programming and a local emphasis which would not be available if it were not funded in that fashion. People think of it as "their" programme. That is especially so in Humberside where we have no other local radio. There is a real affection for Radio Humberside.
In clause 11(2) of the draft Royal charter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North pointed out, the councils to be appointed can consist of one locality or two or more localities. That seems to break the essential local tie that should be present. They should be genuinely local. There is also no provision for public access to the proceedings of the advisory bodies. Surely the role of those bodies should be—I believe that it is—to put over the views of the public. If they are purporting to speak for the public, be they important public people or whomsoever, the public should have access to their proceedings. There should not be a closed-door conspiracy between the advisory bodies and the BBC. That provision should be written into the charter.
There is another argument about the feeble nature of the provisions specifically for local radio. The BBC should be required to meet the same obligations as those that Parliament has laid down for the IBA and its local radio station. We do not have that requirement. The present requirement is much too simple and much too bald. It is

511
basically that the corporation should have full regard to the interests of "our people" in the region or locality. I am not sure whether "our people" is a misprint for "the people". "Our people" seems rather exclusive.
Mr Nigel Spearing: It is the Queen who is granting the licence.
Mr Mitchell: I accept the correction that has been offered from a sedentary position. In that context my hon. Friend should certainly have been standing.
These provisions are rather feeble because they allow the dilution of the local element in local radio to continue apace. There is far too much dilution. The inadequacy of the provision means that the door is open for further dilution. The planned increase in the number of stations has been reduced from 65 to 38 and the BBC, in its reaction to the report of the radio network working party, is leaning to the fourth option, which would reduce the output of local stations and compel them to carry network material. That will be a serious setback and a serious blow to the ability or incentive to offer local programmes, local news, local information and all the other things for which local radio exists. I should not like to see the Radio London approach spread throughout the country. Local radio will be changed into a uniform service—almost wallpaper for the ears, interspersed with news.
Therefore, it would be better if the charter stipulated, as the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 does, that
"the programmes broadcast…contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal specially to the tastes and outlook of persons served by the station or stations and, where another language as well as English is in common use among those so served, a suitable proportion of matter in that language;…that the programmes broadcast from different stations for reception in different localities do not consist of identical or similar material to an extent inconsistent with the character of the services as local sound broadcasting services."
It would be better if that section from the IBA Act were the relevant section of the charter. Otherwise, it looks like an open door to further economy, further dilution of the local element in local broadcasting and further excuses for the BBC to go in that direction because it does not have the money for any alternative.
I am extremely worried about that trend in local radio. What is creeping in is a series of centrally prepared programmes, whether it is "How to unblock your tap" or "Disembowelling made easy", all prepared in London and shipped out to local radio stations in a way which totally defeats their purposes.
Those local radio stations should be the BBC's roots in the community. They should be a local recruiting service whereby people who want to enter the media, journalism and so on are recruited in their localities by local radio, serve those localities and as they get better, they progress up the hierarchy to the central organisation. In other words, local radio is the bottom rung of the promotion ladder where people learn the job. It should be the area where people can make mistakes and carry out experiments and dare to take risks. It should be the area where there is that intimate bond between local station and local community. All those things are endangered by this sort of dilution process. The role of local radio should be to feed in items to the centre, not to carry items propagated from the centre outwards.
512
Therefore, it is crucial that the BBC, in this as in all the other respects I have mentioned, should have the money from the enhanced licence fee to do that job and all the other jobs which this charter has given it to do.
10.37 pm
Mr. Nicholas Lyell: I am happy to follow in debate the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) because in the haystack of his speech is to be found the needle to which I hope to add a thread in developing my argument.
The hon. Member for Grimsby said that as he drove northwards from London to Grimsby he enjoyed the same pleasure as I do driving less far northward to Hemel Hempstead, often listening to the BBC's external services. He pointed out a fact which I should like to proclaim to the whole country, that that opportunity will shortly no longer be available for a large part of the country.
Before I develop that theme, I shall make a brief point about how we should approach the question of the licence fee. The way in which the BBC obtains its money, whether for the home or external services, is closely tied up with the fact that it is about to close down the audibility of its external services in this country.
For the time being, we should continue to finance the BBC largely through the licence fee. While it sounds a generous gesture to make it cheaper or even free for elderly people or people, such as one-parent families, with some other financial problem, it is not the way in which we should seek to subsidise the individual. It is far better to provide financial assistance for the individual and to let him choose how to spend it than to spend, I understand, £150 million on providing a cheaper or free service that an elderly person might not choose.
When the new transmitter at Orford Ness, Suffolk, comes into service in a few months, the excellent BBC overseas services will no longer be audible in many parts of the country. For several reasons, that is sad. I am happy to join my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) in declaring that I was a strong supporter of the external services of the BBC when the necessary stringencies that the Government had to effect at the beginning of their term of office appeared to be about to threaten not its existence, but many of its important services.
It follows that our enthusiasm for our ability to broadcast to the world unbiased reporting, not only of what happens in Britain but of what happens in nations all over the world, will be diminished if people in Britain cannot listen to, enjoy and benefit from those excellent worldwide services. We are frequently told that we should begin to treat the world as one village of which we are all members. Therefore, it is sad that such an excellent service should not be audible to the people who put it out.
Why is that happening? It might be thought that this serious problem is impossible to overcome. I suspect that it is not. I have written to several of my right hon. and hon. Friends and to the director-general of the BBC about this. At present, the new transmitter at Orford Ness is beaming several English language programmes towards Europe. It would cost more money—I cannot find out how much—and would involve some variation in the agreements on international frequencies—I cannot find out how complicated—to enable those broadcasts which by

513
definition must have strong signals, to be redirected so that they are audible in the remainder of Britain. We are told that they will be audible in most of Southern England.
Those who travel by car to Grimsby are likely to find that the excellent programme that they are listening to on the radio will fade somewhere beyond Lincoln. By the time that they have reached Kesteven, the programme will have faded completely. When I wrote to my right hon. Friends, I hoped that my letter would be met with some enthusiasm, or at least some compassion. But I received a response to the effect that the situation was rather sad, but that our ability to hear such programmes was a spin-off, because those excellent services were primarily being provided to overseas listeners. It was implied that the fact that we had enjoyed such programmes in the past was no reason to expect to go on enjoying them in future, because that was not the purpose for which they were provided. That is what is said to those who complain. it is a shortsighted attitude.
I get such brush-offs because the service is financed by one Department, namely, the Foreign Office. The rest of the BBC's services are financed through television licences and, therefore, indirectly through the Home Office. Indeed, in almost any case, in my brief experience in this House, where two different Departments have had an overlapping responsibility, I have found that each of them tends to shrug off that responsibility into a vacuum. I refer to the problems of civil defence, which my right hon. Friend has been gallantly seeking to tackle, and I praise him for it. The dichotomy between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence in that area is another illustration of the same problem.
If it is a matter of money, I suspect that it involves only a few hundred thousand pounds per annum—certainly a very small amount in the context of the £550 million provided for the BBC overall. I ask the BBC, the Foreign Office and the Home Office to get together to see whether, by each chipping in some small proportion of the funds at their disposal, they can make up the financial gap. I ask them to get together to see whether they can overcome the problem of international frequencies, which seems to be part of the cause of the difficulties. I am sure that the limited technical and mechanical problems are well within the power of the BBC to put right.
I value very highly the external services and the work that they do as ambassadors for this country. From the external services one can hear and learn things about the world that one could not expect to hear on any local programmes in Britain. It is not only a matter of losing that benefit; we shall also lose our understanding of and our enthusiasm for the medium which is one of the most beneficial in giving us world-wide influence today.
10.47 pm
Mr. Tim Rathbone: I add my congratulations to the BBC, at the same time picking up the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about continuity and change. Its programme performance and production are unparalleled in the world in terms of entertainment, information and education. Its development of new programme ideas is unsurpassed. Unlike some speakers in the debate, I believe that it has followed up and instigated innovations in an admirable way.
In spite of the difficulties that the BBC has in making ends meet—not unlike most businesses or corporations today, be they private or Government—it is better at its
514
housekeeping than most other public corporations or Government-funded organisations. The efficiencies that it has introduced in the last few years are a mark of that.
In broadcasting terms I have only one quibble, and I share it with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), although for somewhat different reasons. I refer to the BBC's less than total commitment to the development of local sound broadcasting. This is not only due to the shortage of funds. I do not believe that it has grasped the difficulty of striking the right balance between national programming and local programming. It is not due to the lack of opportunity, because commercial local radio has gone ahead in leaps and bounds at every opportunity. Those opportunities should have been grasped by the BBC.
I hope that the new local broadcasting councils will not be a camouflage for a continued too low level of real activity in emphasis upon or in expansion of local radio. I hope that Radio Brighton is at this moment listening in. I should have liked to see a greater emphasis in the new charter, or in the licence and agreement, on how to meet the needs of local—and by that I mean really local—radio broadcasting. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend, and the Minister of State when he replies, will support in their expressions, if we cannot support it in these documents, the expansion of local broadcasting in this country.
We have heard mention of the expansion of BBC interests into pay TV, probably through some sort of television fed through land lines. Unlike some hon. Gentlemen opposite, I would welcome such expansion. At approximately £8 per month, which is 30p per day, it would be pretty good value and it could yield for the BBC between £50 million and £75 million a year, 10 per cent. of its total requirement, and that is not to be sniffed at. It would provide a medium for special sports coverage, for particularly high-cost arts programmes and for a special screening of first-run cinema films. Perhaps most important of all, it would provide a facility for beaming into people's homes local programming by regional or even smaller communities such as was argued for in the Annan report; and that would be welcomed.
I welcome also the positive support of the Government for BBC involvement in satellites in the report published two days ago. Although the expense of it will be very high indeed—between £30 million and £50 million, depending on whether it is two channels or five—I believe that we have the instruments in this country—not only the BBC but the new British Aerospace Company—to get this venture off the ground. From this the BBC could get subscription services yielding in the region of £50 million to supplement the licence fee. This would not only be good in broadcasting terms but would offer the most marvellous opportunities for the British film industry, and it would be a unifying influence within the whole of Europe. These are elements, among many others, which we will weigh in the argument which we shall put forward when the House has the opportunity, as soon as may be, of discussing satellite broadcasting.
Turning from those subsidiary ways of raising revenue for the BBC, I should like to touch on the question of the fee and then make some comments on it. It is unfortunate that it was raised to only £34 in November 1979. I do not believe that we on this side of the House are on very good or strong ground in criticising the actions of the Opposition when they were in office, because both parties have been

515
hesitant about putting up the fee when they should have done so. The reason is clear. It is that, athough Governments are worried about the services provided to listeners and viewers, they are also worried about the electoral influence of increasing the fee.
We were reminded of that in one of the editions of the Crossman diaries, when he said:
"After this yet another Cabinet…This time we decided to have no increase in the licence fee and no extension of hours but to develop our local radio stations. We would simply postpone the increase in the licence fee until 1971, after the election. Wilson was saying that we would demand that the BBC should do everything but we wouldn't give them the means to do it, and that was carried. It was a terrible decision, and shows how tired we were, but at all our Cabinet meetings it is becoming clearer that from now on nothing will be decided except in terms of electoral advantage."
I feel that that is the sort of comment that could have been made in almost any Cabinet that discussed the licence fee.
I do not believe that it is sufficient to allow the BBC to take the initiative, likening itself as it does to other public corporations when arguing for greater self-control. It is ludicrous to pay the BBC for the right to receive and to give it the wherewithal to produce, when perhaps in only a few years people will not watch the material. We shall be watching ITV, satellite TV, pay-TV or the tapes that we have recorded.
That leads me to speak in support of the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) and others that the BBC should gain more of its funding from advertising. The estimate of the advertising that may be carried Europe-wide when a satellite network is established is about £1 billion. Coming closer to home, advertising is steadily growing in all shapes and forms. It was approximately £2·6 billion in 1980, and it will be £2·8 billion this year and £3·2 billion in 1982. Television advertising is taking an increasing proportion of the total, rising from £621 million in 1980 to an anticipated £684 million this year and £786 million in 1982. Those figures should be compared with the total BBC revenue of about £500 million.
The BBC—a combination of channels 1 and 2—attracts over half of all television viewers. On the measurement for April, BBC1 attracted 40 per cent. and BBC2 15 per cent., making a total of 55 per cent. The corporation is attracting its share—some would say more than its share—of the viewing public. Only the other day an advertising specialist stated:
"there is no doubt that the BBC is out-boxing ITV at the moment, especially when it comes to BBC2."
The BBC should also be attracting its share of advertising spending. If the Government change their mind and decide not to follow the Annan suggestions, it would not be the first time that a Conservative Government have done so to good effect.
It is particularly important for the BBC to become established as an advertising medium before the advent of breakfast television and the new commercial channels that will be available with satellites. I disagree with my colleagues who argue against advertising, just as I disagree with those who argue against postponing the fourth television channel. The tax take from more competitive television advertising would make up at least the majority of the levy that the Government would lose from the
516
existing television companies. I believe, too, that the public would like a fourth channel, which will be apparent when it comes into being.
No less a person than the director-general of the BBC identified the funding attraction of advertising revenue when he spoke to members of the broadcasting press in July 1980. He stated:
"in relative terms—relative that is to the commercial broadcasting sector—our position is clearly deteriorating more sharply. They, with a monopoly of broadcasting advertising, are able to increase their 'prices' in line with what the traffic will bear, and so are able to more than keep pace with inflation. Our price'—the licence fee—can only be increased if the Government of the day is willing."
It is no longer credible to talk in scaremongering terms and say that taking advertisements would weaken independence, standards and quality or, in terms of a rating war, result in a competitive battle for viewers. The
BBC is already engaged in a war to attract viewers, to keep its more than 50 per cent. share of the viewing public and to win measurement competition from month to month and week to week. In the heart and mind of every producer of every television programme everywhere there is the need to win the rating war and, from the BBC standpoint, to win it to motivate like-minded people to work for it.
The director-general said:
"Where there is competition—and where we must hold our position—is for the broad range of events which the public wants to see, and above all for the skill and talent of producers, directors, writers, performers, commentators and not least technicians, all of whom we need to make programmes of high quality"
and, he said, by innuendo, to attract audiences to the BBC. He summed it up by saying:
"in the broadcasting industry there is a unique situation, with two organisations which in a few years will be roughly equal in size, but which on present trends will not be enjoying anything like equality in resources."
He pleaded for a revised fee system, with greater independence and a new Government review. The case he makes is the better met by the institution of revenues instead of a fee. But that is not to claim that advertising would cover all the BBC's costs. It probably would not want it to because it would lead to too intrusive and too extensive advertising. However, it could make a major contribution.
In the place of the remainder of the fee, I suggest the introduction of a special broadcasting tax as a percentage of the price of any broadcasting instrument, whether a transmitter or a receiver, or any electronic player such as a television, radio, cassette, tape or record player, with the phasing out of the licence fee over a few years. At the same time, the complicated and immensely expensive gathering paraphernalia should be disbanded and that £35 million should be collected by another route that the present licensing fee system lets slip. That would provide a more viable total financing package for the BBC. It would be better for the listeners, and better for those listeners identified by the Opposition who have to pay for a licence and who, they claim, cannot afford it—often they cannot—the pensioners and people on supplementary benefit.
The reason that we have not grasped the nettle is that we have tended to adopt a paternalistic approach to broadcasting. That is firmly entrenched. I know that
My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will not misunderstand me, but perhaps I can best illustrate it by

517
saying that the responsibility for broadcasting rests with the Home Office which is an office of regulation and control, as it is in many other areas.
Some intervention is essential to maintain standards so that we remain the envy of the world, to ensure coverage and to represent British broadcasting in international caucuses. But I wonder whether the present amount of intervention by the Government is correct or necessary. It is not as necessary as when we had a limited number of wavebands and channels for sound and audio-visual broadcasting. It is not as correct as when it would inhibit the regrowth of the British entertainment production industry to meet the needs of a burgeoning national and international market, as we now have, for what we can produce on film, tape, cassettes and laser discs.
We should look to these documents as being a signal for the Government to withdraw slowly from the intervention that has grown up. As technology has created wider and wider opportunities in broadcasting, so Governments have felt driven to create machinery and bureaucracy to control it.
I suggest that we should withdraw, for freer choice, reposition broadcasting where it belongs—in another Department of Government, probably Trade or Industry—free the BBC from its present restraints and encourage it into cable and other pay-television and into satellite broadcasting, remove from it the yoke of inadequate licence fees and allow it to seek commercial income to supplement Exchequer funding from a tax on audio and audio-visual instruments. The new BBC licence and agreement provides an opportunity for the Government to start taking the first tentative steps in those directions.
11.5 pm
Mr. Edward Lyons: I wish to make a few brief points and I shall not detain the House for long. The director-general said that the BBC was for the free mind what Oxfam is for the hungry. He may have been quoting someone else, but he was correct, and that demonstrates the importance of the BBC's external services and broadcasting in 38 languages at a cost of about £55 million.
When there are so many closed societies in the world it is important to remember that the broadcasting of impartial news to those societies is a great service to the people there. It helps Britain's reputation and British trade.
Today is the birthday of a great Russian scientist Andrei Sakharov, who is in Gorki prison. He was imprisoned for expressing unpopular views, and the way to change that system is for organisations such as the BBC to carry on his work by broadcasting the truth to the people of the Soviet Union and other countries. That is the way to remember Dr. Sakharov and people such as Shcharansky and Orlov who are languishing in Russian prisons.
In the days of the Shah and in these days of the Ayatollah, the BBC's overseas service to Iran is of great value in telling the people of Iran something about the outside world, and programmes in Farsi to Afghanistan are also valuable to the people of that country in all their tribulations.
It is tragic that, although we have the best broadcasts, our competitors have the best transmitters. We spend only
518
£55 million a year—and the Government want to cut it—on grant-in-aid from the Foreign Office to the BBC, and there is a strong case for increasing that assistance.
This is the International Year of Disabled People, and I remind hon. Members that television can make life much more interesting for deaf people. The BBC spends about £¼ million on helping with sub-titles for the deaf. lt intends to spend £10 million on the fourth channel for programmes in Welsh. There are only about ½ million Welsh speakers, and more than 2 million deaf people. There is a strong argument for doing a great deal more for the deaf through extra expenditure on subtitles and on sign language on television for those whose literacy is poor.
I appreciate that the BBC is doing something, through its Ceefax development and "News Review", but much more needs to be done, and the Government should provide assistance for that purpose, so that deaf people can have the great solace of meaningful television.
When one sees the BBC's great plans for the 1980s and 1990s, it is remarkable that parts of Bradford and other areas of the country should still have very poor reception. It is a pity that investment cannot be provided to enable people to see and hear programmes clearly.
Video cassette recorders in this country now number about 400,000. It is expected that by 1985 there will be 4 million, and by 1990, three times that number. I have no criticism of the BBC. The fact is that Thorn Consumer Electronics, our biggest manufacturer and retailer of television sets, refuses to make the investment to make those sets, which means that they have to be imported. So far as I am aware, Britain plays no part in the huge development of television cassette recorders. It is a tragedy that British companies will not provide the money. It is a tragedy that helped to close a large television factory in my constituency.
I favour a situation in which the Government do not make a block grant for the television licence. Under pressure, the Government have cut overseas and educational expenditure in universities. One does not want a situation in which Government feel that they have to respond to the pressures of the moment by trimming a grant to the BBC. There is always the feeling, too, that, if the BBC behaves well, a future Government might provide more money but that if it does not behave well in the eyes of the Government, less money might be provided.
The arbitrary nature of choice by those in authority can be seen in the Greater London Council's decision to cut off funds to the Royal Opera, Covent Garden and in Humberside council's refusal to help finance the English National Opera in the North. Those are examples of what happens when funding is placed in the hands of politicians operating on an ad hoc basis.
I hope that a system will be retained whereby funding is independent of total Government financing. 11 is one thing for the Government to be involved in specific items such as services for the deaf or overseas broadcasting. I would, however, oppose a situation in which the Government were the only providers of money to the BBC.
Although not perfect, the BBC does a good job. It has high standards. It maintains, on the whole, a remarkable impartiality. We are lucky to have the service that is provided.
11.14 pm
Mr. Nigel Forman: Anyone who presumes to rise to speak at this stage in the debate must wonder whether he would not be better employed reading a short epilogue and playing the national anthem. I should like to join those hon. Members who have paid tribute to the excellent job done by the BBC over the years. We wish the corporation well in its task over the coming 15-year period of the charter once it comes into being. I am concerned to see that the BBC maintains its renowned high standards in three important aspects built into the guidelines under which it operates.
The first is the provision of information. I am delighted to pay tribute to the high standard of the BBC's news programmes and to the fact that on the whole the BBC seems to manage to avoid the pitfalls of triviality, trivialisation and what Jay and Birt once called in a celebrated article "Bias against understanding." If we can ensure that the BBC follows the provisions in the excellent annex attached to the licence and agreement I shall be satisfied that it is more than likely to continue its high standards. Is the annex a binding part of the agreement?
I urge all those involved with the BBC to do everything possible to boost the educational and educative role. I pay particular tribute to programmes such as "Horizon" and "The World About Us" on television. I hope that in future the Open University will be broadcast at sensible times and that the newly inspired Open Tech will develop to the full on television.
Great challenges are ahead in a time of high unemployment, for the extended teaching which the media can provide and which is known as distance learning. That is particularly important in foreign languages in which we have fallen a long way behind in commercial and other terms. I hope that the original Reithian purpose can be updated in that aspect of the BBC's activities and that it will continue with the good work that it has done in the past.
Another aspect of the BBC's activities comes under the heading of entertainment. That must play a large part in the schedules. It is necessary, if not for entertainment purposes alone but to raise additional revenue through joint productions with the United States, for example. I hope that those in charge will ensure that it does not become too dominant an influence upon television and radio, particularly in view of the fictional slots in programmes which all too often can mislead people and produce demonstration effects which are not healthy for our society.
Football hooliganism is an example. One of the effects of television is that it keeps middle-aged and elderly men who used to go to football matches at home watching the box with a can or two of beer. That is fine for them, but such responsible citizens are withdrawn from the terraces. That is an unintended effect of this new and powerful medium. I hope that the emphasis on entertainment will not be such as to lead to blanket coverage of sport which discourages people from going out and participating directly. On the whole the BBC has done a good job. I wish it well in the coming period.
11.18 pm
Mr. Christopher Murphy: The debate provides an opportunity for the House to consider the role of the BBC in the next 15 years. It also
520
provides an opportunity to view the BBC as it now is. For that reason, I wish to concentrate briefly on quality, because that should provide a fundamental pointer.
The quality of programming in general terms remains high, especially when the programmes are home produced. One has only to recall some of the classic television serials, education features or well-produced radio plays to be aware of that.
It is appropriate to draw particular attention to the role of the BBC as patron of the arts. Its patronage is now one of the major contributions to excellence in music and drama in the United Kingdom. The quality of news, however, unfortunately and increasingly, leaves much to be desired. One only has to compare television news with radio news to realise how often visual gimmickry is the excuse for an item to be featured rather than because it is an important news story. Of greatest concern is the merging of news and opinion so that they often become indistinguishable. Such so-called news stories are usually little more than sensational speculation rather than factual reporting.
The quality of the external services, despite financial difficulties, continues to be self-evident, as the rising appreciation of the world service has shown. But the quality of self-censorship is, regrettably, not so self-evident as both bad language and offensive displays bear witness, too often at times when families may unwittingly find themselves viewing or listening.
I believe that the viewer and listener is rightly concerned that quality should be maintained and improved rather than that standards should be put in jeopardy. I hope that the BBC will recognise that its consumer, who is also its paymaster, will be both encouraged and more appreciative if the corporation can take stock of its current spending and build upon that foundation during the next 15 years.
11.21 pm
Dr. Shirley Summerskill: It is appropriate that the debate has been well attended, as broadcasting debates go, because during the next 15 years the BBC will be exercising immeasurable influence and immense power, and will largely determine the way in which adults and children look at the world. It has great prestige not only because it is conscientious and vigilant but because it is free from two forms of control—commercial control and political control. I hope that the House will constantly guard against those two forms of control ever intruding into the way that the BBC is run.
The first charter granted to the corporation more than 54 years ago was not nearly as long as the one that we are discussing today. The duration of licence now proposed is for 15 years, which is the longest consecutive period of renewal that has ever been granted to the BBC. The Government have not justified why they have chosen 15 years, apart from the administratively convenient fact that that is the same period as that given to the independent broadcasting authorities. I remind the Home Secretary that in Committee on the Broadcasting Bill, with some of my hon. Friends, I put the case for 10 years to be the extension of duration. The main reason was parliamentary and public accountability for both authorities.
The BBC should be proud to give an account of itself to Parliament through the Home Secretary. It is not enough for it to produce an annual report, for us to hold the occasional general debate, or for the Home Secretary to

521
answer parliamentary questions. It needs the stimulus and challenge of Parliament's renewal, or the possibility of its failure to renew the BBC's charter for the corporation to be truly accountable to Parliament and the public.
When we are considering the BBC's duration of life we must take into account not only its existing functions and powers but major developments that can and will take place and which will change and expand those same functions and powers. We have heard tonight of many developments. They are uncharted seas which the BBC will enter during the next 15 years. There are the spread of video cassettes and discs, a subscription broadcasting service and probably other new technological developments. Nobody can predict what will be the outcome in 1996. So this charter is potentially one of the most significant that the House has ever debated.
By the end of the century television viewers will be choosing their programmes from a multitude of sources from this country and overseas. These changes mean that Parliament must be particularly vigilant in ensuring that the BBC maintains its present on the whole high standard of programmes. Limiting the life of the corporation is the best way of making the corporation accountable to the public.
Nearly every hon. Member who has spoken has dealt with the financing of the BBC. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) came down in favour of the grant. Most other hon. Members supported the licence. I am sure that all my hon. Friends agree that on no account should advertising be a source of revenue for the BBC. Most hon. Members had reservations about the licence. Even Annan said that it was the "least unsatisfactory" method of raising the revenue. But it has the advantage of leaving the BBC freedom on programme plans and on financial policies.
Several of my hon. Friends expressed concern about the unemployed, pensioners and the disabled, and they want to devise some form of help for these sections of the community as the licence fee continues in existence. I hope that the Government will think carefully about how these groups can be helped.
The House has a duty to see that the BBC is provided with the finance it needs to help it to maintain its programme standards and to compete effectively with independent television and radio. We must do that even if it makes us politically unpopular. The BBC should never be allowed to become the poor relation of the public services.
Another form of financing would be sponsored programmes. I am glad that in the documents before us the Government appear to be saying "No" to them. Even if the BBC is facing serious financial difficulties we should never resort to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South was sympathetic to sponsored programmes, but they are the thin end of the wedge. I fear that they could lead to commercial domination and influence of the corporation. I trust that the Home Secretary will never give his approval of them.
We have been discussing more and different services. I hope that the BBC will agree that more broadcasting, more services and more channels do not always mean better broadcasting. Quantity is not necessarily synonymous with quality. The primary aim should be to provide programmes of quality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) made the important point that pay television
522
could lead to first and second-class services, the first-class for those who are paying extra, and the second-class for those who are not. But the advantage of subscription television—or, at least, of pay television cable services—is that there would be no advertisements. Even in the United States pay television does not have them. We were told earlier this month by the chairman of the governors, Mr. Howard, that pay television could add £50 million to £75 million a year to the BBC's overall income. That we should certainly welcome. The scheme would also give a boost to our ailing film industry. I hope, therefore, that the Government can look further into this aspect. Pilot services are now in operation.
I hope that the Minister, in replying to the debate, will explain why there is a rush over satellite television. Only two months are being allowed for comments. Clearly, there cannot be a debate on the document in the House during that time, yet the public and Parliament have not been consulted at all about satellite television. The document was drawn up using the views of interested parties. There seems to be a rush, even though we have for some time been able to observe the experiment in France and Germany.
We should like to know whether the interests of the British film industry will be fully safeguarded. I am, again, concerned about advertising, which could enter into satellite television. The document does not make it clear whether advertising would be used as a source of revenue in satellite broadcasting, although it is suggested. Satellite television could lead to an unprecedented advertising boom, and there are fears that this development could be the successor to commercial television as a licence to print money. I think that I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that, if we are to have satellite television, it should not be funded, even partially, by advertising.
The document is not clear either about what the cost to the BBC will be in the first year or two of satellite television. Are the Government confident that the sort of profits that would be made are clearly possible on ordinary pay-television?
I congratulate the Home Secretary on the appointments that he has made to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. I wish Baroness Pike every success as chairman. She has two excellent qualifications. Although this is one of the 55 new quangos that this Government have set up since they came to office, it is refreshing that, instead of one of the usual male heads of quangos, appointed through the old boy network, a woman will hold this job. Secondly, Baroness Pike has the advantage of having been an Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, which I can assure the House prepares one for any eventuality.
When the commission was provided for under the Broadcasting Bill last year, hon. Members agreed that complaints about unjust or unfair treatment in broadcasting, or of unwarranted infringement of privacy could be made only by an identified individual or body. The commission should not be a tribunal of taste and should not consider general complaints. We felt that that would seriously inhibit the freedom of investigative journalists and interfere with the BBC's independence. For the same reason, it has been the policy of successive Governments not to intervene in the content of broadcast programmes.
Because of this limitation on the functions of the commission, we have to consider carefully, as several hon. Members have, how best our complaints about

523
programme standards, content, quality and balance and about good taste and decency can be conveyed to those who make the programmes, and how we may obtain a considered reply. I welcome the fact that public meetings will continue to be held. The Home Secretary implied that the governors go to them, but I am told that only the occasional governor goes to the occasional public meeting. I should like to see many of the 12 governors going regularly to far more of these meetings, and they should be given far more publicity. The public, who usually never see or hear a BBC governor—they are remote men and women—could then voice their views about programmes.
There is also the avenue of letters to programme editors and the director-general and the chairman of the governors, and I should like to see more programmes examining the programmes which are broadcast.
ITV has a programme called "Did You See?" which is conducted by Ludovic Kennedy and which analyses, in a fairly lengthy way, the content of programmes. The public are becoming more critical and selective about the services provided. This can only be good for programme standards. The comments made should receive careful consideration from programme makers. If there has been a mistake and it is found that criticism is valid, a correction should be given the fullest possible publicity.
We welcome the resolutions of the governors, particularly on programme standards and proper balance. The aim should be to provide programmes and schedules which offer the widest possible choice for many people rather than those which aim simply to attract and hold the largest possible audience. In the same way, the news services have received special comment in the resolutions. Here I appreciate the difficulty of getting an accurate balance between one viewpoint and another. The remedy could be to give more time for news services so that there is time to explain all the facts, all the views, as is done in America, where they have channels devoted entirely to news and information.
These are complex topics—the balance of programmes, matters of public policy—and they have been dealt with by several hon. Members. The BBC has gone a good way forward in putting these matters in the annex. For the first time they are now incorporated in the charter. We must continue to ensure that the BBC is responsive to the nation's needs and that it is, above all, a public service. The right balance has to be struck between its independence and freedom in the day-to-day conduct of its business and the ultimate control of this House. We must ensure that the BBC continues to be the United Kingdom's major broadcasting authority, providing programmes of a high standard and quality for both majority and minority audiences.
11.37 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): We have had a wide-ranging debate, as is generally the case on this type of occasion. At the end of it I have to pay some attention to the kind of guidelines that are imposed upon the broadcasting authorities to observe the time of night in deciding what sort of coverage to give to the speeches that have been made. One particularly pleasant feature of this debate has been the almost universal—if not wholly universal—expression of
524
approval and satisfaction for the general standards achieved by the BBC under the terms of the charter and licence and agreement that we are proposing to update.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton), speaking with a lot of experience, said that it was impossible, once having worked for the BBC, to stop loving the thing. Others have spoken of the affection that it seems to inspire. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr Rathbone) said that we were a bit too paternalistic towards broadcasting. I do not think that that is right. He spoke of the high standards that the BBC achieves and said that he wanted to keep them. One of the problems that we have to face in this House, and in this type of debate, is that, if we are to acknowledge high standards in the BBC, it can hardly be right to detach those from the basic principles by which the BBC has been governed. My hon. Friend says that we ought to throw all that overboard and that the Government should withdraw, certainly the Home Office should withdraw, and, in so far as there is any Government intervention, it should be that of the Department of Industry or perhaps the Department of Trade. My hon. Friend says that the BBC should be financed by advertising. That is a tenable proposition, but I do not think that there would be much support for it in the House. For my part and the Government's part, I do not think that it is established that anything like the high standards that have been praised in the debate would be achieved if we went down that road.
The broadcasting authorities are possessed of great power to influence their audiences and, therefore, carry great responsibilities in the manner in which they operate. That is why the present licence and agreement, the ministerial prescriptions made under it and the Normanbrook letter require the BBC to maintain certain extremely important standards of programme content. That is why the new licence and agreement maintains those obligations in their entirety and brings into greater prominence those at present imposed by the ministerial prescripttion by incorporating them in the body of the licence and agreement.
Past debates on these issues have ranged widely and this one has been no exception. I shall do my best to drag, sometimes by their heels, some of the comments that have been made into the context of either the charter or the licence and agreement. These are the governing instruments for a major national organisation. They constitute the framework within which the BBC operates. They will continue the life of the BBC until 1996.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), who replied on behalf of the Opposition, said that the Government had not justified the 15-year duration for the proposed new charter and agreement. One of the arguments of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who has kindly told me that he cannot be present, was the need for continuity, and that is part of the answer that I give to the hon. Lady. With today's greatly increased sophistication in broadcasting and the complexity of the issues that broadcasters have to face, there is an established case for a charter of longer duration. Parliament so decided for the IBA.
I draw some little comfort from the Labour Government's White Paper on broadcasting that was published in 1978. In describing the legislation that they were holding out they stated:

525
"It is envisaged that the legislation and the Royal Charter will govern broadcasting in the United Kingdom throughout the next decade and into the 1990s."
Dr. Summerskill: It was published in 1978.
Mr Mayhew: It includes the phrase "into the 1990s." Even at this time of night my mathematics tell me that that takes us up to the 15-year mark. We do not have to justify by very special pleading the desirability of a 15-year duration.
Dr. Summerskill: The hon. and learned Gentleman is using the Labour Government's document in support of his own case. Will he accept the other proposals that are contained within it, or is he selecting certain ones with which he happens to agree?
Mr. Mayhew: My funds of approval are exhausted by the reference which I have made. The other proposals would not have carried nearly the same support.
The debate has focused in part upon matters which fall within one of the obligations that are set out in the guidelines for the broadcasting authorities—it is common both to the BBC and the IBA—namely to exclude so far as possible matter which offends
"good taste or decency or be likely to encourage or incite crime or lead to disorder, or to be offensive to public feeling."
A great deal of the misgivings that have been expressed in the debate have focused upon those guidelines.
Many of my hon. Friends have expressed their unease, especially in the context of Northern Ireland, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) made a notable speech and the difficult judgment that reporters and editors on the spot have to make in deciding what aspect of a story to go for and to what extent it would be right in an overall exercise of good judgment to follow a particular line at any given time. We have been primarily concerned in the guidelines about those people.
The approach which is followed by the Government in maintaining the guidelines from the existing licence and agreement, with the Normanbrook letter, is the right one. I am certain that we are right not to seek to impose governmental control or even some intermediary control upon those who are vested with the responsibility of following those guidelines, who are the governors of the BBC.
The new emphasis on complaints instituted by my right hon. Friend, with the agreement of the governors, will go a long way towards emphasising the view that Parliament expresses, that more attention should be paid to complaints. My right hon. Friend has asked the governors of the BBC to incoporate in their annual report a reference to a note of not only the number but the nature of the complaints made in the past year.
It is of great importance that, if people have complaints, they should send them to the BBC or the new complaints commission, if that seems more appropriate. My right hon. Friend was asked by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely how the two were distinguished. Because it is a matter of general interest, I shall comment on it. Members of the public can complain either to the BBC or to the complaints commission, as they wish, about unjust or unfair treatment or invasion of privacy. The commission will not be able to entertain complaints about general programme standards. It will pass on such complaints to the appropriate broadcasting authority. The remit of the
526
Broadcasting Complaints Commission covers only unjust and unfair treatment or invasion of privacy, not general programme standards.
Therefore, I hope that those who, with some justice in my personal belief, from time to time find ground for complaint will not be content with writing to Members of Parliament, although I know that my colleagues always pass on those matters, but will complain to the authorities.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) firmly supported the basis of the licence fee for funding the BBC. I am grateful for that. He rightly explained that if one aimed at Government subvention there would be a loss of independence. However, in the end he asked for just that. The sum of £150 million would be needed as a concession to fund the concession for pensioners, let alone the sick and the unemployed, who need help with paying licence fees.
I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) that it is right to arrange the level of pension and to supplement it where necessary with supplementary benefit. That point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker). Providing blanket concessions for old-age pensioners, who would benefit whether they needed them or not, would open the door to the sort of control by Government which in the end we would all regret.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asked about local radio. He asked about the number of hours that are devoted to locally produced programmes. This matter was dealt with in the third report of the local radio working party. The BBC's local radio services will provide locally originated material—part speech, part music—to the extent that resources permit. For the present, at any rate, they will opt into one or other of the BBC's network services for the remainder of the day.
Existing BBC local radio services have been cut to about 10 hours a day of locally originated broadcasts, in part to help finance new local services. These new local radio services will broadcast locally originated material, initially for about six hours a day. The Government's view is that it is desirable that there should be local radio services, but it is a matter for the broadcasting authorities to determine what degree of priority to give and how much of the funds to allocate to them.
It goes without saying that local radio services have proved their worth and that they contribute towards an identity with local communities. However, it must be for the broadcasting authorities to determine how they are to be financed and what priority they are to get.
Mr Whitehead: As the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the Home Office local radio working party, which examines, in some degree, the way in which such services are developing, does he agree that we shall get a wider view of the community element that should be in local radio only if the range of personnel on the working party is widened? It should include not simply representatives of the BBC and of the ILR.
Mr Mayhew: No doubt that point of view will he noted. However, one does not necessarily have to be a member of the class to be served by the body to hold a valuable view.
Unhappily, I must disagree with my hon. friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) over his views on concessionary allowances for old-age pensioners

527
and over his support for advertising revenue. He asked whether the BBC would be permitted, under the new arrangements, to make money out of the sale of video cassettes and so on. I am happy to tell him that it can already do that. I do not invite him to do so tonight, but if he consults article 3(p) of the draft charter he will find that that source of income is included. That is a good thing.
The hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) and other hon. Members mentioned the BBC's external services. There has never been any intention to reduce funds to the world service in English. I agree absolutely with the tributes that have been paid to the quality of the external services. I take the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead about the desirability of hearing such programmes in England. It is not altogether a light-hearted matter to say that the principal purpose of such programmes is that they should be heard in the countries to which they are addressed. It has been a nice bonus that they have been heard in England, because their quality is very high. I agree with what has been said about the amount of approval that they have in Britain.
My hon. and learned Friend was right when he spoke about what would happen when the new transmitter at Orford Ness came into service—with its modern directional aerial—to replace the obsolete wartime transmitter at Crowborough in early 1982. Audibility of the world service in English may be reduced in some parts of the United Kingdom, but the precise effect will not be known until the new transmitter is operating. There are also plans to strengthen world service short-wave transmissions, but again it is not yet possible to say what effect that will have on reception in the United Kingdom. I am advised that there would be substantial financial consequences in changing the transmitter network in order to get uniform audibility of the external service in the United Kingdom. What my hon. and learned Friend has said will be noted but I cannot hold out a great deal of hope for an improvement in the position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North spoke of programme content and of the importance of maintaining a reasonable proportion of home-produced programmes. He complained of a very large amount of American material. He will know that the licence and agreement requires that there shall be a reasonable proportion of home-produced material, and it is important that that should be complied with. Similarly, there is the obligation to provide political balance and a distinction between fact and comment. That is a very important point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest also made it. Those points will be carefully noted by the BBC.
I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North for the licence fee as the basis, and I entirely agree with his criticism of the Labour Government, which sought to meet the BBC's difficulties only by increasing the borrowing power instead of enabling the BBC to increase the licence fee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest spoke about Northern Ireland. I trust that his remarks about the need to remember the right to a life as well as the right to know will be carefully noted by the BBC. These are
528
difficult matters of judgment, but his balanced speech made the point with the utmost clarity. It is a most important matter.
I was sorry to miss the speech of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), but I have a note of what he said. He spoke from a background of great knowledge as a member of the Annan committee. He spoke of the importance of balance, in particular in reference to Northern Ireland. His points will be carefully noted.
Many people in the country have remarked on the very extensive coverage of the funerals of IRA murderers in recent weeks and months. It is not my place to allocate blame, or even criticism, but I am not surprised that those comments have been made, and I am certain that those who carry the responsibility for making judgments in the BBC will take note of them.
The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) spoke of a constant emphasising of industrial relations in BBC programmes and complained of the use of stereotypes. As my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, if there are things to complain about, let people complain, and complain at the time. Those who are responsible for making the programmes would welcome that.
I have said what I want to say about the interesting and informed speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes. It was a plea for advertising revenue, and I do not want to say more about that.
I note the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons). Careful note will be taken in the BBC of his point that about four times more money is spent on broadcasting programmes in the Welsh language than is spent on special help for the deaf. In the International Year of Disabled People there is special relevance. I am grateful for what he said against the suggestion that the Government should provide block grant support for the BBC. Audibility in Bradford—which is important for those who live there—is a responsibility of the broadcasting authorities and they will take careful note of what has been said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) asked whether the guidelines contained in the annex to the licence constitutes the binding part of the agreement. The answer in non-technical terms is that for all practical purposes it does.
My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) rightly emphasised the need for self-censorship in the BBC and indeed all broadcasting authorities.
The hon. Member for Halifax asked what was the rush about the direct-broadcasting-by-satellite proposals. This is not a White Paper; it is a study. We do not have at the moment answers to many of the questions that it asks. This is a matter of great importance. The new technology is not waiting for us and will not wait for us. Therefore, we want comments fairly quickly. However, my right hon. Friend has said that no decisions will be taken without consulting Parliament.
I should like to end as I began by referring to a matter which concerns large numbers of people in the country and in the House, and that is the question of programme standards. They are fundamental to our concept of public service broadcasting and crucial to the power and the influence of broadcasting in our lives. Given the amount of broadcasting for which the BBC and the IBA are responsible and the breadth of their programme obligations, their task of maintaining standards is not easy

529
one. Indeed, it frequently involves reconciling apparently conflicting obligations. The important point is that we have in this country established public bodies to apply these standards and fulfil these obligations, and we are entitled to look to them to do so. They are bound to make mistakes sometimes, though I doubt whether there would ever be unanimity among the public or among us in the House as to when those mistakes have occurred or in what respects they have occurred.
My right hon. Friend considered, and the board of governors of the BBC has agreed, that it would be right now in the constitutional documents which will extend the life of the corporation for another 15 years to incorporate for all to see the programme standards and obligations by which we rightly set so much store. It is also a reflection of the importance which the Government and the broadcasting authorities attach to programme standards that only a couple of months ago my right hon. Friend asked the authorities to include in their annual reports information about the number and nature of the complaints that they receive and about any action taken in consequence of them. This is an important measure in the area of the accountability of the authorities.
If we attach importance to the quality and range of broadcasting services in this country and to the maintenance of proper standards and programmes, we must attach importance to the role of the authorities. We do not have always to agree with their decisions to know that the concept of a broadcasting authority has served this country well, and we must be careful not to undermine their authority and responsibility, because if we do we shall spoil the public service nature of broadcasting. We shall reduce its range and quality, and we may even cause a decline in programme standards.
The Government believe firmly that the broadcasting authorities, established with the approval of Parliament and vested with appropriately balanced powers and obligations, should remain central to our broadcasting arrangements, and it is this view which is reflected in the draft charter and licence and agreement.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Licence and Agreement between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the British Broadcasting Corporation (Cmnd. 8233), dated 2 April 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 April, be approved.

Shipping Standards and Prevention of Oil Pollution
12.4 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8480/80 (draft Directive concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports, of international standards for shipping safety and pollution prevention) and 8479/80 (Communication concerning a plan to combat oil pollution of the sea) and the updated explanatory memoranda of 18 May 1981; and welcomes the Government's intention to continue to work to improve the standards, of maritime safety and to combat oil pollution.
The two Community documents which are before the House cover an area of considerable public interest—that of maritime safety and the prevention of pollution—and the Government believe that it is right that the House should have an opportunity to debate them before they are presented to the Council of Ministers for further consideration. As we stated in our latest explanatory memoranda, not all the proposals in the documents are nearing the point of decision. Moreover, as I shall explain, certain recent developments may mean that the form and content of the draft directive on port State enforcement may be changed substantially before the Community takes action in this field.
However, despite these uncertainties, it will be helpful to have the views of hon. Members on the issues raised by the documents, and we shall certainly give full weight to their consideration in pursuing these important questions further in the Community.
Ever since the "Torrey Canyon" grounding in 1967 the issues of maritime safety and the prevention of pollution have attracted major public concern not only in the United Kingdom but in the European Community and, indeed, in the wider international field. This has resulted in a great intensification of effort over the past 10 years to improve standards of maritime safety and to limit the potential for pollution. During that period, the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, known as IMCO, has, for example, instigated work upon, and successfully brought into being, a number of important and relevant conventions. The Government have been fully involved in this process, and it is a matter of pride that we have ratified every outstanding convention and protocol. We are the first country, indeed, to have already done so.
Mr John Prescott: I am interested in what the Minister said about the ratification of conventions, and especially ILO conventions. From a study that I did up to 1976 for the European Parliament, it is clear that the European nations had implemented only half the ILO conventions. 'Greece had the worst record, and Britain was only midway. The ratification of conventions by national States is not so good and honourable as the Minister suggests.
Mr Eyre: That research was conducted some time ago. Considerable progress may have been made since then. A large number of States have ratified many of the conventions. Progress is being made in that area of international co-operation.
However, it was the grounding of the "Amoco Cadiz" off the Brittany coast in 1978 which brought a number of issues sharply into focus and gave a fresh impetus to

531
efforts to deal with the problem of substandard or defective vessels, in particular the problems and risks created by the movement of large tankers in the congested waters around Europe. Broadly, there were two issues which attracted attention above others. One was the need to reinforce and supplement the responsibilities of flag States for the safety of ships by the creation of a complimentary system of effective port State enforcement. The other issue was the ready availability of the information needed to deal successfully with a potential tanker casualty or the aftermath of a major disaster like the "Amoco Cadiz". These are essentially the matters covered by the Community documents before us.
In view of the hazards which faced all the European coastal and port States, it was natural and right that the European Community should feel that it had an important and useful role to play in the fields of port State enforcement and the exchange of information. At its meeting in Copenhagen in April 1978, the European Council therefore agreed that the Community should make the prevention and combating of marine pollution, particularly from hydrocarbons, a major objective. Following this lead, the Council of Ministers in June adopted a resolution setting up an action programme of the European communities on the control and reduction of pollution caused by oil spills at sea. The need for action was further reaffirmed by the European Council meeting in July, which declared that it deemed it necessary to take further measures to increase the safety of maritime traffic and reaffirmed the necessity for member States to intensify their efforts to prevent and control pollution of the sea.
In response to the call for action, the Commission set in hand a number of studies as a result of which it was able in July 1980 to submit to the Council the two documents in question.
I do not propose to take up the time of the House by describing the contents of the documents in detail. I assume that any hon. Member interested in this subject will know the main features of the directive and the decision. I want to take up what have appeared to be some of the more contentious points and explain how our views have evolved and to inform the House of the position that has been reached.
First, I should like to deal with document No. 8480/80. This is a proposal for a Council directive concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports, of international standards for shipping safety and pollution prevention. It is perhaps the more far reaching of the two documents since it represents no less than an ambitious and praiseworthy attempt by the Commission to draw up a comprehensive regime for the enforcement within the Community of international shipping standards on the part of port States. A number of the provisions of the directive are technical and concern the applicability of conventions. In essence, however, the directive envisages the establishment throughout the Community of a uniform enforcement procedure. It seeks to introduce a checklist relating to safety and other certificates and proposes the development of a common, possibly computerised, information system covering all vessels which have or are likely to call at a Community port. Finally, it is proposed that member States should undertake a specific quantum
532
of port State activity with a view to identifying, inspecting and rectifying all substandard ships of whatever nationality.
In participating in the discussion of the Commission's proposals, we have made it clear that we are strongly in favour of more effective port State enforcement and that we believe that a co-ordinated regional approach could represent a significant and valuable step forward in tackling the problem of the substandard vessel. I should add, perhaps, that the United Kingdom is already carrying out in large measure the main enforcement provisions envisaged in the directive and in that respect we are certainly wholly behind the Commission's broad objectives. Our marine survey service is fully alive to the risks to life and to the pollution of our waters which arise because of the continued operation of defective and substandard vessels. In recent years we have substantially increased our efforts as a port State. In 1980, for example about 1,300 foreign registered vessels were inspected in our ports, compared with 615 foreign registered vessels in 1979.
I emphasise, because some misunderstandings have arisen, that we have no objection in principle to the Community playing its part in this field to ensure that member States co-operate as port States and that an effective system of control is operated within the waters of the nine maritime members. We welcome the attention which has been and is being given to these matters by the Council and the Commission. However, as a country experienced in port State enforcement, we have a number of reservations about the Commission's proposals largely from a practical point of view and both we and other member States were concerned about the wider implications of the extension of Community competence, notably in relation to the work of IMCO.
Mr Clinton Davis: When enhancing the port States enforcement, does the Minister feel that the present manpower available within the surveyor's branch of the Department is sufficient for those increased activities? If not, what steps are being taken to increase the number of people available and perhaps include many masters who are at present redundant as a result of the recession?
Mr. Eyre: I emphasise that the strength of the marine survey office has been fully maintained. There are 250 marine survey officers operating, which is the same number as in the past year or two. By making the most efficient use of their services we have been able to increase the number of surveys carried out.
Our principal reservation about the system of enforcement proposed by the Commission related to the emphasis placed on the checking of the validity of safety certificates and the requirement for a master, on arrival, to lodge a declaration about those certificates, with the competent authorities in the port State. It is not that we place no value on safety certificates, but our experience is that they are not an infallible guide to the actual state of a vessel. Indeed the great majority of ships worldwide—90 per cent. or so—on which deficiencies are detected are found to have valid certificates.
We felt, therefore, that the main thrust of the directive should be on the detection of vessels which might be substandard. We also questioned whether any advantage

533
would be gained from requiring a master to complete yet another form, which would add nothing to the validity of the certificates already in his possession.
Mr Prescott: The Minister makes an interesting point about the 90 per cent. of vessels that are found to have a valid certificate. Presumably he is referring to the safety certificate of the vessel, but most vessels are lost because on incompetence. That is particularly true of flags of convenience vessels.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument about other countries, but how does he hope to deal with the safety standards and certification of countries for which the House has some responsibility? I am thinking particularly of the Cayman Islands, which is a growing flag of convenience territory, and apparently we are not imposing safety controls on those islands, even though their vessels fly a British flag.
Mr Eyre: The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the subject under discussion, but I emphasise that the enhanced system of port State inspection that I have described, together with international agreement to influence the standards of inspection, will go a long way towards dealing with the problem that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
Essentially, we saw the marine surveys issue as a question of the use of resources. Our conclusion was that to use our highly trained manpower simply to check certifcates on each foreign registered vessel would not represent an effective use of time and effort—and could even result in some substandard ships which are currently detected escaping the net because of the distraction of surveyors by other tasks.
On the second point, our concern over competence, in essence, is that the creation or extension of competence in matters falling within IMCO' s area of responsibility would not be desirable or helpful to the Community. The expression of a single Community position could tend to restrict the range of technical opinions expressed in, and possibly the quality of, technical debates. IMCO is a special body in that respect, because it is principally concerned with matters of great technical complexity and works chiefly through the pooling of experience and knowledge on the widest possible basis.
The representation of a Community view by a single spokesman could also lead to suggestions on the part of other maritime States that there was no need for more than one member State to be represented on the Council of the organisation, that is IMCO, as against the four who have seats at present. The operation of the Community as a single entity could tend to encourage the emergence of other regional groupings leading to a politicisation of an essentially technical body.
We know that both the Commission and certain other member States are aware of the problem which could arise over competence. It is recognised that it is a problem which requires solution if work in the Community is to proceed smoothly and effectively. We are hopeful that, as has already been managed in other fields, an acceptable answer can be found which will allow the Community to develop its role in the enforcement of maritime safety standards while at the same time allowing the member States to play a full and active part in IMCO.
Right hon. and hon. Members may have noticed that I have been using the past tense. This is because, to a large
534
extent, the work in the Community on the directive has been overtaken by another major parallel development. The House may be aware that in December 1980, on the initiative of the French Government, a meeting of Ministers responsible for maritime safety in 13 countries of Western Europe was held in Paris in order to devise ways of improving the safety of shipping and the prevention of pollution. The countries represented included the nine Community maritime member States plus Greece, which has since, of course, become a member, Spain, Portugal, Norway and Sweden. IMCO, the International Labour Organisation and the European Commission were also represented at a high level. One of the major points of agreement at the meeting was that it was necessary to increase the effectiveness of port State enforcement.
A working group was therefore established under the chairmanship of the Netherlands Government to study ways in which this might be achieved, bearing in mind the possibility of building on both the present directive and the existing memorandum of understanding between certain maritime authorities on the maintenance of standards on merchant ships, normally called the Hague memorandum.
This working group, on which the United Kingdom is represented together with the other Community maritime States and the Commission, is now in the process of carrying out its study. I am glad to say that it is making good progress and is due to report on 1 July. As a result, it is likely that the difficulties which we foresaw in the operation of the directive will prove capable of practical solution.
Because of the importance of this work in The Hague, by common consent, the substantive discussion of the proposed directive in Brussels has been suspended, although the progress of The Hague group is being regularly monitored and points of particular Community interest discussed.
Because of the timetable set at the Paris meeting, the Transport Council will not, therefore, take a decision on the existing directive on port State enforcement at its meeting on 18 June. The Council is expected to be in a position to issue a statement, taking note of the work being carried out in The Hague and looking forward to the possibility of the Community taking appropriate future action based on the results. It is difficult at this stage to say precisely what that action might be, but it is reasonable to suppose that it will involve the replacement of the directive in its present form since a new and strengthened basis for Community action will be available.
I wish to turn now to the other document No. 8479/80, entitled "Commission Communication to the Council concerning the Plan to Combat Oil Pollution of the See. This document outlines a series of measures undertaken by the Commission within the framework of the "action programme" drawn up by the Council of Ministers in June 1978. These measures include work on a range of subjects connected with the combating of oil pollution, as well as the adoption of a Commission decision setting up an advisory committee on the control and reduction of pollution caused by oil discharged at sea. However, the main feature of the document is a proposal for a Council decision establishing a Community information system for the prevention and combating of oil pollution of the sea. This system consists of three main elements, which are described in the three annexes to the proposed decision.

535
Annex I is described as a "Permanent Inventory of Staff, Equipment and Products for Combating Oil Pollution of the Sea", backed up by a compendium of national and regional contingency plans. In effect, this is a list of the resources available at Government level in the various member States for immediate response relating to pollution incidents. In our own case, the Department's marine pollution control unit performs this task and already has close contacts with other counter-pollution agencies under the aegis of the 1969 Bonn agreement for co-operation in dealing with pollution of the North Sea by oil. However, the value of a Community initiative in contingency planning is recognised. As a result of the discussions relating to this proposal, we believe that, subject to a few technical matters still to be settled, we will be able to contribute positively to the operations of the system.
Mr Clinton Davis: I am not sure whether it is an appropriate time, but will the Minister say what consultations have taken place at ministerial level with the shipowners and trade unions about both the proposed directives? What are the ministerial responses, since both shipowners and trade unions have a vested interest in safety?
Mr. Eyre: I assure the hon. Gentleman that during the prolonged period of consideration the Department has been careful to supply all possible information to shipowners and unions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Department desires to take account of representations made to it on all such matters. It has been very willing to receive opinions relevant to the considerations.
Mr Clinton Davis: I did not ask that question. I am aware that the Department has been in touch with officials. What ministerial discussions have taken place about these important matters which involve political decisions, particularly as to the role of the EEC? Have any such discussions taken place? If not, why not?
Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman said that it might not be an opportune time to give a precise and detailed reply. I have tried to emphasise the readiness of the Department and Ministers to receive opinions and to discuss the issues. I do not have personal conduct of such detailed matters. The responsibility lies with the Minister responsible for shipping, who sits in another place. I shall be glad to write to the hon. Member about the detailed information.
Annex II is described as a "Compendium of Hydrocarbon Properties" and is in effect a data bank of information about the properties and behaviour of oils under certain conditions. This will provide a valuable source of information about the behaviour of oil and oil products in a variety of circumstances—possibly, relating to incidents—a field which has not previously attracted enough attention. Here too, as a result of our discussions on the proposal, we will be able to agree on a system which will include details of methods of testing oil in water as well as possible uses of mixtures of solid matter containing water and oil recovered from the sea or along the coast.
It has not been possible to make the same degree of progress on the third annex. This is described as an "oil tanker file" and would contain specific information about
536
tankers likely to call at Community ports, including details of age, tonnage, ownership, physical characteristics and certification.
The main problem over this proposal is that much of the information which it is proposed to gather would be in the same form as other information which would be supplied under article 8 of the draft directive on port State enforcement. In our view and that of other member States, this subject requires a good deal of further work, possibly both within the Hague working group framework as well as within the Community. We shall co-operate energetically in this work.
Against this background, the Council Presidency decided earlier this year that the best way to make progress would be to proceed with those elements of the information system on which agreement could easily be reached—the contingency plans and the compendia of resources and the properties of oils in annex II; and a decision incorporating these elements will be submitted to the Environment Council on 11 June. As for the oil tanker file, it is envisaged that a statement will be made at that meeting to the effect that a decision will be made after the council has taken note of the outcome of the work in The Hague.
The Government support these initiatives and welcome the wide degree of agreement reached on the proposals for information systems on the availability of counter-pollution resources and equipment and on a compendium of hydrocarbon properties, which in our view represent a useful advance in the continuing fight against oil pollution of the sea. I assure the House that we shall continue to play a full part in the work going on in The Hague and in Brussels with the aim of reaching agreement, in future, on information systems covering oil tankers and other kinds of shipping.
I have summarised the issues relating to the two documents. I look forward to hearing the views of hon. Members.
12.31 am
Mr. Clinton Davis: It is a great pity that a debate as important as this to the shipping industry—a vital industry in Britain—should take place at this time and under these circumstances.
Mr John Garrett: I gather that the debate is not only about the shipping industry but about Britain's coastal environment.
Mr Davis: If my hon. Friend will be patient, I shall deal with that matter.
I know that, ordinarily, many hon. Members would have wished to participate in the debate. Be that as it may, the choice is either to debate it at this sort of time or debate it upstairs with relatively few people present—although I suppose that, in the event, there would be more present than there are now. There can be no doubt that if we are to maintain a merchant fleet of importance—and it is important that we should—it is a condition precedent that we maintain the highest standards of safety. We must lead the way in garnering respect for IMCO by ratifying, implementing and then enforcing IMCO requirements.
I welcome the concern expressed by the Commission for more effective action in both areas covered by the draft directives, for increasing harmonisation, for a more uniform approach and for tougher and more urgent

537
measures to enforce action against substandard ships, and to take swifter and more effective action to deal with oil pollution and the resulting damage and dangers to the environment.
It is regrettable that more time has not been given by the Commission for consultation with appropriate interests at national level. I shall come in a moment to the question of consultation with Ministers. In preparing such detailed schemes, it is vital that the Commission should recognise the availability of expertise vested in persons and organisations on both sides of industry and of others involved in environmental protection before it produces such schemes.
One of the other matters that the Minister did not mention, but which is important, is that although it is necessary to launch an attack upon substandard ships, we must also launch an attack on substandard ports. It would be all too easy, if there was a difference in view—[Interruption.] Does the Minister wish to intervene? Perhaps I should give way to the Chief Whip; he is conversing with the Minister. I am trying to get across a point of view and to put it on the record because these matters are important. If there is a substantial disparity in the standards employed at different ports the objectives designed by the Commission, and supported at least in principle by the Minister, will not be accomplished.
I recognise that the Government are concerned about substandard shipping. I pay tribute to the steps that were taken to step up the investigation of foreign vessels in British ports in 1980. The Minister was right to draw attention to that. I also recognise that the Government, like their predecessors, have given full support to IMCO. Nevertheless, I detected a faint whiff of complacency in the Minister's brief about the Government's approach to these matters. I do not blame this Minister. He is not responsible for shipping—he is a spokesman in this House—but I inferred from what he said that Ministers think that there is little to learn from the experience of others, and that they think that they are doing a grand job.
There is an awful lot to learn. As a former Minister in the Department, I pay tribute to the work of the officials, particularly in the unit that was formed to deal with pollution. I believe that great advances have been made. But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will convey to the Minister responsible that this is an area in which no degree of complacency is tolerable.
Essentially, my anxiety about the Government's approach in dealing with the shipping industry—and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) will agree that the safety of ships is vital if we are to wage effective war against pollution—is that they have failed to address themselves to the source of the problem. It is unreal, as the UNCTAD secretariat has argued, to consider substandard ships without considering the underlying causes—substandard management and substandard marine administration. Therefore, control by port States is unlikely to be effective unless it is backed by flag States which are able to control the managers and the owners. In States where there is no economic link with the vessels, that substandard administration appears to be almost inevitable.
The backcloth to this is that the casualities at sea in 1978 and 1979 reached unprecendented and horrifying levels. Paragraph 7a of the explanatory memorandum directs attention to that. In terms of gross tonnes, 71 per cent. of the losses sustained were by flag of convenience
538
ships and Greek ships. As the proportion of world shipping has moved in the direction of flags of convenience, the record has become progressively worse. As Liberia announces a tightening up of its registry, unscrupulous owners transfer to the Panamanian flag. I predict chat if more effective action is taken by Panama to increase standards there will be a move to other flags of convenience. Not that Liberia has much to boast about. While its fleet is considerably younger than the world average, its casualty rate is well above that of every Western European country apart from Spain and Greece; and it is fair to observe that 64 per cent. of the Spanish fleet comprises, fishing vessels.
Mr Prescott: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Can he relate it to the statistic produced by the Minister, that 90 per cent. of these vessels have valid certification, so that it may be a waste of time to inspect forms? If the Minister's attention were concentrated on the fleets to which my hon. Friend is referring which, while representing 34 per cent. of world tonnage, are responsible for 70 per cent. of the losses, that would be an effective use of the limited manpower that he has at his disposal.
Mr Davis: My hon. Friend has a substantial point. We know that flag of convenience and Greek vessels are causing the greatest problems, and obviously resources should be concentrated on them. It is a question not of being discriminatory, but of facing up to the realities. Insurance companies have done that in respect of cargoes. They have found that the incidence of casualties makes it necessary to load the premiums for the cargoes carried by vessels of certain flag of convenience countries.
The example of Greece merits further comment, not least because Greece is now a member of the EEC and will undoubtedly have an important voice in maritime matters. Greece, both before and after her accession to the Community, has been concerned to attract Greek shipowners back to the Greek flag. It has been doing, it by preaching the message which the Greek Minister of Shipping recently preached in London. What he was saying, in effect, was, "Relax shipping regulations." He called for a cut in the EEC shipping role. He said that what he wanted to promote was the principles of "free and fair competition".
Is what is being done under the Greek flag free and fair competition? There is, for example, a legal requirement that 75 per cent. of Greek ships' crews should be Greek, but this is widely ignored, as is the law that non-Greeks serving on Greek vessels should be paid the Greek collective agreement rate. Greek owners are now concluding bilateral agreements with unions in developing countries to provide crew members for Greek ships, despite opposition from the Greek seafarers' federation and the ITF. Greece is particularly slow in providing deficiency reports to IMCO. Is all that free and fair, and is it unrelated to the appalling casualty rate which is suffered by Greek ships?
I believe that such fleets, even where new vessels are in operation with the most modern technology, so often have such inadequate qualities of seamanship available that they represent a grave danger to the lives of seafarers not only on the ships themselves but on ships with which they may be in collision and also to the environment and to coastal States.
I believe also that the disgraceful casualty record to which I have referred results principally from the pressure

539
to cut costs at any price—postponing repairs, employing improperly qualified seafarers, failing to use radar, failing to use inert gas systems in tankers and failing to use other safety equipment. This is not just my word: it is the word of the Nautical Institute, which has added to the comments made by the MMSA in this country and of other trade unions. The Nautical Institute has said that shipping nations are cutting corners on safety. Those criticisms, I believe, are highly authoritative and should not 'under any circumstances' be taken lightly.
The Government's response to this problem is pathetically inadequate. The previous Minister with responsibility for shipping replied to a question that I asked on 16 July about the Government's policy concerning flags of convenience. He said:
"There is no generally agreed definition of a flag of convenience. This description is applied by some Governments to the British flag. Along with most other OECD countries, Her Majesty's Government agree on the need for effective action against substandard ships, but strongly oppose any measures that would reduce competition with international shipping and raise the cost of international trade."—[Official Report, 16 July 1980; Vol. 988, c. 547–8.]
It is patently absurd to equate the British flag with a flag of convenience, but in any event should our concern about flags of convenience relate simply to substandard ships, which was the whole emphasis of the Minister's speech, important though that aspect is?
How do the losses in tonnage sustained by flag of convenience countries betoken a real interest in shipping safety? Companies in, and Governments of, genuine maritime countries provide substantial and costly training facilities. Flag of convenience countries provide none. Is that fair competition? Does a casual approach towards the certification of officers and ratings illustrate a concern on the part of flag of convenience countries for improving standards in this field? Is that fair competition?
We must face the fact that the only reason that shipowners register under flags of convenience is to avoid obligations—taxation, training and qualification, recognition of trade unions and the rights won by free trade unions—and, above all, to be able to adopt a permissive attitude to international legislative requirements. That is why shipowners do it. That, in essence, represents the whole case against the flag of convenience. Yet at UNCTAD next week, when proposals to phase out flags of convenience will be on the agenda, Her Majesty's Government will, by implication, follow a line which is deeply inimical to everything they say about enhancing safety standards.
The Government are to oppose proposals that have been made by the UNCTAD secretariat. Against that background, I certainly support the measures to increase port State enforcement, although I believe that much more is needed than has been suggested by the Government. Even if the Government remain inert and unresponsive to the challenge posed by flags of convenience, let us examine for a moment what they will do within these limitations.
May I say in parenthesis that I read an article in Lloyd's List the other day to the effect that a new and possibly sinister development is taking place in London. A lawyer, Mr. Richard Dresner, is proposing to flog off flags of convenience over the counter in London by using some sort of legal device. I spoke to him on the telephone to tell
540
him that I would mention his name. It is a rather extraordinary proposal. He is reported as saying that recognised flags of convenience countries, such as Panama and Liberia, are now becoming much more particular about their requirements and are trying to go up-market and become more respectable. This is leaving room in the market place for a wider and more streamlined service to owners. This is the gap he is aiming for. He is planning to sell flag of convenience registrations over the counter. I suppose that there is every prospect that we shall find Tesco's doing that in the near future.
This is a matter of which the Minister should take note. I do not expect him to reply to it tonight, but I should be happy to pass the information to him. I hope that he will be able to tell me in correspondence whether the Department has been aware of this and, if so, what action it plans to take to avoid facilitating the registration of flags of convenience in London, as is proposed by this gentleman.
While, therefore, I support action to attack substandard ships, I have an anxiety, which has been expressed by the Minister, about enhancing EEC competence in this area. If we were to support these initiatives, would it necessarily vest the EEC with sole authority to speak for member States at the international forum involved? If the answer is "Yes", I believe that the penalties could be severe indeed.
As I see it, the risks are that there would be an encouragement of the growth of regionalism, with an increased threat that debates would become, as the Minister says, unnecessarily politicised. There has been a danger of that in the past. At IMCO it has been a danger that member States, in their desire to secure higher standards of safety, have united to overcome. That is a risk that we have to take seriously. I also agree that individual nations' expertise, especially in technical areas, might be reduced or not taken full advantage of. Delay in decision making while an agreed stance is worked out would be undesirable. There might also be a search for the lowest common denominator so as to arrive at an agreed position. That would be undesirable, too.
All of these are serious risks, and the question I pose to the Minister is: Is it possible to say to the EEC "Must you assume responsibility, must you assume this greater competence, or is it possible to qualify that if we were to go along the route being suggested?" I very much support the inter-governmental consultation that are taking place and are designed to secure similar objectives to those set out in the proposed directives, without our having to risk paying the penalties to which I have referred. Another great advantage of these discussions is that they include countries that are not within the EEC. Sweden, Norway and Spain all have a vital role to play in enforcing port State jurisdiction and in co-operating in the fight against pollution of our seas.
I understand that the objectives are to procure a European ship information system, the enforcement of provisions of internationally agreed conventions and protocals that are currently in force, the extension of The Hague memorandum of understanding of 1978, which included only Belgium, Denmark, France, West Germany, the Nederlands, Sweden, Norway and the United Kingdom, the extension of the Bonn agreement and the exchange of essential information to deal with pollution incidents. All these matters are currently being considered, and rightly so. If an agreement can be

541
reached, it will have these great benefits and it will avoid the risk of the EEC speaking with one voice in the relevant international forums which, as I and the Minister have indicated, seems to be a great disqualification. Secondly, it will avoid unnecessary bureaucracy from Brussels, which might so easily duplicate the work of national marine authorities.
The nations must address themselves to a number of serious matters, which seem hitherto to have been avoided, or at least not the subject of sufficient consultation. I find the issue of check lists somewhat worrying. I should not find it especially impressive if it were a requirement that check lists had to be completed by a master, who clearly would have a vested interest. We must know what form the inspection is to take. My own view is that it may be unwise to have a prescribed list beyond following the IMCO procedures for the control of ships, which were set out in 1975. These give a very good and comprehensive guide.
Are there to be random checks? If so, what percentage of checks are to be undertaken within the ports? How are we to safeguard ships that are regularly trading in and out of European ports? Will they have to be subjected to regular inspections, too? How are the inspections to be paid for? If they are to be paid for by the shipowner, is there a danger that there will be an incentive to find something wrong so as to recover the cost of the inspection?
That is a view that worries the owners; and that is an issue to which we must address our minds.
Given the desire to make port State enforcement a reality, I turn to the complement of the marine surveyors. I do not share the Minister's view that with the enhanced interest in these matters we should be satisfied that the present complement within our own surveyors' branch will suffice. I am not happy about the suggestion made in the European documents that we should devolve responsibility to the classification societies. These are important duties and that suggestion ignores the pressures that are imposed on classification societies. There is the danger that if one society imposes standards that are too high an owner may move to another where standards might be less rigid. If the society is to be the Government's agent, I still believe that that will be unsatisfactory. There will be an interest, a relationship behind it all, of a professional organisation advising a client and I do not believe that that is the most desirable state of affairs.
What is the alternative? Should not the relevant maritime States be thinking about the creation of a central surveying service together with a central agency for the training of surveyors? Is that feasible? If not, why not? Will not these increased duties require a substantial increase in the number of qualified surveyors? What help can we get from the nautical educational and research facilities in Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom? They are now under severe strain as a result of the Government cutbacks in education services.
I cite the Cardiff ship simulator as an example. It is an advanced British project, dedicated to training and research into the human element, above all, relating to accidents. Pump-priming funds are much needed. Is the Department doing anything to assist? Does not the Department have certain research funds which could be made at least partially available to assist the Cardiff project in that respect? I have discussed the project with the Cardiff people. The simulator is an unrivalled research
542
tool for studies into vital matters such as collision avoidance strategies and human performance under stress conditions.
Such a project needs Government help. Successful research programmes in that area could have invaluable benefits for our shipping industry and those serving in it. I ask the Minister, not necessarily to reply to that point tonight, but to let me know what is his Department's response.
What steps are being taken to increase rather than as appears likely, to diminish the surveyors' branch of marine division? As we are in the midst of a recession, could we not use masters and other officers who are currently redundant? Is there not a much greater need for consultation with seafarers, through their recognised trade unions, not only with officials of the Department of Trade, but, I stress, with Ministers? I am advised that consultations with Ministers are hopelessly inadequate now. They have not taken place over the policy implications of these proposals, although I am advised that there have been discussions with officials over the technical details, where it is wholly appropriate that experts should be involved. That is a matter of some concern. I hope that it will be rectified later.
In summary on this part of the matter, I believe that the control and elimination of substandard shipping can be effectively carried out only by a flag State with which the shipowner has a genuine economic link. The deterioriation of the Greek register can be said to be caused by the attempt to compete with flags of convenience. The alternative of port State control can achieve some reduction in the worst excesses caused by the flag of convenience phenomenon, but that would still be controlling the symptom rather than the disease.
The all too likely situation, in which a few States enforce flag State control over their ships and port State control over flag of convenience and other fleets, would unfairly place the responsibility, and the expense, of ensuring the safety of the seas and the conditions of seafarers, on those countries. Phasing out flags of convenience and the elimination of substandard ships are not incompatible. Those are complimentary objectives, and I am sad that the Government do not see it in this way.
I turn briefly to the proposed decision for establishing a Community information system. The Minister has described what that would involve. I shall not re hearse those points again. I agree with his summation of what is involved. There are considerable difficulties in providing a permanent inventory of staff, equipment and products for combating oil pollution and in providing a compendium of the properties of hydrocarbons and so on, which he described. There are acute difficulties, because to make them valuable and useful they must be kept up to date. That is where the problem lies.
I am not opposed to the idea of a data bank relating to tankers. That may be more relevant to the port State enforcement system, which the Minister referred to. It is not impossible to do that. It may be difficult, but, after all, it is possible to have a register of aircraft. For example, when the SAS or another body is mobilised because an aircraft has been hijacked, a plan is available. At present I believe that there is a difficulty about obtaining plans of vessels and tankers. We should give some attention to that. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister says in winding up the debate.

543
Substantial strides have been made in dealing with the threat to the environment as a result of oil pollution since the "Amoco Cadiz" disaster. I experienced many problems. Although we had a great problem with the "Eleni V", which was a hulk, and difficult to anchor in order to get rid of the oil, the Department could claim great credit for the success of dealing with the "Christos Bitas". I pay tribute to the officials and to others in the industry who were involved in that remarkable exercise.
The threat remains. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South is entitled to be deeply concerned about it. I shall listen with interest to the points that he makes. It is imperative that no one within the EEC or anywhere else should act unilaterally, outside the decisions of IMCO. When that happens, a grave danger arises. Within those parameters, and subject to avoiding the conferring of enhanced competence on the EEC, I welcome the interest that the Commission has taken in seeking to step up action in the fight against pollution to combat the effects of pollution and to try to harmonise efforts in these respects.
It may not have got the answer absolutely right. I prefer to take the avenue that is being considered by intergovernmental consultations. The matter is urgent. I hope that the Minister will report to the House in the not-toodistant future to the effect that real action will be taken.
May I say in conclusion that I very much appreciate the assistance and the advice that I have been given about the draft directives by the seafaring unions and by the General Council of British Shipping. I have consulted them and I am most grateful to them for their positive response.
1.2 am
Mr. Edward du Cann: I shall make only a short speech. I have listened to the whole of this interesting and important debate. There is one simple constructive point that I wish to make for the consideration of the House. There is substantial, latent public anxiety about safety at sea. Therefore, it is right that, whatever the time of day, the House should devote considerable attention to the matter.
I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis). Therefore, it is a particular pleasure to say that I was very much in accord with him when he said that a powerful, important and numerous British merchant fleet was significant to the British economy. I concurred with him again when he said that the United Kingdom had a duty to set high safety standards. Furthermore, but by no means least, I share his impatience to see that there is a continuous drive forward. He did the House a service when he suggested a series of constructive proposals.
Nevertheless, I could not help but be impressed by the catalogue of development to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred. Those who know my hon. Friend well have great confidence in his abilities and in his determination. I am glad to have the opportunity to express those sentiments publicly on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself.
There was one subject that was not mentioned by the Minister or by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central. That was a most significant aspect of safety—the need to have adequate charting. It is known in the House that I have an enthusiasm and particular interest in the subject.
544
I could quote statistics in some detail and at some length. I forbear to do so tonight. I could talk about the way in which the draught of ships has altered over the years. I could talk about the way in which the size of shipping has altered. I could talk about the sea lanes and about the new routes. I could tell the House stories about the way in which wrecks have been known to shift. I could quote figures for the number of wrecks around the British Isles, and so on.
I shall quote only one statistic. In my view, it is a disgrace that we as a maritime nation have surveyed to modern standards only one-third of the Continental Shelf area around the United Kingdom.
I could speak of the age of the hydrographic fleet, its shortage of ships, its shortage of money and so on. I have done that before and I dare say I shall do it again in this House. I merely say that, if we are considering safety, we cannot ignore the fact that we badly need to make a much greater hydrographic effort around our own shores. That should be the responsibility not only of the Royal Navy, with its devoted team of seamen and surveyors, who are incomparable and who have rightly an unrivalled reputation in the world, but in part of the commercial departments in the United Kingdom.
Sooner or later—and as sure as the fact that we are here in this House tonight—there will be a tragic accident due to the fact that the waters round our shores are inadequately charted. Here is something that we could avoid if we had the will and the determination. I make no apology whatever for raising again in this House the need to ensure that adequate funds are available for hydrography in the United Kingdom.
1.7 am
Mr. John Garrett: I wish to intervene briefly in the debate in the interests of the county that I represent, its coasts and its wildlife. I recognise the great importance of saving human life at sea. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) has already dealt with many of the safety considerations set out in the documents before the House. I wish to address myself to a single rather narrow point.
I welcome the EEC documents as a modest development on policy in the area of combating oil pollution at sea. At least they are a statement of intent. The British Government have been tardy in dealing with marine oil pollution. Their response has been inadequate compared with that of other European maritime countries, and they urgently need to develop policy in this area.
I shall refer to the dreadful risk to which the Norfolk coast is exposed. It is a coast which provides one of the finest habitats in Western Europe for marine bird life—an irreplaceable national asset. As we have heard, the EEC documents propose a set of procedures by which member States could identify sub-standard vessels visiting their ports and could require the owners of those ships to remedy those deficiencies before leaving port. The documents propose a Community information system to provide data for contingency measures for dealing with oil pollution, on the properties of hydrocarbons, and on oil tankers.
It struck me that the Minister's welcome tonight was rather warmer than the explanatory memoranda would lead one to believe. As far as I understood those memoranda, they supported, up to a point, the Commission's objectives on port State enforcement,

545
although it is said that they could conflict with the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation and undermine that body's effectiveness.
I recognise that the Minister tonight said that there had been further developments in this field, which to some extent deals with that question. Of course it speaks of difficulties in finding sufficient qualified manpower to implement the proposal, and on the information system it again refers to limited manpower and also to a tanker register being considered by industry interests—that is, the oil companies themselves—which does not seem to me to be a satisfactory way of dealing with it.
The European environmental bureau has described these proposals as only a fraction of what is needed in terms of tanker safety and pollution control and has said that action is needed in addition on routing, mandatory pilotage in some areas, regular checks on the integrity of large bulk carriers and mandatory procedures for inert gas systems and safety, navigation and communications equipment.
A few months ago I sponsored the showing in the House of Commons cinema of an excellent film called "Oil on troubled waters" made by Anglia TV, a company with an incomparable record of concern about environmental issues, which reflects a general concern about those issues throughout East Anglia.
That film showed the progress being made in Sweden with the development of a procedure for tagging oil cargoes with metal particles so as to enable the source of spills and dumping to be uniquely indentified. It showed extensive air surveillance of shipping lanes by Swedish pollution control authorities and their development of side-looking airborne radar and infra-red line scanning cameras to spot ships discharging oil. It showed the efforts being made by the French authorities to intercept rogue vessels in the Channel. It explained the terrible consequences of the substandard ships that ply the waters off our coasts. It also showed, I am sorry to say, the complacent attitude of our Department of Trade as regards matching these measures.
This was exemplified by the then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)—the predecessor of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), who is now sitting on the Government Front Bench—saying that he did not want to get into a punch-up with the oil companies. I found that surprising from a Minister whose only political ability as far as I could see was to indulge in punch-ups.
To hear Anglia TV tell the story and to compare it with the Minister's bland speech tonight was most educative. I thought that Britain was indicted by that programme. I later put down questions on the matter, only to be told that the Minister considered tagging oil too difficult to be worth while and that the Government had no plans to introduce side-looking radar and infra-red cameras for spotting the discharge of oil into the sea.
In the last two years there have been two major oil-spill incidents off the Norfolk coast which have taught us a lot about the competence of the Department of Trade in these matters. On 8 May 1978 the "Eleni V" was involved in a collision off the Norfolk coast. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) will remember it well. The incident showed poor planning by the Department of Trade and inadequate consultation with the local authorities. The Department of Trade sent 20 vessels to spray dispersant on an oil slick of heavy fuel oil when
546
it knew that these dispersants are ineffective on such oil and make beach-cleaning much more difficult. 'Three years later the claims arising from the incident are still being heard in the courts.
I believe that the proposed information system on contingency planning could have taught us something m the "Eleni V" incident.
Mr Clinton Davis: My hon. Friend is perfectly fair to make these criticisms and I of course was cross-examined by a Select Committee on the issue, but I reject absolutely the suggestion that we did not have consultations with the local authorities. The consultation was painstaking and detailed, but however much we went into consultation in those circumstances certain vested interests would always urge that the consultations were inadequate. I reject that criticism outright.
Mr Garrett: I take my hon. Friend's rebuttal of what I said. I only know that since then the Department has been very badly thought of in Norfolk as a result of what the inhabitants of that county think about inadequate consultation.
The second incident happened this year and told me something about the workings of the Department of Trade. On 30 January this year the German roll-on roll-off ferry the "Ems" sank off the Norfolk coast. It released a light oil slick of 7 miles by 1 mile, which was dispersed by four vessels hired by the Department of Trade.
From the first week of November to the first week of March, increasing numbers of oiled birds were washed ashore, coated in medium or heavy fuel oil of a type not carried by the "Ems". In all, a 20-mile section of coast was affected. Some 1,500 birds were found on the coast from Hunstanton to the Suffolk border. Estimates were that up to 10 times that number could have been affected and have perished at sea. My information from local sources was that the only explanation for the phenomenon could be that at least one tanker was taking advantage of the "Ems" incident to discharge oily ballast at the site of the wreck to conceal the source of the pollution.
When the incident was at its height, I rang the Minister's private office to find out what action was being taken. I was informed that he was not responsible for action in that field, and that he merely answered questions in the House on the subject, so I should address my questions to his noble Friend, the other Under-Secretary of State. I then rang that Minister's private office, only to be told that he was abroad and that nobody at ministerial level was in charge of the area of oil pollution. At a time when thousands of birds were being killed, there was no one around with ministerial responsibility, at least as far as I was aware. As far as I know, no action was taken. I do not find that at all reassuring. Neither private office attempted to contact me again on the issue.
The Department later revealed in answer to a question that I put down that, by chance, a tanker had been observed discharging ballast at the site of the wreck of the "Ems" but had made off under cover of darkness. One would think that at least any tanker unloading in Britain would have to provide proof of where it discharged its oily ballast before taking on another load of product.
In the past nine years, 46,000 sea birds have been oiled to death around our coasts, the majority as a result of the discharge of cargo tanker residues. We do not keep ships far enough away from our coasts, we do not insist on high

547
enough standards when they come into port and we do not ensure that ports are safe enough. Every foreign-owned tanker visiting an American port faces a tough inspection, but we have no complete inspection of tankers in our ports. In a random survey by the Health and Safety Executive, one tanker in three was found to have safety faults. I am told by wildlife bodies that Britain has a poor record on port State controls. The Department of Trade exists to favour shipping interests, yet it also has the responsibility for acting against them on pollution, which is a hopeless conflict of interests.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said in its report,
Marine Oil Pollution and Birds,
"after 70 years of failure by government and industry, the United Kingdom is placed in a position where the risks of catastrophic environmental damage due to oil pollution are greater than at any time in the past."
It pointed out that in 1973 the convention for the prevention of pollution from ships sought the achievement,
"certainly by the end of the decade, of complete elimination of intentional marine pollution by oil…and the minimisation of accidental spills."
It said:
"there is not the remotest prospect of this objective being achieved by 1980: indeed the terms of the convention have been revised of late making it improbable the objective will be achieved by the year 2000."
The Norfolk coast is a wildlife and landscape heritage that is under constant threat. It has the most delicate ecology. The proposals in the EEC documents may go a little way towards protecting it, but much more has to be done. We need total tanker inspection by port States, as proposed here, an information system for pooling experience and the best operational practice, as proposed in the documents. We also have to ask ourselves whether we have the machinery of government and the will to prevent a catastrophe which sooner or later will engulf our beaches and bird life in a terrible black tide.
1.18 am
Mr. Eyre: There is a limit on the time available to us, and I shall refer first to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who expressed deep concern about the issues involved. He went on to raise on safety grounds the need for accurate charting. I appreciate the nautical experience on which his views are based. I assure him that serious attention will be given to the points that he has made. I am most grateful to him for his comments.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) expressed his concern—I accept it as being firmly based—for the Norfolk coast and for environmental matters. I am afraid that there is no time tonight to answer all the misrepresentations and inaccuracies contained in the television programme to which he referred. I refute the incorrect implications in his brief and inaccurate account of telephone calls. I have noted his comments.
Mr John Garrett: In what way was my account of the telephone calls inaccurate?
Mr. Eyre: Because of the implication that no Minister was available to deal with the hon. Gentleman. There was a misunderstanding between the offices, especially with the office that replied to the hon. Gentleman about my
548
noble Friend. I have discussed that with the hon. Gentleman and he knows that, on a matter concerning pollution, when and if my noble Friend has to be abroad, I am available in the House or in the Department and willing to deal with the matter. I ask him to accept that a secretary who might answer a telephone during lunchtime would not be a proper source of information on a matter of this sort.
Mr Garrett: What the Minister says may be true from his point of view, but that does not make what I said inaccurate in any way. I should like him to withdraw that remark. I described what happened.
Mr Eyre: I do not want to differ unduly with the hon. Gentleman. If he feels unhappy about the use of the word "inaccurate", I shall withdraw it with pleasure. I emphasise that the impression he gave was not correct.
Mr Garrett: It was the impresssion I got.
Mr Eyre: The impresion that the hon. Gentleman got was not correct. He knows that my noble Friend and I are deeply concerned about these matters. I assure the hon. Gentleman that a Minister is available and would be glad to speak to the hon. Gentleman personally about difficulties should they occur at any time.
I have noted carefully the hon. Gentleman's comments. I hope that he acknowledges that progress is being made under the proposals we have discussed. I assure him of the great concern of Ministers in the Department of Trade who are responsible for these important maritime pollution matters. We are working extremely hard to bring about improvements. Great progress has been made—I think that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) will concur with that view—and we are intent on maintaining it. We share the concern of the hon. Member for Norwich, South about environmental and coastal matters.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central for his speech. When he has had an opportunity to read my speech he will find answers to many of the points that he has raised which come directly within the terms of the two documents. I have noted carefully his other points. I appreciate the general comments ranging across the two documents. I shall be glad to write to him, as he suggested, about any other outstanding matters which fall outside the two documents.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8480/80 (draft Directive concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports, of international standards for shipping safety and pollution prevention) and 8479/80 (Communication concerning a plan to combat oil pollution of the sea) and the updated explanatory memoranda of 18 May 1981; and welcomes the Government's intention to continue to work to improve the standards of maritime safety and to combat oil pollution.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): In order to save the time of the House, I propose to put together the Questions on the two motions to approve statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73 (A) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Accession of the Republic of Zimbabwe to the Second ACP-EEC Convention of Lomé) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 30 April, be approved.

SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND)
That the draft Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 (Summary Cause) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 6 May, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]
Question agreed to.

Hatch Beauchamp, Somerset
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Newton.]
1.24 am
Mr. Edward du Cann: I much appreciate the presence of my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport in the Chamber at this hour to answer the debate. Like the whole House, I have great admiration for his competence and conscientiousness, and I am glad that he is here to comment on the important matters that I wish to raise.
Hatch Beauchamp in my constituency is a delightful village on the A358, which bisects the village. The peace and safety of the village and its inhabitants are in jeopardy because of the tyranny of the heavy traffic that assails it day and night.
Let me paint a brief word picture of conditions. The road is narrow where it goes through the village; and footpaths, where they exist, are also narrow. Houses abut the road. One was seriously damaged three weeks ago—fortunately, by a mercy of Providence, without injury to the occupants—when a lorry jack-knifed. There are bends, one right angled, S-bends and three narrow bridges with widths varying between 5·5 and 5·95 metres between parapets. In places, there is barely room for two vehicles to pass.
The road is wholly unsuited for modern traffic. It is, in the traffic engineers' jargon, substandard horizontally and vertically. The A358 between junction 25 on the M5 motorway and Horton Cross, a distance of 15½ km, carries traffic flows of 8,450 on the southern portion. On the northern portion of the road the flows are about 50 per cent. higher. My hon. and learned Friend will know the statistics.
It is a very busy road. The accident statistics between 1 August 1977 and 31 July 1980 are four fatal accidents, 24 severe and 40 slight. Near misses are never included in the bald recital of figures, and the statistics also cannot reveal the hazards—constant and frightening—to users and local inhabitants alike.
The position has deteriorated sharply in recent years. The volume of traffic has heavily increased since the A358 became a feeder route for the M5. Every year there are more vehicles and lorries get bigger. The Armitage report suggests that they may get bigger still.
The village must have a bypass. There is no difficulty or argument about the proposed route, and the need for a bypass is universally accepted. It is accepted by the inhabitants, of course. So keenly do the villagers feel about this matter that I receive constant representations from representative bodies, including the parish council, the women's institute and so on, and from many individuals. I have here a petition signed by 540 people which I will present to the House formally on another occasion.
The need for a bypass is also accepted by the Department of Transport and by the Somerset county council and its most competent and conscientious officials. The Somerset county draft structure plan recognised the need, and the annual transport policy and programme envisages a start on construction in 1985–86. Design work will start in the county as soon as resources

551
can be allocated from other schemes with a higher priority. But the bypass will depend on the Government. The A358 may be a county road, but the Government are the arbiters.
My first question to my hon. and learned Friend is to ask whether he will undertake that funds are available and that Government financial policy towards local authority highway expenditure will not involve any further cuts and thus a delay in the starting date of the Hatch Beauchamp bypass. There has been a drop of 40 per cent. in local road programmes in England and Wales between 1975–76 and 1981–82. The Somerset programme is much lower than it was some years ago.
I support economy and value for money. I hope that this is proved by my record as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury Select Committee. However, parsimony on roads is a false economy. Good communications are vital to Britain's economic prosperity, especially, as hon. Members privileged to represent the West Country will argue, in our part of the world. Roads have been a Cinderella for too long. At the very least, the county, the villagers, the road users and I, as local Member of Parliament, want to be sure that the projected date is kept. I do not want my constituents to continue to be disappointed.
The bypass must keep its place in the list of county schemes in the face of the ever-tightening screw on capital projects. The relief and the environmental improvement when at last the bypass comes will be incalculable.
An even more important question is whether the date can be improved. If that is possible, it should be done. There are important reasons. In past years, emphasis has been placed nationally on the improvement of east-west routes through the West Country. That was right. I had the honour from the Back Benches to lead a campaign for better roads for the South-West some years ago. We made good progress. I wish to pay tribute to the work done by my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), when he was Minister of Transport.
I know that I have the support of my right hon. Friend, as the constituency Member for Yeovil, in the remarks I am now making. Good progress was made. However, the north-south routes and those providing access to the Channel ports have been neglected. This is a serious matter and a mistake. Sixty-five per cent. of our export trade goes to the EEC and EFTA countries. One can appreciate the ever-increasing significance of the Channel ports to the British ecomomy.
In the absence of a single adequate route, movements of traffic take place along a variety of unsatisfactory roads. Some of these links, in Dorset as well as in Somerset, are virtually unchanged in vertical and horizontal alignment since the turn of the century. It is remarkable to reflect upon this fact. It is nevertheless true. There is an urgent need to improve capacity for traffic from the coastal areas into the national motorway network. It is not fair that the burden should fall so heavily upon the counties.
There is a paradox in the present situation. On the one hand, various economic developments contribute to the misery suffered by local inhabitants en route to the M5 at junction 25, not least in Hatch Beauchamp. I welcome, for instance, the Portland and Weymouth harbour developments. However, the vast majority of freight from these ports bound for the Midlands and South Wales has to pass through Somerset.
552
There are also the defence establishments, especially the RNAS at Yeovilton and the expanding industrial estates at Yeovil, including Westland's, an admirable firm that is so important to the British ecomomy and our defence effort. Other factors are the search for oil and tourism, always important economically in the West.
On the other hand, it is undoubtedly the case that the lack of a satisfactory road system has been a disincentive to future industrial investment, which is so badly needed because of the new employment opportunities associated with it. Somerset's strategic route network, as defined in the structure plan, links the M5 motorway at junction 25 via the A358 to Horton Cross and then along the A303 to Ilchester and finally via the A37 at Yeovil to Dorchester in the south. This complete route is defined as a national route—that is, a route of the highest national strategic importance.
There are six proposed improvements in the various plans and programmes in the county of Somerset and others in Dorset. Among them is the Hatch Beauchamp bypass, which is scheduled to cost £2·4 million.
A broadly north-south route from Portland and Weymouth to the M5 is obviously of economic and strategic importance to our nation. It would also be of immense environmental benefit, not only to Hatch Beauchamp but to the urban areas of Weymouth, Dorchester, Yeovil and Ilminster and for historic villages such as Hatch Beauchamp and Montacute. Whether the road works are done depends on one thing only—cash, and when it is made available. The lack of finance so far means that a large number of schemes cannot be completed within the next 10 or 15 years unless additional finance can be found.
Let me be plain. Some say that we cannot afford any more. I say that we cannot afford not to provide an adequate north-south route. The reason for raising the matter tonight is that the Government have a duty to provide the infrastructure in our economy. New roads and the north-south route are a crucial part of that, and the Government must either provide them from their own resources or negotiate for them from the EEC. Funds from the EEC can go only to the deprived areas. Until we have the north-south route, my area is a deprived area. We should qualify for help.
My third question is simple. Will my hon. and learned Friend undertake that the whole route, including the Hatch Beauchamp bypass, which is so important to my constituencies and to me, will be accorded a new and deserved priority?
1.37 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) on his fortune in the ballot. I admire his persistence in pursuing the cause of his constituents by raising, even at this hour of the morning, the important matter of the proposed bypass for Hatch Beauchamp. Having heard at first hand what my right hon. Friend described as his word picture of traffic conditions through the village, I can understand and appreciate his concern. He painted a vivid picture of the intolerable conditions for the inhabitants.
I accept my right hon. Friend's description of present conditions, which are intolerable for modern times. The road is relatively narrow, with several sharp bends as it winds its way through the village. It also has an inadequate

553
system of footpaths. The quality of life in this historic village will be much improved as soon as a bypass can be provided to take the traffic round it.
I realise that conditions have greatly deteriorated in recent years. Following the opening of the Taunton bypass section of the M5 in 1974, the character of the road—the A358—underwent an appreciable change. After the opening of the M5, it was no longer a country road between centres of population. It became an important link with the motorway system. Traffic volumes increased considerably. By 1975, 6,700 wehicles a day were passing through the village. Traffic has continued to increase and has settled at about 8,500 vehicles a day. On Saturdays in the summer, 10,000 vehicles per day is frequently exceeded. The figures, on any reckoning, represent very heavy traffic indeed on a road which was a comparatively quiet country road only a few years ago.
Fortunately, the personal injury accident record in the village is comparatively low. I use the word "fortunately" in all its senses, because it probably contains something of an element of luck. Only six personal injury accidents have occurred during the past three years, although damage-only accidents are somewhat more frequent. I realise how great are the risks. I share my right hon. Friend's concern about the recent accident to which he referred. I understand that a lorry crashed into a house and ended up in a kitchen. It was pure chance that no one was hurt, because the lady of the house had been in the kitchen only moments before.
My right hon. Friend described the traffic going through the village as heavy industrial traffic. Much of it is, and it is vital to the economy of the West Country. He described the large lorries that are an especially unpopular feature of modern traffic. He slipped a little in his choice of language when he said that the Armitage report suggested that they would get even larger. The Armitage report points out that our lorries might become heavier, but not larger. Sir Arthur Armitage is urging that environmental benefits might result if there were fewer lorries carrying heavier loads while retaining the present dimensions, but that is a mere gloss because the present heavy lorry traffic is unpopular and the Government have not decided what to do in the light of the Armitage recommendations.
We have a picture of a village that has far too heavy traffic running through it, an old road system that is inadequate and conditions that are unattractive for residents. There is no dispute that something needs to be done to improve the quality of life for the long-suffering inhabitants, to improve the road safety prospects and to improve traffic conditions along a substandard section of what is now an important road link.
Those aims, which will be served by the construction of a bypass for Hatch Beauchamp, are entirely in line with the Government's aim in their trunk road policy and with the assistance that they give to local authorities for local roads by means of transport supplementary grant. A proper prorgramme of road building is an important contribution to the industrial infrastructure of Britain. At a time when one of our firm aims has to be to revive our industrial economy, it is important that we should relieve transport bottlenecks and improve the ease and convenience of travel, especially for important industrial traffic.
By building bypasses, which are advantageous to traffic flows, we can at the same time take heavy traffic out of old, sometimes medieval road systems in our towns and
554
villages and do a great deal to improve the quality of life for our population. As far as is possible, we try to exempt key capital programmes, such as road building, from the consequences of the inevitable cuts in public spending that must be made across the field by a Government at a time of economic crisis. It is impossible to exempt all transport spending, even capital spending. Transport must take its fair share. We try to maintain the level of our trunk road spending to the level that obtained before we came into office. We are also doing our best to find the resources for essential capital spending by local authorites where they are prepared to press on and give priority to their road programmes.
We all hope for the prospect of new funds, but, as my right hon. Friend with his experience in that area knows, they are hard to find until the economy shows signs of upturn. Looking further afield, as he did, we would welcome the prospect of greater assistance, perhaps in the long term, from the European Community for road building in Britain. At the moment, there is no adequate transport infrastructure fund. The Government encourage work towards producing an adequate fund, but I fear that there is little hope of a rapid conclusion in Europe on the rules for such a fund. Indeed, the whole problem will probably have to wait until larger budget problems are resolved. We must wait until there is some alteration in the place of agriculture within the European Community funds to find space for other important subjects such as transport spending.
In any event, I accept my right hon. Friend's case for a bypass for Hatch Beauchamp. I accept that the improvements that a bypass would bring are in line with Government policy. I therefore turn to his questions about what we can do to hasten the construction of a bypass.
My right hon. Friend rightly said that this is not a trunk road but a local authority road. My Department is therefore not the highway authority concerned, and the responsibility for the maintenance and improvement of the road rests in the first place with Somerset county council. I am pleased to be able to comfirm, as my right hon. Friend knows, that the county council also readily accepts the need for a bypass at Hatch Beauchamp. A proposal for a bypass is included in the Somerset structure plan. The scheme is also included in the Transport policy and programme documents that the counties submit to my Department. These show the bypass in the county's policies, aiming for a start of work in 1985–86.
I recognise, as my right hon. Friend explained, that that date is disappointing to him and to his constituents and that they would like to see it accelerated if possible. But the programming of road schemes on non-trunk roads in the county is entirely one for the county council in the first place. It is obviously much better placed, in Somerset, to judge the priorities of different schemes in its county than we in Westminster and Whitehall can possibly be.
Each year, the counties approach the Department for their allocation of the grant that we give to assist them with their capital programmes. We give such grant as we can, distributed between counties on the basis of the TPPs that all the counties submit. We also give grants to counties such as Somerset to enable them to proceed with their road building, following the priorities that the counties will have chosen.
Somerset's TPP shows that it has some difficult and competing priorities. For the reasons that my right hon. Friend has given, there are a number of routes that could

555
well do with improvement in various parts of the county, and, therefore, the county faces no easy task in placing them in the correct order of priority. The council also has to recognise the need to cut public expenditure and that, therefore, limited funds are likely to be available for highway improvements over the next few years. It cannot, therefore, carry out all its improvements, however desirable, at once. It has drawn up a policy which, although it is not for me to say so, seems highly sensible and commendable and seeks to concentrate its resources on routes carrying through traffic or those that are necessary to assist industry or encourage development. Applying that policy, I understand that a Hatch Beauchamp bypass is rated at No. 4 in the priority list for the county, and that gives a clear indication of the importance that the county council attaches to the scheme because it is high in the list of competing schemes.
I am asked by my right hon. Friend what are the prospects of grant being available as the Somerset county council gets on with its policy and gets nearer to No. 4 in its priority list. Again—and I describe the county council's policy with respect as someone who looks at it but is not responsible for it—it appears to take a realistic view of the level of resources that are likely to be available over the next few years. It has not slipped into the error of making over-optimistic forecasts of when it can get on with roads, and it has tried to set out a realistic programme. It is not an over-ambitious aim for its share of the resources.
This bypass is expected to cost £2·4 million at November 1979 prices, and it is fitted into its present position in the programme on that basis. Having seen where it is at the moment, the TPP and the present likelihood of the levels of resources over the next few years, I can say that, provided that that level of resources is maintained, and provided that the council can complete the various other procedures such as the acquisition of the necessary land, there would seem to be no reason why the present start-of-work date could not be achieved.
That means that there is a large measure of agreement between all the parties on this matter. Neither the Government nor the county council disagree with my right hon. Friend's claims on behalf of the bypass. Certainly the present date that has been submitted—1985–86—is realistic and comes a long time after the bypass was first proposed. I gather that it was first mentioned in 1936. I cannot be too encouraging about the prospects of building it before the 1985–86 date that is pencilled in for it. The prospects of getting extra expenditure into local road building in the next few years cannot be very great. Somerset county council has already taken a reasonable and realistic view of the funds likely to be available, and it has other roads in preparation which are currently ahead of this one in its list of priorities.
There is also the question not only of finance but of the work which remains to be done in the design and preparation of the scheme. I understand that when there was an inquiry into the structure plan and the order of priorities for its roads, the question was raised whether this scheme for Hatch Beauchamp might change places with the No. 2 in the county's list, an improvement of the A3088 between Cartgate and Yeovil, which is down for a 1983–84 start. One of the county's points was that the Cartgate-Yeovil road was in a much more advanced stage of preparation than Hatch Beauchamp, but in the end there
556
is nothing to prevent the county from promoting the latter in its list of priorities. I am assured that the county is getting on with the design and preparation work to get the road ready on time.
I know that the county will be anxious to help. We shall do everything possible to support the road when it is No. 1 in Somerset's priorities and the county is asking us for grant to build the road. We shall be delighted when Somerset lets us know that the road is ready, and the design, the stautory processes and the land acquisition have been completed, that it is the county's first priority and it is asking for grant.
One can never guarantee that in two or three years a set sum of grant will be given to any county for any one scheme, but I hope that I have dealt with the matter sufficiently sympathetically and shown that there is no difference of aim between ourselves and the county on the construction of this bypass to give some hope to my right hon. Friend and his constituents. I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which the Hatch Beauchamp bypass will be turned down by the Government when the time comes. If Somerset can accelerate it, we will do our level best to help.
Mr du Cann: I am most grateful for the way in which my hon. and learned Friend has replied to the points I made. Although I accept that the priority is a matter for the county, does he not agree that the need for this north-south route is more important than something which can be left entirely to the county? It is a matter of national economic significance to see that we have an adequate north-south route. Does he not think, therefore, that additional funds should be made available on that basis alone?
Mr. Clarke: This road falls into a pattern of roads which cut across the grain of traditional transport links. The pattern includes north-south routes in Somerset and east-west ones in the Midlands, with which I am more familiar. They are no longer adjusted to modern industrial traffic. My right hon. Friend's question suggests that perhaps we should divert, say, trunk road funds into an important route such as this or perhaps even take this road into the trunk road programme instead of leaving it as a county council responsibility.
That is certainly an attractive suggestion in the light of the national importance of this road, with its contribution to traffic to Weymouth and so on, but I am not sure that even if we considered that step it would make much practical difference to my right hon. Friend's constituents. As I said, we are maintaining progress on the trunk road programme and we have not dropped the level of spend, but at the moment we have huge schemes to get on with which are high national priorities—such as the M25 motorway box around London, the motorway boxes around Manchester and Birmingham and the M40 between Birmingham and London.
That means that, in the trunk road programme, there are many villages on busy national roads which will have to wait a few years until the last of the motorway system has been finished. To put Hatch Beauchamp into the trunk road programme might still leave it struggling with giant multi-million pound schemes, trying to find its place in the queue. My suspicion is that it will get on as quickly as possible, with Somerset county council already giving it

557
the existing priority in its schemes, and the Government promising to give it sympathetic consideration for grant when Somerset has finished its work.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Two o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Postgraduate Students (Grants)
  Postgraduate Students (Grants)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Birmingham Prison
  Birmingham Prison
  Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
  Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
  Liquor Licences (Garages)
  Liquor Licences (Garages)
  Cannabis
  Cannabis
  Metropolitan Police (Traffic Districts)
  Metropolitan Police (Traffic Districts)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Law Centres
  Law Centres
  Civil Actions (Damages)
  Civil Actions (Damages)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Interest (Tax Liability)
  Interest (Tax Liability)
  Income Tax (Foreign Nationals)
  Income Tax (Foreign Nationals)
  Incomes (Public Funds)
  Incomes (Public Funds)
  European Community (Balance of Payments)
  European Community (Balance of Payments)
  Building Societies (Composite Tax)
  Building Societies (Composite Tax)
  German Democratic Republic (Customs Tariff)
  German Democratic Republic (Customs Tariff)
  Comptroller and Auditor General
  Comptroller and Auditor General
  Customs and Excise (Prosecutions)
  Customs and Excise (Prosecutions)
  Tax Evasion and Avoidance
  Tax Evasion and Avoidance
  Outstanding and Unrecovered Tax
  Outstanding and Unrecovered Tax
  Clearing Banks (Charging Policies)
  Clearing Banks (Charging Policies)
  One-armed Bandits
  One-armed Bandits
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Foot-and-mouth Disease
  Foot-and-mouth Disease
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
  Agriculture Training Board
  Agriculture Training Board
  Turkey Industry
  Turkey Industry
  Butter
  Butter
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Agricultural Produce (Marketing)
  Agricultural Produce (Marketing)
  Agriculture (Weather Damage)
  Agriculture (Weather Damage)
  Animal Slaughter (Pre-stunning Requirement)
  Animal Slaughter (Pre-stunning Requirement)
  Untreated Milk
  Untreated Milk
  Pork Producers
  Pork Producers
  Milk Prices
  Milk Prices
  Horticulture Industry
  Horticulture Industry
  Wheat, Sugar, Dried Milk and Butter (Export Refunds)
  Wheat, Sugar, Dried Milk and Butter (Export Refunds)
  Urban and Rural Communities (Social Imbalance)
  Urban and Rural Communities (Social Imbalance)
TRADE
  Timber (Imports)
  Timber (Imports)
  Lost Working Days (Civil Service Dispute)
  Lost Working Days (Civil Service Dispute)
  Blank Audio Cassettes
  Blank Audio Cassettes
  Audio and Video Piracy
  Audio and Video Piracy
  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Staflex International Ltd.
  Staflex International Ltd.
  Credit Cards
  Credit Cards
  Companies (No. 2) Bill
  Companies (No. 2) Bill
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Expenditure
  Aid Expenditure
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  Brandt Report (Intermediate Technology)
  Brandt Report (Intermediate Technology)
  President of France
  President of France
  Quangos
  Quangos
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
  European Commission of Human Rights (Mrs. Edith Elliott)
  European Commission of Human Rights (Mrs. Edith Elliott)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Singapore (Political Prisoners)
  Singapore (Political Prisoners)
  Overseas Students (Health Care Insurance)
  Overseas Students (Health Care Insurance)
  Palestine Liberation Organisation (Terrorism)
  Palestine Liberation Organisation (Terrorism)
  Passports
  Passports
ENERGY
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
EMPLOYMENT
  West Midlands (Long-term Unemployment)
  West Midlands (Long-term Unemployment)
  Road Transport Industry Training Board
  Road Transport Industry Training Board
  Newham
  Newham
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Health and Safety Executive
  Health and Safety Executive
  Employment Medical Advisory Service
  Employment Medical Advisory Service
  Medical Examination Fees
  Medical Examination Fees
  Health and Safety Inspectorates
  Health and Safety Inspectorates
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Factory Inspectorate
  Factory Inspectorate
  Training Schemes
  Training Schemes
  Welwyn Garden City (Vacancies)
  Welwyn Garden City (Vacancies)
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
INDUSTRY
  Petrol Additives
  Petrol Additives
  English Industrial Estates Corporation
  English Industrial Estates Corporation
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  National Research Development Corporation
  National Research Development Corporation
DEFENCE
  United States (Offset Arrangements)
  United States (Offset Arrangements)
  Procurement
  Procurement
SCOTLAND
  Keiller's, Dundee
  Keiller's, Dundee
  Demersal Fish (Firth of Clyde)
  Demersal Fish (Firth of Clyde)
  Publicly Owned Housing
  Publicly Owned Housing
  Housing
  Housing
  Child Care Services
  Child Care Services
  Scottish Office (Manpower)
  Scottish Office (Manpower)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Social Security Upratings (Glasgow)
  Social Security Upratings (Glasgow)
  Heating Costs
  Heating Costs
  Civil Service Dispute
  Civil Service Dispute
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Blood Administration and Sterile Solutions
  Blood Administration and Sterile Solutions
  Industrial Training
  Industrial Training
  Area Health Authorities (Statistics)
  Area Health Authorities (Statistics)
  Family Income
  Family Income
  Brook Advisory Centre (Contraceptive Teaching Pack)
  Brook Advisory Centre (Contraceptive Teaching Pack)
  Family Planning Survey
  Family Planning Survey
  Unemployment Review Officers
  Unemployment Review Officers
  Supplementary Benefit (Prosecutions)
  Supplementary Benefit (Prosecutions)
  Re-establishment Centres
  Re-establishment Centres
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Fraudulent Claims (Prosecutions)
  Fraudulent Claims (Prosecutions)
  Industrial Disputes (Benefits)
  Industrial Disputes (Benefits)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Special Investigators
  Special Investigators
  Social Security Officers (Investigations)
  Social Security Officers (Investigations)
  Fraud and Abuse
  Fraud and Abuse
  Special Social Security Investigations
  Special Social Security Investigations
  Social Security Payments
  Social Security Payments
  Households (Assistance)
  Households (Assistance)
  Non-smoking in Health Premises
  Non-smoking in Health Premises
  Hospital Provision (Peterlee)
  Hospital Provision (Peterlee)
  Oxford Regional Health Authority
  Oxford Regional Health Authority
  Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens
  Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens
  Health Services (Northern Region)
  Health Services (Northern Region)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Fishing Methods (Conservation)
  Fishing Methods (Conservation)
  European Community (Stocks)
  European Community (Stocks)
  Live Animals (Export)
  Live Animals (Export)
  Animal Slaughter (Pre-stunning Requirement)
  Animal Slaughter (Pre-stunning Requirement)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
  Community Industry Scheme
  Community Industry Scheme
WALES
  Dwellings (Completions)
  Dwellings (Completions)
  Perinatal and Infant Mortality Rates
  Perinatal and Infant Mortality Rates
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  The Arans (Access)
  The Arans (Access)
  National Parks (Access Agreements)
  National Parks (Access Agreements)
TRANSPORT
  Cycling (Consultation Paper)
  Cycling (Consultation Paper)
  Diesel Cars
  Diesel Cars
ENVIRONMENT
  Rent Assessment Panel Areas
  Rent Assessment Panel Areas
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  Rent Rebates
  Rent Rebates
  Vacant Land (London)
  Vacant Land (London)
  Water Authorities (Laboratories)
  Water Authorities (Laboratories)
  Countryside Commission
  Countryside Commission
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  Industrial Rates
  Industrial Rates
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  Inner City Partnershipa (London)
  Inner City Partnershipa (London)
  All Saints Church, Thirkleby
  All Saints Church, Thirkleby
  Wildlife and Plants (Protection)
  Wildlife and Plants (Protection)
  Tenants (House Purchase)
  Tenants (House Purchase)
  Redditch and Basildon Development Corporations
  Redditch and Basildon Development Corporations
  First-time Home Buyers
  First-time Home Buyers
  Industrial Rates
  Industrial Rates
  National Parks (Access)
  National Parks (Access)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Maze Prison (Hunger Strikers)
  Maze Prison (Hunger Strikers)
  Rates
  Rates
  Terrorism (Fatalities)
  Terrorism (Fatalities)
  Rioting Arrests
  Rioting Arrests
  Child Care Services
  Child Care Services
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pensions
  Pensions
  New Technology
  New Technology
  Retired Civil Servants (Re-employment)
  Retired Civil Servants (Re-employment)
  Pay Scales
  Pay Scales
  Pay Dispute
  Pay Dispute

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

Air Tickets: Evidence of Discounting
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received evidence concerning the discounting of air tickets and, if so, what action they propose to take.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): Yes, my Lords. I have received evidence, but none of it, so far as I can see, is evidence that would stand up in the courts.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister two questions arising out of his Answer. Knowing of some of the evidence which has been submitted to him and how anxious to help are the people who submitted it, could he tell the House whether he has informed those people (a) that the information is not adequate, and (b) what information would be of assistance to him in taking action? Secondly, as the Minister told the House this week that he had seen many people and organisations on this matter, could he say in general whether those organisations were all wishing to make these discounted tickets available to everybody but that they were not sure how to do it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the views which have been expressed to me have been very wide-ranging. It would not be possible for me to identify a single thread running through the representations which I have received. As for the nature of the evidence that would be required, very briefly we should need proof that the purchaser of the ticket actually travelled on it; that he or she actually paid less than the approved fare, or that the ticket was purchased without compliance with the advance purchase or other special purchase conditions; and that the airlines concerned had connived at the discounted sale.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, since KLM, Air France and Swissair are selling tickets below the IATA price level and are allowed to break the rules, may I ask the Minister why British Airways and any other British airline should suffer and lose business because they are sticking to the IATA rules when nobody else is? Surely that is a fact which ought to help the noble Lord in his efforts to get this problem straightened out.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the assertion which lies at the heart of my noble friend's question is not, I think, borne out by the facts.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that so far as Europe is concerned the great problem is the excessively high rate of air fares? May I ask him whether or not the Government during the period of their presidency of the Council of Ministers could use that special position to see to it that freedom is given to more competition, which would bring down air fares in that area, as it has done in others? During that period of six months we are in a special position to support the transport committee which runs the European Parliament. Would my noble friend be prepared to recommend to the Government that they do just that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend has eloquently enunciated the heart of my policy on this matter. I can assure my noble friend that I shall be doing precisely as he suggests. Your Lordships may know that a first document on this matter will be coming from the Commission to the Council of Transport Ministers very shortly after we assume the presidency.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, in his answers to my supplementary questions, did I understand the noble Lord to say that there was no discernable thread running through the representations of all those who have been to see him—in other words, that they are not anxious for these discounted tickets to be extended to everybody? With regard to the first point which the noble Lord made, may we take it that if information such as he has described is given to him he will take action?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, on the first part of the supplementary question asked by the noble Baroness, the answer is as she put it: that not everybody who came to see me was anxious that these tickets should become as widely available as the noble Baroness is seeking. Some people had alternative proposals to make. As to whether action will be taken in the event of a suitable case coming before me, if there is a case where the evidence is likely, in our view, to stand up in court, we shall wish to take action. It is my duty to ensure that the law is properly upheld. On the other hand, I am not going to authorise the waste of public money on a prosecution which is bound to fail.

Kensington and Chelsea: Proposed Rate Increase
11.10 a.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 are aware of the very large increase in rate poundage proposed for 1981–82 by the Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council; and what action they propose to

1009
take to protect ratepayers from this heavily increased burden.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin:)My Lords, I am of course aware of the rate increase in Kensington and Chelsea this year. The greater part of it can be attributed to the requirements of the precepting authorities, particularly the Inner London Education Authority.
The Government are concerned about the high level of rate increases this year and the burden that places on ratepayers. We are now actively examining all the ways in which we could respond to this situation. Ultimately, excessive rate increases can most satisfactorily be avoided if expenditure at all levels is constrained.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his Answer and disclosing the interest that I have the misfortune to live in the borough in question, is my noble friend aware that the rate poundage for private citizens is being increased by 52 per cent. over the rate poundage for the preceding year and that the local authority concerned in its circular to ratepayers puts a large part of the blame on Her Majesty's Government? In the circumstances, is not my noble friend prepared to consider use of the powers given under recent legislation to secure that this authority does in fact take effective steps to restrain its own expenditure?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I should say at once that I have the same interest in this matter as does my noble friend. I am also aware, as he is, of what the local authority said in their letter to ratepayers. In fairness to them it ought to be said that they have come out on the wrong end, as they see it, of the block grant allocation this year. But at the end of the day, rates come down to spending. That is the issue. As to whether or not the powers contained in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act are sufficient to deal directly with the matter in the way my noble friend would wish, I have to say that they are not. They are powers as to what one does about grant, not about what one does regarding putting ceilings or anything of that kind upon the domestic rate. To that extent the Act does not allow the Government to do what my noble friend is seeking. I hope, however, that the grant effects and other measures which the Government have taken will bring home to local authorities the fact that impositions of rate increases of this kind do impose intolerable burdens upon individuals. This is the problem.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, as a matter of interest, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that this area is Labour controlled?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, of course I do not agree, because it is not Labour controlled.
Lord Grimston of Westbury: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether outside management consultants have yet been brought in at Kensington and
1010
Chelsea—where I do not have an interest to declare—as they have been in one or two other instances in the country?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I do not know whether that is so.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, for heaven's sake, some of us would ask him not to have outside controlled management? I saw it once in Chicago, where teachers had not received their wages for two years.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I understand the lighthearted way in which the noble Lord makes the point, but in fact it is important. As always it is perhaps not right to generalise. There are obviously situations where it could be most helpful, but there are others where it might not be so helpful.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend remind the House—and I declare an interest—what percentage of the total rate comes from ILEA and what from the police precept? These two precepts surely represent the majority of the rate burden. And is it not true that under the new Left-wing dominance of the GLC the intention has been announced that it is intended to have no financial restrictions in these areas and this will probably necessitate an extra rate demand in the autumn as a result of their policies?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, as to the second part of my noble friend's question, I understand exactly that that is the declared intention. Indeed it was the declared intention, before they did so, of those who have now taken control of the GLC. It is also right, as my noble friend reminds us and as I hoped I had intimated in my original Answer, that certainly more than half of the increase in the rate in Kensington and Chelsea is due to the very high level of the Inner London Education Authority's spending. In fact, the consequent loss of grant and the increase in the precept costs ratepayers there 20p.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, is it not a fact that the increased rates which are being imposed by Tory councils throughout the country are largely due to the fact that the Government have cut by about £97 million the grant which normally would be paid to councils?
Lord Bellwin: No, my Lords, that is not correct. In fact the mass—and I think that is the proper word to use in this context—of large rate increases throughout the country have come from Labour-controlled authorities and not from Conservative ones. There are individual special situations such as the one we are now discussing, mostly in London, because the emphasis of grant in London which had switched away in previous years to other parts of the country has now been marginally redirected back to London. That is the reason why it is mostly the London authorities which have had this problem with grant, but I do not accept the first part of what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Robbins: My Lords, would the Minister agree that, whatever the distribution of blame between central

1011
and local authorities for this intolerable burden, the fact is that the rating system, given the enlarged functions of local government authorities this century, has become totally obsolete?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the Government are very alert to that. I tried to imply that in my original Answer to my noble friend. It would, I think, be proper for me to say with perhaps more emphasis than I did initially, because it is no secret, that we are looking very closely indeed at exactly what might be done about this whole matter. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept from me that these are difficult issues and, whatever might or might not be done, they must stand the test of time. Therefore, although it is perhaps frustrating in that it seems to take more time, I think it is more important that we should try to get it right and that where we can we should be in close consultation with all concerned about the matter.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the Minister said that half the rate increase was due to the demands of the precepting authorities, is he able to tell the House what the other half is for, bearing in mind that this borough council does not have quite the severe inner city problems that other borough councils have; and also can he tell the House what representations the borough council has made to the Secretary of State?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I said—and I say again—that more than half the increase (not just half) was due to the precepting authorities. Quite clearly, it would not be right at Question Time for me to go into the individual figures pertaining to this—or, for that matter, any other—authority, but if the noble Lord would like to have more detailed information and he would care to write to me, I shall be glad to give it to him.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, so that the cause and effect may be properly assessed, can the Minister say what proportion of the 50 per cent. increase mentioned by my noble friend results from the reduced block grant?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it is hard to give the proportion off hand; it is not information that I have available at this moment, but I should be glad to write to my noble friend if he so wishes.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that at the last election the Conservative Party said that it was pledged to abolish rates, and is he aware of the fact that instead of abolishing them it is putting them up?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it is not the Government who put rates up at all; it is the local authorities concerned. As I said originally, what puts rates up is spending, and, however you fool around with grants and adjust them, at the end of the day it is still a matter of how much you spend. That is the major factor in deciding what the rate levels will be.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, arising out of that answer, can my noble friend say whether or not he is
1012
satisfied that the local authority concerned has exercised the kind of restraint that has been very properly exercised in the adjoining City of Westminster?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it is difficult for me to answer that question and thereby to give an opinion upon that. What it is fair for me to say is that the council in question has quite a good record if we compare its spending and its achievement in relation to employees per head of the population and in many other ways. Its record really is a very good one. I think it is proper to say that. When we talk of increases we talk of percentages and percentages can be misleading because they are percentages on what? Where do you start? I happen to know that the authority in question is very concerned about this whole matter. Would that all others were as concerned as it is. It is looking very closely at all its spending.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I think, with respect, that it might be appropriate to move on. We have given this Question a fairly long run.

Stansted: Costs of Inquiry
11.21 a.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: 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 have agreed to pay the costs of the forthcoming public inquiry into the British Airport Authority's plans for a new terminal at Stansted.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, in accordance with normal practice the Government will pay the costs of providing the inspector and his assessors. In addition, they have agreed in this exceptional case to pay the costs of accommodation.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that the British Airports Authority have sent out a brief, of which I hold a copy in my hand, which includes the following words:
"The Secretary of State for the Environment has announced that his department will pay the costs of the forthcoming public inquiry into the BAA's plans for a new terminal at Stansted"?
As this is an inaccurate statement of the position, will the Government be prepared to desire the authority to correct it in their next briefing note?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am not sure why my noble friend, or the people who have the document to which he refers, feel that this is an inaccurate statement. So far as I am aware, this is a correct statement. I am not quite sure that I am following my noble friend's point.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does my noble friend recollect that the last major inquiry of this kind was that held by the Royal Commission into the third London

1013
airport, the so-called Roskill Commission, which lasted several years and involved local authorities and many private individuals in very large expenditure, expenditure which was for the public benefit as well as for the benefit of those represented? Bearing in mind that there is likely to be a repetition, on a slightly smaller scale but still a very large scale, of the kind of costs that were incurred on the previous occasion, I wonder whether the Government would consider, even in these times of necessary economy, at any rate helping with the costs of the local authorities, which might be considerable.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, perhaps I did not make it clear enough in my original Answer, but I thought I said that in fact we will be meeting the costs of the local authorities in this case. It is the normal practice for the authority to pay but in this case the Uttlesford District Council, who are the planning authority, asked that the Government should pay because of the exceptional circumstances, and we felt that that was right. So in fact I am agreeing with my noble friend, that having regard to all the expense involved, and the fact that this is the third time round, we should meet these expenses, and that is why we are doing so.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, would my noble friend not think that it was fair if some sort of assistance could be given to the private protesters of the local area in this particular case? They have collected money and fought three times, and really to go round the buoy again on what will be substantially the same sort of evidence seems to me to be most unfair. If any money is to be given to anybody, whether it be the local authority or the British Airports Authority, then surely it would be reasonable for private individuals, who represent the local community in a more direct sense, to get something as well?.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, this inquiry is in fact a much more modest inquiry, not as far-reaching as were the previous ones. We do not feel that in these circumstances we should pay the costs, or part of the costs, of the objectors.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister, but I am still not quite sure whether it is only the local council's expenses which will be paid or those of other councils, because I am perfectly certain that this matter will involve Cambridge in expense.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it is only the expenses of the Uttlesford District Council.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, would it not be appropriate for payment to be made to a representation of local objectors? This is often done in inquiries. I hope the Minister's Answer does not exclude the power of those running the inquiry to exercise discretion and to indicate that at any rate there should be representational backing, and paid for through public funds. It has often happened in public inquiries.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, we are talking here of a planning inquiry. While I defer, as always, to the
1014
noble and learned Lord on his knowledge and experience of these matters, which is so much greater than mine, nevertheless it is a planning inquiry, and I understand that it is not normal that that be done. I have no wish at all to anticipate what anyone might recommend. I am stating the position as it is at the present time, and as I think I would be bound to say it is likely to be.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, has my noble friend understood? I think perhaps I did not make it clear. What I was referring to in the British Airport Authority's note was the statement that the department has agreed to,
"pay the costs of the forthcoming public inquiry".
The costs must amount to tens of thousands of pounds; they are far beyond compensation. Is it his opinion that this statement that they have issued goes much too far and should be corrected?
Lord Bellwin: Well, my Lords, whether or not this is too much or too little, or whether it covers all that some would like or not, I suppose would at the end of the day have to be a matter of opinion and judgment. So far as I am aware, what we are proposing to pay is exactly what I said; we will pay the cost of providing the inspector and his assessors, and, in addition, the costs of accommodation.

Common Fisheries Policy: Negotiations
11.26 a.m.
Lord Boothby: 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 can give an assurance that, in the forthcoming negotiations with the EEC for a common fisheries policy, the vital interests of the British inshore fishing industry will be preserved.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, may I be permitted to say that it is a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, back in his place after his temporary indisposition.
My Lords, it remains the firm intention of Her Majesty's Government to safeguard the interests and future of all sectors of the British fishing industry in the negotiations for a revised common fisheries policy.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, as I know that Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the problems now confronting our inshore fishing industry, I can only thank the noble Earl for that brief but generous reply.
Lord Peart: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will assume that the Opposition also wishes our negotiators the very best. It is an important section of the industry. I know we have debated the fishing industry just recently, but this affects the inshore people who are so important to the North-East of England, and particularly also to Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, as always, defends his fishermen. I always

1015
remember that in another place he was regarded as "Mr. Fish".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I merely say that I had prepared myself for a number of quite difficult questions. I had not prepared myself for such felicitous remarks as have been made. I greatly appreciate it, as will my right honourable friend.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, although we appreciate the intention of the Government to safeguard the interests of the inshore fishermen—which at one period of my life I sought to organise, and that met with some success—is the noble Earl aware that the damage inflicted on the inshore fishermen since we entered the Common Market is of such a character that it seems almost impossible to effect a recovery?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may say so, I think the noble Lord is making the mistake of thinking that the damage to the industry is because we have joined the Common Market. One of the real problems is the shortage of fish, and finding the correct method of apportioning the fish which is available among the interests of the various countries involved, and indeed of the world.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is it not also a fact that the loss of markets in North America is the cause of a great deal of the trouble?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, my Lords, and I dare say that the extension to the 200-mile limit has probably caused more problems than it has solved.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, can the noble Earl give any assurances concerning the East Coast ports, which are so close to Europe? And if the noble Earl the Minister does not feel that it is making what I think in another place is called a "constituency speech", could he take a special interest in Lowestoft?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate would certainly not be out of order in making a constituency point, but he would have been out of order if he had made a speech. I can tell him that we are deeply conscious of the plight of those who operate in the fishing industry and that is the reason why the Government have recently made a substantial concession to them. We are concerned to see that in the final negotiations on the common fisheries policy there should be a viable industry left and, of course, that part of it which is based in Lowestoft is indeed a very important part—it happens, apart from anything else, not only to be where the right reverend Prelate comes from, but also not all that far away from me, too.

Peterborough Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Preston Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Western Isles Islands Council (Berneray Ferry) Order Confirmation Bill
Read 3a, and passed.

Ports (Financial Assistance) Bill
11.32 a.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is a measure to provide statutory authority for continued financial assistance to the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. It has been made necessary by a rapid and unexpected loss of traffic over the last year or so.
To some extent the recession has affected nearly all British ports, but London and Liverpool have suffered particularly serious difficulties since each lost between 35 per cent. and 40 per cent. of their general cargo traffic last year. This loss of traffic follows a period during which the whole ports industry has been radically affected by the introduction of new cargo handling methods—primarily the move to containers—and by changes in the pattern of trade. Both of those developments have been felt particularly severely in London and Liverpool which remain our two biggest traditional general cargo ports.
The central problem facing these two ports at the beginning of this year was a substantial surplus of labour. Even though both PLA and MDHC have, over the last two years, made substantial progress in reducing their workforces, the fall in demand for their labour has overtaken them, so that at the beginning of this year each authority employed almost 1,500 surplus workers, including roughly 1,000 registered dock workers each.
There is no doubt that an essential first step, if the ports are to return to profitability, must be to relieve the authorities of the burden of paying for these large numbers of people for whom there is no work and no prospect of any in the foreseeable future. There was, however, no chance of a rapid rundown in their workforce being achieved without special assistance. As far as the registered dock worker force was concerned, applications for severance under the port industry's National Voluntary Severance Scheme were not coming forward in anything like the required numbers, and the PLA and MDHC had no reserves or other sources of help from which to finance improved severance payments for the registered dock workers. I shall refer to them as "RWDS" each time otherwise I shall be reading out the full description. The Government, therefore, decided in view of this, and of the strategic importance of the two ports, that financial assistance from central funds was needed.
The timing of the Bill has been determined by the certainty that, without the assistance it provides, both the PLA and the MDHC would have had to cease trading in early April. The existing provision for Government assistance would then have been

1017
exhausted—that is the £70 million limit on help to the PLA set in last year's Port of London (Financial Assistance) Act and the £3 million overdraft guarantee to MDHC announced by the Government last December. As the Secretary of State for Transport emphasised when the Bill was discussed in another place, the crisis was an urgent one, requiring an urgent response.
One of the principal purposes of the Bill is to provide funds to pay for the special supplementary severance scheme for registered dock workers in the two ports, which the Secretary of State for Transport announced on 17th February. This scheme was intended as a direct way of tackling the surplus manpower problem. It provided for the payment of supplementary amounts of up to £5,500 to registered dock workers applying for severance during March and April. When added to the normal payments of up to £10,500 available under the industry's own National Voluntary Severance Scheme these supplements gave a maximum payment of £16,000, for a man with 20 or more years' service.
The size of the special supplements, as the period of availability, were decided in consultation with the chairmen of the two port authorities. I am happy to be able to tell the House that, now that the period of availability of the supplements has ended, the final results show that the scheme has been almost completely successful in achieving its objectives. The targets in each port were 1,000 applications in the Port of London and 1,250 in the Port of Liverpool; the figures achieved were 1,057 and 1,313 respectively, thus comfortably meeting the target in each case. This success reflects credit on those who have been responsible for getting the message across in the ports, and on all those who have recognised the importance of grasping this opportunity to take the first step towards recovery of the ports' fortunes. I understand that already about 1,400 registered dock workers have left the two ports, and more will follow shortly.
I do not believe that there has been serious dissent from the view that the difficulties in London and Liverpool required urgent Government action. But concern has, understandably, been expressed about its implications for other ports; and we have been asked by both sides of the industry to make supplementary payments available in all ports. This is to misunderstand the nature of the assistance we are giving. The supplements are a special local arrangement designed to meet an immediate crisis in two ports of national importance. The Government remain firmly opposed to any suggestion of general or open-ended subsidies to ports, and the objective of the help now being given is to ensure that PLA and MDHC can return, as quickly as possible, to a position where they no longer need such assistance.
The Government do, of course, recognise that other ports are facing difficulties as a result of the recession, and also that a number of them have substantial problems of surplus labour. But nowhere else is the scale of the problem as serious as in London or Liverpool, and nowhere else was it the case that, without Government help in achieving immediate manpower reductions, the port had no prospect of survival. The scheme in London and Liverpool has, as was to be expected, led to fewer applications for severance elsewhere as dock workers have waited to
1018
see whether it would be extended. The Secretary of State for Transport has repeatedly made it clear that the special supplements are outside the National Voluntary Severance Scheme and perhaps I should take the opportunity of emphasising that the Government have no intention of introducing similar supplements in any other port nor, indeed, of reviving them in London and Liverpool. I hope that now that the supplementary scheme is behind us, severances elsewhere will begin to pick up again and there is already some evidence that this is happening.
Although the supplementary severance scheme forms perhaps the most dramatic element in the assistance to the two authorities, the Bill also provides for a number of other purposes. Although this Bill provides a limit on assistance to the ports of £160 million, this represents only £87 million of new money; the £160 million figure includes £70 million aid under last year's Port of London (Financial Assistance) Act, and the £3 million guarantee to MDHC. Of this, about half is expected to pay for severances, not only of registered dock workers but also for about 600 voluntary redundancies among other employees of each of the two port authorities. The remainder is to cover necessary capital investment, a number of contingencies, and to enable the ports to continue in operation while manpower reductions and other changes are taking place.
The Bill itself deliberately does not include detailed breakdowns as between different needs or as between the two ports, as it is the Government's intention to keep a very tight control on the amounts actually disbursed to the two authorities, and to maintain a close watch on the purposes for which they are used. Initial cash ceilings have been set for each port, and regular monitoring meetings between the port authorities, our accounting advisers and departmental officials have been instituted. So far £12.6 million has been paid out to MDHC and £8.6 million to the PLA. However, there is certainly no question of the PLA and MDHC being entitled to expect that they will receive even a substantial part of the remainder of the money provided in this Bill without providing us with evidence that, in addition to manpower reductions, the necessary improvements in working practices and methods of operation are also well in hand.
Now that the results of the special severance scheme are known, we are reviewing the case for continuing financial support into the autumn. If further help is given, the next step will be to examine the PLA and MDHC's corporate plans which will be ready in the late summer. These should provide the basis for detailed consideration of the steps needed for a return to long-term profitability, and will be assisted in this work by the two firms of accountants appointed to advise us at the beginning of the year—Price Waterhouse in London and Peat Marwick in Mersey.
I should say something about the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1(1) provides for assistance to be given, first, for measures taken by PLA and MDHC to reduce the numbers of persons employed in their ports, or adjacent ports; and, secondly, for the carrying on of their undertakings while these measures are being taken. These are similar powers to those provided in the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Act 1980, but with extensions to bring in Liverpool and registered dock workers employed in the private sector.

1019
Clause 1(2) enables assistance to be given in the form of grant, loan or guarantee, and provides for the attachment of conditions, including conditions requiring repayment. Clause 1(3), 1(4) and 1(5) cover the new limit of £160 million and the previous payments that count against it, and Clause 1(7) repeals the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Act 1980.
Clause 2 of the Bill raises the limit on borrowing by the National Dock Labour Board. This is necessary, first, to enable the board to meet the payments being made under the National Voluntary Severance Scheme, to those registered dock workers who have now accepted severance in London and Liverpool; and, secondly, to enable them to finance continuing severances in other ports. The new limit of £50 million, which can be raised to £90 million by order, is expected to meet the NDLB's requirements for the foreseeable future.
Finally, in commending this Bill to the House, may I emphasise again that the future of these two great ports lies, to a very large extent, with the PLA and the MDHC themselves, and with those at all levels who work for them. Encouraging steps have been taken, particularly with the success of the special severance scheme, but radical changes still need to be made before the authorities can once again stand on their own feet. This Bill provides the means to carry them through, at least to a position from where a clear path to profitability can be seen; it remains for the ports themselves to show that they can continue to justify our assistance. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Bellwin.)
11.44 a.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain that noble Lords will be grateful to the Minister for the clarity with which he has explained this Bill in the manner in which we have come to expect from him. Although this is a money Bill, I should like to raise a number of points. First, the noble Lord has stressed the urgency of the situation, which we, on this side of your Lordships' House, clearly recognise. He has explained that it is due to the problem of overmanning and also to loss of trade. As he said, far too few workers have opted for severance pay, and this must be allied to the problem of these men finding alternative employment in those particular areas. It would be foolish to disregard that fact.
Therefore, one can understand why the Government thought it desirable to offer this additional inducement, and it is encouraging to know that so many of the workforce have accepted the additional severance pay. The noble Lord said that this had been worked out in consultation with the chairman of the two ports authorities. It would be interesting to know whether there had been prior consultation with the general bodies of ports employers throughout the country. It would also be useful to know whether there had been any prior consultation with the trade unions concerned for the whole of the ports industry, because it has a considerable effect.
As the Minister has said, there are other ports which also have this problem of overmanning. As I think your Lordships know, when companies go out of existence—stevedore companies and so on—all the
1020
workers have the option either of accepting redundancy or of being transferred to particular ports authorities. Other docks have had this problem and have also had the problem caused by the trade recession. We know that there are workers in some other ports who have refused redundancy, partly because of the difficulty of obtaining alternative employment in those areas, particularly if they are young enough, for once they have left the industry and their redundancy payment has been used up, they then want work; the redundancy payment will not give them the standard of living to which they are used for very long. They also ask, "What is special about Liverpool and London"? The workers in these other ports argue, "Why is there an artificial distinction? Why should not we also have the advantage of this increased generous severance pay which has been given to the PLA and to the Merseyside docks"? I understand that some requests have already been made by bodies of workers in those particular ports. Although one understands the problems of the PLA and the Mersey docks, it is difficult to justify why this has to be done in London and Merseyside but not in other ports which suffer the same problems and where the workers suffer the same problems.
It may be—and I accept this—that London and Merseyside have larger numbers of workers involved, but proportionately to the workforce in some of the other ports, the problem is as bad. All this, together with what the Minister has said, indicates the problem facing the ports industry. The Minister has explained this, so I shall not go into it again. However, does this Bill do anything about it? It may be argued that this is a money Bill to deal with the urgent situation, but surely there must be the need for a body which is in a position to review the whole of the docks industry and to give advice to the Minister. No matter how eminent may be the two firms of accountants, surely this is an issue which goes far beyond the question of pounds, shillings and pence in the PLA and Merseyside. Surely it is the whole problem of the British ports industry. Although it is not particularly covered by this Bill, the problems are raised because of the reasons for the necessity for this Bill.
What do the Government propose to do in the Transport Bill that will be before your Lordships' House when we return after the Recess? The National Ports Council, which in a very limited way, is able to give advice after reviewing the situation in the industry, is to be abolished, so we shall not have that body to give advice to the Minister on the ports industry. The harbours part of Sealink is also being separated from the shipping part, and there are proposals to change the Transport Docks Board into Associated British Ports; but, in itself, it does not involve a great change and review for the docks industry.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has said, other port authorities are facing financial difficulties. I believe the figures are that only one-third of the total capacity of British harbours and docks is at present able to be used by the amount of trade going through them. Therefore we have two-thirds surplus capacity. There is clearly a need for a national docks policy for the docks as a whole, and the matter cannot be dealt with by piecemeal investigation into just the PLA and Merseyside. When your Lordships come to the

1021
Transport Bill, we on this side of the House will be putting on pressure for such an authority to review the whole of the industry and to advise the Minister.
While we recognise the necessity for this Bill, it is not a solution for the industry; it is not even a solution for those two docks alone, because one cannot deal with those two docks in isolation from the rest of the industry. While it is not my place this morning to reverse the arguments that will be put forward when we come to the Transport Bill, these are very important considerations with which your Lordships' House will concern itself.
11.51 a.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, to cover the point about consultation to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred, and although I am not absolutely clear on the point, I understand that consultation did take place with other ports. I do not know the answer to the noble Lord's point about consultation with the trade unions and I will have to write to him about that.
Perhaps not surprisingly—particularly in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said—the Government have received a number of representations seeking to demonstrate that other ports have as pressing a case for financial assistance as do the ports of London or Liverpool. I am afraid that is not really so. With the exception of Bristol, which is something of a special case, no other port is approaching the state of bankruptcy which both the PLA and MDHC reached during the first week of April. Even in those cases where losses have been made recently—and I recognise that 1980 was a bad year for a number of ports—financial reserves are still available and surplus labour problems, although significant in some cases, are nowhere near the scale that applies in London and Liverpool. There would be no justification, either on grounds of immediate financial need or in terms of some fabulous national ports authority, for the assistance which this Bill provides being extended to other ports. Of course I am sure that we shall be discussing the broader aspect before too long.
This is a limited Bill, designed to meet an immediate crisis in two specific ports. As the Government have made clear, it provides assistance for specific purposes and there is no question of a permanent or open-ended subsidy to these ports, or indeed to any other ports. The objective is to return both the PLA and the MDHC as quickly as possible to a situation in which they no longer need to rely upon Government support, and this Bill is designed to achieve that end. My Lords, I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

Criminal Attempts Bill
11.53 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(Lord Belstead.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Attempting to commit an offence]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I wish to make a brief drafting point. Subsection (4) states:
"This section applies to any offence which, if it were completed, would be triable in England and Wales as an indictable offence, other than—"
and it then sets out three examples. One of these examples is conspiracy. Manslaughter is not included. On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, suggested that it should be included but my noble friend Lord Belstead gave a reason for not including it. He said:
"The defences of provocation or diminished responsibility which apply to reduce murder to manslaughter do not apply to attempted murder".
That point is well taken. My noble friend went on:
"The other kind of manslaughter, killing by gross negligence, cannot be attempted".
That argument is perfectly sound and true, but conspiracy has been included as an exception, and I would have thought that conspiracy—which requires the agreement of two people—should be left out if manslaughter is to be left out. Conversely, if conspiracy is to be included then manslaughter should also be included. My noble friend may wish to think about this point a little more. I think it is a point worth making from the drafting point of view.
Lord Belstead: I should like to think about this for a moment or two. I might be in a position to reply to my noble friend, if he will bear with me, when we come to Clause 5, which deals with the other limb of conspiracy. Would that be agreeable to my noble friend?
Lord Renton: Yes, certainly.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Offences of attempt under other enactments]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: We find that subsections (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 3 merely repeat subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Clause 1. We really should try to avoid repetition, especially on that sort of scale. I believe that my noble friend would do well to ask the draftsman whether it is really necessary to have this completely set out so soon in the Bill, and whether there could not be some compendious way of invoking the first three subsections of Clause 1 and applying them to Clause 3 without complete repetition.
Lord Belstead: I do of course take very seriously any advice which my noble friend gives on the drafting of legislation. As I understand my noble friend's

1023
remarks, he is not objecting to the intention of Clause 3, which is that if the Bill were to pass without the clause it is probable that the courts would begin to interpret statutory offences of attempt in the same way as the offence of attempt under Clause 1, but that this clause ensures that this will happen. As I understand it, my noble friend Lord Renton is not objecting to that intention but to the way in which the clause is drafted. If I may take my noble friend's advice I will consider what he has said on this particular point and will look at it again, without making any commitment as to what our own conclusions will be. However, I think it would be right to undertake, if I can possibly do so, to first write to my noble friend Lord Renton.
Lord Renton: I am much obliged to my noble friend.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Trials and penalties]:
11.58 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 32, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 1 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 9. The amendment to Clauses 4 and 7—that is to say, Amendment No. 1 that I am moving now and Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 also—remove some transitional provisions which were included in case the Criminal Attempts Bill became law before the commencement of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Since that Act is now set to come into force on 6th July, it is clear that this Bill has lost the race and so the provisions are unnecessary. Similarly, it is now clear that the final three references to the Criminal Law Act 1977 in the repeal schedule—that is, in Amendment No. 9—should be to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which will, among other matters, consolidate these particular provisions. I hope I have explained why I have asked to speak to four amendments, although I now move Amendment No. 1.
Lord Mishcon: The Minister, with his usual courtesy, wrote to me in a most considerate manner explaining the reason for the various amendments, and therefore calling my attention to their necessity from a drafting point of view. I should like to thank him, because it has saved the Committee a speech from me and various questions which I otherwise might have asked.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Extension of definition of the offence of conspiracy]:
12 noon
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 37, leave out ("the following subsection shall be inserted after") and insert ("(1) For").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, and with the Committee's permission would speak also to Amendment No. 3. The purpose of Clause 5 of the Bill is to ensure that, as Clause 1 does in respect of attempt, it should not be a defence to a charge of conspiracy that the offence in question is one which in the circumstances it was impossible to commit. The amendments—which have the support of the Law Commission—make no change in that policy. The purpose of these two amendments is twofold. Subsection (1) created by Amendment No. 3 proceeds along similar lines to the corresponding clause in the Law Commission's draft Bill, and makes no material change in the present definition of conspiracy.
Its object is simply to avoid a possible contradiction between Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and the subsection (1A) which the present Clause 5 would add after it. The former—which gives the statutory definition of conspiracy—provides that the carrying out of the agreement must result in the commission of an offence. The latter—which is designed to deal with "impossible" conspiracies—provides that it is immaterial that it will not result in the commission of an offence.
Although there is no dispute—at least there was no dispute except for the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, who I think is not able to be in your Lordships' House today—about the rightness of dealing with "impossible" conspiracies, there is a risk that the courts might not find it easy to resolve the inconsistency which might result from the present wording. The amendment avoids this difficulty by putting the two subsections together in a form which restates Section 1(1) of the 1977 Act and adds to it a conditional element dealing with conspiracies to do the impossible.
Subsection (2) is designed to ensure that Clause 5 does not operate retrospectively. As it stands, a person indicted after the date of coming into force of the Bill for a conspiracy committed before that date would be liable to conviction notwithstanding that the object of the conspiracy might have been impossible to achieve. The amendment will disapply the clause if the agreement was entered into before the date of coming into force of the Bill, though not if the agreement continued to exist after that date. The amendments are therefore substantially of a drafting and technical nature and I hope they will commend themselves to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 39, leave out from ("conspiracy") to end of line 42 and insert ("there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
"(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, either—

(a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or

(b) would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible,

he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question".
(2) This section shall not apply where an agreement was entered into before the commencement of this Act unless the conspiracy continued to exist after that date").
The noble Lord said: I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Belstead: I undertook to reply to my noble friend Lord Renton on the point he raised concerning manslaughter, which referred to attempted conspiracies. I said that I would attempt to reply to my noble friend on this clause. Manslaughter cannot be attempted so it is, the Government suggest, unnecessary to mention it expressly in Clause 1(4). It was on that stage of the Bill that my noble friend Lord Renton raised the point.
Conspiracy in fact could be attempted but the Criminal Law Act 1977 at present provides that attempting to conspire shall not be an offence. The Bill re-states the relevant provision in the 1977 Act and repeals that provision in that Act. Without express mention of conspiracy in Clause 1(4) attempting to conspire would become an offence again.
Lord Renton: I am most grateful. That is a most lucid explanation. It creates the firm relationship of the mention of conspiracy in Clause 1(4) with the mention of conspiracy in Clause 5. I am grateful to my noble friend. He has enabled me to understand the position much better.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Effect of Part I on common law]:
12.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I should be grateful for an explanation here. We are abolishing the offence of attempt at common law. It would be helpful to know exactly why we are doing so because that offence at common law has a wide-ranging effect. We find that again it is necessary to refer to Clause 1(4):
"This section"—
which is the foundation of the Bill—
"applies to any offence which, if it were completed, would be triable … as an indictable offence …".
But at common law the offence of attempt can be applied, as I understand it, to some offences which are not indictable. I may be wrong about that. I have not done deep research into it, but that is my recollection. If we are going to make a wholesale repeal, abolition, of the offence of attempt at common law, it would be helpful if we could be told why this is to be done.
Lord Belstead: This clause of course abolishes the offence of attempt at common law and provides that references in existing enactments to attempt at common law shall be construed as references to the new statutory offence. It corresponds to Clause 5 of the Law Commission's draft Bill, with a minor addition to subsection (1). May I just refer to the two subsections of
1026
Clause 6. Subsection (1) abolishes the offence of attempt at common law except in so far as it applies to acts done before the Act comes into force. The proviso enables charges to be laid and proceeded with under the common law in respect of alleged offences committed before the commencement date. Abolition of the common law offence follows automatically from the creation of a new statutory offence in Clause 1. It also abolishes any specific preparatory offences which might be held to exist at common law following, as I said on Second Reading, the decision in the case of Gurmit Singh.
So far as subsection (2) is concerned, this provides that unless the context otherwise requires, references in previous enactments which fall to be construed as references to the common law offence of attempt shall be construed as references to the new statutory offence. This is to ensure that any special provisions in existing legislation concerning the common law of attempt will apply in the same way to the new offence.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having just looked at my briefing to remind myself, if not your Lordships, of the exact effect of this particular clause on which my noble friend has raised a specific point. It is not clear that the common law of attempt applies to summary offences, although there are special statutory offences of attempt, and those are dealt with in Clause 3.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to my noble friend and would only add that I hope the words in line 7, "unless the context otherwise requires", will not give rise to difficulties of interpretation in the courts.
Lord Belstead: Does my noble friend mean instead of referring specifically to Clause 3?
Lord Renton: Yes.
Lord Belstead: I will take my noble friend's final remark away and look at it, and possibly I can include something about it in the letter which I promised to write to my noble friend.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Amendments consequential on Part I]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 29, leave out from ("in") to end of line.
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 30, leave out from ("1980") to ("includes") in line 32.
The noble Lord said: This is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Interference with vehicles]:
12.12 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) A person does not commit an offence under this section unless he pursues a course of conduct which involves two or more separate acts of interference").
The noble Lord said: We move from the realms of the technical and questions of drafting to matters of policy, and I suggest that we now come to an important matter of policy. It will be observed incidentally that the amendment has the support of various parts of the Committee, and I hope it will commend itself as well to the Government.
There was unanimity in your Lordships' House when the offence known as "sus" was said to be abolished by the Bill. It met with unanimous welcome and speeches were made, which I do not intend to repeat, as to why it was so welcome. One of those reasons was the fact that people were sometimes faced with charges which they regarded as completely unjust, and there were opportunities for your Lordships to examine examples of where convictions had taken place where indeed it was extremely doubtful if the subjective view that was taken by the court was correct.
Sus is a summary offence. There has been substituted for sus in the Bill a new offence which is meant to deal with something which is extremely troublesome—if that is the right word to use for it—namely, the continuous stream of offences relating to motor vehicles (taking and driving away and the theft of motor vehicles) and it was thought there had to be something to act as a preventive measure in order that the public could be safeguarded and that those who had gone through the motions of what would normally be an attempt could be arrested and charged where the evidence was sufficient.
The reason for this offence, as against the charge of attempting to take and drive away or to commit a theft, is that trouble is experienced by the police authorities in deciding (your Lordships can well realise why) whether somebody who is tampering with a car is attempting to take it away but not to steal it, or indeed to steal it. Therefore, it was argued that there should be an offence, now that sus was to go, which would deal with this nuisance and would say in effect that if there were suspicious circumstances which could lead to the court assuming—as the court would have to assume on the basis of criminal liability—that the person concerned was attempting or had in mind either driving the car away or committing a theft, then this offence would be committed.
I remind the Committee that this substituted offence is, again, a summary offence and not one on which there is a right to go for trial before a judge and jury. Without being in the slightest degree offensive, since that is my last intention, to our stipendiary or lay magistrates, one knows as a practitioner that often magistrates who have a very heavy list and a repetition of a number of offences which may be common in that area, are inclined to take a short view of the evidence before them and take it for granted that because the last charge with which they dealt had similar evidence and there was a conviction, there should similarly be a conviction of the next offence. This is not by any
1028
means a general statement that I am making, but it is, I am afraid, a statement which practitioners in the criminal courts would agree with.
The new offence, with which the amendment does not seek to quarrel, has a requirement which is less than the offence of sus which it abolishes. The offence of sus required that there had to be evidence of a suspicious act, followed by a completely separate act, of which there was evidence which might lead to a conviction, and would certainly lead to a police constable (because it would normally be a police constable) thinking there was reasonable evidence of the fact that an offence of taking or driving away or theft was about to be committed.
To make this offence less of a requirement in regard to evidence of acts would surely be to go back on the whole reasoning behind the abolition of sus, and therefore the amendment seeks again to impose, as was required for the sus offence, the act which creates suspicion followed by another separate act. At the moment it would mean that the mere tampering with one car door on one occasion could lead to a charge being preferred and, under the wording of the clause, a conviction being registered. It is extremely necessary for your Lordships to look very carefully at the wording of the clause, and the requirements before there could be a conviction under it, and it is in those circumstances and with some confidence that I move the amendment.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: Whenever I hear the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, moving an amendment I find it difficult to resist agreeing with him, because of the manner in which he presents his case; I also see the very distinguished names which are added to the proposal he is making. However, I find the proposal—namely, that there should be two or more separate acts to constitute the offence—unacceptable.
First, let us look at the offence as now contained in the Bill, and let us consider what must be done before the offence is committed. It is a new offence. It is necessary to prove that a person has interfered with a motor vehicle, or its contents, with intent to steal the vehicle, or something in it, or to take it away. Those are the two constituents. If the court decides that there has been an act of interference with the motor vehicle or something in it and, secondly, an intent to steal the car or something in it, or an intent to take away the car, then the offence is deemed to have been committed. It seems to me right that that should be the offence.
On Second Reading we were told that there were nearly 280,000 thefts from vehicles in this country in 1979. There were over 300,000 thefts of vehicles, or offences of taking away vehicles. It is a very serious situation, not something which we as legislators should brush aside. The amendment proposes that the person must interfere with the vehicle twice before the offence is committed, and that seems to me to be remarkable. Why should it be twice? Why not three times or four times? If we are not very careful about this, the general public will think the legislature mad to try to make things easier in terms of the committing of these offences. If there are 600,000 such offences, consider how many people are affected by them. Probably more than a million people are affected every year, bearing in mind that some families have at least two cars and that some cars might contain goods that do

1029
not belong to the car owners, but to other people. So every year over a million of our fellow subjects find themselves on the receiving end of criminals' activities.
If the Bill removes the old vagrancy offence, so be it. But we must be very careful in this area. I note with respect what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about the work done by stipendiaries and lay benches. He was very courteous about them, but, apart from being courteous let us be fair. They have a very difficult task to do, and without volunteers on the lay benches it would certainly not be possible to administer justice in this country. In my experience people who serve on the lay benches approach their work in a fair and sensible way, and do not merely accept the evidence from whoever gives it. That is my experience; if it differs from that of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, so be it. I have always felt that a great debt is owed to these people, who do their job extremely well.
As I have said, we have removed the old vagrancy offence; so be it. On Second Reading a reference was made—certainly not by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and his supporters here—to what was called racial motivation in bringing charges of this kind. That was mentioned by a noble Lord in your Lordships' House, and I found it very offensive. Such accusations are often levied wantonly and irresponsibly, and a lobby grows up. I am not sure whether all the people in such a lobby are very honestly motivated. It is claimed that every prosecution of any person belonging to an ethnic minority is somehow corrupt. I find that claim offensive and I think that it does great harm to the ethnic communities. Many of the alleged spokesmen of the ethnic communities appear to be rejected by the communities themselves, and it seems very difficult to find a genuine representative. I consider that such a lobby is having the serious consequence of arousing resentment among ordinary people who are perfectly well disposed to the ethnic minorities. Such a lobby may be joined by some injudicious people who perhaps do not understand the true purpose of the matter.
We have done what sensible people have thought should be done—namely, removed the "sus" offence, for which we have substituted the offence that we are now considering. It requires evidence, proof, both that a person has interfered with a motor vehicle and that he had intent to steal from it. Surely that is good enough. I think it only right that in fairness to the people of this country, to the million or so who are affected by these offences, that we should maintain the offence as it is at present proposed in the Bill. We should not, as was proposed with great grace by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, make it even more difficult to convict people who do a great deal of harm to many citizens of this country.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am very sorry that the distinguished speaker who has just sat down has taken the line that he has taken. I think it quite irrelevant to refer to remarks made on Second Reading by a noble Lord who is not present and who has not put his name to the amendment. I do not think that we should be prejudiced by racial talk which, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, can be very damaging. The important point
1030
here is that, as everybody knows, "sus" was deeply resented by ethnic minorities—whether rightly or wrongly, I shall not say. There is a natural desire not to return to that situation when we have agreed to abolish it. In the Bill as it stands the new offence will be even more easy to apply than was the old "sus" offence, in regard to which evidence of more than one instance was required.
I think it worthwhile to look back a little to the Home Office Working Party on Vagrancy and Street Offences in 1976. The working party 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. They all rejected the suggestion put to them that evidence of one instance should be sufficient. They proposed that the "antecedent conduct" should include at least one suspicious act before, and distinct from, the act which caused the individual to be charged with the offence. The working party stated in a working paper:
"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".
The amendment proposes precisely that, and I greatly hope that the Government will look at it very carefully. My noble friend Lord Wigoder is in entire agreement with it—and he is sorry that he cannot be present today. I think it very important that we should try to persuade the Government to include this proposal as a modification to Clause 9, which has worried many people.
12.28 p.m.
Lord Renton: I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not accept the amendment. I warmly support the powerful case put by my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell. I wish briefly to add three points. First, a policeman would be placed in an absurd position if, having seen a man interfere with one vehicle, having caught him redhanded, so to speak, he then had to stand aside and wait until the man interfered with another vehicle. That would be a quite absurd and impossible situation for the police.
My second point relates to what has been said about the ethnic minorities. Of course we are all anxious to be careful about the way in which we legislate, but the possibility that the susceptibilities of some members of the ethnic minority might be offended cannot be regarded as a good reason for generally weakening the law which applies to everybody, including all the members—
Lord Mishcon: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will forgive me for intervening, but I wish to point out that in moving the amendment I did not at all mention the ethnic minority point. I listened most carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and I did not hear him mention that point as being a reason why we should pass the amendment. I do not want the Committee to be misled into thinking that this is part of the case.
Lord Renton: May I say that I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has intervened and made

1031
that clear so far as his own position is concerned. I clearly misunderstood what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, was saying if he was not saying what I understood and said; namely, that we had to be careful as to how we legislated on this particular point with regard to the ethnic minorities—and perhaps we can leave it at that.
My last point is this. If it were right to allow the criminals several opportunities to attempt to commit their offence before they could be convicted, and if it were right to do so in relation to these cases affecting motor vehicles, then the whole range of cases to which it might apply would be enormous. In other words, we would be creating a precedent which we would regret for the rest of time. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will strongly resist this amendment.
Lord Hunt: I rise to support very strongly both parts of this amendment, although I propose to speak only in regard to the maximum sentence which can be imposed for the offence of tampering with a motor vehicle and its parts with intent. At a time when the Home Secretary himself has been insisting time and again on the need to reduce the length of prison sentences, and indeed to make fewer offences liable to imprisonment, and at a time when the Lord Chief Justice has been enjoining the magistracy and the courts in the same vein—the noble and learned Lord did so only two days ago at the annual general meeting—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: If the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting him, I think he is speaking to the next amendment at the moment, which deals expressly with the reduction from three months' imprisonment to one month's imprisonment. I hope the noble Lord will not think me impertinent, but that is the purpose of my unexpected intervention upon words which we listen to with admiration.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: After 44 years' experience of metropolitan benches as a magistrate I must say that I have not found the shortcomings that my noble friend Lord Mishcon referred to—that magistrates formed a habit of conviction in sus cases. I should like to report that the very last case I ever heard in court before my retirement happened to be a sus case in which my colleagues—I was in the chair—were inclined to take the case at face value. After a considerable discussion of the evidence we finally acquitted, because it appeared to us all in the end that there was in fact a doubt.
I think a good deal depends on the nature of the act of interference—and I have heard some very strange acts quoted in court as acts of interference in sus cases; for instance, touching the handle of a car. Indeed, I have heard of touching the handle of the rear door of a car of a make which has only one door on each side, which has no rear door. These things get rather standardised and formalised; and possibly two police officers are watching the same thing, and they may see it the same way. I think that protection is necessary here to establish that there was an act of interference such as would lead to an offence. Without this dual protection, casual touchings and actions of that sort will, I think, be given a value that they do not have. I
1032
should therefore like to support very strongly the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I should like briefly to intervene to add to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, about the authoritative views expressed by the Home Office Working Party on Vagrancy and Street Offences; namely, the views which I understand to have been expressed by Sir David McNee, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, in which I understand he expressed support for the recommendations of the Home Office working party during its inquiry into the sus law. Sir David, I am reliably informed, listed a number of specific proposals by the Home Office working party which he favoured, including the proposal that antecedent conduct should include at least one suspicious act before and distinct from the act which caused the man to be charged with the offence.
I understand, further, looking at it from the police point of view, that in evidence to the House of Commons Special Standing Committee on the Bill Sir Philip Knights, the chief constable of the West Midlands, said he did not envisage that in practice the police would bring any prosecutions unless at least two actions had been observed. Accordingly, while I am not suggesting that noble Lords opposite are accusing us of irresponsibility and of a reckless disregard of the public safety in this matter, it is at least reassuring to think that eminent policemen take the same view as we do.
If I may say so with great respect to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, of course the offence and crime of taking and stealing a motor car will remain. This is very much on the fringe of the problem; it is an important provision that the criminal law should provide; but it would really be intolerable if, having got rid of one much-criticised mischief—namely, the sus law—we were to put in its place something even more perilous than the sus law itself.
Lord Robbins: It is with the deepest regret that I venture an amateur's query with regard to the amendment which is fostered by the distinguished names on the Marshalled List. But my base mind suggests to me that if this amendment goes through the organisers of the stealing of motor cars, which we are assured goes on on a large scale, will be tempted simply to re-arrange their operations; and if some member of their group has incurred the suspicion of the police on one occasion, they will be careful to leave him out on the second occasion. Is this not improbable?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I say just one thing about that? There are, of course, two entirely separate issues here. One is organised crime, and in that case, no doubt, this sort of thing would be done and probably is done already. I think your Lordships will find that the organised criminals who are paid by central bodies to do this are very careful how they do it, and take very little risk. What we are concerned about in this amendment is the ordinary, feckless young man who is out of work, has nothing to do, sees a row of cars and, rather like a naughty boy, puts his hand on one handle just wondering whether there is anything that is going to happen.
What we are anxious is that people in this condition,

1033
who are vulnerable and liable to be turned to a life of crime by something which is in itself fairly trivial, should be protected from immediate prosecution, and that there should be some effort to make sure that there is a real attempt going on. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that as the police are the case which was used by the noble Lords opposite to oppose this, it is very curious and impressive that all the evidence we have from the very highest in the land in the police is in the opposite sense and is in favour of the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, appeared to me to base his arguments for his amendment basically on the offences of taking away or stealing a motor vehicle but not on subsection (2)(b) dealing with anything carried on or in a motor vehicle or trailer. There are a number of families who go on holiday and who fasten, sometimes very badly, their goods and chattels to their roofrack and into their trailers. It is not difficult very often to remove them by cutting one string only and not two strings. Therefore, if two instances of interference are necessary, I feel that an individual who cuts a string on a trailer or a roofrack and then allows his friend to dip his hand in and remove the article will get away scot free.
Lord Mishcon: I intervene in order to answer the noble Lord's sensible point. May I say that if it were outside the vehicle and somebody did what he has suggested, it would be attempted theft and there would be no need to invoke this section at all. Therefore, there is no question of two acts of interference applying. The doubt, when you are dealing with a vehicle and you have to enter the vehicle in order to commit the offence, would be whether it was an attempt to take and drive away the vehicle or to steal it. That was the problem of the past. There has never been a problem over anything attached to a vehicle.
Lord Belstead: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who in moving this amendment said that we ought all to look carefully at Clause 9. I agree with him because I realise that, when the Government are proposing to Parliament the creation of a new offence, it is the responsibility of Members of both Houses to look carefully at the proposals made. I attach particular importance to today's debate because so many of your Lordships have taken part in it. But, with respect, I do not find that I agree with the noble Lord and many other noble Lords that we should draw an analogy between Clause 9 and the suspected person offence which has been done away with in Clause 8. If I may say so, I think that one fact that so many of your Lordships are drawing an analogy between Clause 9 and the offence of "sus" has led the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, to remind the Government in this debate of the views of the Home Office working party on vagrancy and street offences. The views of that working party on the need for two acts before a conviction should be secured were in the context of a revised "sus" offence and not an entirely different offence as is the proposal in Clause 9 of the Bill.
I would think it fair for me to say that if your
1034
Lordships, none the less, conclude that Clause 9 and "sus" are the same, then all I can say is that in another place the spokesman for the Opposition, Mr. Cunningham—not learned in the law in the same way as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, but none the less speaking for the Opposition—made his view clear in the Third Reading debate when he said:
"The new offence is not the same as 'sus'."—[Official Report, Commons, 31/3/81; column 250.].
This is the view that I should like to submit to the Committee on this particular amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am sorry to interrupt, but it is an important point. Of course, it is not the same as "sus" but it is one of the offences over which "sus" was constantly exercised.
Lord Belstead: Let me develop the argument for a moment. If I may, I should like to explain why I attach such importance to the fact that the two offences are not the same and the burden of proof in both offences is, as I see it, clearly different. Before doing that, however, may I pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, in his first remarks when, in essence, he said that proof under the provisions of Clause 9 was going to be easier to obtain than would have been the proof necessary for the former offence of "sus".
The requirement in the case of the suspected person offence that there should be at least two suspicious acts is a gloss imposed over the years by the courts which was designed to try to make some sense of an otherwise vague guilty act, an actus reus. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it would be harsh if an individual could be convicted of being a suspected person, of frequenting or loitering with intent, on the evidence that on one occasion only he had loitered near a handbag or beside a car. But—and this is the whole nub of the matter—a requirement that there should be two acts has no place in the definition of an offence which is as tightly drawn as the one which is to be found in Clause 9, which is specific both as to the guilty act and also, to be proved, the guilty state of mind.
The prosecution must prove both that the accused carried out an overt act of interference with a motor vehicle—and I emphasise this to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson—and that the person concerned did so with intent to commit one of the specified offences. If this is established to the court's satisfaction, surely it cannot be right to have to say how many acts of interference took place or, to put it another way, if the court is satisfied on the evidence that the accused committed one act of interference with the prescribed intent, I cannot see why they should be compelled to acquit him merely because he did not go on to commit more.
If I may, I will add my voice to those of my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton. I thought that, entirely uncharacteristically, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was rather less than fair in his reference to magistrates and less than fair to his own profession, both to members of the solicitors' profession and also to counsel who may be appearing in such cases, who,

1035
I am sure, will argue cases effectively if Clause 9 is passed into law. I was grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson for expressing so clearly what I have been trying to say and to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, for reminding the Committee—and I think it right that the Committee should be reminded—of the enormous amount of damage, of loss and of distress which is caused by the sort of offences which are committed and which Clause 9 attempts to deal with.
That is the fundamental objection to the amendment; but I believe that the amendment as drafted would also introduce unwelcome uncertainty and possibly seriously weaken the effect of the provisions—and I am not talking merely about any technical defects. The requirement of two separate acts in the case of the suspected person offence is, as I have said, a gloss by the courts and it has been subject to interpretation and reinterpretation over the years. May I indulge in the luxury of putting some difficult questions to those noble and learned and noble Lords who have put their names to the amendment and ask about cases in which I think this amendment would present some difficulties? Would it suffice if the amendment were made if an individual committed two separate acts of interference with the same car door, for instance, perhaps by trying to open the door and then trying to force it? Or would it require acts of interference with different parts of the vehicle or even with different vehicles? What length of time could or should elapse between the acts of interference? And what of the case where a policeman comes along and finds someone who is clearly pulling at a door and trying to wrench it open, but the policeman only sees it happening on the one occasion? Do we seriously contemplate that a charge of vehicle interference under this Bill should not be available in such a case?
To ask these questions is to show how unnecessary I think this provision would be if it were to be agreed by the Committee and to reveal the uncertainty and confusion which could result and the anomalies which could arise. It is on those grounds, but mainly on the basic grounds that we are creating a different offence which is not analogous to "sus", that I ask the Committee to reject this amendment.
12.51 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I shall not weary the Committee with a repetition of the arguments, but in justice to the amendment I must deal with some of the points that have been raised. May I first of all impinge upon the courtesy of the Committee by telling a story that has definitely stayed with me throughout my professional life—a true story in which I was engaged. Possibly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, will now appreciate why I said what I did, as would my noble friend Lady Wootton if she were in her place.
It was as a young practitioner that I sat in Bow Street Magistrates' Court as the chief magistrate was sitting. He had had quite a few cases of pick-pocketing which, as one knows, is quite common in Bow Street and that area. An old gentleman was brought before him and the evidence was from the owner of a wallet that he had been walking down the Charing Cross Road (I think it was) and this old gentleman had come right up to him and asked him the time. He recollected
1036
afterwards that the old gentleman appeared to come rather close. He told the old gentleman the time, the old gentleman said, "Thank you" and walked off rather quickly. It was then found by the person who was giving this evidence that his wallet was missing. The old gentleman went into the witness box and he said that he had only asked about the time and that was all. Subsequently a policeman had chased him as a result of this complaint and had stopped him. There was no wallet found on the old gentleman and really that is all he had to say except that it was a most unjust charge.
I heard the learned chief magistrate—about whose fairness there could never be the slightest doubt—say: "I have heard this story so many times in my court. I convict. Let this man stand down; I want to know more about him." My case did not come until on late that afternoon. The gentleman who had given evidence in the morning came back in the early afternoon and said that he would like to address the chief magistrate. He was so sorry, he had gone home and he had looked in another suit and his wallet was in another suit. He wished to apologise to the court for the trouble that he had caused.
I am not putting this forward as a typical case; I am only saying that in busy courts, when there are repetitions of cases like "sus", as it was, or cases of interfering with vehicles, it is possible for magistrates, with all their sense of fairness and without there being the presence of a jury which has to assess how this might have happened to them, to make errors—and we are all human.
I remember another lesson I learned very early: better that nine guilty people should be acquitted than that one innocent man should be convicted. If that applies as a principle, it certainly applies to the young people who are frequenting our streets—and I make no difference between the colours of the young people. Their characters are the same and their ways are the same. I merely say that possibly some are subject to more disabilities than others.
Having said that, we are creating a new offence—an offence that usually will have merely one witness, possibly two, but they will be police officers; and again I do not in any way impugn the fairness of police officers who are trying their best to stop this dreadful business of the theft of motor-cars and the driving away of motor-cars without any proper, justifiable cause.
Is there really any difficulty in this question of two acts of interference? Would each Member of the Committee put himself in the place or his son or in the place of somebody finding himself in a magistrates' court? Maybe it is curiosity in regard to a vehicle where somebody is merely peering in to have a look. Does it depend upon the suit that he wears as to whether he ought to be suspected or not? Some of our young people—some of our own sons and grandsons—wear the most extraordinary clothes, as we all find. I should not like the police officer to think that a youngster wearing that type of clothing could be guilty whereas the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, attired as he habitually is, most certainly could not.
There ought to be in these circumstances of interfering with the outside of a vehicle—and I repeat it—at least the protection that was given in the "sus" case,

1037
because on motor vehicles this was the charge that was made when you could not prove an attempt and when you could not prove an actual act of theft or driving and taking away. We are taking away this protection.
I answer the noble Minister who very properly put a question arising out of the wording of the clause: "Two acts of interference—what a muddle for the persons who have to interpret this because does it mean two acts of interference with the same vehicle or another vehicle?" My answer is very simple. Two acts of interference with vehicles means what it says. It can be the same vehicle or it can be two vehicles. I would have thought that if it were two vehicles there is very much more reason for the charge to be brought.
I cannot carry the argument any further. My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones quoted from police authorities in a way which obviously covers matters of this kind of vehicle interference. The arguments are before the Committee and I merely ask the Committee this. The very names on this amendment show that there is no party point of view. Can we therefore in sheer fairness, in our sense of justice when creating this new offence, thinking of our young people and not wanting to have convictions registered against them, or to have them think that the law is unjust and society is unjust, ensure that we give at least the protection—and I repeat it unashamedly—that was given even to the "sus" offence so that two acts of interference have to be seen by the police officers, not just one, before this charge is brought?
12.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 63.

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Ilchester, E.

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B. [Teller.]

Amherst, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Amulree, L.

Kennet, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brookes of Tremorfa, L.

Lawrence, L.

Byers, L.

Leatherland, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Longford, E.

Diamond, L.

Mishcon, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. [Teller.]

Molloy, L.

Peart, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Foot, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rugby, L.

Gosford, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Hale, L.

Seear, B.

Hall, V.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stone, L.

Hanworth, V.

Underhill, L.

Henderson, L.

Vernon, L.

Heycock, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hughes, L.

Willis, L.

Hunt, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

1038

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

McFadzean, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Mancroft, L.

Ampthill, L.

Marley, L.

Avon, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Barnby, L.

Melville, V.

Belstead, L.

Mersey, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brownlow, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Portland, D.

Cathcart, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V.

Robbins, L.

de Clifford, L.

Rochdale, V.

De Freyne, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Sandford, L.

Elton, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

Savile, L.

Fortescue, E.

Selkirk, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L

Garner, L.

Spens, L

Gridley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Terrington, L.

Hatherton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vickers, B.

Inglewood, L.

Vivian, L.

Killearn, L.

Westwood, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Widgery, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Windlesham, L.

Lyell, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
1.5 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 6, line 17, leave out ("three months") and insert ("one month").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move this amendment. We are now facing a crisis in the penal system and I begin my observations on this amendment with that thought in mind. It is not the paramount thought but it does enable us to consider what steps are appropriate for Parliament to take to achieve a reduction in the prison population.
We are in this Bill creating a new criminal offence. It is a summary offence and of course a serious one, but it is not as serious as the criminal offence of "attempt". Our view on this side of the Committee, and indeed on wider sides than that, is that a term of one month or £500 ought to be adequate to meet the needs of punishment in respect of this offence. I remember when I was appointed a recorder—I am not engaging in too much anecdotage today as I did on another occasion—talking to, I believe, Mr. Paterson, who will be known to many of your Lordships here, on the approach to imprisonment; the view then of the Home Office was: "It is useless to treat prison as a sort of transit hotel. We can't do anything with them unless we have them for six months or thereabouts. Don't pass short prison sentences". That was broadly the ideology.
It has changed completely. It has changed, first, because experience appears to have shown that deterrence is effective in the first beginnings of imprisonment, within the first month. It is then that the shock of the lack of liberty and the shock of interference with job and home becomes most apparent. It appears

1039
that thereafter the process of becoming accustomed to the situation diminishes the quality of the deterrent effect. The prisoner tends to become institutionalised. I am not talking about the punishment of violent or serious offences, where the need to protect the community, if only by deprivation of liberty for a time for the criminal is an important factor, or the need for the anger of the community to be reflected in an appropriate term of imprisonment. But we are not dealing here with a crime in that category.
The other feeling that has developed is that, quite apart from the critical factor of deterrence being an early consequence rather than one which is made much more effective by prolongation in many cases, whereas it used to be thought that being in prison was a good educative and rehabilitative process, no one pretends that any more. The criminal is sent to prison as a punishment and, while prison officers do their utmost in the process of rehabilitation and in assisting the prisoners as much as possible, the general view now is that the recidivist element in the criminal population is not diminished by an accumulation of prison convictions. So these factors, coupled with the basic question, which has now been so courageously faced by the Home Secretary in appeals to magistrates and judges to bear in mind the critical situation in which we stand, and, in addition, the active attempt by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in this field, also puts upon us as legislators the responsibility of doing what we can in this process.
Accordingly, I hope that the noble Lord, who I know is fully sensitive to this problem, which we have discussed more than once across the Floor of the House, will think that this is a good opportunity for Parliament, in turn, to play its part in endeavouring to deal with a situation which is becoming more and more intolerable, as I think most people in the country think—a large number of people certainly do—and as the opinion both of the Home Secretary and of the Lord Chief Justice seems to indicate. We think that a month or £500 is about right for this offence and, accordingly, I beg to move.
1.12 p.m.
Lord Hunt: Your Lordships' Committee is already aware that I support this amendment. I should like, before saying anything more, to apologise for my premature intervention in the Committee and to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for so properly proposing, That the noble Lord should no longer be heard, as I believe the expression is. Having listened to the noble and learned Lord, there is very little more for me to say.
I was on the point of saying very much what he said much more eloquently, to make the point that it seems to be a contradiction of the explicit policy of the Home Secretary, and of the desire of the Lord Chief Justice who has been equally explicit on this matter, at this time to put on the statute book a maximum sentence for the type of offence for which this clause makes provision. It causes me to wonder what goes on within and between departments of state, when a sentence of this magnitude is imposed for this type of offence. It seems to ignore the Home Secretary's declared intention to legislate to reduce sentences, if the
1040
courts do not reduce sentences of their own accord. I am not a betting man, but I would almost be prepared to wager that, if the Home Secretary is constrained to introduce legislation to reduce sentences, this sentence, if it goes on the statute book, will be one of those which are reduced.
The only other point I would make is to endorse, with humility, the observation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that the evidence on the effect of prison sentences in the very first few weeks or 10 days, and wearing off progressively, is produced by all those who really know about this subject—prison governors, prison staff, probation officers and social workers—on the hard evidence of criminological research. For that reason, I am very strongly in support of this amendment.
Lord Renton: May I say that I agree with noble Lords opposite who have said that we should join with the Home Secretary in trying to keep people out of prison, if there are other suitable ways of dealing with them. May I add to what has already been said, that I rejoiced when I read a few weeks ago that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor came out with a very strong speech in support of the Home Secretary to this effect. On that there can be no dispute, I think, between the two sides of your Lordships' Committee.
But I suggest that this question of what should be the maximum sentence for any particular offence is a different issue, because the maximum sentence is not the usual sentence, if there be such a thing, and not the most frequent sentence. The maximum sentence has to be fixed according to our judgment or, if you like, our guesswork, in order to cover the worst type of case of the commission of that offence which may come before the courts from time to time. Therefore, although noble Lords who have spoken so far are most certainly right in saying that one month would normally be enough, if prison were the sentence at all—and it frequently would not—I could imagine, and one must be prepared to imagine, that there would be the occasional case in which a sentence of one month would not he enough, more especially if it were for a second or subsequent offence.
That is a factor which we have to bear in mind, also, when deciding what should be the maximum, because it is when the offender becomes repetitive that he, so to speak, runs up the scale and may eventually have to be awarded the maximum. In those circumstances, and as a matter of judgment—and that is all it can be on our part—I should have thought it would be right to keep three months in the Bill, and that it would perhaps be taking too much of a chance to reduce it to one month for the maximum.
Lord Hunt: I wonder whether the Committee would allow me to come in again very briefly, in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He has pointed out that this is the maximum imposable sentence and, of course, that is true. He has also made the case that, perhaps, because of the degree of the offence, it would be wise to keep that as a maximum sentence. But I hope he will agree that not only may the offence vary, but the courts vary, too. The Lord Chief Justice, only two days ago, speaking to the

1041
Central Council of Probation and After-Care Committees, described courts as separate little empires. There will be some courts which, because of their character, will impose the maximum sentence for what is, perhaps, quite a light degree of offence.
Lord Renton: Yes, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is quite right in what he has said. But, if I may say so, he has overlooked the fact that it is partly because of the disparity of sentencing on the part of the courts of first instance that we give to higher courts when an appeal takes place the opportunity of reducing the sentence. I think that that is really the answer to the noble Lord.
Lord Swinfen: While I agree with noble Lords opposite that there is a great deal to be said for reducing the number of people in prison I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Belstead and his department could think of the possibility of adding another punishment for this crime, that of community service, bearing in mind that a number of potential offenders could be extremely young?
Lord Leatherland: I cannot speak with experience. So far, I have never been to prison; but I feel that it would be quite unnecessary to have three months in prison for this kind of offence. One month is sufficient. The short sharp shock that people get when they first go to prison is something that we can hardly conceive. Whether it is one month, seven days or three months, the fact that you go into prison and hear those gates clang behind you is all the shock that is necessary. I think that one month is quite sufficient.
Lord Belstead: I acknowledge the reason which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, gave for drawing attention to the need for shorter sentences of imprisonment as one of the main reasons for moving this amendment. The noble and learned Lord spoke not only persuasively but also in generous terms so far as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is concerned about the wish, which I think is felt quite genuinely on all sides of your Lordships' Committee, to head in that particular direction.
In picking up this point, I think I can reasonably say that the Government have already tried to put their money where their mouth is. Some months ago—the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, I remember, was generous enough to say that he welcomed it—we brought in the small but none the less important provision to make sentences of up to one month liable to remission, to which such sentences had not before been liable. We thought it was important that we should do this.
As your Lordships know, a discussion study has now been put forward on the parole system which includes proposals about early release. I shall not go down that road but will come back to the amendment. I think my noble friend Lord Renton was, as is so often the case, absolutely right when he said that this is a question of balance and of judgment. In trying to get the balance and the judgment right, may I turn immediately to the nature of the offence about which we are talking and for which we are discussing the question of penalty. It is true that the offence in Clause 9 is an offence of a
1042
preparatory nature, although I must point out that the behaviour may not in some cases differ outwardly from that which would support a charge of attempt in circumstances where the precise intent is clear. But it is also true that the offence as amended in another place requires the prosecution to prove an overt act and specific criminal intent.
May I remind your Lordships that in the Bill as introduced in the other place the prosecution had to prove only an intent to gain entry into a vehicle. The prosecution now has to prove that the defendant had an intent to commit one of the offences mentioned in subsection (2). The seriousness with which those offences are regarded can be judged from the maximum penalties which are available under the law. For conviction on indictment, these are 10 years for theft and three years for taking and driving away a vehicle. On summary conviction, it is six months' imprisonment, maximum, in both cases.
In the light of those available sentences, which apply equally to an attempt to commit those offences, I do not think it seems draconian to make available a maximum sentence of three months' imprisonment, subject to remission, in circumstances where a person is convicted of an overt act of interference which has been carried out with intent to commit one of those offences. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for putting the matter in a rather wider perspective when he referred to the need to think also about the repetition of offences.
For a brief moment only before I finish, may I return to the question of the size of the prison population. Before I do that, the answer to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Swinfen is that community service orders may be made in respect only of imprisonable offences. It would be a major step, a matter which would need to be thought about very deeply indeed and which would be one of controversy, if we started to go wider than that so far as community service is concerned.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Surely it is an imprisonable offence that we are talking about, is it not?
Lord Belstead: I am so sorry to have answered my noble friend Lord Swinfen in that way. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, is absolutely right to pick me up. Of course my noble friend Lord Swinfen—what a pity that I did not get it right the first time—is on to a good point. I think that I might have been a little less dim in taking on board my noble friend's suggestion and welcoming it instead of trying to rebut it.
May I return to the basic point which was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. I suggested in reply to this amendment that a balance has to be struck with the greatest seriousness between the need to do everything we can to reduce the numbers of those in custody and the need to make the kind of provision which is appropriate to the seriousness of an offence, in order to provide the courts with sufficient powers to deal with the wide range of cases which may come before them.
Some room has to be left for the exercise by the court

1043
of sensible discretion. Where a sentence of imprisonment is necessary it is best kept as short as possible, but an adequate maximum has to be provided for the worst cases. In this case, I do not think it can seriously be argued that a maximum of three months is excessive, given that an offender will have been intending to commit one or more of a number of offences which are punishable very much more seriously in the way which I have just explained. In the Governments view, therefore, the proposals contained in the Bill strike the right balance.
In summary, the Government consider that a maximum sentence of one month's imprisonment would not recognise adequately the relative seriousness of the offence reflected in the burden imposed on the prosecution as to criminal intent, and would not provide the courts with a proper range of options. It is on those grounds that I would advise your Lordships not to accept this amendment.
Lord Robbins: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask what, doubtless, lawyers will regard as an ignorant question? Is it not possible in an Act of Parliament to discriminate between first offences and others?
Lord Belstead: I am not a lawyer, and I think the point will be picked up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elywn-Jones, when he addresses us on the course which he has decided to take on the amendment. Surely the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, was encapsulated in some of the words which my noble friend Lord Renton spoke to your Lordships' Committee. The courts have room to manoeuvre within the maximum which is set. It is necessary, so my noble friend was advising the Committee, to see that the maximum is set to provide for various different contingencies.
Lord Renton: If I may presume to add to the reply which my noble friend has just given to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, there have been a number of statutes in which the maximum penalty for the first offence has been fixed. They then go on to fix a maximum penalty for second and subsequent offences. However, when that is done it introduces sometimes an element of inflexibility. My own personal view, based on some experience, is that it is better that there should be just one maximum offence. Then the court can act according to the circumstances of the case. That is what has been done by the Government in this Bill.
Lord Mishcon: May I intervene briefly merely to say that everybody has agreed—the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as one would expect of him, has agreed—that a lead must be given to the courts in regard to shorter sentences. The Home Secretary has made some very eloquent speeches on the matter. I remember reading one speech of his in February last in which he made this abundantly clear. The May Committee when dealing with the matter of prisons also made it abundantly clear that they agreed with this. It was a Home Office advisory committee which sat in 1977 that made this recommendation. Speeches are very effective with those who happen to hear them—though possibly
1044
not always of a permanent nature in regard to their effect—and with those who happen to read them, but Parliament can play its part in trying to enforce policy by looking at maximum sentences when they are being laid down in a new statute or a new offence is being created.
This is the opportunity of Parliament at this time and, when we consider that we are dealing with a preparatory offence, it is perfectly true that there may be convictions against the person who is accused; there may be convictions of the major offence of the theft of cars or of driving away motor vehicles in the past, but this is a preparatory offence. Since courts look at comparative sentences and say "Well, even after the Home Secretary spoke, this preparatory offence has a maximum sentence of three months attached to it"—again you get the idea in the courts that this sort of offence ought to be answered by this sort of penalty, or that this period of imprisonment is the right proportion for a sentence.
That is why I ask that serious consideration be given by the Government to see whether they cannot carry out their own policy, which is so warmly endorsed, as my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones said, from this side of the Committee—and choose this opportunity to show that the policy is one in which Parliament is now participating. I think it is a great opportunity to do this by supporting this amendment.
Lord Swinfen: Before the noble Lord sits down, are courts not given advice by the Lord Chancellor's Department on the sort of sentences that should be passed, to ensure uniformity throughout the country?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Perhaps I may have leave to answer that question very briefly. From my recollection of what they do, Lord Chancellors do occasionally give guidance, principally through magistrates' associations and other meetings, on their views of the principles that should apply. They are always very careful not to tell judges what sentences they ought to pass, but training courses are now compulsory for newly appointed magistrates and there is more involvement of High Court judges in discussions on penalties so that we can achieve as much uniformity of approach as possible. But on the specific point of appeals for shorter sentences we have the powerful combination of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Home Secretary and I hope now your Lordships' House on this matter.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who is so fully sensitive to these things, would be willing to look again at this. We are dealing here with a preparatory offence. It is a new offence and I venture to think that the combination of one month and/or £500 is quite adequate in the serious case as well as what is likely to be the run of cases.
Perhaps I may make one other observation in regard to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, raised. Of course it will be open to the courts, if the penalty is one month, to pass instead an order for community service. That is increasingly being carried out to great effect, especially in respect of young offenders. So the noble Lord may be reassured by the knowledge that if this amendment is carried the courts will still have the opportunity of dealing with it by the

1045
way of a community service order, which may indeed be the effective order in a large number of cases. I do not want to take up more of the time of the Committee on this, but I wonder whether I am asking too much in asking whether the noble Lord will look again at this, without commitment of course—because I appreciate its importance.
Lord Belstead: It would be churlish of me not to respond to the noble and learned Lord and to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I think, first, it is right to say again that this is a question of balance and of judgment, and we are talking about an area where nobody can be absolutely certain. But, secondly, in the context of wishing to see shorter sentences in appropriate cases, it is fair to say that the Government have, among other things—as I said in my original answer—looked at the penalties which are available for the substantive offences to which the preparatory offences could lead. These are substantial penalties for offences which earlier today my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson reminded the Committee are being committed in very substantial numbers every day of the year. That is why we felt that, on balance, it was right that, with remission, of course, the maximum penalty should be three months' imprisonment and the alternative of the £500 fine with, as the noble and learned Lord has reminded my noble friend Lord Swinfen, the right of the courts—and we all know that increasingly they are making use of this—to look to alternatives, such as community service, in appropriate cases.
Of course I am prepared to take it to the Home Office and ask one final time whether we are as certain as we can be in a matter of this sort that we have it right. It would be right for me to write to the noble and learned Lord, to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to those who are signatories to the amendment as quickly as possible. But I must underline that I think it highly unlikely, for the reasons I have given, that we would feel able to change on this matter.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I do not want to prolong this discussion. But, of course, from my point of view and the point of view of my colleagues the comparison with a three-year sentence for taking and driving away, as opposed to stealing, a car, which is much more serious, is far too high in itself. I should have thought that one of the first things that the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor will do when they begin to talk about scaling down sentences, will be to deal with that. I think the analogy was falsely drawn; but, having said that, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench will be happy to hear that the noble Lord is willing to take the amendment away and look at it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having gone as far as he has gone. I appreciate that he has put limits on what he has said, but in the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I have one final drafting point I should like to mention and I hope your Lordships will not think it trivial. If your Lordships will look at subsection (4), you will see that it reads:
"A constable may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he with reasonable cause suspects to be guilty of an offence under this section".
I must confess that there is a precedent for that, but there is also a very much better precedent in the same statute, and I think that really the better precedent is the one which should be used. If we refer to Section 2(5) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, we find that this subsection should be amended in this way: the words "be guilty of" would be struck out and the words "have committed" would be inserted. I am sure that is a more felicitous way of explaining the state of mind of the constable who has to arrest without warrant. Perhaps my noble friend will look at it, and it may be that the draftsman will wish to follow the better precedent in Section 2(5) of the 1967 Act.
Lord Belstead: As I understand it, again my noble friend is not questioning the effect of subsection (4), but is questioning the drafting of it; and of course I am only too ready to take that away and have it looked at.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Before your Lordships pass this clause, may I again repeat my worry about this particular clause. May I ask the Government whether they would look at it again and see whether it can be tightened. I am still worried about the possible consequences that will flow from our passing this clause. I am not asking for anything more than that I would like the Government to look at it again to see in what way it can be tightened.
Lord Belstead: As your Lordships know, this clause was tightened in another place. I see the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, nodding. I am sure he felt that that was the right way to go if there was to be a Clause 9 in the Bill. We will certainly look at it, but I must be straightforward about this; I think it is highly unlikely that we would be able to tighten the clause further. I will not conceal from the noble Lord that there has been a great deal of discussion in the Home Office as to how the clause ought to be drafted. Indeed, a point which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, put to me at Second Reading—and we will not go over it now—was looked at very carefully before the Bill came to your Lordships' House and has been discussed again since the noble Lord put the point to me. I would not want the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, to feel that the Government have simply got the clause drafted and then turned their back on it and gone on to other things. Continuing thought as to whether this was the right way has been given to the drafting of the clause while the Bill has been going through both Houses. We will look at it once more, but I can give the noble Lord no commitment to change it further.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Commencement and extent.]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 33, at beginning insert ("Section 7(1) in its application to each of the enactments which it amends extends to any place to which that enactment extends; but save as aforesaid,").
The noble Lord said: This is a purely technical amendment designed to take account of the fact that, while the Bill generally extends to England and Wales only, Clause 7(1) contains an amendment to legislation which extends outside the territory. If that amendment is to be effective it must extend wherever that legislation extends; the amendment now before your Lordships will achieve this result. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
In the Schedule:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 7, leave out lines 30 to 32 and insert—

("1980 c. 43.

Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

Section 32(1)(c). In Schedule 1, paragraph 34 and in paragraph 35, the words "or 34".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1, to which I have already spoken. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Royal Assent
1.45 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Energy Conservation Act,

Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act,

Statute Law (Repeals) Act,

Judicial Pensions Act,

Western Isles Islands Council (Berneray Ferry)

Order Confirmation Act,

Barnsley Borough Council Act,

British Railways (Victoria) Act.

Great Yarmouth Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
  United Reformed Church Bill [H.L.]
  Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
  PASSPORT OFFICES: INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE
  PASSPORT OFFICES: INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE
  THE POPE: SPEECHES DURING PASTORAL VISIT
  THE POPE: SPEECHES DURING PASTORAL VISIT
  ASTIN REPORT: IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
  ASTIN REPORT: IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
  SCOTLAND: ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
  SCOTLAND: ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE