Sitting of 25 November 1981

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

    Pelican Crossings
    Mr. Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had any results from the experiments on the timing of pelican crossings which he authorised.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The experimental changes are still being studied for their effects for pedestrian and traffic safety. Preliminary indications suggest that some change may be justified. I wish, however, to see fuller results, expected in the spring of next year, before deciding whether any alterations to pelican signal timings or their phases are desirable.
    Mr. Bowden: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but will he bear in mind the real problems of the elderly and disabled, particularly since, once the green man starts to flash on the pelican crossing, motorists start to rev up, which frightens elderly people and can intimidate the disabled?
    Mr. Clarke: The timings are fixed to take account of the pace at which elderly and disabled people move. I agree with my hon. Friend that the problem is that many do not realise that they still have priority when the green man starts to flash. However, we have to experiment carefully because we have to make sure that any changes are as safe as the present arrangements.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call question No. 3, I remind hon. Members that they must avoid the sub judice clash that is possible on this question.

    Greater London (Public Transport)
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Greater London Council concerning transport within Greater London.
    Mr. Raceasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek a meeting with the leader of the Greater London Council to discuss the future of public transport in London.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): The Greater London Council recently asked me for a meeting, which will take place shortly.
    Mr. Jessel: I hope that my question will be in order, Mr. Speaker.
    872
    When my right hon. Friend meets the Greater London Council will he tell it that, whatever the outcome of the current appeal, it is extremely unfair to those who live in areas served only by British Rail to subsidise the Underground from the rates?
    Mr. Speaker: I believe that the hon. Gentleman's hopes are not being fulfilled, because that is the burden of the appeal now being heard, or it is close to it.
    Mr. Jessel: I shall clarify my question, Mr. Speaker. I was intending to refer to a geographical rather than an economic basis.
    Mr. Speaker: It would be a great help if all that could be done when we know the result of the appeal. There will be plenty of time then.
    Mr. Race: Will the Secretary of State make it perfectly clear that, as a matter of Government policy, it is desirable that local authorities, where they have a duty to do so, should subsidise public transport from the rates to provide a decent public service?
    Mr. Howell: That has long been recognised by successive Governments, including this one. What is undesirable is chaos, inequity and an unfair balance between the ratepayers and farepayers.
    Mr. Booth: Will the Secretary of State consider introducing legislation to make crystal clear the powers that are possessed by local authorities to give revenue support in pursuit of democratically declared and supported fares policies?
    Mr. Howell: No, Sir.

    British Rail (Financial Aid)
    Mr. Walter Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision on the level of financial aid to British Railways to enable them to go ahead with further electrification and other essential modernisation.
    Dr. Edmund Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will increase the external financing limit applicable to the British Railways Board to enable it to meet its current investment ceiling.
    Mr. David Howell: Decisions on external financing limits for all nationalised industries will be announced in due course.
    Mr. Johnson: What steps does the Secretary of State intend to take to keep the one and only overhead electrification team in being since, unless the Government are prepared to make a decision now about electrification, it will disband and it will probably be difficult to reassemble it? The Government have done nothing about electrification since they came to power in 1979.
    Mr. Howell: I am not sure whether that is correct. In June the Government made clear their commitment in principle to a 10-year rolling programme. I am looking forward now to a project and a programme being put forward by the British Railways Board so that they can be evaluated and we can move forward. That is desirable. No one doubts the reality of the problem of the electrification team. I have been aware of it. However, I have good grounds to believe that, from the firm's point of view, British Rail's announcement last Friday was precipitate, to say the least.
    Dr. Marshall: What is the point of Ministers fixing for British Rail an investment ceiling which the board can come nowhere near attaining because of the effects of the external financing limits?
    Mr. Howell: The investment ceiling is set by the Government. Within that, the board must organise and operate its business to make available the funds for investment. That is the nature of an external financing limit on a nationalised industry. The constraints are similar to those within which businesses have to operate. Good business will give the board the funds to invest up to the ceiling, which the Government have held in real terms since the Labour Government left office.
    Sir Anthony Boyle: When my right hon. Friend discusses investment with British Rail, will he discuss the proposal to close Broad Street station and ensure that British Rail does not close the Broad Street line, which is of great interest to commuters all over the London area?
    Mr. Howell: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Minister clarify the conflicting comments appearing in the press, and particularly the press release by British Rail, to which he referred earlier? Hon. Members do not know where they stand. Is it the Government's policy to encourage British Rail to continue with electrification? If so, what further information is the Department now seeking?
    Mr. Howell: The matter was set out very clearly. There has been no change in the policy since my predecessor set out the decision in the summer, when he declared the Government's commitment in principle to a programme of electrification related to the business performance and productivity improvements of the railway system. Since then, the Government have been waiting for the British Railways Board to bring forward the programme and the projects worked out within it based on profitable main line routes. That programme and those projects have not yet been put forward. I hope that they will be.
    Mr. Spriggs: In considering the necessity to keep the electrical contractor's team together, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many thousands of unemployed workers in the cable manufacturing industry are relying upon rail electrification for jobs?
    Mr. Howell: Yes, I bear those matters very much in mind. I wish to see British Rail bring forward its programme on the basis that was set out by my predecessor and widely agreed and supported in the House. When that is brought forward and examined, we shall be able to proceed.
    Mr. Bowden: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that all available funds are made available to British Rail for completion of work on the Brighton line, which is causing great inconvenience? Is he aware that commuters in my area subsidise inner London commuters and are having a rough time at present?
    Mr. Howell: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. In a sense, those people are having a rough time because the work is indeed going ahead and that involves disruption. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is therefore "Yes".
    Mr. Stott: Further to what the Secretary of State said earlier, is he aware that British Rail submitted plans to his Department on East Anglia electrification at least a year ago? Is it not time that he stopped vacillating on this and decided whether that project is to go ahead?
    Mr. Howell: Clearly, I cannot deal with the Anglia question in isolation from the board's finances. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We are looking forward to the submission from British Rail. I hope that it will come soon.

    Road Repairs
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will restrict the length of any stretch of motorway or trunk road dual carriageway which may be blocked off at any one time for the purpose of repair, maintenance or reconstruction.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Department's policy is to keep as much carriageway as possible open during essential repairs. But as each repair is different, it is not possible to devise a general rule.
    Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that huge stretches of motorway and dual carriageway are frequently coned off when no work is taking place, and that this causes great delay and is highly dangerous? Will he consult the contractors and the police with a view to ending that practice?
    Mr. Clarke: Certainly stretches of road are often coned off when motorists can see no reason for it. The reason is often, for instance, that concrete takes some time to set, or that considerable amounts of minor debris remain on the road—[Interruption.] The Opposition clearly have greater expertise in these matters than those who set out the cones. The cones cannot just be removed as soon as the bulldozers have gone. One must be satisfied that the road is in a safe condition before traffic can be allowed on it.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that for many months, if not a full year, the first section of the M4 out of London has been closed every night? How much longer may we expect that to continue? It cannot be because the concrete has not set, as the road is in use during the day.
    Mr. Clarke: The M4 is a heavily used road. Any work upon it therefore causes particular disruption. I am afraid that we must accept that, as enormous lengths of motorways of this kind are now reaching the age of 20 years and more, there will be a continuing programme of maintenance work. For our part, we are seeking to keep unavoidable delays to the absolute minimum.

    London Transport (Policing Costs)
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current level of Government grants towards the cost of policing London Transport.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No specific grant is made by the Government towards these costs. They are part of London Transport's overall costs, for which it receives support from the GLC; that support is eligible for transport supplementary grant from the Government.
    Mr. Newens: Will the Minister give a detailed breakdown of the actual amounts provided for London

    875
    Transport and British Rail? Until he does that, is it not fair to assume that the railways are unfairly penalised by having to pay for policing services, when the road haulage industry does not?
    Mr. Clarke: We do not break down grant in quite that way, so as to leave local authorities discretion about how they pay the grant received. In fact, we agreed with Sir Horace Cutler that there would be increased expenditure of £9 million spread over three years on new equipment for London Transport policing. That was taken into account when we paid transport supplementary grant to London last year. During the last year the number of British Transport police deployed on London Transport has risen from 160 to 270.
    Mr. McCrindle: After a conference in May 1980, was not an additional grant forthcoming for policing both London Transport and British Rail? Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that, as a result of the increased numbers of people employed and the improved equipment, there has been a reduction in the incidence of violence on London Transport? Finally, will he confirm that a similar amount will be forthcoming in the year ahead?
    Mr. Clarke: Yes. I have just referred to one follow-up from that conference—the agreement with Sir Horace Cutler. The transport supplementary grant to London was higher than it would otherwise have been in order to take account of that. The purchase of radios and vandal-proof ticket selling machines is currently taking place. I do not have figures about the reduction of crime, but we hope that these improvements are having some effect in protecting passengers and property.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister agree that one of the reasons for the increase in vandalism and violence on the underground system is the demanning policies pursued by successive Governments? Does he agree that the reduction in the number of staff on stations means that nobody is available to come to the aid of guards or drivers or the limited number of staff there? Will he confirm that there is no recorded case of a ticket vending machine coming to the assistance of a member of staff who has been attacked?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. This is just another ingenious way in which a Labour Member for London is trying to increase the staffing on London Transport. Ratepayers would be better off if manning were brought down to the level actually required by the services.

    Transport Act 1981
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the working of the Transport Act 1981.
    Mr. David Howell: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Bidwell: How long must the House wait for details of the incursion of private capital into the British Transport Docks Board, which I described in Committee as the activities of a gang of six? When shall we have details of the implementation of this barren, dogmatic Right-wing Tory policy?
    Mr. Howell: I think that details of this useful, valuable and commonsense policy will be available to the House some-time next year.
    Mr. Iain Mills: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the working of the Transport Act 1981 has resulted in a vast increase in transport at low prices available between, say, my constituency of Meriden in the Midlands and London, through the fleet of inter-city buses?
    Mr. Howell: Yes, I do.

    Humber Bridge
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the outstanding debt on the Humber bridge to the nearest million pounds.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The accounts published by the Humber Bridge Board for the last financial year show that the outstanding debt on 31 March 1981 was £142 million.
    Mr. Brotherton: What plans do the Government have to reduce the tremendous burden upon ratepayers and taxpayers alike created by the building of this beautiful white elephant?
    Mr. Clarke: I have agreed with my hon. Friend in the past that this is a white elephant. However, now that we have it, we might as well get the best advantage out of it for Humberside and Hull. Indeed, some advantages should flow from it. The board is under a statutory duty to fix its tolls within the ceilings set by the Government to try to repay its capital debt in full over a 60-year period.
    Dr. Edmund Marshall: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the amount of traffic that has used the Humber bridge since it was opened has greatly exceeded all expectations, thereby confounding all the dismal Johnnies who have criticised the bridge from the outset?
    Mr. Clarke: I am pleased that the traffic figures have been high during the first few weeks of operation. I shall be delighted to be less of a dismal Johnny if in due course it is proved that this result of a by-election pledge is good value for money for the taxpayer.

    British Rail (Diesel Multiple Unit Fleet)
    Mr. Strawasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the investment programme for the replacement by British Railways of the current diesel multiple unit fleet.
    Mr. David Howell: I expect to receive proposals from the British Railways Board early next year for the construction of replacement diesel multiple units.
    Mr. Straw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while he has been passing the buck on this and other investment plans the diesel multiple unit fleet, already 25 years old in many areas, has been deteriorating further? Is he further aware that unless more cash is given urgently to replace these fleets the services that they cover will simply grind into the dust? How much money will be made available to enable British Rail to replace these DMUs?
    Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman talked about passing the buck, but British Rail has been trying out prototypes. When it reaches a conclusion, it will make a submission and the matter will then come before Government. That is the reality of the matter. It is not a case of passing the buck. The hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends spend so much time selling British Rail short and

    877
    emphasising how difficult things are that they forget that considerable investment is taking place through partnership between the Government and the British Rail management and unions. We would do better if we heard a little more of the positive side and less of the constant and inaccurate criticism.
    Mr. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the railbus would be a meaningful and effective investment, and could help reduce the operating costs of the DMUs on branch lines in rural areas?
    Mr. Howell: The railbus is an interesting development. I am convinced that the best future for the branch lines lies in low-cost developments and operations of this kind.
    Mr. Booth: How can British Rail make a sensible proposal on the size and design of future DMU stock unless it knows what option will ultimately be chosen by the Government for main line electrification? Obviously, that option controls British Rail's ability to cascade main line diesel locos on to feeder lines. It also controls the number of lines on which British Rail will have to run DMUs in future.
    Mr. Howell: There is some validity in the right hon. Gentleman's comment. However, British Rail has been trying out prototypes. No doubt it will make a submission soon. When it does, decisions will have to be taken.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that this programme of replacing obsolete units is not carried through by transferring those units to the lines serving North Wales?
    Mr. Howell: Yes.
    Mr. Cook: Will the right hon. Gentleman respond to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth)? It is impossible for British Rail to know how many DMUs it requires until it knows how many track miles will be electrified. With that in mind, will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question that he previously avoided? Why can he not now give a decision on the East Anglia electrification—a decision that has been required for two years—when the whole point of his predecessor's statement was that each case would be judged on its merits?
    Mr. Howell: I am replying to a question about DMUs. Other questions appear on the Order Paper relating to broader matters. In this case, the issue is the type of DMU that should be ordered by British Rail. British Rail must first reach that decision before making proposals for the amount that it would like to order.

    Road Maintenance
    Mr. Lambornasked the Secretary of State for Transport if, in view of the general worsening of the structural condition of roads, he proposes to increase the road maintenance budget to meet this situation.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The funds available for structural repairs on motorways and trunk roads have already been increased. Expenditure last year was about £80 million and this year it is expected to be in excess of £120 million.
    Mr. Lamborn: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the County Surveyors' Society stated in its recent report "Transport in the 80s":
    878
    "The increase in the need for patching and surface dressing indicates that there is a general worsening of the structural condition of roads"?
    Will the Secretary of State therefore consider increasing the budget for non-motorway roads, the maintenance budget of which has been reduced from £63 million in 1979 to £38 million in 1980–81?
    Mr. Clarke: The county surveyors and their staff carry out these non-trunk road highway repairs. I therefore understand their anxiety to have more money spent on such projects. However, in co-operation with the county surveyors we carry out an annual survey of the condition of trunk and non-trunk roads, and there is no evidence to show that standards are deterioating.
    Mr. Iain Mills: Will my hon. and learned Friend pass on to my right hon Friend the Secretary of State my apologies for my confusion during an earlier question about dates of Transport Acts? As he knows, it seems as though I have been a permanent member of the Standing Committees that consider transport legislation.
    Would not a more cost-effective use of existing moneys for the maintenance of roads result from a reduction in the £100,000 ceiling for direct labour organisations, thereby giving better value through further privatisation and competition?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that we have had such a succession of Transport Acts, all of which have improved transport provision, that it is difficult to separate one from another.
    The Government introduced the statutory limit of £100,000 above which counties must put contracts out to tender in order to get the best value for money. We shall keep that figure under review, but we are anxious to see how the new system develops now that it has been introduced. I agree that a system of open tender and greater use of private contractors is likely to result in better roads and value for money.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his reply to the original question was shocking? Is he further aware that both he and his predecessors have introduced legislation to deal with people who abuse roads? Will he provide the finance to maintain these roads properly in the interests of road safety?
    Mr. Clarke: Obviously I did not manage to speak at the same volume level as the hon. Gentleman, because he could not have heard my main answer. I described an increase in expenditure from £80 million to £120 million. That is a 50 per cent. increase in cash terms, or a one-third increase in real terms, for maintenance of trunk roads and motorways. I do not know how much the hon. Gentleman would spend, but the Government are spending more in areas where the money is needed.
    Mr. Parris: Will my hon. and learned Friend point out to those who call for increased expenditure on the roads and railways that there must be a limit to the total amount of investment that the Government are able to put into transport systems?—[Interruption.] Will he remind them that investment in one must be at the expense of investing in the other or, alternatively, at the expense of investing in social and other services?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. However, it was interesting to note that when he said that there must be some limit to the amount of taxpayers' money available

    879
    there were numerous cries of "No" from Labour Members. Unfortunately, one or two Labour-controlled local authorities try to run their transport policies on the same basis as that accepted by Labour Members.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the transport supplementary grant continue in its present form for the foreseeable future?
    Mr. Clarke: There will certainly be a transport supplementary grant settlement this year, which we hope to announce soon. We have not reached final conclusions about the future, but the grant is likely to continue in its present form.

    Tolls
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to introduce toll charging on existing and future motorways.
    Mr. David Howell: I am considering possible methods of raising extra resources for new road construction, but I have not yet reached any conclusions.
    Mr. Atkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his encouraging reply. Does he accept that the country has much to learn from the experience of both Continental and American toll roads? Does he agree that an opportunity is provided to apply that experience to the proposed M40 inter-city motorway link between Oxford and Birmingham?
    Mr. Howell: I should not like to comment about a particular project, but I agree that there are some interesting ideas to learn about new road projects.
    Mr. Newens: Does the Minister agree that it would be a retrograde step to introduce tolls on a wide scale in the present circumstances? Will he make it clear that he has no intention whatever of doing anything of that sort?
    Mr. Howells: If the public are faced with the possibility of new roads being paid for by tolls, they should have a chance to discuss the matter without it being dismissed as a retrograde step.

    Trunk Road Programme
    Mr. Fitchasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he expects to spend the full cash limit for the trunk road programme this year.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is too soon to be sure how expenditure will compare with the cash limit, but an underspend of about 5 per cent. now seems likely.
    Mr. Fitch: Does the Minister not agree that in this period of severe unemployment in the construction industry such an answer is deplorable? Does he not further agree that we should spend all available money on necessary road construction, and particularly on trunk roads?
    Mr. Clarke: Our estimates of the cost of new roads proved to be overestimates. The tender prices have been keen and we have managed to deliver our road programme at a lower cost than we expected. That is good news for the taxpayer, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it reflects on the unhappy position of the construction industry. We shall continue to deliver the trunk road programme as our contribution to the construction industry and the employment of its work force.
    Mr. Waller: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it has been almost a fact of life that there has been underspending from year to year on the cash limits? Does he further agree that it would be an admirable improvement if any underspend could be carried over to the succeeding year?
    Mr. Clarke: Since the Government have been in office, there was a slight overspend in the first year, and in the next year a slight underspend. This is the first significant underspend that we have had. There has been interest in the idea of carrying forward underspends into subsequent years, but that would lead to an increase in the overall level of public expenditure next year. Obviously, that is not consistent with the country's present economic problems and the Government's economic policy.
    Mr. Snape: In view of the concern about road expenditure, will the Minister tell the House how much per head the average family pays towards the building maintenance and policing of our trunk road network? In the unlikely event that he will be able to give the House that figure, will he say whether it includes the cost of pollution, delay and the 7,000 road deaths that occur each year, thanks to the concentration of the Department and successive Governments on road traffic, to the exclusion of everything else?
    Mr. Clarke: The taxation that is paid by all road users—drivers of private cars and goods vehicles—greatly exceeds the cost of maintaining and repairing the roads. Road users rightly make a substantial contribution to the Government's revenue, part of which—over £800 million—is used by the Government on railways.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: In view of the expected underspend, will the Minister give immediate consideration to bringing forward into this financial year the start of the Newcastle upon Tyne western bypass, bearing in mind that the land for the project was purchased 40 years ago?
    Mr. Clarke: Of course, time has to be taken up with the engineering design and preparation of schemes. We trunked the Newcastle upon Tyne western bypass only six months ago, and, unfortunately, we are not yet ready to build it. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a desirable road, and we shall press on with it with all possible speed.

    New Road Construction
    Mr. Conlanasked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the value of contracts entered into for new road construction during the second quarter of 1981; and how this compares with those of the first quarter.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The value is £165 million, compared with £19 million in the first quarter.
    Mr. Conlan: While the increase is extremely welcome, is this sudden boost to be followed by a decline in orders because the Minister is incapable of spreading the work load? Given that he has had a stable budget since 1978, is it not possible to spread the load so that the civil engineering contractors can plan their work more efficiently?
    Mr. Clarke: Quarterly figures always surge in this way, and a comparison between two quarters is

    881
    meaningless, and has been over the years. We are trying to produce each year our set road programme, and this year we shall be delivering the trunk road programme almost in full, with four road schemes being started early. There is a two-yearly surge in contract placing in the road building programme which results from the lasting effects of the previous Government's axing of the road programme when they made the IMF cuts and reduced real spending on roads by about half.
    Mr. Higgins: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that many of these new road programmes result in traffic getting to London much more rapidly than it would otherwise do? Does not he also agree that, having arrived in London, where the responsibilities of my right hon. and hon. and learned Friends are taken over by the GLC, the whole process is then fouled up by bus lanes, many of which are completely unnecessary? Will he do something about that?
    Mr. Clarke: When in London, motorists find that on the trunk roads, such as the North Circular, the end of the M11 where we are planning the Hackney-M11 link, or down towards the new east London river crossing, the Government are planning improvements. I am not responsible for the Greater London Council, and heaven only knows what it will do with its road programme in its present state. I share my right hon. Friend's scepticism about bus lanes. They are useful in some places, but in other places they pointlessly narrow urban roads. However, that is a decision for the local authorities concerned, and not for me.
    Mr. Dobson: If the Minister is rightly concerned about the problems of construction teams in the road construction industry, why does not his right hon. Friend show similar concern about the possible disbanding of the electrical contracting team, which is the only team with the necessary expertise to carry out electrification of the railways?
    Mr. Clarke: We are concerned. The Balfour Beatty team is not trained to build the St. Neots bypass. It is waiting for electrification. As my right hon. Friend said, the announcement last week by British Rail about the team was precipitate. It was not an announcement by the company. We are anxiously awaiting the electrification programme and for the programme schemes. British Rail promised that it would bring forward those schemes when we made our decision last June.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Will my hon. and learned Friend tell the House when the Barnet B. Top to Grimsby motorway link will be completed? That was included in the programme to which he referred earlier. Is he aware that the project was deferred by the previous Government? I am delighted that this Government have decided to pursue it.
    Mr. Clarke: The Labour Government put it off and we have started construction a year earlier than we planned. I think that it will take about two years to construct.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Can the Minister say what lorry weights are used in the design briefs for these new roads? When will we hear any further Government decisions on the recommendations of the Armitage committee?
    Mr. Clarke: The design standards are those that are used for the sort of traffic that uses the roads at present,
    882
    with a margin to spare. The Armitage committee did not propose any increases that would affect our design standards. My right hon. Friend is carefully considering the whole problem of the lorry, including the recommendations of the Armitage committee, and he hopes to make a statement shortly.

    British Rail
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current level of investment in British Railways and the additional amount needed to renew ageing structures which carry the permanent way.
    Mr. David Howell: The board expects to invest £325 million this year. That does not include expenditure on renewal of structures, which is an operating cost and is therefore not subject to any Government investment ceiling and is entirely a matter for the board to determine.
    Mr. Cryer: Is the Secretary of State aware that the restrictions on investment have recently caused British Rail to divert the Nottingham-Glasgow trains, which affects my constituency of Keighley, as a means of a backdoor closure of the Settle-Carlisle railway? Is he further aware that British Rail has stopped all track replacement work and all viaduct maintenance work on the Settle-Carlisle route and closure proposals have been put forward because of the ageing condition of Ribblehead viaduct, which will require several million pounds to restore? If British Rail approaches the Government for additional investment, which is vital if we are to keep such routes open, will the Government be prepared to treat such a request sympathetically?
    Mr. Howell: The board already receives substantial funds—about £2 million a day—to enable it to maintain the present network. I expect the board to meet the cost of doing that from within those funds. That is the arrangement and that is the expectation.
    Mr. Cockeram: Will my right hon. Friend point out to British Rail that it has much surplus land, including hotels, around the country and that no one travels by British Rail just because it owns hotels in London? There is plenty of capital locked up within British Rail that can be released, instead of fleecing the taxpayer further.
    Mr. Howell: It is desirable that British Rail should pursue disposals to raise funds. There is an agreement between the British Railways Board and the Government about the introduction of private capital into subsidiaries. Disposals of this kind should be pursued.
    Mr. Anderson: I refer to the Secretary of State's reply earlier about the Hitchin-Huntingdon line. Yesterday, in replying to the debate, the Under-Secretary of State said that the Department was not aware of the implication of the decision on the Hitchin-Huntingdon line on the Balfour Beatty team. Today, the Secretary of State said that the redundancy notices were premature. Does this mean that the Government have in mind the placing of a contract in respect of electrification before the expiry of the redundancy notices?
    Mr. Howell: The Under-Secretary of State did not say yesterday what the hon. Gentleman claims he said. I did not say today what the hon. Gentleman claims I said. I said that the notice was not issued by Balfour Beatty and that

    883
    the news that there was a problem was precipitate. The hon. Gentleman quotes words that I did not utter. The Hitchin-Huntingdon section is clearly part of the East Coast line main line project, which is part of the overall programme. The Government look forward to the programme being put forward by British Rail. They have not yet received it.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It was announced yesterday that my right hon. Friend had given quite a large amount of money to British Rail, following a year in which the number of passengers carried was considerably reduced. Is my right hon. Friend aware that one reason for the loss of passengers is the appalling service in some areas for commuters? Will he arrange for some of the money that he has given to British Rail to be spent on improvements to these commuter services? Without that expenditure British Rail will lose even more passengers.
    Mr. Howell: The very large and exceptional addition to the public service obligation grant that I announced yesterday is to meet the very large deficiency in revenue that has occurred. It is not to compensate for increased costs. The pressure on costs and for improvements in administrative efficiency must continue with all possible vigour. I said yesterday that some considerable improvements in some areas had been made, but there is great room for improvement elsewhere.

    M56 (Portwood to Denton)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about continuation of the M56 from Portwood, Stockport to Denton.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We believe that this road should be built as soon as possible. Statutory proposals were published in 1980 and a public inquiry into objections should be held next year. Subject to the completion of statutory procedures and the availability of money, work could start in 1984.
    Mr. Bennett: Does not that answer confirm that the timetable for this road has slipped considerably? Design work is still continuing and there is growing despondency in Stockport about the traffic chaos that will result from the opening of the next section and the fact that a considerable number of construction workers will be out of work because this scheme has not followed immediately upon the existing one.
    Mr. Clarke: I accept that the scheme has slipped a bit. I hope, however, that the public inquiry will take place next year and that work will commence as soon as design has been completed. The sort of issues that we have had to consider have been representations by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and his constituents about the scale of the flyover proposed at Denton. Details of that kind have to be considered before there is a public inquiry.

    Local Authorities (Rail and Bus Subsidies)
    Miss Maynardasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the statutory powers of local authorities to pay subsidies to rail and bus services to give effect to their statutory duty to operate passengers transport policies in their areas.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Yes, I am satisfied that local authorities do have adequate powers for these purposes. I shall watch with interest the judgment in another place as to whether the GLC has used these powers lawfully.
    Miss Maynard: Does the Minister consider that the South Yorkshire county council and other local authorities have a duty to run their transport systems on a break-even basis? Is that a mandatory provision? Does he agree that elected representatives are mandated by their election pledges if they have made a firm commitment on these issues?
    Mr. Clarke: I cannot pronounce on the law, but the law as it applies to South Yorkshire will be different from the law applying to other authorities. Election pledges are important, but parties should not make pledges that are unlawful. Our criticism is that South Yorkshire has decided to freeze its fares at the 1976 level for all time, which is heading it into an ever-increasing burden of expense, especially for the ratepayers. There is no evidence to suggest that it produces any relief in traffic congestion or other improvements to justify the enormous burden on local industry and employment.

    British Rail
    Mr. Cowansasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the new external financing limit for British Railways; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Howell: I refer the hon. Member to my reply earlier today to the hon. Members for Derby. South (Mr. Johnson) and for Goole (Dr. Marshall).
    Mr. Cowans: Will the Secretary of State confirm that when he eventually decides to announce the external financing limits, it is his intention to offer no new money to British Rail? Will he also confirm that rail investment this year is already running at £90 million below the permitted ceiling? Will he further confirm that without relaxation of the EFL, British Rail will be forced into further distress selling of its assets and that the first of these, offered at bargain prices to the private sector, will be British Rail's hotel subsidiary in its entirety?
    Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman will have to await the announcement of external financing limits for the nationalised industries. In regard to what he calls distress sales, he will be aware that the subsidiary groups as a whole do not contribute to the profits and, in some cases, add to the losses and, therefore, the pressures on British Rail. It is in British Rail's interest to make disposals that ease the pressures. The hon. Gentleman has got the issue upside down.
    Mr. Cockeram: Will my right hon. Friend point out to British Rail that if it did not insist on continuing double-manning of diesel units it would generate more finance for its own investment?
    Mr. Howell: On the general question of a change of working practices, British Rail is negotiating with the unions and making good and steady progress.
    Mr. Bagier: Will the Secretary of State admit that he has stated this afternoon that he is awaiting proposals for several schemes from British Rail? Is he prepared to substantiate the assertion that he has had no proposals

    885
    along those lines? Is he not aware that he has had proposals for the electrification of the East Anglia line for some considerable time? With the break-up of the Balfour Beatty team, it seems little short of a scandal that the right hon. Gentleman will not allow this scheme to go forward.
    Mr. Howell: I can only repeat what I said earlier. The Government asked in the summer for the rolling 10-year programme, to which a commitment in principle was made. I think I quote British Rail's attitude correctly when I say that it regarded the programme as "a fighting chance" to go ahead with electrification. Hopes were indicated that these programmes would come forward fairly soon in the autumn. They are not yet with us. We look forward to the programmes being put to the Government, when the necessary judgment and analysis will be made.
    Mr. Iain Mills: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the cavalier attitude of Opposition Members to the answer given to me yesterday in written form on the increase in subsidy for passenger transport? Will he confirm that this additional money to help British Rail will not permit wage claims to be granted that exceed the Government's indicated level?
    Mr. Howell: I confirm that this is an increase in public service obligation grant in exceptional circumstances. Secondly, it is to meet the revenue deficit. It is not to meet any increases in costs. The pressure on costs of all kinds must be maintained with the utmost vigour.
    Mr. Booth: Does the Secretary of State intend that the increased public service obligation grant that he announced yesterday should be contained within British Rail's existing external financing limit? If so, he must surely agree that British Rail's scope for borrowing to fund its investment programme will be greatly reduced. It will not be possible in those circumstances for British Rail to proceed with any substanial investment programme, even if the right hon. Gentleman were to approve such a programme.
    Mr. Howell: The public service obligation grant runs from calendar year to calendar year. The external financing limit runs from April to April. The board has requested a readjustment of its EFL. I am considering British Rail's request within the present public expenditure totals.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for increased investment in the railway system, with particular reference to Scotland.
    Mr. David Howell: Within the ceiling set by the Government, priorities for investment are a matter for the board.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the parlous plight of the Scottish economy is due in no small measure to the inadequacy of public transport in general and to that of British Rail in particular? Will he tell us what the gap is between what British Rail desires to invest in the railways in Scotland and the Government's determination figure within the cash limits?
    Mr. Howell: I cannot give the hon. Member a specific breakdown for Scotland. The ceiling for British Rail is set at £325 million in constant money terms, and the ceiling is the same as it has been all the way through. It is correct that British Rail is not spending up to that ceiling in
    886
    investment because it is constrained by its business performance throughout the country. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact figure for Scotland, but the ceiling is as it has been all the way through.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Pensions (Financing)
    Mr. Marlowasked the Minister for the Civil Service if she will make a statement on the financing of Civil Service pensions.
    The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): Civil Service pensions are financed from the Civil Superannuation Vote, the original estimate for which this year was £660 million on continuing pensions, together with £300 million on lump sum payments. This cost is offset by reductions in Civil Service salaries and direct contributions to widows' benefits, which together amount to an effective contribution of about 8 per cent. of salary. The whole question of index-linked public sector pensions, including contribution arrangements, is currently under review in the light of the Scott report.
    Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend will be aware that industry, which feels that in many respects it pays the bill for the Civil Service and Civil Service pensions, cannot offer, under the present conditions, the same benefits to its own people. Obviously, my hon. Friend will take that into account when he brings forward proposals.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I can assure my hon. Friend that that view and many others are being carefully considered as part of the review following the Scott report.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: When the Minister undertakes this review, will he consider the obvious unfairness of ex-Ministers and ex-civil servants drawing three and four indexed pensions, as well as their salaries from taking private jobs at £50,000 and £60,000 a year? Is it not unfair, when he cannot give a little extra to old-age pensioners, the sick and the disabled—[Interruption.]—do not laugh—that ex-Prime Ministers get four pensions and take on jobs as spies at £50,000 a year?
    Mr. Hayhoe: It should also be borne in mind that, in looking at public sector pensions as a whole, the average pension after this month's increase is under £36 a week. It is necessary to view this whole question in full perspective, taking account not only of what the hon. Gentleman says, but of the wider issues.
    Mr. Higgins: Will my hon. Friend tell us to what extent the pension payments made are covered by contributions in the current year?
    Mr. Hayhoe: In the Civil Service it is probably about 40 per cent. This year there has been a particular bump of payments because of the greater number of people who are retiring, partly as a result of the Government's policy of reducing the size of the Civil Service.
    Mr. Woolmer: Does the Minister accept that civil servants will be pleased to hear his more measured response today to the implied attack on civil servants' pensions? It is rather in contrast to the somewhat hysterical attacks that were made prior to the publication of the Scott

    887
    report. When do the Government intend to respond to that report, which largely vindicates the current Civil Service pension scheme and points out that it provides substantial assistance to many people on low incomes?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The Scott report covered some very complicated issues. There are several hundred index-linked pension schemes—some are funded, some are funded in part, some are notionally funded, and some are unfunded. The precise legal requirements differ from one scheme to another. Perhaps 10 million people have a direct stake, as pensioners, members of schemes, or dependants. We therefore seek a lasting solution that will be fair both to individuals and their families and also to taxpayers generally.

    Pay and Conditions
    Mr. Strawasked the Minister for the Civil Service when she will next be meeting trade union representatives on the pay and conditions of the Civil Service.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Minister for the Civil Service when she next expects to meet trade union representatives of the Civil Service to discuss Civil Service salaries.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am, of course, always ready to meet Civil Service union representatives whenever this is necessary. No meetings are at present arranged.
    Mr. Straw: Will the Minister, in advance of any meeting that is held, take the opportunity today to confirm that, despite the changes in the arrangements for Civil Service management within the Government, the undertakings given to the Civil Service after the dispute, that pay negotiations would not be constrained by the 4 per cent. cash limit and that the Civil Service could go to arbitration in 1982, still stand?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I can give the hon. Gentleman the two assurances that he requires concerning negotiations in 1982. The negotiations will take place without a predetermined cash limit, and there will be recourse to arbitration if the negotiations fail, subject to the parliamentary override in the terms that were set out. Those assurances still stand and are unaffected in any way by the reorganisation of central Departments that was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a short time ago.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that, if the Government try to force the 4 per cent. settlement on the Civil Service, it will mean a 12 per cent. reduction in living standards over a two-year period? Will he therefore give us an assurance that there will be genuine free negotiations with the trade unions, rather than an attempt by the Government rigidly to impose a predetermined pay norm, which would attack living standards, particularly of the lower-paid workers in the Civil Service?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The 4 per cent. pay factor announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer some weeks ago is not a pay norm. It is a broad measure of what the Government believe can be afforded for pay increases in the public services as a whole. Some increases may be less, and some may be more. Each must be justified on its merits. As I have said, the assurance that there will be negotiations without a predetermined cash limit for the Civil Service still stands.
    Mr. Hordern: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the 4 per cent. cash limit for wages will not necessarily apply to the Civil Service? If that is so, to whom will it apply?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The 4 per cent. is not a cash limit, as I have just said. It is a pay factor.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: In that case, on what basis would arbitration take place?
    Mr. Hayhoe: It would take place on the basis that if the negotiations that were taking place failed to provide agreement the Government would accept recourse to the Civil Service arbitration tribunal, but on the understanding that the Government reserve the right, if necessary, to ask the House to approve setting aside the tribunal's awards on the ground of overriding national policy.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Minister not realise that the transfer of his departmental responsibility to the Treasury has been a further major blow to morale in the Civil Service and that it has completely undermined the value of the assurances obtained in the last pay round about going to arbitration? Does he accept that there is now grave doubt about the Government's objectivity in this respect?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I do not accept that statement as a reasonable appraisal of the view held in the Civil Service. Obviously, the changes in the organisation of the central Departments have been used by some people to put forward a point of view for which there is no foundation at all, namely, that we are resiling from the assurances that were given. Those assurances still stand.
    Mr. Woolmer: Does not the oustanding £6 billion in uncollected revenue show the importance of getting Civil Service pay and conditions back on to an agreed basis? In the light of that, when does the Minister hope to see the Megaw inquiry report? Does he still hope that it will be produced in time for it to be brought into effect for the pay round in the spring of 1983?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The Government have asked the Megaw inquiry to report, if possible, by the summer of next year, so that arrangements can be in place to deal with the 1983 negotiations. The amount of outstanding revenue shows the damage done to the country by what I still believe was the wholly unjustified action that civil servants took in striking and taking disruptive action earlier this year.

    Northern Region (Transfer of Posts)
    Mr. Dormandasked the Minister for the Civil Service how many Civil Service posts have been transferred to the Northern region since May 1979.
    Mr. Hayhoe: The dispersal programme announced on 26 July 1979 did not include any transfer of posts to the Northern region. Details of posts that may have been transferred by Departments for management reasons are not held centrally.
    Mr. Dormand: Will the Minister have another look at the first part of his reply, because if he is referring to the Hardman report, there is some inaccuracy? Perhaps the Minister is referring to the Government's report. We hear from the Prime Minister and from Ministers responsible for industry and the economy that the Northern region will have to wait until there is an upturn in the economy. Does the Minister agree that the transfer of posts is one step that

    889
    the Government could take to increase employment in the region, particularly as that was recommended in the Hardman report? Will the hon. Gentleman have another look at the situation?
    Mr. Hayhoe: What I said was correct. The dispersal programme that I referred to was the one announced by the
    890
    Government on 26 July 1979. A dominant reason for the situation is that the need to contain public expenditure means that further dispersal initiatives—which cost money—cannot be undertaken in the foreseeable future. However, that does not include those to which we are committed. Those commitments stand.

Brixton Disturbances (Scarman Report)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the report of Lord Scarman's inquiry into the disorders in Brixton in April of this year, which I have published today.
Lord Scarman's report has, at its centre, the disorders themselves. He describes these as riots that were initially spontaneous and, throughout, inexcusable in their violence. He measures the immediate response to that disorder in these words:
"Those who were privileged, as I was, to hear the evidence during the Inquiry, will have had many opportunities to marvel at, and be thankful for, the courage and dedication which was displayed by members of the police and emergency services in Brixton over that: terrible week-end".
The report ranges more widely, and goes on to discuss those factors, which in Lord Scarman's view, led to the disorders. He sees them as stemming from a breakdown in confidence between the police and the coloured community, against a background of urban deprivation, racial disadvantage and a rising level of street crime. The report acknowledges the good work which had been done, and is being done, by the police, and others, to prevent such events from recurring, but emphasises that all those concerned have important lessons to learn for the future.
Lord Scarman's detailed recommendations on policing policy and policing arrangements add up to a statement of philosophy and direction for the future which rests on the need for the police to carry out their duty with the consent and support of the community. The report rightly leads discussion away from simple concepts of "hard" and "soft" policing, and focuses on issues which reflect the real variety of policing, and the duty of the police to apply the law firmly and sensitively without differing standards. Lord Scarman emphasises that the consent and support of the community depend on good two-way communications between the police and the public. The operational judgment of the police will be informed, and not undermined, by consultation with the community that it serves. At the same time, the community has a duty to maintain discussion with the police, and to respond to their initiatives. Without such consultation there will not be accountability, and the necessary balance between preserving the peace and enforcing the law will be distorted.
I accept and endorse this statement of philosophy. It will be my responsibility, and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in his area of responsibility, in consultation with all concerned, to see that it is carried into practice.
In particular, I accept the need to develop formal arrangements in every police force area for consultation between police and community at different levels, and for the involvement of chief officers of police in local social and economic decisions affecting policing. Similarly, I endorse the need for regular and systematic consultation at borough level in the Metropolitan police district, where Lord Scarman recommends that the Home Secretary should remain police authority. I shall set up early discussions on the arrangements for consultation in Lambeth.
892
I accept the need for more effort to be put into training with a new emphasis on the problems of policing a multiracial society, and on the prevention and handling of disorder. We must concentrate on those now in the service as well as on recruits, especially in the area of supervision and management.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: What about some jobs?
Mr. Whitelaw: I accept that the procedure for handling complaints against the police must be substantially reformed if it is to command public confidence.
Mr. Ashton: What about some jobs?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have already given this matter a great deal of consideration, and I shall bring forward proposals to the House as soon as I can.
As I have indicated, the rest of Lord Scarman's report is concerned with racial disadvantage, the law in the field of public order, and social and economic conditions.
Mr. Ashton: What about some jobs?
Mr. Whitelaw: All of these affect the problems of policing in a multiracial inner-city environment.
The report emphasises that, despite the efforts of successive Governments, the problems of inner cities persist. Lord Scarman's recommendations point to the need to seek ways in which better co-ordination and better value for money can be achieved. That is the Government's purpose, through the Merseyside task force in particular. Equally, the report—like the study I recently presented into racial attacks—illustrates the consequences of failure fully to understand the ethnically diverse society of our inner cities, and the response that it demands. We shall need to pursue that response not only in relation to Lord Scarman's report but also in reply to the valuable report of the Select Committee on racial disadvantage.
The police have a right to look for action by society as a whole; they must not become scapegoats. As far as the Government are concerned, we accept the responsibility, in which we must all share, to make our multiracial society work more justly.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is ready to provide time for a debate in which we can examine this important report more thoroughly than will be possible today. The House, and the country, owe Lord Scarman a considerable debt. I welcome the report and I thank him for it.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I first offer Lord Scarman the Opposition's deep thanks for the historic work that he has done? Today's report can be, and in our belief should be, used as a foundation on which to build a better relationship between the police and the public.
I hope that the Home Secretary will agree that selective quotations from the report can give a false impression of its contents. However, I also hope that he will agree with the following quotation:
"the disorders in Brixton cannot be fully understood unless they are seen in the context of the complex political, social and economic factors which brought them about."
Today, I shall simply press the Home Secretary on the report's recommendations on the relationship between the police and the public. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many of the specific recommendations for a more independent complaints machinery, improved police

893
training, greater punishment for racially motivated behaviour and the proscription of racist marches have already been pressed on him from many other quarters, but that the repetition of those recommendations by Lord Scarman adds a dimension of authority and objectivity that elevates the whole question above the disputes of party politics?
Does the Home Secretary understand that to reject all or any of the proposals in Lord Scarman's report would set back the cause of good community relations in an unacceptable way? Will he give his firm and unequivocal support to what Lord Scarman has proposed? Will he give that support in far less opaque language than that which he used in his statement?
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The right hon. Gentleman wrote that before he read it.
Mr. Hattersley: I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in allowing me to see a copy of the report yesterday afternoon.
In particular, what does the Home Secretary propose to do about the banning of racist marches? Will he double the length of police training? Will he institute a system of lay visits to police stations? Will he make racially motivated behaviour a misdemeanour for which police officers normally are dismissed?
Does the Home Secretary understand that the report must be debated in the House at the first opportunity and that during that debate the Government must give their detailed response to the individual recommendations? Is he aware that the Opposition will take part in that debate willing to accept and implement all the recommendations? We shall take part in the debate convinced that Lord Scarman is right to say:
"The only genuine, long range solution for what has happened lies in an attack—mounted at every level—upon the conditions that breed despair and violence."
Mr. Whitelaw: I agree that if we all indulge in selective quotations to justify a point of view and excuse ourselves—in whatever part of the House we sit—from any of the criticism, we shall ill serve Lord Scarman and the nation. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that. However, I thought that my selective quotation about the action of the young constables would gain so much support from all sides of the House that it was proper to give it.
Mr. James Lamond: The Home Secretary misjudges us.
Mr. Whitelaw: If I misjudge the hon. Gentleman in his belief in the courage and dedication of young police officers, I am sorry—but I know him too well to misjudge him. I now understand well what he says. He does not think that they acted with courage and dedication at that time. I do.
I used no opaque language in the statement. I accepted many of the recommendations immediately, which is much more than is done normally by a Government in response to such a report. I made it clear that I accepted the particular parts which I have been asked to accept. I accept them and I shall proceed with them. Already changes have been made in the training arrangements for
894
the Metropolitan Police at Hendon on the lines suggested. I shall pursue that further with the police training council. That is very important.
The banning of marches has been discussed in the House. There are many different views. I am prepared to make progress on that with the House. I agree that there is a universal desire for a more independent element in dealing with police complaints. Let us never forget that the present system was set out for the House in 1976 by the Labour Government. I want to carry the House with me in sensible changes for the future. I should have thought that that was proper and I shall make proposals to the House.
I thought that my response and my statement, far from being opaque, was absolutely clear. I have accepted many of the recommendations at once. I have said—again exceptionally and quickly—that the Leader of the House would provide time for a debate at the earliest opportunity. I understand that he will. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will agree that a little time is needed for right hon. and learned Gentlemen to read this long report.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It has been made clear that the matter will be debated. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will ask questions and not seek to debate the matter today. We shall see how we get on.
Mr. John Fraser: One of the striking aspects of the report is the catastrophic consequence on police-community relations of social and economic policies going wrong. Does the Home Secretary realise that since the riots, which took place largely because of Government policies, pressures such as housing, homelessness, poverty and unemployment have worsened? Lord Scarman makes not philosophical reflections about the police but firm, forthright and specific recommendations. Can the Home Secretary assure the House that he will act with the same vigour and speed as Lord Scarman in translating the recommendations on policy and practice into law and change?
Lord Scarman sidesteps, for reasons which he explains, any specific social, financial or economic recommendations. What recommendations do the Government have, bearing in mind that they have already fined places such as Lambeth? What changes may we expect in terms of jobs, training and extra resources?
Mr. Whitelaw: My answer to the question about acting with speed on recommendations for the police is "Yes". I have already set in motion consultations in Lambeth. My Minister of State is to meet some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Norwood, (Mr. Fraser), I hope, this afternoon. That is clear evidence of the speed with which I intend to act.
As for the other recommendations, I have accepted them. I shall act as fast as I can to bring them forward in relation to all sections of the police concerned. The hon. Gentleman asked about economic and social consequences. Nobody in the House should blame anybody else for the problems in the inner cities because the policies of successive Governments over a long period led to them. Nobody can get away from that, certainly not members of the Opposition.

895
Large sums have been given. For example, in 1981–82 about £9 million is to be given to the Lambeth inner city partnership. That is a considerable allocation. Other extra moneys have also been given to that area.
Mr. Edward Gardner: Whatever lessons there might be, for the police and others, in Lord Scarman's wise and useful report, will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the House that the police will not be expected to apply different standards in different parts of the country and that they will be allowed to maintain law and order in all parts of the country fairly, impartially and, above all, effectively?
Mr. Whitelaw: Yes. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) asks an important question. Lord Scarman fully endorses that point. He emphasises the serious problem of crime. He emphasises that units such as the special patrol group are essential. He concludes
"that the power of stop and search is necessary to combat street crime."
He says that differing standards must not be allowed in the application of the law. In carrying out what my hon. and learned Friend wants, I am fully in line with Lord Scarman's proposals.
Mr. John Tilley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the people of Brixton have developed a great affection for and confidence in Lord Scarman, and that their expectations have been met fully by Lord Scarman's radical and balanced report? However, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that because of that they will be disappointed that their expectations of the Government have not been met? Is he further aware that they will be appalled by the Government's half-hearted and evasive response, particularly on economic matters? They will notice that the Home Secretary has not committed a single penny of resources to implementing the proposals.
May I remind the Home Secretary and the House that the number of unemployed teenagers in Lambeth, black and white, is 40 per cent. higher than it was in April when the riots took place? How many more times do they have to riot before the Government take some effective action?
Mr. Whitelaw: If the hon. Gentleman says that, he must regard difficulties such as unemployment—which is a factor in the problem—as an excuse for violence. That is undoubtedly the implication of what he says. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about Lord Scarman. During his press conference, Lord Scarman said, and the House must realise, that it is a question not only of resources but of a change in attitudes. That is very important, and I hope that the House will bear it in mind.
Mr. Richard Crawshaw: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, whatever the social conditions may be, in a democratic society no one is justified in rioting? Does he also accept that, although he said in his statement that in Brixton there was a breakdown between the police and the black community, in Liverpool there has been a breakdown between the police and both the black and white communities? Does he also accept, probably on the advice of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, that if the Government believe that they can buy their way out of the disorders in Liverpool, for example with development corporations, without getting to the basic cause of the
896
trouble between the police and the community—I am not apportioning blame now—we shall have such disorders on our hands during the next 10 years as well?
Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the problems in Liverpool and his diagnosis of them. It is his constituency, so he should know. I am glad that he said—perhaps he should say it to Opposition Members who used to be his hon. Friends—that we cannot buy our way out of the problems. Some Opposition Members seem to believe that we can do so, but it must be accepted that we cannot. That is why I have made it plain that police-community relations are so important.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend accept that from this detailed report two facts must command the support of all hon. Members—first, that it is wrong to ask the police to handle such complex problems alone, and, secondly, that the Metropolitan Police have in general come out of Lord Scarman's inquiry much better than most of their critics expected and hoped? In the proposals for additional police training will he include further training especially for those in senior command posts and chief officers? Is he aware that the Police Federation, with which I have a connection, accepts the need for independence in the investigation of complaints against the police, provided that the civil rights of policemen are safeguarded? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to convey to all concerned, especially in London, Lord Scarman's judgment that the SPG is criticised
"not because of its failings, but because of its successes"?
Mr. Whitelaw: Although the Metropolitan Police, like everyone else concerned, have some lessons to learn for the future from what Lord Scarman said, it is clear that my hon. Friend believes that they have come out well because of their actions. I endorse that position.
If the Metropolitan Police are to work with the community, as I would wish, it is important that many who live in the communities should heed the lesson of Lord Scarman and work with the police, whether it be in community relations councils or individually. Frequently it has not been the police who have refused to attend consultations, but those who represent the communities. It is important to get that fact across.
We are dealing with training at all levels. Special courses have been set up by Sir Kenneth Newman, 'with his long experience at Bramshill, which are very important. I have also accepted that it is important to find the independent element. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend can pretend that it is easy. Nor can anyone who previously attempted to find the right basis for police complaints procedures believe that it is easy to rind the correct answer. As to the SPG, Lord Scarman confirms that it is necessary to deal with crime in London. I fully support him in that.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I do not wish in any way to condone the riots, but does the Home Secretary accept that the responsibilities of the police, community leaders and hon. Members who represent areas such as mine are rendered 10 times more difficult in a climate of mass unemployment? Does he accept that we have always dreaded that, if unemployment worsens, responsibilities for good race relations will be rendered more difficult, although we all hope that when the recession is over people can move in a different economic

897
climate? Is the Home Secretary aware that the police have been hard at work, especially in my area? Will he take note of that part of Lord Scarman's report which deals with Southall and which says that it does not have a high crime rate?
Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and endorse what Lord Scarman says about Southall. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says about the police in his area and the efforts that they are making. I agree with him about the responsibility of all concerned, including Members of Parliament. I accept that high unemployment is a factor, but in many of those areas there has been high unemployment for a long time. It is not a new factor but we must accept it.
Mr. David Steel: Is the Home Secretary aware that all hon. Members should thank Lord Scarman for an outstandingly thorough and extremely important report? At the risk of joining the group of those making selective quotations, does he accept Lord Scarman's first conclusion that urgent action is needed if racial disadvantage
"is not to become an endemic, ineradicable disease threatening the very survival of our society."?
Therefore, can the Home Secretary—on behalf not only of the Home Office but of all Government Departments—undertake that every Government Department will take note of that lesson?
Although I acknowledge that the Home Secretary accepts the philosophy of Lord Scarman, does he accept that there is a host of detailed recommendations on community policing and training, upon which I hope that he can expound later as accepted Government policy in the future?
Is the Home Secretary aware that he did not mention in his statement the recommendation for greater powers to ban racialist marches? Will the Government accept that recommendation?
Mr. Whitelaw: Lord Scarman referred constantly to the important report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I have promised that we shall give a collective Government response to that report as soon as possible. I believed that it was right to wait for Lord Scarman's report and to study our response to the Select Committee's recommendations in the light of his report. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman believes that that is the correct way for us to proceed. I have accepted many of the details put forward by the right hon. Gentleman about police training and consultation, for example. I believe that I have accepted most of the recommendations. I shall discuss all those matters with chief officers and all those concerned, which must be right.
As to the banning of racialist marches, I promised that, following Lord Scarman's report I would put forward the review of the Public Order Act 1936 which I had kept back. I shall do that. In recent months I have not been criticised for not banning marches. However, I have been criticised for banning them. In most cases I have banned all marches of the type mentioned by Lord Scarman. Whether it should be part of a statute that we ban racialist marches must be discussed by the House in considering the review of the Public Order Act. I am advised that the legal hurdle is not easy to get over.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call four more hon. Members from either side, which will be a very good run in view of the fact that the matter is to be debated.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: In supporting the welcome given to this balanced yet radical report, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind particularly the conclusions on the awesome power that newspaper editors and television and radio producers have to influence the attitudes of those whose disorders they report? Does he agree that, unfortunately, there is all too often only a fine dividing line between reporting the facts and influencing and inciting disorders?
Mr. Whitelaw: No doubt everyone in the media will have noted the conclusions. However, I felt it my duty on behalf of the House to write to the chairmen of the BBC and the IBA to call their attention to the recommendations, and I did that yesterday.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Despite the criticisms of the police and the commentary on their defects, does the Home Secretary agree that one of the salient findings in the report is that the police
"stood between our society and a total collapse of law and order in the streets … For that, they deserve, and must receive the … thanks of all sections of our community"?
Will he reaffirm that, although mass unemployment and deprivation are objectionable, they should never be regarded as an excuse for riots?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for stating on behalf of his party that he believes that the police played an outstanding role in the disorders. I believe that that is the view of virtually the entire House, and it will be communicated to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and all his officers.
Mr. Neil Thorne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, had the police been trained better five years ago, fewer inexperienced police constables would now be on the streets, so it ill becomes Labour Members, whose Government were responsible for police pay at that time, to criticise the lack of experience on the beat? Will he, on behalf of the Government, undertake that that will not happen again?
Mr. Whitelaw: I do not wish to criticise what happened in the past. However, our actions in support of the Edmund-Davies recommendations have increased the number of officers throughout England and Wales by 7,500 and brought the number of the Metropolitan Police up to 25,000 for the first time ever. The country would have been in a much more serious position when the riots occurred had we not had those policemen
Mr. Christopher Price: Has the Home Secretary noted the quotation from President Johnson's address with which Lord Scarman ends the report? It states that the only real solution is an attack on
"ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs."
Does he accept Lord Scarman's conclusion that those factors are the basic causes of the disturbances; and what are the Government doing about them?
Mr. Whitelaw: My statement dealt with the Government's response to Lord Scarman. The factors that the hon. Gentleman lists are failures in almost any society and sins of which many of us in different ways have been guilty.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are no good or bad police units but only good or bad police commanders? Will he spell out how Metropolitan Police officers of the rank of superintendent and above are to receive better training? Finally, has ha noted that this critical but constructive report ends on an optimistic note, contrary to the pessimism of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)?
Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, but the optimism will be justified only if we all take action to make it so. In the main, senior commanders will go to Bramshill, and the courses there are being restructured. There are also courses at Hendon.
Mr. Reginald Freeson: On behalf of the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that action will be taken urgently on two points that arise from pages 101 and 102 of the report? The first is the need to restore as rapidly as possible—this coming financial year—the £500 million or £600 million withdrawn from inner cities in the past year or so under the rate support grant system? The second is the need to reorganise and make more effective the inner city partnerships, so that we get the co-ordination that Lord Scarman calls for now and not in 10 years.
Mr. Whitelaw: In my statement I mentioned Lord Scarman's recommendations about
"better co-ordination and better value for money".
Mr. Freeson indicated dissent.
Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I am reading from my statement.
Mr. HattersleyIt was opaque.
Mr. Whitelaw: It was not opaque. I stated:
"The report emphasises that, despite the efforts of successive Governments, the problems of inner cities persist."
That is not opaque. My statement goes on:
"Lord Scarman's recommendations point to the need to seek ways in which better co-ordination and better value for money can be achieved."
900
That is not opaque. It continues:
"That is the Government's purpose through the Merseyside task force in particular."
Nor is that opaque.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Referring again to the quotation from President Johnson's address on page 136, does my right hon. Friend agree that Government Departments other than the Home Office should also redirect attention to putting right what we have got wrong?
Mr. Whitelaw: I accept my hon. Friend's point. I made it clear on behalf of the Government that we should follow up the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on racial disadvantage and also take action in other fields.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is it not depressing that, good though the report is, it merely reflects many reports which have gone before and which have not changed the situation? Is not the crucial issue political will? Will the Home Secretary match his words with deeds? Will he, among other things, introduce ethnic monitoring of local authority services, legislation, recommended by Lord Scarman, to make it a duty on police committees to establish an efficient police force and a new scheme of community policing for the entire country and not only for the inner city areas of London?
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman may have a slight misconception about the report's recommendation on consultation. Opportunities for complaints and consultation are provided for under the 1964 Act. The report recommends consultative committees within the metropolis, where the Home Secretary is the police authority. I wish to proceed at once to examine administrative ways to set up the consultation process. We shall see how we get on, and, if it is felt that we need legislation, I am prepared to consider it.

Ministerial Statements
4.8 pm
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise my perennial point of order about the way in which, with respect, you are being taken advantage of and the House is being treated with contempt by Ministers almost every day in taking liberties over statements. They deprive Back Benchers of the limited time—now about 40 minutes—to participate in debates. Technically, you have the right to disallow a statement, although you cannot very well say "No", except perhaps on a rare occasion.
Although we welcome the statement, the press, radio, and television already had full details of it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) had a copy of the statement, but I know of no other hon. Member who did. Then we had the Secretary of State from the Department that leaked or gave it to the press coming here to make a statement and taking advantage of the Chair and of Back Benchers.
May I ask whether you, Mr. Speaker, will arrange through the usual channels, and particularly with Ministers, that if Ministers intend to abuse the rules of the House they should at least ensure that hon. Members have copies of reports. I saw copies of the Scarman report in the Press Gallery yesterday. It is a liberty for this Government—though other Governments have done it as well—continually to deprive Back Benchers of their parliamentary rights.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has made his point. All of us who have been in the House for a long time are aware that he has drawn attention to something which has gone on for as long as we have both been in the House.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: Do something about it then.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the system ought to be changed and the media denied the privilege, which they have hitherto enjoyed, of being able to know what the House is to talk about. However, that is not for me to decide. The
902
point of view of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) has been heard and I think that we should proceed to the ballot for notices of motion.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am very much obliged for your reply, with the exception of the final few words when you said that it was nothing to do with you. With great respect, I suggest that you can refuse to allow a statement to be made. You can say to a Minister "I am not going to allow this, because I have read it all in the press."
Mr. Speaker: Order. Many things are theoretically possible, but I would not like to try to do them.
Mr. Stuart Holland: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is extremely difficult for those of us who represent constituencies in the borough of Lambeth which were directly affected by the events in Brixton to find, when the media rang us last night to ask for comments on the Scarman report, that we could not get a copy without coming to the House at 11 o'clock this morning to collect one.
If the designation of hon. Members means anything, it surely means that they can respect an embargo on a document as much as members of the press can. Otherwise, questioning is entirely one-sided.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I explained that I followed exactly the conventions that have been followed previously in relation to statements in the House—with one exception. Because of the length of the report I made sure that it was available for hon. Members at 11 o'clock this morning. I thought that that was a considerable concession and I believe that it was the right thing to have done.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION FOR FRIDAY 11 DECEMBER
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. John Watson

Mr. Fred Silvester

Mr. Richard Shepherd

Orders of the Day

  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the first six months of this year we had a budget deficit with the Community of £90 million. For the subsequent three months it was more than £400 million. Suspecting that to be the case, I put down a question for priority written answer from the Treasury for last Monday.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has had anxieties and was likely to want to raise a point of order, but the Clerk has already read the Orders of the Day. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman raises the matter at the right time tomorrow, which will be after statements, when I shall try to deal with it.
  Mr. Marlow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  4.13 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is the second Bill designed to relieve local authoritites and both Houses of some of the burdens of promoting private legislation. Over the years, but particularly of course during the nineteenth century, the statute book has become more and more cluttered with literally hundreds of private Acts giving local authorities necessary regulatory powers. Many of those powers have been superseded by public general legislation and many have fallen into disuse. For others, however, there is a continuing need.
  With the reorganisation of local government in 1974 there came the opportunity to clear the statute book of superfluous or obsolete provisions and allow the new authorities to start afresh. They could take to themselves only those powers that could be justified in modern times, and make them readily accessible in new legislation.
  Section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972 provided that all private legislation promoted by local authorities applying before 1 April 1974 outside Greater London, which had already updated its legislation, should cease to have effect on the metropolitan counties at the end of 1980 and in the non-metropolitan counties at the end of 1984. Incidentally, the Government are planning to postpone the latter time limit until 1986 to give councils more time. We are not generally proposing to postpone the year 1984 for other purposes.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but can he tell us whether the Bill applies to Scotland as well as to England and Wales?
  Mr. Raison: No, it does not. The intention was that before the expiry of their legislation local authorities should review their extant powers and seek to re-enact those that were necessary for the late twentieth century and beyond.
  Where similar or identical provisions are required by local authorities—and that often happens—it is obviously
  904
  a waste of time and money for individual authorities to have to promote private Bills to obtain them. General legislation is more appropriate. Soon after local authority reorganisation, therefore, a number of commonly needed provisions were identified and enacted in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
  Valuable as that Act was, it did not cover all the common ground, and even during its passage the local authority associations were pressing for a second measure. The Bill is the result of discussions held with the associations. They fully support the selection of items in it, nearly all of which are precedented in post-1974 local legislation. It will reduce the length of Bills that are being, or will be, promoted by those of their members that have not yet done so, and it is hoped that it will remove the need for some of them to promote any rationalisation legislation before 1986.
  Authorities that will not have to promote Bills will be relieved of the expenditure that would otherwise have been involved; others will benefit from more modest, but still useful, savings. The additional administrative costs that will be imposed by provisions contained in the Bill will be minimal, and in many cases will be met by fees. Only one or two provisions, for instance the licensing code for public entertainments, are mandatory. All the others are adoptive, and authorities that choose to take these powers would probably have done so anyway by means of private legislation. Where they incur additional costs, therefore, they will do so of their own choosing, rather than as a necessary consequence of the Bill.
  I have already referred to the criteria that have been applied in selecting items for the Bill. They should be desired by local authorities generally, which all of these measures are. There must be evidence of general need, for instance being precedented in recent local Acts. This is not a Bill that introduces untried or radical provisions the effect of which cannot be predicted. Similar measures to virtually all those contained in the Bill are already in force in one or more counties in England and Wales and, as far as we know, are working well.
  The third criterion is that provisions should be uncontroversial. I shall dwell on that aspect a little, because with a Bill with such a wide scope there are bound to be criticisms that the Government have not gone far enough and that we could easily have given local authorities additional powers which are already precedented in private legislation.
  Part of the reason for our approach is lack of parliamentary time and our desire to put the Bill on the statute book as early as possible this Session so that local authorities that have Bills before Parliament may seek to withdraw duplicating clauses. The inclusion of controversial provisions could, of course, delay us considerably. But there is a point of principle as well. If a provision is contentious, it should not be slipped into a Bill of this sort. It should be promoted in private legislation so that each local authority is forced to satisfy Parliament of its need and so that local objectors' petitions may be fully considered.
  Turning now to the contents of the Bill, it is, of course, hard to find a common thread running through a miscellany. A substantial part of it, however, concerns the introduction of two new licensing schemes for operation by district councils. Clause 1 introduces schedule 1, which

  905
  contains a new mandatory code for the licensing by district councils of public entertainments which involve music and dancing or boxing and wrestling.
  At present, outside London, which has had its own system since 1965, there is a patchwork of controls operated by local authorities or licensing justices. There has been pressure for some time for a standard system operating throughout the country that would ensure the physical safety of members of the public who attend such entertainments and protect neighbouring residents from noise and other forms of disturbance. The system that operates successfully in London has been slightly modified to suit the differing needs of the rest of England and Wales. The main difference is that in London open-air entertainments are licensed, whereas in the proposed code licensing controls will be restricted to entertainments taking place inside a building.
  Licensing will be in the hands of the district councils. We had a choice between vesting control with the county councils, with the district councils or with the licensing justices, but decided that the district council, as the elected body closest to the particular need of its area, was most appropriate.
  A more complex licensing system is introduced in clause 2, which deals with street trading. It provides an adoptive system of control which is a refinement of the many local Act provisions already in force. District councils, which are again to be the licensing authorities, have four options. They may prohibit street trading entirely in particular streets in their area and permit it uncontrolled in others. Alternatively, they may designate streets in which a licence to trade is required.
  The licensing control is fairly tight and includes provision to levy charges on licence holders for services such as refuse removal, but it attempts to strike a balance between the needs of street traders to earn a living and the needs of councils to keep disruption and dirt to a minimum. Where less control is needed, the council may designate streets as consent streets, for which only their consent to trade is necessary. The differences between the two systems of control are rather complicated, but broadly the licensing system is intended for the control of fixed stalls and markets where traffic must be diverted and refuse accumulates, and the consent system for the control of itinerant traders, whether they have vehicles, barrows or carry their wares.
  Clauses 3 to 6 provide two separate forms of control over refreshment premises. The first enables the district council to require the closure of take-away food shops between 11 pm and 5 am in order to prevent disturbance to neighbours. The second remedies an anomaly in the Late Night Refreshment Houses Act 1969, which at present enables licensed premises to stay open without any form of control to serve food after the normal closing hour for the serving of drinks.
  Clauses 7 to 9 amend the existing law on fire precautions. Clause 7 provides that before exercising its powers relating to the entrances to and exits and means of escape from certain public and other buildings, and before licensing or providing a caravan site, the local authority—that is, the district council—shall consult the fire authority—that is, the county council. Such consultation already takes place on an informal basis but it seems desirable to provide a statutory requirement. A
  906
  similar provision is included in paragraph 4 of the licensing system for public entertainments and together these provisions demonstrate the extent of the important assistance which the fire authorities provide to the district councils in carrying out their licensing and other responsibilities.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Bearing in mind that my hon. Friend and I were elected to reduce controls and to increase freedom, will he give me an assurance that the Bill, which provides more controls over take-aways and late night refreshment places, over tattooing and ear-piercing, and over the paving of courts, yards and passages, is consistent with our view that there should be fewer restrictions on the individual and that there should be less public expenditure by local authorities?
  Mr. Raison: I take that point. It is certainly not my desire to use the Bill as a vehicle for massive increases in public intervention and public expenditure. What the Bill is doing, essentially, is picking up powers that exist across the land in the form of a great many local Acts and consolidating those powers into public general legislation so as to make sure that we do not have a proliferation of Act-making—which will be a relief to local authorities and to the House. Therefore, I think that I can say with some confidence that it is one of the purposes and merits of the Bill that it will reduce public effort rather than increase it.
  Clause 9 is designed to provide firemen with additional protection. It relates to electrical signs which operate at high voltages and pose a serious hazard to firemen called upon to deal with a fire or undertake a rescue at premises where such apparatus is installed. An owner or occupier would be required to install with any such apparatus a cutoff switch which can readily be identified by firemen and used in an emergency. In practice, most existing installations will already have such a switch by virtue of local legislation.
  Clause 10 is the exception to the rule of the Bill. Instead of conferring or enabling a local authority function, it removes one. It repeals the Theatrical Employers Registration Acts 1925 and 1928, which, as their titles suggest, require the registration of theatrical employers with the local authority. This simple control, which was designed to prevent employers from decamping without paying their employees, is no longer necessary. This provision alone extends to Scotland.
  Perhaps I should apologise to the now absent right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). There is one provision that extends to his country.
  Clause 11 makes an amendment to the Public Health Act 1976 which will enable the police to take proceedings in respect of offences against local authority byelaws without the consent of the Attorney-General. This is not a real extension of police powers, since the police are not the primary enforcing authority for byelaws, but it is a useful reduction in bureaucracy on those occasions when they do become involved.
  Clauses 12 to 15 enable local authorities to assume powers to require the registration of persons practising acupuncture, tattooing, ear-piercing and electrolyis and of their premises and to make byelaws to ensure that proper standards of hygiene are observed. All these operations involve the puncturing of the skin and there is a risk of

  907
  infection if high standards of cleanliness are not maintained. Registered medical practitioners and, in the case of acupuncturing, dentists are exempt from control.
  Here we are introducing something that is, to some extent, new, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) will feel that the public health aspects justify it.
  Clauses 16 and 17 assist local authorities in carrying out their statutory responsibilities under the Food and Drugs Act 1955 and subordinate hygiene regulations by requiring traders selling unpackaged food from a stall or container to register themselves and the storage premises with the district or London borough council. Registration provides the council with basic identifying information by which to trace and advise traders.
  Clauses 18 to 20 amend existing legislation relating to highways. Clause 18 and schedule 4 repeal and re-enact with modifications section 213 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 by inserting a new part into the Highways Act 1980. Section 213 presently empowers a local authority to carry out works, place objects or structures, provide facilities for recreation or refreshment, and plant lawns, trees, and so on, on highways pedestrianised under section 212 of the 1971 Act. The Bill extends this power to other forms of highway over which there is preponderantly a right of way on foot only, and empowers authorities to permit other persons to provide amenities.
  As to clause 19, the appropriate authority may at present require persons responsible for premises bordering highways to prevent water from the premises from falling on passers-by and from flowing over the footway. In the interests of road safety, the clause extends this provision to include the carriageway and will, for example, enable local authorities to reduce the risk of ice forming on the roads in cold weather.
  As regards clause 20, consent is required for certain forms of construction under any street in Greater London or under the carriageway alone elsewhere. The clause requires prior consent for any part of a building under any part of any street and will enable the authority giving consent to satisfy itself that, when constructed, the part of the building under the street will support the street and the vehicles and their loads using it.
  Clauses 21 to 25 deal with public health. Clause 21 reenacts section 56 of the Public Health Act 1936 and extends to industrial and commercial premises existing powers of a local authority under that section to require courts, yards and passages abutting dwellings to be paved and drained.
  Clause 22 amends section 92(1)(d) of the Public Health Act 1936 and section 16(1) of the Clean Air Act 1956 to enable the local authority to use its statutory nuisance powers for the protection of any person—not just inhabitants—from nuisance.
  Clause 23 re-enacts sections 17 and 18 of the Public Health Act 1961 and extends to waste pipes existing powers of a local authority under the sections in relation to drains. The financial limits on the cost of repairs to drains and remission of charges are increased to take account of inflation.
  Clause 24 re-enacts and extends section 29 of the Public Health Act 1961 to enable a local authority to serve notice of its requirements on persons demolishing a building before the demolition starts. At present, a person may demolish a building before a local authority has had time
  908
  to make known its requirements in the interests of safety and so on. There is also no requirement at present for a person intending to demolish to notify adjoining owners.
  Clause 25 enables a local authority to secure unoccupied premises against unauthorised entry, or to prevent them becoming a danger to public health, if they are not effectively secured against such entry or are likely to become such a danger. Insecure buildings are often subject to unauthorised entry by thieves, vandals, vagrants and children.
  Clause 26 re-enacts and extends section 126 of the Housing Act 1974 to enable a local authority to enforce a positive covenant against the covenantor's successors in title where the authority entered into the original agreement to facilitate the use of land rather than its development.
  Clause 27, which by an oversight, for which I apologise, was omitted from the explanatory memorandum, amends the Local Land Charges Act 1975 to allow local authorities to keep local land charges registers otherwise than in documentary form, for example by computer.
  Clause 28 enables a district council or London borough council, if it so resolves, to require a person holding a temporary market and the occupier of the land to give to the local authority at least one month's prior notice so that it may make whatever arrangements it may deem necessary.
  Clause 29 enables a local authority to insure unpaid assistants against accident and illness.
  Clause 30 enables a local authority to dispose of lost and uncollected property after giving at least one month's notice to the owner or depositor.
  I believe that all that adds up to a useful package. I commend the measure to the House.
  4.35 pm
  Dr. Shirley Summerskill: I appreciate the way in which the Minister has led us carefully through the Bill. I can say at the outset that all my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), who I am glad to see with us, can give a welcome to this useful Bill. It contains an assortment of colourful miscellaneous provisions typical of the Home Office ranging from tattooing and take-away food to ear piercing and the repair of drains.
  I commend the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) on his astute observation that perhaps the Bill contains an extension of powers, yet his hon. Friend the Minister seemed to deny that. In the explanatory memorandum the fourth line specifically says:
  "It extends the powers of local authorities".
  There is no doubt that the Bill does that.
  It is both regrettable and ironic that a Bill that has as one of its aims the extension of powers of local authorities is being introduced when the Government have never been more unpopular with local authorities. By tightening their financial control over local authorities, the Government are now forcing them to do less and not more for the ratepayers. I shall return to the financial aspects of the Bill.
  My impression of the Bill is that it is both useful and uncontroversial, along the lines of its 1976 predecessor. The Minister states reassuringly that most of the provisions cover matters already dealt with in local Acts in force in many areas of England and Wales. However, the uncontroversial nature of the Bill has generated the

  909
  dissatisfaction of no lesser bodies than the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils. Their complaints are not about the content of so much as the omissions from the Bill.
  The Association of County Councils has stated that during the last four years it has been in discussion with the Department of the Environment about the contents of the Bill. It has asked for a number of clauses to be included, all of which were well precedented, but the Department saw fit not to include them on various grounds such as that they were too controversial or that it opposed them on policy grounds.
  The association, I believe, perhaps through hon. Members, will press for the introduction of new clauses in Committee. It will continue to urge upon the Ministers during the passage of the Bill that, in the interests of saving not only parliamentary time but local authority money and manpower, those clauses should be included.
  Over the last four years the Association of County Councils has discussed no fewer than 196 different items with Government Departments. I have a list of them here. Apparently all failed to be included in the Bill. Presumably if they cannot be included in the Bill, the association will try to include them in the next Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Who knows how far away that might be?
  There is also opposition on the same grounds from the Association of District Councils. It describes a glaring omission from the Bill—the failure to include powers for district councils to assist industry and commerce. They need adequate legal powers to promote and encourage existing and new local industry, especially small firms. Surely the Government will agree that that should receive top priority at this time of severe economic crisis and unemployment.
  It is a great concern in the association that the Government have not yet reached decisions on the Burns report, which is a review of the role of local authorities in assisting industry and commerce. There is great uncertainty about the Government's intentions within local authorities and how they should proceed on those matters. Will the Minister tell us whether general powers legislation is ever to be introduced on those matters? If it is to be introduced, can we be told when it is to be expected, so that at least the local authorities can have some idea about if and when they can assist industry? They are in an impossible situation at the moment because they have no powers under the Bill and they do not know whether any will be forthcoming.
  I support the criticisms which I believe will be made by other hon. Members during the debate about what is excluded from and included in the Bill. I shall give two examples of problems where there have been public calls for legislation, but legislation has not been forthcoming from the Labour Government or from the present Government. I shall mention areas where local authority powers rather than Government legislation might be a more appropriate method of dealing with the matter. No doubt hon. Members will give their own examples of items which they believe could be included. I shall give just two examples.
  910
  The first example is the sale of pets. There is increasing public concern and concern among animal welfare organisations about the inadequate controls on street traders and in markets on the sale of pets.
  The second example, which is of concern to the Home Office specifically, is the problem of glue sniffing. It is not predominant or rampant over the whole of Britain, but it is a very serious problem in certain areas. This is a Home Office responsibility. There is increasing evidence that this serious practice is spreading among young people in some areas and it is known to take place, to some extent, in my constituency. It can cause and has caused the deaths of young people and its seriousness should not be underestimated. The problem should not be dismissed as a passing craze or fashion. We do not know enough about its incidence because it is not illegal and therefore, presumably, is not reported or the subject of Home Office figures.
  There is an early-day motion on the Order Paper at the moment asking the Home Secretary to legislate on this, but he has so far resisted it. The answer is always given that we should educate young people about the dangers of solvent sniffing and that teachers, social workers, youth organisers, the police and parents have that responsibility, not the Government. It is right that that education should take place, but Calderdale council, which covers Halifax, has formed a working party to formulate a byelaw banning the sale of glue to those under 16. It is believed to be the first move by a council to implement local legislation to halt glue sniffing. A working party has been set up which includes councillors, environmental health officers, social services officers, teachers, the area health authority and the police. They are trying to draw up the byelaw, but it is extremely time-consuming for that authority or any other authority. It is also an extremely expensive exercise. In view of the refusal of the Home Secretary to legislate nationally, I should be interested to hear the views of the Government about the appropriateness of this subject for inclusion, if not in this miscellaneous provisions Bill, then in a future Bill.
  We understand that part I of the Bill is a mandatory provision. We accept that, although we would ask the Minister two questions. Has it been the experience since 1965 in Greater London, where similar provisions have operated, that if a local authority is itself engaged in the promotion of a public entertainment there is a conflict of interest? Is not the local authority judge in its own cause? What has been the experience with regard to this problem, given the extension of the law which is now to take place?
  Secondly, the Minister was not very clear as to why there should be exceptions for open-air events. In this respect, the Greater London model upon which the code is based is not being followed. I listened carefully to the Minister's opening speech, but I did not understand why the needs of places outside London should be different and why there should be exceptions for open-air events.
  Part II of the Bill, which deals with the control of street trading, is to be welcomed as street trading may annoy residents and other shopkeepers and cause difficulty of access for vehicles.
  We also agree with part III of the Bill, dealing with the control of refreshment premises, as disturbance to neighbours from such premises is a growing problem in some areas. The powers will therefore be welcomed, as will the powers under part IV relating to fire precautions.

  911
  Part VII provides the possibility for a local authority to require people carrying out acupuncture, tattooing, ear-piercing or electrolysis to register themselves and their premises and to ensure the cleanliness of the conditions in which those activities are conducted. I gather from the Minister's explanation that this does not mean that people carrying on such activities must be registered or that their premises must registered. It is simply a discretionary power available to the local authority in any particular area.
  I wish to put to the Minister the possible consequences of that. If there is no byelaw, presumably anybody can set up and practise these professions—"activities" might be a better label—so if he is caught by a byelaw in one area he can simply move to an area where there is no byelaw and continue to practise there. I believe that, even if there is a byelaw, it is too late to act after the event—the event being what the Minister calls the risk of infection, but what I would call the risk of serious disease. I shall return to that in a moment. A byelaw does not prevent people from moving to another area where there is no byelaw and spreading serious disease there.
  The health hazards of tattooing and acupuncture are extremely serious. The "infection" to which the Minister refers is an outbreak of viral hepatitis, which may be fatal. Indeed, the problems of serious outbreaks of that disease caused by tattooing and acupuncture have been raised in the House over the years. There was a serious epidemic in Birmingham, and one of my hon. Friends described another which was caused by acupuncture. Such outbreaks are due to unsterilised or infected needles. At present, there are several hundred tattooists and several hundred people practising acupuncture in Britain. Despite the inclusion of this provision, anybody could still set up in undesirable premises and unhygienic conditions and spread the disease simply by moving to an area which has no byelaws. If any provisions in the Bill should be mandatory, this is one. It should not be discretionary.
  The same applies to part VII, which deals with the control of the sale of food. People who sell from a container or stall food that is not so packaged as to exclude all possibility of contamination may be obliged by the local authority to register. The local authority may oblige them to register, but it does not have to do so. Again, therefore, if a person wishes to sell food which has the possibility of being contaminated he can simply move to an area where there is no byelaw.
  I should like to be assured that the registration of a person selling food will be followed up with adequate inspection measures. Registration on its own will not decontaminate the food or make it completely safe to consume. How does someone qualify for registration? Do adequate inspection arrangements exist to ensure that someone is a fit and suitable person to sell the food? Can we be sure that the food will not be at risk of contamination?
  Local authorities are short of money and staff. What incentive is there to adopt these powers if local authorities have no means of enforcing them? There is an increasing incidence, especially in towns, of people selling food or drink other than water in open containers that could well be contaminated. That practice seems to be spreading, not only to shops that are not covered by the Bill but also to people selling from stalls or barrows.
  I can understand the reason for making certain powers discretionary. A local authority might need to enforce
  912
  many of the powers in a particular area. On the other hand, another area might not require those powers. But a basic minimum national standard of public health should apply to the population as a whole; otherwise people in one town could be at risk of viral hepatitis or contaminated food whereas they would not be at risk in another town. We are not talking here about public services. We are discussing the protection of the public from the possibility of harmful practitioners and contaminated food. Serious consequences could arise if a local authority failed to implement the powers contained in those two parts of the Bill.
  The Minister was unclear about which powers were mandatory and which discretionary. He said that only one or two were mandatory. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but as I read the Bill it looks as if only two parts are mandatory—part I, which covers the licensing of public entertainments, and clause 7, which deals with fire precautions. Are any other parts of the Bill mandatory? Why have only part I and clause 7 been made mandatory? How does the Minister decide what is to be mandatory and what is to be discretionary? What criteria were used? It does not seem consistent or logical to make part I and clause 7 mandatory when the public health parts of the Bill are not.
  Has any study been made of the way in which the byelaw powers in parts VII and VIII are operating in some areas? Are they effective? How many cases have been discovered of people operating without a licence or contravening conditions of their licence? It would be useful to have more information about how the byelaws have been operating, and whether they have been effective before deciding to put them on the statute book in a local government Bill.
  I now turn to the financial effects of the Bill. At a time when local authorities are being hit by Government financial limits and when ratepayers are rebelling against further increases, these new powers will not be adopted by local authorities if they involve extra cost unless there are extremely compelling reasons for doing so. The explanatory memorandum says that any cost involved in extra administrative work
  "will normally fall on the person whose activities are being regulated rather than on the ratepayer".
  Is that not over-optimistic? We are told that a local authority may determine a reasonable fee for licence or registration that will finance the use of these powers. What does the Minister consider to be a reasonable fee?
  We are told that the fee will pay for all the administrative work involved. I suspect that the money from such fees will not cover all the work involved. A licence or registration is not an end in itself, but rather a means to an end. If it is to be effective, it involves subsequent supervision and inspection of the practitioners and premises. It involves the supervision of places of public entertainment, take-away food shops and stalls, late-night refreshment houses, the premises of tattooists, acupuncturists and so on. We must ensure that the terms and conditions of the licence and registration are upheld. We must also ensure that unregistered and unlicensed people do not run a business. We must make sure that people observe the byelaws, otherwise there will he no point in having these powers to protect the public.
  Additional people will be required, first, to issue the licence or check registration; secondly, to follow that up

  913
  with powers of inspection; and, thirdly, to deal with any complaints. We are told that all this will be paid for by the licence or registration fee.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does the hon. Lady accept that after we license stables or dog kennels someone from the public health department and the fire service must visit regularly? These inspectors carry out work at present. Presumably, they will take on a little extra work. We may have to increase their establishment levels. However, if the charges are similar to those in South Yorkshire, it is possible that local government will be able to recoup the cost. I doubt whether these proposals will cost the ratepayer more money.
  Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman said that this will involve a little extra work. How does he know? That is what I am asking the Government. Have they carried out a work-cost exercise to discover how the byelaws are operating at present? These powers are to be extended to other local authorities. Why are the Government so sure that the licence and registration fees will cover the additional work and activity that will be involved? I am asking for the evidence on which their assumption is based.
  It seems to me to be wishful thinking for the Government to say that this will all be paid for out of the registration and licence fee. The alternative is that, rather than risk incurring more expenditure or taking on more staff, thus incurring the wrath of the Government or its ratepayers, a local authority may say "Oh well, we will not adopt these powers". That would be regrettable, because the powers are important.
  I am grateful to the Department for providing me with notes on clauses. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) introduced a similar measure in 1976 during his time at the Department of the Environment, he arranged for all the members of the Committee to be given full notes on clauses in order to speed the passage of that legislation. I hope that the same generous facility will be provided by the Government this time. This is an extremely detailed Bill, with 33 clauses and six schedules. I assure the House that it will need careful examination in Committee.
  5 pm
  Mr. Marcus Fox: I listened carefully to the two opening speeches and, although there may be disagreement on whether or not the Bill extends powers, there seems to be unanimity about the fact that it is non-controversial. I hate to say, at such an early stage in the consideration of the Bill, that I take exception to clause 3.
  Of course I understand that we would not wish the time of the House to be taken up with local Bills promoted by local authorities, but it is essential from time to time that in a Bill with miscellaneous provisions we should try to draw together certain proposals, Acts of Parliament or whatever for the general benefit of all. However, it has not been the practice in a Bill with miscellaneous provisions to break new ground or to include controversial matters. The yardstick must be that such Bills are not a means of extending legislation into new areas. If we do that, the time of the House will be taken up more considerably than the powers-that-be might expect.
  914
  Let us not forget—I reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths)—that the Government are not in business to extend legislation any further than is necessary. I remember that we were promised last Session that there would be a diminution in the flow of legislation during this Session. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will make a little room, by removing clause 3 before the Bill gets through its Committee stage, and allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment the time that he will need to introduce far more important measures on industrial relations and trade union reform.
  In part III, clause 3 deals with take-away food shops. Not long ago that industry could have been described as a cottage industry. It would not be described as such in Yorkshire and the North because it includes fish and chip shops. In the old days that was a staple diet, and it is still a staple diet for many of my constituents. In those days fish and chips shops were the only take-away food shops, but the take-away trade is now big business and it is probably the fastest growing sector in catering. I do not need to repeat names such as Wimpy, McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Chinese take-aways, not to mention Indian take-aways, to remind the House that in every town and city those establishments exist. There are about 10,000 fish and chip shops and about 10,000 other outlets in the fast food industry. They are small businesses that the Government are pledged to support. The people who run those businesses have immense capital tied up in them and anything that the House does should take account of that.
  The numbers employed are not minuscule. To remind myself this week, I went along Victoria Street and popped into a certain take-away and counted the number of people employed there. Ten people were working at 9.30 that evening. I enjoyed a pleasant meal for 96p. The bigger take-away food shops employ on average 10 people. If we multiply that figure by the number of outlets, the numbers employed could be over 100,000 and possibly over 200,000. There is also scope for many more jobs and it is in our interest to ensure that in the service industries there should be no bar on expansion that would result in unemployment. Of course, we should also bear in mind that noise, nuisance and litter concern us all and I would not seek to minimise the need to impose strict disciplines in that area.
  Clause 3 would allow a district council to close takeaway food shops if "unreasonable" disturbance is caused by their customers. I am worried about the word "unreasonable". In my experience of district councils that word could be used more extensively than the Government hope and, if that were the case, many people would be put out of business.
  In the Opposed Private Bill Committee on the West Midlands County Council Bill on Wednesday 21 March 1979 a Mrs. Young was asked about her opening hours. She said:
  "We open from 5 p.m. to 12 midnight from Mondays to Thursdays and on Fridays and Saturdays we open from 12 dinner time to 2 and then from 5 p.m to 1 a.m."
  Under further questioning she was asked whether she could tell the committee the sort of people who used her shop and, in particular, the people who used it late in the evening—from 10 o'clock onwards. She said that when the pubs closed people came in to buy take-away food. She spoke about shift workers, policemen and taxi drivers. She said that 50 per cent. of her takings were made after 11

  915
  p.m. That is not unusual. The vast majority of those shops take far more after 11 p.m. than before, and some even later, after 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. She was asked whether she would be able to stay in business if the restrictions—they were the same in that Bill as in this—were imposed. She said that she would not be able to survive and that her business would go bankrupt.
  That is not unique. A minority of residents may have a field day at the expense of some well-established businesses that try to provide a first-class service and are extremely conscious of the need to make their customers behave decently in terms of litter and noise. But surely the House will understand that, once people leave those premises, their behaviour on the street is not necessarily controlled by the owner of the premises—just as in licensed premises. Once people have had their final drink and have moved outside the pub, the licensee cannot be held responsible in any way for their actions. It may be said that in terms of the amount of drink consumed the licensee has a responsibility, but no one could seriously say that blame could be directed towards the owners of take-away shops.
  I am not sure that giving these powers to local councils will have the minimum effect that the Government believe. I have suggested that the legislation will inhibit further expansion, and perhaps jobs that would have been created will not be created. Who would risk putting large sums of money into ventures of this sort when a local council could order them to close at 11 p.m. and no later?
  I know, in my constituency and from my observations, that the busiest times are considerably later. If powers are given, local authorities will, I believe, use them. Hon. Members should not assume that powers put on the statute book will be used only occasionally. I believe that many officials are longing for these powers in order to go into action straight away.
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and, should I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to make this point. Many of my constituents are anxious that local authorities should have these powers and that they should make use of them. Those constituents have been making such representations to me for a number of years.
  Mr. Fox: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I hope to prove to him that already, under existing planning laws, powers are available to councils to take action in this respect.
  Clause 3 in particular is misguided. I am opposed to controls that go far beyond what is customary in a Bill of this kind. Hon. Members will know the principle involved in such Bills. They are controversial but the principle has been accepted in previous private Bills. Over the past six years, hon. Members have repeatedly rejected similar clauses to that proposed. I refer to various county council Bills. A classic case is the West Midlands County Council Bill which came before the House in March 1979. This sought to introduce identical legislation for closing hours. It was rejected by the Opposed Private Bill Committee.
  Existing planning controls contain adequate provisions to deal with the sort of nuisance that occurs from time to time. It is strange that the provisions of the Bill have been circulated for comment since early this year among local authorities. No such formal steps have been taken in respect of the people who will be drastically affected by
  916
  the Bill's proposals. I refer particularly to the take-away and fast food industry. If one wants an example of one-sided consultation, I would have thought that this was it.
  I have always believed that local government will never be satisfied with the powers it possesses. It will always seek more. The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) gave the proof. She said that the county councils were not satisfied with what they had been given and wanted more. We should beware of giving our consent to people who are never satisfied on this respect. I cannot help but think that Ministers, in preparing the Bill, thought that it would go through on the nod. I hope that I have managed to disabuse them of that idea.
  I wish to talk about planning safeguards and to refer to what Sir Frank Layfield has said. Sir Frank stated:
  "If planning permission is necessary and is sought, the local planning authority may grant permission 'subject to such conditions as they see fit.' However, the conditions must be thought to be 'fit' from a planning point of view. Conditions restricting the time of opening may be validly imposed."
  In allowing an appeal for a change of use from a cafe to a take-away food shop in a certain case,
  "a condition was imposed requiring that the shop should not remain open after midnight or re-open before 9 am".
  Sir Frank further said:
  "Similar conditions may be imposed limiting the duration of the permission in order to enable the local planning authority to judge whether the intended development has adverse effects on the neighbourhood."
  Finally, in evidence before the Committee on the East Sussex Bill on Wednesday 24 June 1981, Sir Frank said:
  "As far as take-away establishments are concerned, they can readily be regulated in one of two ways, First of all, if a consent is to be granted for new premises, it needs planning permission. Not only do the borough know that"
  but also
  "they can impose conditions relating to hours. In cases where there is a pre-existing planning permission, that is one which either was given before this kind of problem became known or became serious, or where there is an existing use, the borough council have powers to modify and if they have a proper case they will obtain a modification order. In my submission there are no grounds at all for thinking that any serious problem arises in relation to imposing a legitimate and proper limitation of hours where that can be properly established in the particular facts of the case."
  This Bill will make easier the closing down of well-run premises. I cannot believe that the Government intend that the Bill should lead to this result. With rate increases, rises in fuel prices, not to mention coping with inflation, the retention of clause 3 in the Bill means that the life will be snuffed out of many hundreds of small businesses. The Minister may say hat this will only apply in a few cases. I would say to him "How do you know?" With the powers that will be given to district councils, I take the opposite view. It will be all too easy. For that reason, I wish to oppose that clause.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall speak briefly despite the fact that there seems to be an absence of pressure on the Opposition side for time to be allocated. I wish to deal with part VII which relates to acupuncture, tattooing, ear-piercing and electrolysis. This is a discretionary part of the Bill. The growth of tattooing and ear-piercing has caused concern because it is an interference with the body. One wonders whether the interference is carried out with scrupulous regard for cleanliness and health. This part of the Bill is designed to remedy any omissions in that regard.

  917
  If it is important, there is no reason why it should be discretionary. Local authorities are finding extreme difficulty in meeting the burden of providing and maintaining existing services. The likelihood is that, because this part of the Bill is discretionary, local authorities will avoid passing resolutions to bring the measures into force.
  If this part of the Bill is worth while—in other words, if there is a quantifiable health risk, which presumably there is, or the Home Office would not have made the proposal—it should have been made a requirement upon local authorities. If it were made a requirement, there would seem to be some cost involved, contrary to what is stated in the explanatory memorandum.
  The Government should have faced up to the matter and given some sort of financial commitment to ensure that the health risks were eradicated by the action of the local authority. If the argument is that this cannot be afforded, all I can say is that, if there is a real health risk, anything that eradicates a deterioration in health is in the long term of benefit to the nation through the savings on National Health Service expenditure. A long-term benefit would therefore be met in the short term by a slight additional increase in cost. I should like the Minister to explain why this part of the Bill was included and why it is discretionary.
  The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) has brought to our attention clause 3 relating to the control of refreshment premises and take-away food shops. The hon. Gentleman exaggerated his case by suggesting that local authorities consist of zealots eager to apply all sorts of legislation in an attempt to suppress the activities of people within their area. I do not think that he is right.
  I entirely endorse the view that an important take-away food shop—at least in West Yorkshire, and certainly the one with the best standards—is the fish and chip shop. In most areas, though probably not all, fish and chips are excellent food at a reasonable price, contrary to the rumour put about by one hon. Gentleman. I should not want legislation to interfere with this well-established, much-admired and much-used institution in urban areas in my constituency and in the rest of West Yorkshire.
  However, the hon. Member for Shipley exaggerates the case about the growth of take-away premises—not fish and chip shops, which have been with us for many years and provide an extremely useful service. There has been a growth of take-away premises and there are cases which involve a conflict between the services that they provide and the peace that is enjoyed by the neighbours to such establishments. The legislation proposes a means of resolving that conflict by means of an order taken out by the local authority.
  I may have reservations about clause 3(3), which specifies 11 o'clock as the time at which closing orders should commence—perhaps that should be advanced to midnight—but the Bill contains an apparatus for resolving the conflicts that sometimes arise. I suppose that I cannot quarrel with an attempt to resolve such conflicts, because as Members of Parliament we have all received representations about activities which invade people's peace and the enjoyment of their homes.
  I want to enter a qualification about the method of appeal. Once the district council has served the order there is a right of appeal to the magistrates' court. I have doubts
  918
  about a system of resolving a conflict which has a right of appeal by entry into the legal system, however. The appeal from the magistrates' court is to the Crown court under clause 4(11). When bodies enter our legal system, involving the potential cost of representation, the larger organisation always has the advantage. If the magistrates' court gave a decision which a local authority did not like, that authority would be much more likely to have the means for financing an appeal than would the ordinary shopkeeper.
  So, in my view, it is reasonable to ask the Government to have another look at the means of appeal. Certainly there should be a means of appeal, but there is a whole host of appeals which are deliberately kept out of the legal system because of the potential cost that is involved. In matters involving supplementary benefit claims, for example, it is not necessary to go to court. There is a system of tribunals for that purpose. For planning appeals there is a system of appeal to the Minister, and they can be dealt with by an exchange of correspondence. No cost is involved, and people who are nervous do not have to appear before a court. Such a system of appeal might well be considered in this legislation instead of the method that is set out in clause 4.
  My final point concerns an omission from the legislation. It concerns a discretionary power of local authorities which has existed for many years and which is specifically exempt from the Bill. For example, clause 9(11) which relates to firemen specifically excludes reference to a licence under the Cinematograph Acts 1909 and 1952, and schedule 1 says:
  "Nothing in this Schedule shall affect … section 7 of the Cinematograph Act 1952".
  In a Bill of this sort I should have thought that the Home Office could exclude from local authority powers the exhibition of cinematograph films. Those powers are rarely used, and when they are they are used in a way which, by and large, invites ridicule.
  I am referring to the powers in connection with fire control and licensing under which some local authorities, on rare occasions, have a rush of blood to the head and decide that a film will corrupt and deprave the citizens. So a group of councillors, no doubt receiving an attendance allowance, go to see a film and emerge, amazingly enough, without being depraved and corrupted. It is not the councillors, but all the other people who see the film who will be depraved and corrupted.
  That has not happened for some time, but several years ago it happened in Keighley, when the film "Emmanuelle" was shown and the council decided that it would deprave and corrupt. The council told the cinema manager to withdraw it, although it had been shown 12 months earlier without any noticeably corrupting effects on the population.
  Another absurdity was that the film was shown a few miles away in Skipton soon afterwards. Of course, that involved a different local authority which was entitled to its view. Because of the differing views of local authorities, this kind of censorship has been brought into disrepute where it has been exercised. The practice has died down because of the outcry and because people started asking questions about the cost of councillors eagerly queueing up to see these films.
  In a Bill of this type I should have thought that that duty could be removed, and a clause could be included simply establishing the British Board of Film Censors as a body

  919
  which could provide for a film a certificate which could be accepted by a local authority. It would mean that the British Board of Film Censors, which is essentially a trade organisation, was strengthened by representatives of the public at large, appointed by the Minister. It would be seen not purely as a trade organisation, but as a public body. That would retain its independence and ensure that the Home Office could not he accused of censoring all films through a subordinate group. There are a number of bodies which we regard as independent and whose reputations are beyond question. There is no reason why the British Board of Film Censors cannot be established in such a way, thus removing this anomaly.
  For example, the Home Office still sends out model licensing conditions for cinemas, and they have to be adhered to as conditions for the cinematic exhibitors' licence which is granted by the local authority. I initiated an Adjournment debate on the matter on 22 July 1976, when the Home Office spokesman promised that the matter would be looked at. One of the conditions was that
  "No improper character, prostitute, reputed thief, or other notoriously disorderly person shall be knowingly admitted into or permitted to remain in the licensed premises."
  That is a vague and antique definition, and it is time that it was overhauled. In any case, it would probably be in breach of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act if the cinema manager suddenly told someone that he thought that he was a "reputed thief". It is an anachronistic phrase. I am sure that, in view of what I said in the Adjournment debate in 1976, the Home Office is aware of the matter. At the time, it was to mull over the proposition. It has been mulling over it for the past five years. The Bill is designed to tidy up the position and to discard some of the otiose legislation that exists. Therefore, the Home Office could have considered including such a provision in the Bill, and I am disappointed that it has not done so. I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: There was a moment earlier when I wondered whether I was in the right debate. It seemed like a textile debate, with the hon. Members for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Mr. Fox), for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) and for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) in the Chamber. That is a good show for Yorkshire.
  There is probably a good reason why we are all here. First, Yorkshire is the home of street traders, whom the public seem to love. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, there are many take-away premises in that part of the country and they are enjoyed. Clause 2 deals with traders. It is right to introduce codes and to extend the powers of local authorities, following the Local Government Act 1972. Many local authorities are seeking such powers and they will get them cheaper if they are extended collectively, by the Government, than if local authorities apply independently.
  The public are always mystified and puzzled about street traders. There are several types of street trader, particularly in the North and around London. There are two extremes. Some street traders are licensed by their local authorities and they trade in what are known as "licensed streets". Such traders are popular, and long may
  920
  they remain. When customers purchase goods from them, they know that the traders will be there if they wish to return them for any reason. People love their street traders.
  At the other extreme there is the fly-by-night who deals from a suitcase and is nothing but a rogue. When customers purchase an umbrella from him they usually find that it blows inside out in the wind. Although I am not an expert on ladies' wear, I am assured that people have purchased tights with one leg 6 ins shorter than the other.
  Mr. Cryer: Someone has been pulling the hon. Gentleman's leg again!
  Mr. Dickens: Of course, that trader will not be in his place the next day, when he is wanted. Hon. Members should be wary of street traders because Christmas is approaching and such traders will be all over the place. Between the extremes there are so-called streets of consent—[Interruption.] At the risk of going into the details—[Interruption.] I must press on with this responsible contribution. Streets of consent need the consent of the local authority. However, there is the disadvantage that areas for stalls cannot be designated in the streets. Therefore, it is not such an orderly system as the licence system.
  Ultimately, the public could be protected if street traders were registered for VAT. Some of them might claim that they did not earn enough money to pay VAT. That does not matter. If they are registered, they must stand examination of their books. The production of that certificate would satisfy the public that they are bona fide traders. That would also help in terms of the local authority examination. The Minister might like to consider that idea, but I do not put if forward for inclusion in the Bill.
  As the Bill explains, clause 1 covers the following aspects:
  "public entertainments involving music, dancing, boxing, wrestling".
  As we have heard, those provisions have been in existence since 1965 in the GLC area and they seem to working well. I can see no dispute about them. Such provisions are welcome.
  Clause 3 is a variation of the Late Night Refreshment Houses Act 1969. It deals with the closing hours of refreshment premises. I am sorry that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. The purpose of the legislation is to give the district power to make a closing order. However, such orders will be made only if establishments are causing a nuisance or a disturbance. That often happens with premises that trade very late at night. They start as modest, sensible establishments for take-away food, but their popularity gradually grows and cars leave public houses en route for the take-away shop. Car doors bang late at night, rubbish is strewn all over the pavements and cans are kicked around. We seek only a provision to enable local residents to protest.
  There are protections. The provision extends only to those premises that open between 11 pm and 5 am. The Bill seeks to give a form of protection that would last for three years. It would be possible to close a premises or to make a variation of the conditions. If applied, the order could even be revoked. As a further safeguard, there is an appeals structure. Therefore, local authorities will not be too heavy handed. Where they have cause for complaint, local residents will be up in arms. If they have such cause for complaint, it must be asked whether the disturbance is

  921
  reasonable and whether the residents should have to tolerate it. Therefore, the legislation is sensible and there is nothing wrong with it.
  The Bill does not provide for any central Government expenditure. That is probably why the Opposition are not too excited about it and have been co-operative. I was most impressed by the contribution made by the hon. Member for Halifax. It was a statesmanlike speech from the Opposition Front Bench and I enjoyed listening to it. However, I did not agree with her about local government having to fork out money for such things. In my intervention, I sought to point out that inspectors, such as public health inspectors, often go to refreshment and dining establishments in the course of their work to ensure that standards are being maintained and so on. While they are there they can check about the licence.
  Therefore, there is no great financial consideration other than that it will probably save local government money if they do not apply for separate legislation. I hope that many local authorities will withdraw their applications and rely on the Bill. I shall not speak further as many hon. Members are dying to make contributions. I do not want hon. Members to be here all night. I think that I have made my points rather well and I shall leave it at that.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Michael Newbert: I shall present my credentials for entering into the arcane arguments occasioned by the debate on the Bill. I should like—this week at least—to say that I am a former leader and mayor of the London borough of Bromley. Given that council's enterprise, anyone connected with the borough is—at least until Friday of this week—a folk hero in Greater London. I should like some of the credit to rub off on me.
  In that capacity I have been privileged to become a member and vice-president of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I declare that interest, although it involves no financial remuneration other than the opportunity, once a year, of taking cocktails with the leaders of Labour authorities throughout the country. My greatest qualification for entering the debate must be my service on the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1976. I mention that, not to give an impression of continuity in this sphere, but to show those whose purpose in the House is to observe such things that I regard my membership of that Committee in 1976 as a short service commission rather than as my lifetime's career.
  I have described my qualifications for taking part in the debate. The Bill is important in many ways to the people likely to be affected by it. I shall make some points of direct relevance to my constituency. We in Greater London have enjoyed the provisions of the legislation that is now to be extended, under clause 1, to councils outside London.
  I should like to make a point about the use of discotheques in public houses. In the Rush Green Tavern in my constituency a large number of young people assemble virtually every night, often in unruly circumstances, and cause disturbance, distress, irritation and offence to nearby law-abiding neighbours. To my astonishment, discotheques are not controlled by licence. The control of drinking by people who are over age is controlled by the granting of a justices full on-licence,
  922
  where no extension of hours is involved, but the discotheque, which has obvious attractions for young people and brings in larger numbers than the public house can cope with, is not the subject of a music licence. It is not necessary to have a music licence to provide disco entertainment.
  That is not the only omission from the Bill, where modern practices are not matched by innovations in the legislation. Disco entertainment is similar to the activities that are involved in the granting of a music and dancing licence and they should therefore be included and brought more closely within the law. More control should be exercised and is called for.
  Clause 14 gives councils the power to require proper hygienic conditions for the practice of tattooing, ear-piercing or electrolysis. These are rather exotic activities, but none the less are to be found in most towns, and certainly in my constituency. I wonder whether these activities have been selected by chance. Other treatment such as hair transplants—here I declare an interest—are closely allied to tattooing and are similar in that they involve piercing the skin. There are therefore the same dangers. Are these practices covered by the legislation, and, if not, should they not be so?
  Yet another recent innovation is that of sunbeds, which provide a treatment for the beautification of women.
  Dr. Sununerskill: And men.
  Mr. Newbert: I am told by the hon. Lady that men also use them. The use of sunbeds is not properly controlled. They are an innovation that may have dangerous side effects about which we know little. They can be purchased by hair or beauty salons and used by their employees, who have no medical qualification to enable them to ensure that they are used properly.
  Clause 27 relates to temporary markets, which are another modern-day nuisance. If hon. Members wish to understand some of the problems associated with these markets they can go to Buckingham Palace Road on a Sunday, where an offensive display of notices attracts people to a market which has recently started and which has not received the necessary permission.
  Efforts to make money are to be commended as enterprise, but they must be within limits. The street trading provisions in the Bill emphasise that people who endeavour to earn a livelihood must not do so in a way that causes nuisance to other law-abiding citizens. The market to which I refer, which is close to Westminster, obviously causes a nuisance.
  I also accept in part the argument of the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) that the Government are not being very ambitious or adventurous in the Bill. Five years have elapsed since the last similar Bill. The Government have had plenty of time to introduce measures that might have merit.
  The Minister says in connection with clause 10 that it is obvious that it is no longer necessary to register theatrical employers who decamp without paying their employees. That provision presumably goes back to the days of the great actor-managers. Now that Donald Wolfit is dead, it is thought that such a provision on the statute book is no longer necessary. However, that is not an exciting or courageous move when so many other things need to be done.
  That brings me to my most substantial point, which relates not so much to what the Bill contains but to what

  923
  it might have contained if the Government had been more concerned to take responsibility for combating dangerous practices, or practices that cause annoyance and irritation, instead of leaving that responsibility to local councils. I refer in particular to two controversial matters. The first is the question of sex shops—and my hon. Friend the Minister knows about them as the Minister responsible, if in no other connection. The second matter is glue sniffing.
  Whatever one's views, it is clear that the Government cannot escape responsibility for considering the implications of the two issues and what action should be taken. Sex shops were thought to be a planning matter and therefore the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. Responsibility has now been passed to the Home Office for control by licensing. In turn, the Home Office has suggested to me and to other hon. Members who receive much correspondence from constituents that the problem should be the subject of a private Bill introduced by the Greater London Council.
  I am not persuaded that it is right to let a local authority, however powerful and resourceful, be the stalking horse for that controversial issue. The Government should accept responsibility for sex shops and glue sniffing and introduce legislation to control them. No single local authority can hope to have the resources or the knowledge required to make legislation that would, after all, affect the whole country. It goes without saying that sex is not confined to Greater London. It is to be found in most parts of the country. Glue sniffing is certainly a problem where I live and in ray constituency, and it is widespread elsewhere too.
  That the Calderdale council has to introduce a byelaw forbidding the sale of solvents to those under 16 represents a dereliction of duty by the Government. Helpful though it might be to the citizens of Calderdale, many others would like to benefit from such a law. That is possible only under legislation that applies to the whole of the United Kingdom.
  On the question of sex shops—a curious and distasteful concept—I believe that for them to be springing up everywhere with no control on their location causes offence to many people. Offence is caused in particular to parents of young children when in a street of shops selling food and other essentials one shop sells the impedimenta of sex.
  We have been concerned in recent months to remove offensive publications in newsagent shops from the public eye, especially children's eyes. We are apparently less concerned about the equipment and other material that is made the subject of commercial exploitation in a way that goes beyond what any of us would regard as reasonable. Commerce should flourish by all means, but it is necessary in some circumstances to control the licensing of such shops. I support that recommendation.
  I hope that if such legislation is eventually passed through the House—either through this Bill or through a general powers Bill of the Greater London Council—it will be retrospective and that local authorities will be able to go back to the beginning and decide where such shops should be located At the moment, groups of citizens are in uproar, picketing such shops and being encouraged to violence and vandalism to express their outrage at the way in which such shops can appear anywhere, even near to schools, where young children pass them every day.
  To that limited extent I welcome the Bill, which will be of use to local authorities and to their ratepayers.
  924
  However, people in the Home Office must be more nimble footed. They are not "spring-heeled Jacks". Many issues affect local authorities where the powers are needed and where movement would be welcome. Although I stress that I have no wish to participate at length in deliberations on such Bills, I look forward to the next debate.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Martin Stevens: It has been a breath of fresh air this afternoon to tackle this Bill. Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) said, it contains, and doubtless will contain, disputed elements, the controversy will not be on party lines. There has been a light-hearted mood. Even the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) made his contribution in a whimsical and cheerful manner.
  I welcomed, as did my hon. Friends, the contribution of the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill). I agree with what she said—that without seeking to introduce new matters into the Bill, it must be improved and added to in many areas. I hope that my hon. Friends the Minister of State, Home Office and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will adopt an open-minded attitude when the Bill is considered in Committee and will permit a more than usually generous consideration of amendments and new clauses from members of the Standing Committee. That may make service on the Committee a positive and worthwhile undertaking and not the and chore that it can be for the Government's Back Bench supporters.
  An example of the sort of matter that means so much to those concerned and perhaps rather less to local government organisations or to hon. Members is that part II refers to street traders. Street traders are not always articulate in presenting their needs and aspirations to national and local legislatures. A few weeks ago 22 of the North End Road street traders in my constituency of Fulham were taken to court and heavily fined, after a fair warning from the inspectors that they were in breach of the street trading regulations because they were not wearing washable outerwear. The courts interpret washable outerwear as meaning a white linen coat, but there is nothing in the words to imply that that is what street traders must wear. I imagine that all of us are wearing washable outerwear.
  Mr. Roger Moate: And underwear.
  Mr. Stevens: That is not yet a subject for legislation by the House.
  I hope that we shall adopt a flexible approach to such matters to tidy up many uncomfortable points. If one considers the operation of local government and councillors' priorities of expenditure, it is easy to put high expenditure that benefits a small number of citizens ahead of those wider requirements, such as cleaning the streets, that affect everyone. If the Bill is to be as successful as we hope, it must benefit as many people as possible.
  As to licensing, I am in a white sheet over the Ten-Minute Bill presented in the previous Session by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) when he asked us to provide for the licensing of space invader machines. I wonder how many of us were fully aware of what those machines meant. The fact that one puts 50p in and can expect, as the Bible would say, to take nothing out means that the machines do not require licences. The adverse effects of unlicensed space invader machines are the same

  925
  as the adverse effects of unlicensed "penny-in-the-slot" machines—I suppose they are now "10p-in-the-slot" machines—in amusement arcades. The character of a shopping centre can be changed in 24 hours by the introduction of machines that attract children and persuade them to spend a great deal of money. They are a nuisance in shops ostensibly aimed at other objectives.
  I also believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) said, that we should consider the licensing of sex shops. I do not share the austere severity of my hon. Friend in claiming to be the arbiter of what our fellow citizens should buy or do in the way of sexual apparatus and appliances. I hope that, whatever they decide to do, they have a fine day for it. However, I recognise that in many areas, especially in Central London where I live, streets that formerly catered for the everyday needs of local residents are taken up by more profitable sex shops. It would be more reasonable if those shops were spread out, in the same way as betting shops or newsagents, under the guidance and determination of the local authority. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will give some thought to the matter.
  The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) went a little far in urging that wherever a measure contained in the Bill was desirable it should be made mandatory. Most of us find that with the much greater self-awareness, self-confidence and civic interest of ordinary citizens—which are welcome—local authorities which did not trouble to take advantage of the powers that we propose to give them would soon find themselves in an untenable position with their electorate.
  Dr. Summerskill: I wish to correct what the hon. Gentleman said. I said that I appreciated that certain of the miscellaneous provisions were suitable to be discretionary, but that those which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) mentioned concerning public health should be mandatory.
  Mr. Stevens: Those are matters for discussion.
  The only point that I wanted to make is that often local authorities are unable to do what they and our fellow citizens would like them to do, because the powers that Parliament gives seldom keep pace with the development of our society.
  However, I would go along with the hon. Lady if she were willing to extend the provision for food and drink to cover a scandal that has only lately come to light concerning unfit meat. We may be trespassing on the preserves of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the food and drugs legislation, but Mr. Bruce Cova, the environmental health officer of my borough, and his professional organisation, the Environmental Health Officers Association, with the support of our councillors, have done the country a signal service in bringing to light a mammoth abuse of the free enterprise system—the sale of poisonous and unfit meat for use in pies and other cooked foods.
  The practice has affected people's health and has the potential to damage the health of hundreds of thousands of people. From the outcome of the recent court case, there is no doubt that it could have been stopped much more easily had local authorities had greater powers. As it may be difficult to find time for primary legislation on the
  926
  matter, I hope that we can consider that point, together with the other provisions relating to the sale of food and drink in the Bill.
  I associate myself with the point made about the sale of pets in the street. Great indignation has been caused over Club Row in the East End of London. One does not wish to pick out a particular trading centre for censure, but it is a subject on which the public feel strongly and to which Parliament should address itself, since we are here to respond to the legitimate aspirations of our fellow citizens.
  We might consider a couple of other little points that lie in the demarcation disputes between those whose business it is to enforce local government legislation. No doubt I shall be told that the Bill would not be an appropriate place in which to deal with widening police powers. However, if small boys climb on to a railway line, as they did the other day, and hurl stones at the greenhouses of those whose property backs on to the line it is ridiculous that, when summoned, the local police should just watch and say that they can take no action as it is a matter for the railway police and not the Metropolitan Police.
  It is also absurd that refuse collection should be the responsibility of more than one organisation. The local authority may clean refuse off pavements, but when the area in front of an empty house is filled with disgusting rat-infested rubbish it cannot clear that because it is on private property. Likewise, those whose job it is to clean the streets find that they are prevented from going on to local authority housing estates and, even if they do, the areas of responsibility are so difficult to interpret that years may sometimes go by without rubbish being cleared because of doubt about whose job it is.
  We should also consider the responsibilities and consequences of the public utilities digging up roads. In the 1959 Act we made it the local authority's responsibility in the first instance to compensate citizens injured as a result of uneven roads and pavements. However, I doubt whether the enforcement of that provision has been successful. Roads may be dug up on Monday by the British Gas Corporation, on Tuesday by British Telecom and on Wednesday by the area electricity board and on Thursday the BGC may come back again. Ordinary citizens suffer far more discomfort and inconvenience from such practices than from many of the more esoteric matters that we seek to protect them from in the Bill.
  I am saying much the same as other hon. Members when I welcome the Bill. I am optimistic that we shall be able to improve and widen it without introducing entirely new concepts of legislation. Those charged with line-byline scrutiny in Committee should take the opportunity to consult more widely than merely with the local authority organisations, which are bound to look at the major areas without perhaps the same detailed look that we can have with those on the ground. If we interpret the process of the Bill through the Committee generously and flexibly, we shall end up with a measure of immense value to our fellow citizens, one in which party politics does not intrude and one which will genuinely leave local government better off than we found it.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) felt that it was pleasant not to have the debate proceeding along party

  927
  lines. It would be difficult for it to do so, since, apart from a fleeting visit by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), the Labour Party seems to be taking no interest in the Bill. Many of my hon. Friends have left the Chamber for elections that are taking place upstairs, but the House will know that they have attended the debate so far in fairly good numbers. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) will be back soon. The only hon. Member on the Opposition Benches is a member of the SDP. Were he to intervene, it is unlikely that his comments would be on party lines. If nothing else, the Social Democrats attempt to keep politics out of politics and to run away from controversy.
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: I wonder whether the Dispatch Box is hiding my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and myself from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I meant no discourtesy, and I shall refer to the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill). I was referring to the Back Benches. Nevertheless, the Government are accused of dictatorially taking powers away from local government and it is interesting that when a measure that grants local authorities new powers, many of which they have been requesting for several years, is brought forward, the Opposition show no interest in it.
  I regret that the House does not have more such measures and fewer of the contentious provisions that we frequently spend so much time debating. Some of my hon. Friends and the, hon. Member for Halifax referred to worthy and uncontentious meaures which need urgent attention and which might have been included in the Bill. We might do they country and ourselves a better service if we spent more time on the perhaps tedious but nevertheless worthy measures for which there is a great need, and less time on contentious legislation.
  I welcome the Bill, particularly part III, because it deals with the anomalies that have existed for several years about take-away food establishments. The hon. Member for Keighley referred to fish and chip shops. They are rightly held in high esteem by hon. Members and our fellow citizens, but in a sense they are the precursors of a new industry in take-away food establishments which have caused considerable anxiety to many of my constituents. I shall detain the House by explaining how they were drawn to my attention and I trust that I shall be responding to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), who felt that there was no call for the proposed provisions and believed that they might be abused by local authorities.
  I have with me a petition which I received in the summer of 1980 from the residents of Brixton Road in Watford. It is one of a number of residential streets running off from a main road, St Alban's Road, which is a secondary shopping centre. Brixton Road is full of nice terraced houses into which, in recent years, many young couples have moved. It is an area where young couples often buy their first house. They spend considerable sums of money on the properties and these roads are a good residential area.
  In the space of half a mile, St Alban's Road contains no fewer than a dozen take-away food establishments. The Brixton Road residents sent me a petition drawing my
  928
  attention to the problems posed by such a profusion of take-away food establishments. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, although he is not now in his seat, will read my comments in Hansard, because the views of Brixton Road residents were confirmed by the Victoria and the Tudor residents associations. They were complaining about the consequences of such establishments on all the streets leading off St Alban's Road.
  I can do no better than quote what one resident told a local newspaper, the Watford Observer:
  "We are all completely and utterly sickened by what is happening. The shop is open to 1 am and it is worse at weekends—it stays open until 3 am. The noise is so bad that I do not know of anyone who sleeps in their front bedroom. It is a nightmare waking-up on Sunday mornings to see gardens littered with pieces of chicken, empty boxes and some customers even urinate on our walls. It took me five hours one weekend to clean my car."
  Many people in town centres face and must live with such problems. Local authorities rightly wish to be able to respond to their complaints because it is a serious problem. On receipt of the petition I immediately wrote to the Watford borough council, drew the petition to its attention and enclosed photographs taken by the residents showing the type of devastation that they frequently encounter in their streets. Although I disagree with the borough council on a number of issues, and although it is a Socialist-controlled council, it is an excellent borough administratively, and the authority's officers considered the problem of take-away food shops seriously.
  The council officers replied by stating that they and the police would do all in their powers to alleviate the problems posed to residents by the shops. The administration and legal department continued in its reply to me:
  "The petition requested that the shop licences be restricted to 10 pm only every day. Unfortunately, there are no licensing laws applicable to these kind of food premises. The council is asking the Association of District Councils to make representations to the Government that a Bill be introduced into Parliament at an early date to require premises of this kind to be licensed."
  The council is also asking me
  "to consider introducing into Parliament a Private Bill for this purpose."
  My reaction to the problem posed by my constituents was to write immediately to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office to draw the problem to his attention and ask whether he would consider meeting me and a deputation from the Watford borough council to put to him the type of problems that the anomaly created. I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend for the prompt and courteous way that he responded to that request. I link that tribute to my borough council, which provided not only councillors from both parties, but two senior officers who were at our meeting with the Minister of State. Those officers provided the Home Office and myself with an extensive briefing which highlighted the anomaly existing in the law and the difficulties that they had experienced as a result.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: Judging by the hon. Member's earlier remarks, he will not be surprised to know that I am making a non-party political point. I am trying to remember some experiences that I had in local government in the North-West. The right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes)—I am sorry that I cannot still call him my right hon. Friend—may be able to confirm that in parts of the North-West local authorities have the opportunity and power under their own byelaws

  929
  to control a change of use of premises as a fish and chip shop or take-away establishment. The authorities in the North-West can impose conditions on such establishments.
  I was not sure whether the hon. Member was complaining about the change of use of domestic premises to shops and that his local authority did not have powers, as we do in the North-West, to control such premises in relation to hours and licences. He mentioned that Brixton Road had suddenly acquired 12 take-away food shops. Although I do not mean to be disrespectful to his constituents, there must be a market for such establishments or they would have gone out of business.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Naturally, I am unaware of whether local authorities in the North have powers which those in the South do not enjoy. Perhaps I did not explain sufficiently clearly that the takeaway food establishments that are causing the problems in my constituency are all in a main road called St. Alban's Road, off which there are a number of residential roads. I apologise if I did not make that point sufficiently clear.
  I was obliged to Watford borough council for the way in which it took up this problem and examined it at committee level in the council, and then provided those councillors and myself with two experienced officers and a very extensive briefing about the kind of problem that Watford borough council faces in attempting to deal with that situation. I do not wish to go into great detail about the briefing provided by Watford borough council, but it is worthy of mention, because my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley sought to imply that local authorities already have full and sufficient powers to intervene and control the opening hours of take-away food shops. That has not been the experience of Watford borough council. It has, in some instances, tested this position in the magistrates' court and it has found itself unable to take action against take-away food establishments of this sort.
  I shall read the principal paragraph of the briefing provided by the legal department of Watford borough council. It said:
  "Late Night Refreshment Houses Act 1969. This Act requires that late night refreshment houses be closed between 10 pm and 5 am unless the keeper has taken out a licence which the council is obliged to issue. A licence is only required for premises where food is consumed on the premises and the keeper does have a justices' licence. On the issue or renewal of a licence, the council, if satisfied that it is desirable to do so in order to avoid unreasonable disturbance to residents of the neighbourhood, may impose a condition requiring closure at any time between 11 pm and 5 am. An applicant aggrieved by a condition can appeal to the magistrates' court, and either the applicant or the council could appeal to the Crown court if dissatisfied with the magistrates' decision or to the Divisional court on a point of law."
  Watford borough council has already taken those steps and has failed to gain any sort of control over the opening hours of take-away food establishments. We have an anomalous situation, perhaps due to the fact that the expansion of this business has been something of a recent phenomenon and that establishments are able to remain open in places such as St. Alban's Road in Watford all night, if they so choose, without the local authority having any power to intervene.
  I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley will have to accept that it clearly cannot be the case that residents in such areas should be subjected to what is very
  930
  often substantial nuisance and disturbance without their own locally elected representatives having any power to intervene on their behalf.
  I hope very much—and I am sure that this will be the case in my own borough, and in other boroughs—that when this legislation goes through the House and borough councils will have these powers they will not be killjoys. When young people, in particular, come home on a Saturday evening, they enjoy and make use of facilities of the sort provided by these establishments. I hope that the owners and proprietors of such establishments will not regard this legislation as being in any way discriminatory against them or that it will in some way put their businesses under threat. I hope that local authorities will use their discretion in the operation of this legislation.
  It would be wrong for me to claim that the residents of Brixton Road, the Watford borough council and their Member of Parliament had, single-handed, brought this issue to the notice of Government and had, single-handed, brought about this alteration. Other local authorities have made representations, as has the Association of District Councils, along these lines. However, the residents who drew this problem to my notice about two years ago will be pleased to have followed the way in which their petition went from their Member of Parliament to their district council, from that council to the Minister of State, and from the Minister of State on to the statute book. It is a credit to our democratic process. It speaks volumes for the residents themselves and, in this instance, for a Socialist-controlled borough council in Watford and the way in which the democratic process operates.
  As I have said, I only regret that we do not spend more of our time in the House dealing with the many worthy pieces of legislation which officials at the Home Office have gathering dust on the shelves. I hope that we shall bring more of it forward.
  The hon. Member for Halifax mentioned one or two items that are excluded from this miscellaneous provisions Bill. They fall to the responsibility of the Home Office, and I, too, am disappointed not to see them included. As it happens, the area in which we have suffered from the problem of take-away food establishments, which is about to be remedied, also suffers from other problems. I shall be attending a meeting with residents there at the end of the week. They are seriously disturbed about the way in which gangs of young hooligans go along the roads terrorising and abusing elderly people. They feel—there is some evidence for this—that many of the youngsters are sniffing glue. It is difficult to gather evidence of that, but a reporter from my local newspaper recently visited a piece of waste land near one of the local schools and found there many plastic bags, which I gather is one clue.
  I have raised this matter with the Home Office. It would be unfair to say that the reply that I received was complacent, but I am not yet convinced that the Home Office has taken full cognisance of the concern in many parts of the country about youngsters sniffing glue. The residents of this area of Watford are very disturbed about it. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would give an assurance that this problem is being examined seriously.
  The kind of housing that exists in the centre of my constituency is good, beginning-of-the-century terrace housing. Living there are many young people who are determined to uphold their standard of living and the sort of decent community standard of life to which they believe

  931
  they have a right. In order to do that, in many instances, they need the sort of supportive legislation that is contained in the Bill and, I hope, some of the items which may be added to it in Committee, or perhaps included in another miscellaneous provisions Bill next year.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Christopher Murphy: Over the years there has been much discussion about the respective roles of local authorities and the Government. The subject of local democratic control and local accountability is one that rightly deserves the close attention of ho n. Members. However, whatever the controversial nature of such decisions on the continuing evolution of this country's governmental system, and the development of the means of financing the tasks that we expect of it, there can be little doubt about the overall welcome given to the Bill. It is a clear example of the Government endeavouring to assist local government by enabling it to exercise certain important powers for the benefit of the community that it seeks to serve.
  My hon. Friends and I hope that we shall be able to see the Government enabled to devote less of the time of the House to passing legislation. The vast majority of our constituents are convinced that we need less rather than more law. In many respects, there is undoubted truth in that belief. The Bill, although to a modest extent increasing the size of the statute book, manages to fulfil in part that desire. Rather than a continual flow of individual Bills sponsored on a local authority basis, many of the clauses will provide a framework for action without further recourse to Westminster, which is an admirable saving in time, energy, finance and bureacracy, and which the already hard pressed ratepayer and taxpayer will surely appreciate.
  In my constituency of Welwyn and Hatfield, and in other parts of the county of Hertfordshire, for some time there has been a recognition of the need for local authorities to be empowered to control street trading more effectively. The unfair competition that can result from local traders being forced to compete with vans parked outside their premises, selling virtually identical products, but without the same overhead constraints of rates and rents, not surprisingly creates town centre tensions. The discovery by would-be shoppers of parking areas taken up by such forms of trading does not engender harmony. The part of the Bill dealing with street trading is therefore destined to be of considerable benefit to local communities.
  A number of other items also of particular significance in the Bill are concerned with matters affecting public health and safety. Whether the sale of food to the public, the registration of people indulging in various activities which involve personal hygiene, the requirements over drainage mechanisms or the provision of enhanced fire precautions are considered, the need for such action by the Government is clear.
  Two other key elements in this legislative proposal are the prevention of unreasonable disturbance to local residents from take-away food premises during the night and the extension of the protection of any person from the effects of waste products and contaminated air. Those clauses, together with additional improvements to such items as the licensing of places for public entertainment
  932
  and the provision of improvements to pedestrianised highways and footways, can be of immense value to local people.
  However, concern has been expressed that the Bill does not contain controls on sex shops and glue sniffing. I recognise that those are perhaps more controversial items, but I believe that the concern is well founded. I urge the Government to consider carefully whether those serious omissions can be rectified. I am certain that if that were done it would be greatly appreciated by the general public, who seek positive action.
  I am a firm believer in minimum interference in the life of the individual. All Governments should be circumspect when bringing forward further legal provisions that must inevitably place certain controls upon the citizen. In the Bill we have an example of legislation fulfilling its fundamental role of the protection of the lifestyle of the individual. Therefore, the Government are right to have decided upon this measure so that by such controls upon certain citizens the overwhelming majority are better able to be safeguarded.
  In a society that becomes more complex and interdependent, it is encouraging to see before us legislation that provides an increased opportunity for decentralised decision making. It is true to the traditions of the Conservative Party in that it enhances self-help, thus enabling local authorities to be more self-dependent.
  Many of the subjects covered in the Bill will have a significant bearing on local communities at varying times. Therefore, the Government deserve widespread support for bringing forward the measure, which should be broadly welcomed.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. James Hill: My constituency in Southampton will welcome the Bill with open anus. For a long time there have been difficulties, certainly with take-away shops. Southampton district council tried to cure those difficulties by licensing some of the take-away vans which park in the middle of car parks, trying as much as possible to keep them away from residential areas. There are always problems with the waste that is thrown away after the person has eaten the food. Troubles sometimes surround the vans late at night.
  Although the public welcome the opportunity in a seaport such as Southampton of getting a meal at any hour of the night, sometimes that is not to the benefit of the citizens. It is only by licensing the car parks that the local authority has been able to keep that problem under control. Therefore, the additional powers to close an undesirable take-away shop from the hours of 11 pm to 5 am will be welcome.
  The emphasis of the Bill is on the protection of the public and the control of certain areas of public entertainment. We have had a great problem in Southampton mainly because it is a seaport. There is an established red light area which has achieved a certain notoriety. Television has told the nation of the dangers of Southampton arising from the presence in a residential area of many established houses of ill repute. The problem is increased because it is an area in which there are ethnic groups trying to maintain a high standard of living.
  All the licensing in the Bill mainly concerns the pleasurable side of entertainment such as music, dancing, wrestling, boxing and "similar activities", whatever those are. Nevertheless, there is a great need to bring in more

  933
  licensing, not only of sex shops, which is vital, but of ladies of ill repute who sell their wares. I do not know whether that is in the scope of the Bill.
  Southampton district council has gone far beyond any requests that I have made this evening. It has given an opinion paper to the Law Commission asking for a complete review of that area of law. At the same time, it went so far as to ask for a legalised premises in Southampton in a pre-destined area where the practice of prostitution could come under some control. It did that because of pressure by residents in the area that were suffering most from kerb crawlers and from females accosting people who were on their way home from work in the evening. There is a general feeling that there is a lack of action in the area that is subject to the inflow of prostitution.
  Whether or not the Bill might ever cover such licensing in the future, there are clearly blank spots which leave local authorities completely helpless in circumstances such as I have described. The police do as much as they can, but the fines imposed by the magistrates' court on the young and occasionally not-so-young ladies involved are derisory and are willingly paid as part of the penalty—almost as the licence fee—for operating a trade or profession of that nature.
  It may be in the virile mind of the Minister to reply that most of what I have said does not fall within the provisions of the Bill. Nevertheless, it is food for thought that not only are professions of that kind carried on in residential areas, but the number of sex shops is escalating beyond all control, so much so that women pickets stand outside in an attempt to stop them trading. It is not very gratifying to see that in one's constituency. In addition, premises are increasingly being used for the showing of blue films. As the Minister will know, there is practically no way to close such premises immediately. There are appeal procedures and a hundred and one other factors of which the proprietors of such shops can take advantage. Moreover, when they are finally moved on, they can set up shop in other premises the same day.
  The whole area of activity to which I have referred should certainly be examined with a view to inclusion in a future miscellaneous provisions Bill. The whole of this rather sordid side of so-called public entertainment should be examined.
  The Bill deals with many other matters which I should have thought went almost in tandem with those that I have mentioned. The provisions relating to public health are surely associated with some of the points that I have made. It is ludicrous that in certain areas—again, seaports are classic examples—tattooing, ear-piercing, acupuncture and, indeed, almost any practice may go on, without control, in the sleaziest accommodation with practically no hygiene, and probably catering for a clientele unaware of the dangers involved.
  The whole of the Bill is good in substance and I hope that it will be good in effect. It could easily be broadened at a later stage. Having warned of how in a major seaport such as Southampton the sleaziest side of life may gain control, and with those slight reservations, I accept the Bill in its entirety.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Tony Durant: I welcome the Bill. I welcome particularly the provisions dealing with take-away food shops. They have caused a problem in my constituency for a long time. One particular shop in the middle of a residential area has caused great offence and difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) said that the point was covered by existing legislation. I have been into the matter as thoroughly as I can, and I am subject to correction, but I do not think that in relation to existing premises covered by the present planning law it is as simple as he suggests. It is extremely difficult to control the problem, and it is therefore necessary to provide for it in the Bill. My hon. Friend's fears are unjustified. Closing a shop from 11 p.m. until 5 a.m. will not damage a successful, useful business. That is a worthwhile provision, and I welcome it.
  I also welcome a number of other provisions, some of which have been mentioned, while others have not. I am interested in part IV dealing with fire precautions, with particular reference to caravan sites. Two very nasty fires have occurred on caravan sites in my constituency. Regrettably, caravans are highly inflammable and if they are not laid out efficiently and well with fire brigade cooperation one may set light to another. For that reason, as a result of my experience, I welcome that important provision.
  With regard to part VIII, dealing with the control of the sale of food to the public, I am fortunate in having in my constituency a very good public health officer. He has instituted a competition between all the restaurants, butchers' shops, vegetable shops and so on for an annual cleanliness award, with a certificate that the proprietor can then put on display. The result has been to clean up the entire area. Indeed, he tells me that it is becoming increasingly difficult to place traders in first, second or third positions because standards have risen so much and they are all doing such a good job keeping their premises clean and tidy, and looking after food in a hygenic manner. This is of great importance to the general public. I therefore welcome part VIII.
  Clause 19 refers to the powers of the appropriate authority under existing legislation
  "to prevent surface water … flowing on to, or over the footway".
  I should be interested to hear from the Minister what that is about. It is an interesting point, but I do not understand what it means. I also welcome the extension of powers to local authorities with regard to blocked drains and so on. I presume that this applies particularly, for example, to empty premises which may cause difficulties in neighbouring premises. That, too, is greatly to be welcomed.
  It is interesting to note that most of the Bill relates to problems of which Members of Parliament have had experience through their constituents having brought them to us. I am delighted that there has been a response. We have all written to successive Governments on these matters. At least we now have a Bill which seeks to deal with them.
  Finally, like other hon. Members, I believe that there are important omissions. I agree that something should be done about sex shops. I have indeed cited in the House an example in my constituency in which a sex shop is situated next door to a Baptist church. That is not good enough.

  935
  There should be some way to deal with that. The Government should get a move on because there is widespread concern about this.
  When the Government speak of registration, I am somewhat concerned as registration tends to give an air of respectability. We should therefore be careful when considering such a course of action. Nevertheless, we must find some way to curb this offence which upsets ordinary citizens going about their daily business. Shops of this kind are springing up all over the place. I should therefore welcome a further examination of the problem and the possibility of including it in the Bill.
  With those few remarks, I welcome the Bill in general. I particularly welcome the provisions with regard to takeaway food shops—a subject on which I have been battling for some time. I shall now be able to take the correspondence out of my files where it has lain for about two years and write to the people concerned to tell them that at last something is being done.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: Like many other hon. Members, I have had the privilege to take part in the Committee proceedings of a number of private Bills. Those who have not had that privilege have nevertheless heard many debates on the Floor of the House with regard to such legislation. Anyone with that experience must welcome a Bill of this kind, which introduces into national legislation greater conformity on matters which I believe are of genuine national interest.
  My real criticism, therefore, is that it has taken so long to introduce legislation of this kind. The explanatory memorandum emphasises that
  "This Bill provides for matters which are commonly dealt with in local Bills promoted by local authorities in response to the general repeal of their local legislation brought about by the Local Government Act 1972."
  One wonders why so much time has been spent in producing so many private Bills, necessitating so much private provision and private expenditure, when at this late stage national provisions are finally to be introduced.
  Perhaps we should have had the foresight in 1972 to ask "Why leave all this to private legislation if in 10 years' time we shall introduce national legislation to establish an element of conformity throughout the country?" I suspect that we have wasted both time and money.
  However, I warmly welcome the Bill, but, like other hon. Members, I think that there are several other matters that could be introduced at a later stage.
  I start with the provisions dealing with take-away and late night food shops. I think that I am right in saying that all the Committees that have dealt with this issue would have welcomed a national rule. We now have a patchwork quilt of provisions, with powers that vary from one district or county to another. I cannot believe that that is defensible.
  At present, a county council must prove special local need to be granted powers to limit the hours of business of certain take-away restaurants. In some cases the county council proves its case, but in others it does not. That is unsatisfactory. It is clear that the powers are inadequate for local authorities to issue late night closing orders on take-away cafes that have existing planning permission. I did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), but I think that I would have disagreed
  936
  with him. It is right that these powers should be given to all local authorities so that they can apply contrPols, just as they do in respect of other refreshment establishments.
  We all recognise that these late night restaurants and take-away cafes provide a genuine need. There is a real consumer demand for them. No one wants to be a killjoy or to prevent their operation, nor do we want to make it difficult for people to obtain food late at night. Indeed, this is what a consumer society is about. All that we are saying is that other people have rights and that local residents who have complaints about litter or late night noise should be able to register their complaints with the local authorities, which should have the power to apply rules of this kind. I warmly welcome this provision, but I re-echo the point that I made earlier. Why have we waited so long when it is clear that these proposals have been with the Home Office for quite some time?
  The same argument applies to many other provisions in the Bill. I am thinking in particular of the registration of acupuncture, tattoing, ear-piercing and so on. We have gone to tremendous trouble to introduce such provisions into private Bills, and now they are contained in this measure. This is very much a national issue. No one can pretend that the registration of acupuncturists in one area but not in another is a local matter. It is right that such a provision should be enshrined in national legislation.
  It is not particularly attractive to see acupuncture linked with tattooing and ear-piercing. Acupuncture is an impressive and highly respected form of medical treatment, yet, by dealing with it in this fashion, it seems that we are reducing it to a less respectable level. Many highly reputable and respectable organisations control the activities of acupuncturists. My hope is that the provisions in the Bill will not reduce their status in society, because acupuncture provides great opportunities to improve medical practice. It might be better if acupuncture were dealt with on the same basis as other medical practices.
  Perhaps my hon. Friend can satisfy me about the control of street trading, particularly the sale of food from mobile vehicles. These are increasingly becoming a feature on our highways. This is a controversial issue. In many areas there are complaints about mobile cafes situated alongside major roads. Admittedly they provide a valuable service to passing motorists, but complaints are received from established cafes, which have gone to all the expense of providing toilet facilities and other amenities—as well as paying rates—about their trade being reduced by caravan operators who incur none of those obligations. At present, we do not get a satisfactory answer when this matter is raised with the Department of Transport or the Department of the Environment.
  There are two views. Generally speaking, people welcome the facilities that these mobile cafes provide. On the other hand, there is a feeling that they ought to be controlled or licensed and that they should at least bear some of the costs incurred by more permanent establishments. Does the Bill provide for local authorities and district councils in any way to license or control these wayside mobile cafes? If so, does that power extend only to the local highways, or does it include trunk roads within the district?
  If the Bill contains no such power, perhaps its scope will permit an amendment at a later stage to deal with this matter. I believe that such a provision would be welcomed by many local authorities for which this has been a problematical area for a long time.

  937
  The idea of licensing sex shops has been referred to and supported by so many hon. Members that I feel that an amendment to that effect, either in Committee or on Report, would receive widespread support. I hope that the opportunity will arise at a later stage for the House to debate this proposition. The Bill presents us with an ideal opportunity to do so.
  I appreciate that this is a different area. One does not want to be over-puritanical on the one hand or too permissive on the other. We recognise that the establishment of sex shops causes great offence to many people. Generally speaking, a proliferation of such shops is undesirable. Surely local authorities should have the final decision. I do not think that this matter can be dealt with adequately by the planning system.
  This is not an easy issue, but we must grasp this nettle and introduce a licensing system, even though that will mean difficult decisions for the local authorities. It is right that the local authorities should have that power of decision. I therefore hope that we shall be able to debate such a proposition at a later stage. I should support such a proposal.
  Provisions relating to the notification of street processions are not contained in the Bill. Such matters have been
  "commonly dealt with in local Bills".
  The House has been involved in heated arguments about street processions, and the matter has led to great argument on many occasions when we have considered private Bills. This is a Home Office Bill, and I should have thought that street processions required a national policy.
  I cannot understand why in Brighton one should have to give two or three days' notice of a procession, whereas the notification period in central London is different. It varies from area to area. In some areas, two, three or even seven days' notice have to be given, while in other areas there is no such obligation. Surely that is a question of national, not local, policy and yet it is not provided for in the Bill. I suspect that it is not included because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is anxious that this should be a non-controversial Bill, but it means that we are passing the buck to private legislation on a matter that is singularly inappropriate for it.
  I do not know whether the scope of the Bill will allow the matter to be brought up later and an amendment to be introduced in Committee or on Report. I should welcome that if it could be done, because the issue should be dealt with nationally. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will explain in his reply why the Government have decided not to deal with street processions and what his attitude would be if the issue were introduced at a later stage.
  I warmly welcome the Bill. It will be helpful to the House and I hope that we can take it even further later.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Toy Marlow: I add my welcome to the Bill. Many of its provisions are very logical, worth while and sensible, and our national legislation will be much the better when they are on the statute book. However, there is one aspect that I and many other hon. Members believe is missing from the Bill, and that is the problem of sex shops, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said so cogently.
  938
  In Northampton recently, judging by my correspondence and the local newspaper, we have had a rash, if not an epidemic, of sex shops. That is understandably causing a great deal of concern among some sections of the population. It is a matter of concern when the subject of human procreation is reduced, as it seems to be by some of the devices that one hears are provided in sex shops, to a branch of mechanical science, if not dynamics. That properly causes a great deal of offence to many people, who feel powerless to do anything about it.
  I understand also that the more sex shops there are, the more peculiar are the pieces of apparatus and documents that exist, and obviously the more likely they are to find their way into the hands of young people in society. Young people could be upset, and their attitude to life and marriage damaged, perhaps irreparably, by what they see. As this is a serious matter, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would consider the possibility of bringing forward an amendment to deal with it, either in Committee or later.
  I understand from my local authority that if premises have planning permission as shops, their use can be changed from selling one item of merchandise to another and there is nothing that the local authority can do about it. If local people are happy to have next door to them or in their local area a butcher's shop, a baker's shop or a candlestick maker's shop, that is one thing, but to replace such a shop with a sex shop is completely and utterly different.
  It has been suggested by hon. Members that there should be a separate licensing or planning procedure so that local authorities—local representatives—can have a say in whether the use of premises should be altered from a normal commercial shopping activity to one of these new apparitions that cause so much horror, upset and disruption to many people. Therefore, I add my plea to those of many of my hon. Friends that the Government should look carefully at this growing and severe problem, which causes a great deal of distress to many people. If the Government can respond, there will be a great deal of support within the community.
  I am not saying, nor have I said, nor would I say, that, given that there is a demand for these activities, they should necessarily be banned, but different people in different parts of the country have, and are entitled to have, different points of view. As that is the case, within their local authority they should have the right and ability to make local decisions about whether there should be sex shops among them. I hope very much that my hon. Friend will have something positive to say on the matter.
  Apart from that, this is a good Bill and I hope that it will go forward as rapidly as possible.
  There are other areas within local government that are causing concern, not least of which is the level of domestic rates. I understand that that issue is not included in the Bill, but I hope that the Government will bring forward without any delay, as they have indicated they will, a Green Paper on domestic rates, and I trust that that will be followed, without too much delay, by further legislation. I say that because there is feeling among the public that domestic rating is unfair, unsustainable and something up with which we have put for far too long. The time has come for public demand to be listened to and for fairness and justice to be provided. I look forward to further progress on that issue.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Like other hon. Members, I have been subjected to repeated representations from my local authority, Allerdale district council. I should like to deal with clause 3 and the takeaway food provisions. I welcome the conformity that the Bill seems to impose throughout the United Kingdom, as opposed to the present position where individual local authorities have asked for the introduction of Bills to deal with the problem.
  In conversation this evening, I have been able to extract from my local authority a preliminary view on its attitude to clause 3. It feels that it is restricted and that the Government have not been fully aware of the problems of many local authorities. Perhaps the Government have not quite grasped tie problem as it exists in communities where representations are being made by our constituents.
  Many of the take-away food outlets today are former fish and chip shops, which in many ways have formed part of the social complexion of the community in as much as they have provided a local social provision. Take-away food shops are a wider area, in that they provide for a wider community. Much of the clientele of the take-away shops, unlike that of fish and chip shops, consists of people coming in from other parts of an area, attracted to a particular shop by the wider nature of the hot food that it provides. In the representations that were made to me tonight it was suggested that far more comprehensive powers should be made available to local authorities in their control of take-away food outlets.
  It has been suggested to me that to restrict the time for control to between 11 pm and 5 am is to misunderstand the nature of the problem. Many representations are made to local authorities about the hours long before 11 pm. They are made about the operation of the shops from early in the evening up to, and beyond, the point mentioned in the Bill as the threshold for intervention by local authorities with closing orders.
  I hope that the Minister will agree to consideration being given in Committee to the times that feature in the Bill. The local authority should have power to license take-away outlets so that if there was any contravention, in terms of litter or noise, before the 11 pm threshold the authorities would have power to intervene and perhaps remove the licence. This would ensure that communities are fully protected against abuse that stems from people not being willing to appreciate the problems of those living in the neighbourhood of take-away food outlets. I should like to turn to the difficulties that I understand local authorities have experienced over the years in making representations and bringing successfully before the House measures that would give them the powers that I have outlined. I am told that the Take-Away Fast Foods Federation is an effective lobby in defence of its members. I appreciate that it must always be the right of people to combine and to form federations and to act as lobbies to protect themselves against any legislation that might be brought before the House that affected their interests. I feel equally that the Minister might give an assurance that the federation has not been too busy in advising the Minister on the way the clause is phrased.
  I am told that a number of authorities over the last few years have made representations to the Government and have come forward with local Bills. They include, I understand, East Sussex, Greater Manchester, the West
  940
  Midlands and West Yorkshire. It seems that East Sussex was so effectively represented by a barrister in the form of Sir Frank Layfield that it was able to confine restrictions in the Bill to a localised area in Brighton. If so, it must be clear that this was a very effective lobby. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will resist pressures over the next few months, as the Bill goes to Committee, and so ensure that the full rights of our constituents are protected and that local authorities are given powers to ensure that they are able effectively to control the problems that exist in many constituencies.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. Keith Wickenden: My contribution will be brief, which will no doubt be as pleasing to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it will be unwelcome to my hon. Friends the Government Whips. I wish to raise four points, three relating to matters that are not in the Bill—but possibly could be—and a fourth that is included
  Part X of the Bill deals with public health. I wish to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the problems that can arise in a locality where a business is carrying on what some might call an offensive trade. I do not mean "offensive" in the sense of sex shops—although that, too, is an issue in my constituency—but "offensive" in the sense that it causes a nuisance to other residents while, nevertheless, being a necessary business that has been in operation for a long time.
  In the town of Dorking, the main town in my constituency, there is an abattoir. It is located in the centre of the town immediately off the High Street. There is very restricted access. It is right in the centre of what is now a residential area. It causes great problems, but it has been there for many decades. The owners carry on a perfectly respectable business in accordance with the law. The local authority would like to see the abattoir moved to more suitable premises. No one would consider an abattoir a suitable business in the centre of a pleasant country town. If a closure notice were served on the business, that would be unfair in many ways. The business is long established. Substantial compensation would have to be paid which would be unfair on the ratepayers.
  The local residents object to the blocking of the narrow streets by large lorries containing animals for slaughter. They object to the noise and smell of animals and also to the effluent that runs down the streets in the middle of the town. One sees all the difficulties. I confess that I see no ready answer. It is largely a question of resources. It would, however, be pleasing to think that it might be possible to envisage a partnership between the local authority, which, I know, wishes to co-operate, and the trader concerned to find a suitable out-of-town site, funded or leased by the local authority, and the business transferred to it without the need for paying large sums of compensation.
  The other main matter I wish to raise is concerned with planning. I realise that hon. Members are discussing a miscellaneous provisions Bill that is not directed primarily to planning, although schedule 4 amends parts of the Highways Act 1980 and parts of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I should like to raise two matters that might be more suitable for inclusion in a later Bill. The first relates to the increasing practice in Surrey and, I believe, Sussex and other parts of the country not so severely affected by unemployment as others.

  941
  Where planning permission is given for commercial premises, an unrealistic condition is applied that the premises shall be used only by local users. Even more important, it is a great inhibition to the development of businesses within towns in the area and, indeed, to companies and organisation that may wish to move into the area.
  If every local authority throughout the country were to apply such a policy, industry and commerce would grind to a halt. No one would be able to move from one city to another. This is a thoroughly small-minded and unreasonable condition that local authorities impose. I should like to see the power to impose such a condition removed.
  The other matter relates to the cost of planning appeals. I speak as someone who has probably lost more planning appeals than he has won, so what I am about to propose would affect me adversely. It has always seemed to me unfair that those who win planning appeals and also Inland Revenue appeals before commissioners should not have the power to recover costs unless stringent conditions are met. The occasions on which this occurs are few.
  There are two effects of such costs not being awarded. The first is that appellants, which can keep their costs to a relatively small amount, particularly if they conduct the appeal themselves, may be encouraged to appeal in hopeless cases when otherwise they would not do so. Secondly, local authorities, to my certain knowledge, sometimes turn down planning applications not because they necessarily object to the proposals, but because they do not have the courage to give permission due to objections that may be raised in some quarters. It seems to me that local authorities that behave in this way would be discouraged if they knew that they would have to meet the costs of the other side when they lost or sometimes when they even hoped to lose.
  It would also be pleasing to find some way of speeding up public inquiries relating to appeals. Democracy is extraordinarily inefficient. Sometimes the wishes of the minority far transcend the greater good of the majority. People who protest make headlines, whereas people who approve do not. I think, in particular, of a matter which concerns transport but which is related to planning. It is the M25 motorway—the Government's No. 1 priority in road construction—linking our two major London airports and circling London. Yet it has been inordinately delayed by the actions of a few protesters, some protesting for very understandable reasons but some being used quite cynically by people for their own political ends.
  In France, procedures are such that people tend to build the facility first and hold the planning inquiry later. Perhaps that is going too far, but perhaps we could move in that direction, for the greater good of those who suffer environmental damage through heavy lorries and traffic passing within yards of their homes, as happens on the A25 in the villages of Gomshall, Abinger Hammer and Westcott. Inadequate roads carry heavy traffic, and the people there have suffered for many years, knowing that the motorway will be built if only the procedures can be got through.
  Clause 27 gives powers for the land charges register to be transferred to a computer. I have suffered from computers more than have most people, and I hope that the necessary safeguards will be taken. If the computer entries
  942
  are not run in tandem with a manual system, until it works, the most dire consequences may follow, both for those who have charges to register and for those who wish to search the register. I hope, too, that appropriate safeguards will be taken to ensure that entries which go into the computer register—if I may call it that—cannot subsequently be altered without that fact being known. I have personal experience of such things happening.
  Finally, I hope that the powers given to local authorities in connection with take-away food establishments will not be exercised too stringently by the Westminster city council. I have in mind that excellent establishment, known to Conservative Members as the "junior turf club," which is, of course, the taxi drivers' coffee stall opposite Westminster Abbey, and which is open all night. If we lost that, there are many Conservative Members who might think seriously about standing again at the next election.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Gerry Neale: First, I apologise to the House and to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for not having been here during the opening stages of the debate. I take the opportunity of thanking my hon. Friend the Minister for listening with such attention to the contributions of the many right hon. and hon. Members who have been waiting enthusiastically to participate in the debate.
  I shall direct my remarks to what is in the Bill, not to what I should have liked the Bill to contain. First, I want to comment on clause 1 relating to music and dancing licences. It is particularly appropriate for a Minister from the Home Office to be present, even though we are discussing a local government Bill, because we must take care to ensure that in enabling local authorities to grant these licences we do not ignore the adverse effects that can be meted out by magistrates in linking the use of these licences with the use of the same premises for selling alcoholic liquor.
  In my constituency, as in other parts of Cornwall, a great problem is developing in relation to village halls, where a music and dancing licence has been granted for a year, where the village community requires to use the village hall for fund-raising occasions for the hall's own maintenance and continuation as a building for use by the village, and often where there is no public house in the village. I have already written to the Lord Chancellor on this subject, and I await his reply. However, I hope that in Committee the Minister will consider the situation which has arisen whereby one or several applications have been made by village hall committees which have resulted in the licensing justices, on the liquor licence application, saying, as it is within their powers to do, that they will restrict the hours for the liquor licence to 11 o'clock rather than to 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock as the halls had requested.
  More seriously, in one case, allegedly, a court sought to reduce the hours of the music and dancing licence which had been issued for a hall for a 12-month period. I am far from sure, from my inquiries so far, whether magistrates have the power so to do. It is important to ensure that these measures contain safeguards to allow the greatest possible flexibility in the use of these halls, school halls and so on, to guarantee that the village community and—more important—that the committees operating in these halls, or operating the halls themselves, have the opportunity of raising the funds to keep the premises going.

  943
  I draw my hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 14(2) of schedule 1, and, in particular, to sub-paragraph (b), which gives power to local authorities to
  "make such variations as they think fit, including the imposition of terms, conditions or restrictions other than those so specified".
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make it clear whether that links entirely with the application when it is made, so that when the applicant is granted the licence he knows that its terms will apply for the duration, that that is the only occasion on which the licence can be amended, and that it will not be possible for it to be amended to shorter hours by any other authority until it expires.
  I welcome part II of the Bill, which deals with street markets. Nevertheless, I hope that my hon. Friend, in his deliberations in Committee, will consider the implications of clause 28, which appears to deal with what I describe for want of another word as off-street markets—that is to say, markets on private land. My hon. Friend the Minister will recall from his distinguished days as shadow spokesman on environmental affairs that, with our existing planning law, it is possible for anyone at the moment to establish an off-street market on 14 days in a year without requiring planning permission.
  As my hon. Friend may know, in areas with considerable seasonal trade, such as Newquay or Tintagel in my constituency, there is tremendous opposition and ill-will when a landowner allows his land to be used for a market and no commercial rates are payable on that land. Traders who stay open for the seasonal months and particularly those who trade throughout the year are angry about that and expect something to be done.
  Therefore, clause 28 invites local trouble. Although there is great merit in giving a local authority the option of advertising the fact—following a council resolution—that people in the area must give full details of their proposals to hold a market, the provision does not allow the local authority to do anything to stop the market. It invites trouble, because by encouraging local authorities to take a close interest—to which I have no objection—the Bill will encourage local people to believe that the local authority will have the power to do something if they or the local authority do not like what happens.
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider making it possible for a local authority to use an article 4 direction and, in certain circumstances, to prevent that land from being used for such purposes unless a formal planning application has been made and approval given? In any event, will he consider imposing some form of commercial rating system on land used for such purposes? Otherwise, the landowner and temporary tenants have a distinct advantage over the retailers on adjoining premises, who are there all the year round.
  The definition of a "temporary market" as comprising not fewer than 15 stalls is for those purposes inadequate. In many places it is possible to set up a viable market with eight or 10 stalls. That has an adverse effect on local commerce and on the local community. I hope that the Minister will bear those points in mind in Committee.
  Clauses 12 to 15 deal with acupuncture, tattooing and ear-piercing. It would be a pun to say that it scratches the surface of the problem, yet I ask my hon. Friend to consider that the inclusion of acupuncture in that group promotes the view that acupuncture is a frivolity and is part of the process of decorating one's body. The provision ignores the need to establish a proper system of registration for acupuncturists. There are recognised qualifications for
  944
  acupuncturists, but no doubt some people practise with the minimal qualifications. We should try to find a way of making clearer the distinction between properly qualified acupuncturists and those with minimal qualifications.
  Given the way in which the provisions are drafted, local authority inspectors need only inspect the cleanliness and hygiene of premises used for acupuncture. If that is incorrect, I should welcome clarification. It appears that inspectors need only satisfy themselves on that point.
  As a result the inspectors will give acupuncturists—however qualified—the appearance of satisfying local health requirements. In that way they will gain recognition that is sometimes unwarranted and perhaps to the disadvantage of their patients. Although in some senses, the provisions attempt to ensure that those who indulge in such treatment have less chance of contracting hepatitis, I ask the Minister to prevail on the Department of Health and Social Security about the need to consider, once and for all, a proper mechanism whereby those who are properly trained and qualified in acupuncture and osteopathy are registered and recognised as part of the Health Service.
  Clauses 16 and 17 deal with the sale of food on open sites. I have studied the Bill's provisions, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would let me know how far the provisions go. At the Royal Cornwall show and many other rural shows quantities of food are sold and consumed at the ground. Other foodstuffs are sold and consumed elsewhere. How will the provision affect those vendors and other outdoor vendors such as ice cream salesmen?
  I feel obliged to mention jam, particularly in relation to women's institutes. I see that my hon. Friend the Minister is puzzled. Perhaps I can enlighten him. He may recall that a considerable outcry was levelled at the Department of Health and Social Security and Parliament during the last Session and the Session previous to that over the nonsense about the requirement for women's institutes to register and have their kitchens inspected if they wish to produce jam for sale to the public. The Minister will recall that, by means of an all-party Bill, the House saw to it that the law was changed. There was agreement on all sides of the House and in the other place that the law should be changed quickly. It was.
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister recognise that, in addition to the activities that women's institutes hold in village halls, they operate in open-air markets and at showgrounds. They have a fine record for food production, presentation and retailing. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to congratulate them on the service that they provide. Will the Minister confirm that the clause does not in any way affect the earlier food and drugs provisions and that it does not evade the principle of the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Act 1981?
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for not being here when he opened the debate.
  I support the Bill, which will do much to enhance the powers of local authorities and generally make the environment in which we live much more civilised.
  Clause 1, by licensing places of entertainment that provide music and dancing, will help those who suffer greatly by being kept awake at night by the noise. I should like to see such licensing extended to recording studios,

  945
  especially those in the basements of blocks of flats, where the rising sound of throbbing noise causes great stress to the residents. In the case of which I am thinking the local council was able to act under health legislation, but life would be made much easier for councils if they had the power to license recording studios and to insist on the required degree of sound proofing before issuing licences.
  My support for clause 3 arises because on the corner opposite my house there is a Kentucky Fried Chicken shop, which remains open all hours of the day and night and all days of the week. I therefore have the privilege of having my front garden littered with chicken bones and red and white coloured boxes. There must be some control of these shops, because they are such a nuisance to people who live near them. I am not sure whether the boxes are thrown into the garden after 11 pm or before, but restrictions should be brought to bear at certain times to attempt to control the amount of rubbish that is thrown around.
  Local authorities will be grateful for clause 30, which will enable them to remove uncollected property. I do not know whether the clause provides for broken down cars left in the street. These are a great problem, and abandoned cars often remain in the streets for a long time. If the powers in the Bill will enable local authorities to remove such cars more speedily, many will be grateful, and it will do much to improve the streets.
  I hope that I shall not be ruled out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should like to deal, as others of my hon. Friends have done, not with what is in the Bill, but with what is not. Two new shops are being set up in my constituency, one of which is a sex shop and the other an occult shop. This has caused great distress in a town with a number of God-fearing people. I have in my constituency five large mental institutions or homes which, because of succeeding Government policies, have an open policy. Patients spend a great deal of time walking in the streets of Epsom. There is therefore much worry and concern about the two shops.
  The occult shop will be selling all the paraphernalia of witchcraft, and the proposed proprietors have said that they will also be conducting marriages. I have never understood how one can get married by witchcraft, but they have every intention of showing us how it is done. It would be much better if my local borough council had the power to license such establishments. However, as long as no change of use in the retail shop is contemplated, no planning permission or licensing is required.
  Mr. Matthew Parris: I am interested in the possibility of marriage by witchcraft, as I am unmarried. Does my hon. Friend seek to prohibit marriage by witchcraft or simply to control where it takes place and under what circumstances?
  Mr. Hamilton: Marriage by witchcraft is simply an extension of the sinister activities in which the establishment intends to be involved. I mentioned marriage only because it has aroused local interest and alarm. I hope not to be able to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) more about it, because I hope that the shop will not open, thanks to the outrage in the locality and the number of letters that I have received about it. However, I promise my hon. Friend that if the shop opens and starts to conduct marriages I shall
  946
  make details of how the marriages are conducted available to him. When he comes to the moment, which I hope will not be too far away, and he makes a proposal of marriage, being married in an occult shop in Epsom high street will be one of the options open to him.
  I am a great believer in freedom, and we should be careful before we censor such establishments, but we should consider whether they have a corrupting influence on a locality. Local authorities should be able to make that judgment and have the power to license such establishments.
  The local council is against the opening of both shops, but it has no power to restrict their activities. The Bill provides for the registration of the practitioners of acupuncture, tattooing and ear-piercing, because of the danger of blood poisoning if those operations are carried out in unhygienic conditions. The proprietors of an occult shop might have a bad effect on the mental patients in my constituency who visit it. If we are trying to look after the health of individuals by ensuring that tattooists and acupuncturists do not poison them, we should also worry about people's minds to ensure that they do not become perverted by such strange establishments.
  Perhaps in Committee the powers can be extended to cover sex and occult shops. That would be well received in my constituency and in many others. It would put the minds of many people at rest.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) might have the problem of witchcraft in his constituency but witchcraft has not yet got as far as Brigg and Scunthorpe.
  I wish to argue the case for a legitmate interest in my constituency which has been established for many years. I draw the attention of the House to the problems that might occur if we approve clause 3. A number of my hon. Friends have referred to that clause. I was disappointed with one or two of my hon. Friends, not least with my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell. I know him to be a great friend of freedom. I am almost always at one with him. However, today I detected a hint of restrictiveness in one or two sentences, which was somewhat uncharacteristic. I appreciate the restrictions he mentioned in relation to litter in his garden.
  If a take-away food establishment or a fish and chip shop is established as a result of restrictive planning regulations, the planning committee of the local authority—if it is doing its job properly—will decide whether the establishment will open at 9 o'clock and shut at 11 o'clock or beyond. That is not the issue in the Bill. The planning committee should take note of the fact that those who live near to a take-away food establishment will also be inconvenienced during the day. It should consider those factors before it grants an application.
  To give local authorities the benefit of the doubt—which is possibly unwise because I have occasionally disagreed with them on planning matters—I suggest that they always take account of other interests before granting a planning application for a take-away food establishment, regardless of its opening hours. If an authority arrived at a wise decision and said that a fish and chip shop, a Chinese take-away or a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet can be established, it recognises the potential nuisance. If a planning application is then

  947
  granted, the council and the locally elected representatives must be satisfied that there will not be a noise and litter nuisance. I can see no reason for such a restrictive clause in the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office said that the Bill is largely a consolidation measure bringing together several earlier private Bills and some of the regulations that were established for individual local authorities under those Bills. I welcome the fact that he has decided to put together the miscellaneous provisions that have been at sixes and sevens in private Bills.
  I foresee a problem with clause 3. I represent a constituency where shift work is an important part of the local community. A steel worker, when he has finished the 2 o'clock to 10 o'clock shift, may, on his way home—perhaps after going to the pub for a pint of beer before it closes at 11 o'clock—wish to go to the fish and chip shop. It is a normal activity and part of the heritage of the town of Scunthorpe. The steel worker will come off shift at 10 o'clock, go to the pub for a pint, and then go to the fish and chip shop, perhaps because his wife——
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Does my hon. Friend not agree that those steel workers may also wish to enter oriental shops that sell take-away Chinese food? Perhaps he will make specific reference to that. If he does not, he may lay himself open to a charge of being prejudiced against those shops, which provide a useful and continuing service to many people.
  This evening I went to an Indian take-away food establishment. I have enjoyed a strong Indian curry, which perhaps my hon. Friends sitting around me can smell if not taste. If no reference is made to those other establishments, their representatives may feel that my hon. Friend is deliberately casting a slight. I am sure that he is not, but he should rectify what I consider to be a most important omission.
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to do that. The air in this part of the Chamber is quite clear. It is obvious that he has enjoyed his Indian meal.
  In Scunthorpe there is a significant ethnic minority. The local people benefit from the initative and enterprise of the Indian take-away shops and the curry houses, which recognise that, at around 10 or 11 o'clock in the evening, about one third of Scunthorpe's population wish to have a meal on their way home. I link what my hon. Friend has just said about curry houses and Chinese take-away food establishments—
  Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his courtesy. Perhaps he can find time to mention the problem of litter. It may be that not everyone is as tidy-minded as he or I, so it is important that more litter bins are provided throughout his constituency and every other constituency in Britain. On some occasions we may walk down the high street and find litter blowing around our feet, which is unpleasent and intolerable. It can easily be rectified. The British are a much more tidy race than they are given credit for. They will deposit their litter in the appropriate receptacles if they are provided. If my hon. Friend intends to continue without any reference to bins, that would be unfortunate. However, I am sure that he does not intend to omit that.
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his brief intervention. I shall deal with the legitimate problem
  948
  of litter, with which my hon. Friends—although disagreeing with my attitude about clause 3—would expect me to deal, albeit briefly.
  We must consider the question of litter when we talk about take-away food establishments. However, the litter that there may be after 11 o'clock will be no more significant than the litter during the earlier part of the day. We should look at the example of the Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets. That organisation has taken many steps to deal with the problem of litter. It is acutely aware of the possibility that some of its customers may occasionally be lax in depositing litter in bins after leaving their shops. I am impressed by the way in which the fast food industry, especially the Kentucky Fried Chicken organisation, has made a great effort to deal with the problem of litter. Perhaps the Government can say something further about that in clause 3.
  When the Bill is considered in Committee, I shall wish to propose a minor amendment that, instead of the cut-off point at which a local authority can enforce an order being 11 o'clock, the Government should consider extending the time to at least midnight. I do not believe that I am asking for too much. The Government could legitimately look at that because, as I said earlier, in a constituency such as mine and especially in the northern counties, it is a tradition that many take-away food establishments do not do much business until 10.30 or 11 o'clock and beyond.
  One constituent showed me his cash flow hour by hour. Much of his turnover came after 11 pm. We must protect the tens of thousands of people employed in the fast food industry, particularly in constituencies like mine which have high unemployment and where people wish to buy the cheaper food that the fast food industry provides.
  The fast food industry is a growth industry which serves those who have to watch their pennies, as well as others like ourselves. When I arrive in Scunthorpe, having been in the House on Friday morning and with engagements in the afternoon and evening, unashamedly and publicly, I often take advantage of take-away food. Many hon. Members with constituencies in the North must do likewise. I am pleased to be able to get a good, cheap meal sometimes well after 11 pm.
  Some local authorities tend to lean towards restrictions for their own sake. They should consider planning applications and potential noise nuisance. We hear of complaints to local authorities from people disturbed by noise nuisance, but it is as objectionable at 9.30 pm or 10.30 pm as at 11.30 pm, and local authorities and hon. Members do not hear from those individuals who enjoy the products of the take-away food industry after 11 pm, although several hundred people in Brigg and Scunthorpe will be enjoying take-away food after 11 o'clock tonight—not least, fish and chips.
  The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has not been able to take part in the debate, but he represents a constituency which is one of the nation's biggest fish producers. The health of the British fishing industry depends to a great extent on the take-away fish and chip industry. I have been present at a number of debates in which hon. Members draw attention to the poor deal that our fishermen get. We must remember that they depend to a large extent on the fish and chip business, which does not come to life until fairly late in the evening. We should link our debate on clause 3 to concern for the fishing industry. The fish and chip shops in constituencies such

  949
  as mine well serves the fishing industry, for which other hon. Members make impassioned pleas. We must remember that the fishing industry needs consumers.
  I hope that neither of the local authorities that I represent—the boroughs of Scunthorpe and Glanford—will be among the restrictive authorities that may take advantage of clause 3. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider in Committee at least extending the time from 11 pm to 12 pm. A noise or litter nuisance will be no worse at 11.55 pm than at 10.55 pm. We should consider making the change on behalf of the many people employed in the fishing industry and of my constituents who wish to buy fish and chips.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The measure consolidates matters introduced in many local Bills, but the Department is out of date in producing the legislation. I criticise not what is in the legislation but what is not.
  Many local authorities are worried about certain issues. I wish to stress the concern about the growth of sex shops and pornographic cinemas. A private Bill concerning Hampshire, which is to come before the House later in the Session, tries to deal with the problem. One street in Southampton is slowly being taken over by sex shops, pornographic cinemas and space invaders. The local authority finds it difficult to stop that development which we all believe is highly undesirable. For example, under present legislation it is not a change of use if a hardware shop becomes a sex shop. A local authority can do nothing about it. I wish that the Bill had dealt with that problem. The Government can take action through legislation to help local authorities. It is a problem that is becoming more and more apparent in our larger cities.
  The Bill could have tackled other problems, too. The problem of prostitution in my constituency is well known, as it was reported in every national newspaper. Individual prostitutes own houses and advertise their wares in the windows. We have had many court cases, including the "Girls in the window" case a few years ago. I have been involved in deputations to various Governments to get the prostitutes out of residential areas.
  I do not argue the merits of prostitution tonight. However, where large numbers of houses are used for prostitution tremendous problems can be caused for others living in the area, through cars coming and going late at night, doors banging and other noise and the occasional fight. For at least the past 10 years we have tried to get prostitution out of residential areas. I took a deputation to the Home Secretary in the Conservative Government of 1970 to 1974 and another to the Home Secretary in the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979. On each occasion we were told that a committee was considering the matter and we would have to await its report. The Criminal Law Revision Committee is now discussing sex offences, including prostitution, and we are told that we must await its report.
  I have to tried to persuade my local authority that it could use planning legislation to deal with the problem. For example, if I wish to put a sign reading "builder and decorator" in the front window of my house, I have to get permission from the local authority. The difficulty is that
  950
  local authorities do not seem to be interested in taking action against women who put illuminated signs reading "model" in their windows.
  A lawyer who is a Conservative member of my local council suggested that the problem could be dealt with through planning legislation and prostitution could be driven out of residential areas. Unfortunately, a majority of the council felt that it could not proceed in that way.
  The Bill could have dealt with the advertising of prostitution, sex shops and cinemas showing pornographic films. A number of inner city areas are in danger of becoming like Soho, and we do not want that to happen.
  The Government could take action through the Bill, which deals with street trading and the licensing of places of public entertainment used for dancing, boxing and wrestling. There is no reason why it should not deal with sex shops and pornographic cinemas. I urge the Government to consider amendments that will deal with such problems.
  The Hampshire Bill is being prepared and will be introduced in Parliament later in the year, probably in another place. It deals with the problems on a local basis, but there is no reason why the House should not introduce national legislation and I urge the Government to consider that possibility.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey: The Bill can properly be described as complicated but important, and it is particularly important to local authorities. I served on local authorities for 20 years, first on the Binley Woods parish council and later on the Rugby rural district council. After the reorganisation of local government in 1973–74, I served as deputy leader of the Rugby borough council and subsequently became a member of the Warwickshire county council. Such is my record for parish councils that I was also chairman, and later president of the Warwickshire Association of Parish Councils.
  I am convinced that one reason why the countryside is so much better administered is the existence of town and parish councils, which provide genuine grassroots representation. The 10 or 12 members representing 1,200 electors on a parish council clearly provide fine representation.
  The explanatory memorandum of the Bill states that part IX
  "extends to other highways existing powers of a local authority under that section to provide facilities for recreation and refreshment on pedestrianised highways".
  I am intrigued by the word "pedestrianised". Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment tell me later whether a pedestrianised highway is the same thing as a footpath or a bridleway? I assume that it is, but I should welcome my hon. Friend's confirmation.
  Clause 18 deals with refreshment and recreation, which are important considerations. On walks along pedestrianised highways, perhaps Hadrian's Wall or the Pennine Way, we shall clearly require refreshment and perhaps recreation. One would require perhaps the odd bar of chocolate and if there are vending machines available one can enjoy a hot drink, whether tea, coffee, soup or chocolate—all separately dispensed from the machine.
  However, I am disappointed that the clause does not refer to the Act of 1892 or 1896—I forget which—that deals with the adoption of roads. That is a startling

  951
  omission, but it is not too late for the Government to include a provision that would make the adoption of highways a little easier.
  Shortly after I was married, which was about 25 years ago—I celebrated my silver wedding anniversary on 24 March this year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for the congratulations of hon. Members on both sides of the House—my wife and I lived in a bungalow in Binley Woods where the roads were not adopted. People became bogged down within the curtilage of the so-called highway. Ambulances and even, on one dreadful occasion, a hearse stuck in the thick, deep mud of the so-called highway. As a young member of the parish council I did my utmost to persuade the highway authority to exercise its rights to adopt the roads. I also recall, however, the difficulties that occurred when we were anxious to persuade frontagers to pay for the roads to be made up.
  The Act of 1892 or 1896 should be repealed and replaced by something a little more up to date which takes more account of present circumstances. I am a little disappointed that the Government have not so far included such a provision. However, it is not too late for that important matter to be given proper consideration.
  I move gently to part X, a particularly interesting part of the Bill. The explanatory memorandum says that clause 21
  "extends to industrial and commercial premises existing powers of a local authority to require courts, yards and passages abutting dwellings to be paved and drained."
  As I read those words, I was struck by the question why that important provision was not included in the original Act. That was another startling omission. I find it extraordinary that it is necessary to insert it into this Bill.
  I referred earlier to my local government experience. I mentioned the time that I had spent on local authorities. I do not intend to repeat that again. I am well aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would look askance at me if I repeated myself in such an intolerable way. However, I did spend about 10 years on a public health committee. Therefore, again, I am well aware of the problems caused to local authorities by this general legislation. I am aware of the powers that exist, as far as local authorities can apply them, relating to entries and courts that may be described as domestic premises. It is most important that employees in industry should have at least the same protection as the ordinary person. The workers within a factory or within the curtilage of industrial premises should enjoy the same protection and safeguards as they would enjoy if they were at home. It strikes me as a remarkable anomaly. I am delighted to see that even at this late stage we are repairing it.
  I should declare my interest in part III of the Bill. I am a director of a group of companies which are involved in the fast food business. It will not surprise the House to know that it was my concern and interest in this matter which prompted me to make two lengthy interjections during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown). I am well aware of the important part that fast food plays in the life of our community. In this world in which time is at an absolute premium, it is necessary for people to obtain fast food. People do not always have an opportunity of going to the greengrocer, the butcher or any of the ordinary high street retailers. They do, not always have time to do the shopping in that way, and they do not always have the opportunity
  952
  of taking shopping home and cooking pleasant, fresh, three-course meals. Therefore, it is important that the fast food business should continue to advance.
  However, adequate street lighting should be a subject of this clause. We speak about the hours during which fast food shops should remain open. It is necesary for us to introduce efficient street lighting. People sometimes carelessly throw away the plastic containers in which the food is served. They are made by a subsidiary within my group of companies—Mono Containers Ltd. of Durham. I realise that from time to time people do throw the containers away and that if the lighting is inadequate, poor, inefficient or simply non-existent, that may result in people slipping and may even result in injury. As a director of a responsible group of companies, I should be very unhappy if that occurred. Therefore, we must make adequate provision for street lighting.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will forgive me if I refer to that as another startling omission from the Bill. He is known to be a thoughtful, hard-working and conscientious Minister. That reputation is entirely deserved, for he goes into his subject with enthusiasm and energy. Because of the qualifications that he brings to his most important work, I am a little disappointed that he did not see fit to include this provision.
  I have referred to omissions. There is yet another startling omission. I must use the word "startling", and I apologise for using it once more. I have searched diligently throughout this substantial document. I must tell all my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes)—in his somewhat lonely place—
  Mr. Oakes: I have been here all day.
  Mr. Pawsey: I have searched diligently and I have failed to find any reference in the Bill to rating reform. That is unfortunate. I feel particularly that my hon. Friend the Minister would have liked to discuss with me and with other hon. Members the housing profit factor—E7. My hon. Friend is well aware that I am particularly interested in this subject. I see him taking off his glasses and rubbing his eyes with some apprehension of what I am about to say. Let me reassure him and say that the housing profit factor particularly disturbs me, my borough council, my councillors and my electorate.
  It is an extraordinary state of affairs that in Rugby, where we have a housing account which has not gone into arrears for many years and which even now breaks even, and despite my local authority's excellent house-keeping, it seems likely that under the terms of housing profit factor E7 council house rents will have to rise. This is an unnecessary increase in my constituency, for the Rugby borough council is very diligent.
  I must return to items contained within the Bill. I note with some interest part IV, which amends the existing law on fire precautions. The danger and risk of fire rightly concerned all hon. Members. Clearly, it is imperative that efficient and clearly defined exits should be identified so that people may efficiently make their escape should a fire hazard exist. I am also pleased that the explanatory memorandum mentions
  "certain specified buildings and before licensing or providing a caravan site."
  This is an important issue. The Bill also calls for the provision of a suitable cut-off switch for the safety of

  953
  firemen where high voltage luminous tube signs are installed. Without that important safeguard, firemen's lives would be at risk.
  Firemen have a most important job. It is a job whose value is not always recognised by the community. One might almost say that the fire service is sometimes taken for granted. If that is so, it is very much to be regretted. I am glad to see that my hon. Friends entirely agree with that viewpoint.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that fire regulations are already, in many instances, much too stringent, and that they cause inordinate expense in all sorts of establishments? I can think of former riding establishments, for example, where communities were well serviced in their leisure pursuits but where fire regulations were so strict and demanding in terms of expenditure that the establishments had to close. Similarly in schools, hotels and so on, the enforcement of fire regulations has been so severe that people have been put out of business and jobs have been lost. I hope that the Bill will pay attention to the already stringent nature of the fire regulations. Does my hon. Friend agree with what I say?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I hope that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) will refer to fire regulations and that he will not go back to the housing factor.
  Mr. Pawsey: I am, as ever, always grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am a relatively new hon. Member. I acknowledge with gratitude your advice. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) for his sagacious comments.
  Mr. James Hamilton: The hon. Member for Ealing, North may be on the Committee.
  Mr. Pawsey: That is true. Having served on a Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, I am well aware of the expertise that he brings to those proceedings. His point was particularly valid. He referred to the situation that might exist in stabling. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is that?"] Stables are the buildings in which horses are usually kept.
  Perhaps I am beginning to stray beyond the terms of the Bill. Therefore, I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I advise the Government, if they were in any doubt, that, despite the shortcomings in the Bill, it will receive a warm welcome from me.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Tony Speller: If there is any way in which a ratepayer can be rendered apoplectic, it is by talking about street markets. Temporary markets are the greatest waste of the ratepayers' money, because they take all and give nothing in return.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether more should be done about the obvious hazards surrounding not just the one-day market in the street, but the other places where markets are held and where the public have access without payment. That includes the beach in my part of the world, where the one-day trader arrives with all the gimmicky, gimcrack bits and pieces to
  954
  be sold to the public. At the end of the day he goes and is never seen again, or not while the public can remember him.
  Of all the things that we can do to protect the public, the control of such trading is one of the most important. There is the cost to the rates and of cleaning up. There is also the loss of employment, because these traders do not employ young persons or even older ones in the area. They bring a few people with them, suck up the money and away they go. There is also the question of the validity of the goods that they sell. The following day is too late to seek restitution when the toy does not work or the radio does not produce the required sound once the battery is added.
  The shopkeeper who pays rates is invariably annoyed by litter and rubbish. Some of my hon. Friends have spoken of the litter that is produced by those who use the products of fast food firms. The size of the rubbish baskets that are provided by local authorities is of some interest. They are never big enough to hold all the wrappings that are removed from fast foods.
  In my part of the world, along the North Devon coastline, we are particularly hurt by the predators who come from the bigger cities and give the holiday areas a bad name. When a holidaymaker has been "done" in a one-day trading market, he does not remember the name of the trader. I am delighted that the schedule dealing with street trading requires that notice shall be given and that the name of the trader shall be displayed, otherwise a penalty will be imposed. I hope that the local authorities will follow that up and make certain that the name given can be identified later when there is a problem about goods that have been sold.
  Who can say how many more people would be employed in the shops were it not for the market trader who sells with great expertise but does not show that expertise in advising the customer? That is grossly unfair to the normal retail trader, who pays rates the year round, with business or no business resulting, and who employs staff the whole year round, whether or not they are standing idle for some or much of the time. We must look at those things and seek to protect those traders.
  Much of the rate burden arises from the labour-intensive business of cleaning. It is made clear in the Bill that certain responsibilities lie with those who seek to impose themselves on the trading world on and around our streets. They must pay a sum to be there and pay a penalty if they break the byelaws, even though I do not think that that will in any way cover the cost to the community of the refuse that they leave behind or the unemployment that they cause.
  I ask my hon. Friend to clarify some of the provisions in the schedules. For example, schedule 3(1)(a) says:
  " 'street' includes—any road, footway, beach or other area to which the public have access without payment".
  That is an open and broad definition. I am not sure whether the words
  "other area to which the public have access without payment"
  would include, for example, the ballroom or function room of a hotel to which the public may have access for the purpose of a market.
  If that were so, there would be an additional hazard. Such premises, whether licensed or unlicensed, may have adequate fire precautions for their normal uses. The situation is quite different, however, if a milling crowd has come in, perhaps because it is raining and they want

  955
  somewhere to go, and people are standing cheek by jowl in a room where the least spark could lead to panic and perhaps tragedy.
  I ask the Minister to consider amendments to make certain that any itinerant trader, whether he be a street trader or one who trades on a beach or area available to the public, must not only indemnify the local authority through the penalties implicit in the Bill, but, equally importantly, must indemnify the public against any form of rip-off, of which they are currently all too often the victims.
  I do not believe that there is a chamber of commerce, chamber of trade or confederation of business organisations which does not wish the Bill well in regularising and bringing up to date many ancient measures. Equally, we must ensure that the protection given will last until the next occasion when such a measure comes before the House.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Matthew Parris: I apologise to the Government and Opposition Front Benches for my absence during the opening speeches. It was unavoidable. I wish to welcome some proposals in the Bill and to regret the absence of others.
  It is a great pleasure to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller). I can see that he feels a deep and intense dislike of street traders. That must be born of his experience in his constituency, where there is obviously a particular type of street trader who is a public nuisance. To set the balance straight, I should point out that there are all kinds of street markets and street trading. Near where I live in London, in Northcote Road, Clapham Junction, there is a lively fruit and vegetable market which serves a very useful purpose. In my constituency of West Derbyshire, in the Peak District, we have many antique markets which are enjoyed by local people and visitors. There is no complaint that people are being cheated or that legitimate local shopkeepers are being done out of their own share of business. There is a place for some types of street trading, but not for others. That is matter for local authorities and Government judiciously to distinguish.
  I listened with great interest and admiration to the crisp, succinct and hard-hitting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey). I shall not go down the same road. It seems extraordinary to me that he has been married for 25 years when I have not even got round to it yet. Perhaps the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) on the subject of arranged marriages by witchcraft will come to my aid.
  In his comments about prostitution my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), who unfortunately has had to leave the Chamber, put his finger on a real problem in residential areas—that of the prostitute who uses her flat or house as her place of business, thereby annoying her neighbours at all hours of the night. I suggest that the problem is not so much the possibly immoral nature of what takes place in the flat as the nuisance caused to those living nearby by a person who is essentially using her house as a place of business.
  It is contrary to various regulations to use a house or flat as a place of business. If it is a council flat, one is certainly not allowed to do so. The same applies to privately owned flats under different regulations. The problem is that prostitution has been so circumscribed by
  956
  law that it cannot be properly defined or set up as a business. The prostitute therefore cannot be held to be using her house or flat as a place of business.
  I believe that the matter is currently before the Criminal Law Revision Committee which is examining the law on sexual offences. I suggest that that is perhaps the most appropriate umbrella under which to consider it. In a sense, if the law on prostitution could be liberalised a little so that prostitutes were allowed to set up in business in some legitimate way, we could then begin to control the problem.
  I notice that the sister Bill relating to Scotland, which is starting life in another place, makes provision for regulations specifying fines, but not imprisonment, for prostitution. I and a number of other hon. Members on both sides have been pressing for some time to regularise the law in favour of fines rather than imprisonment. Soliciting for the purpose of prostitution is a street nuisance and should be treated as such. It should therefore be punishable by a fine, as are other forms of street nuisance. But that perhaps takes us somewhat beyond the scope of the Bill.
  A great deal has been said about sex shops and the fact that they are not covered by the Bill. I cannot add greatly to what has already been said except to give one example from my constituency. A gentleman is threatening to open a sex shop, not because he wishes to do so or because he believes that there would be any demand for it, but simply because the local authority will not allow him to change the use of his premises from a shop to an amusement arcade. He knows that, although the authority can prevent him from opening an amusement arcade, it cannot stop him from opening a sex shop. He is therefore threatening to open a sex shop in the hope of changing the authority's mind, thereby upsetting and outraging local people, perhaps unnecessarily.
  I do not believe that all sex shops should be banned. Where there is public demand for a service it must be satisfied, one way or another. Clearly, the law on the whole subject is in a mess. It must therefore be sorted out—if not in the Bill, in other legislation.
  Much has also been said about take-away shops. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) is as assiduous in his pursuit of the interests of his constituents as in his pursuit of individual liberty—[HON. MEMBERS: "And fish and chips."]—and, no doubt, fish and chips. Clearly, there is a need for take-away shops. If there were not, they would not be operated profitably and would not be expanding as they are.
  The problem about regulation in this sphere, and particularly about devolving powers to local authorities to make regulations, is that those who wish to complain will always come forward in greater numbers and be more insistent than those who would testify to the usefulness of the service. Those who complain, while small in number, are usually heavily inconvenienced, while those who use the service would be inconvenienced in far greater numbers by losing it, but probably in a much smaller way. The local authority is therefore likely to have a somewhat biased view of public opinion if it hears only the complaints. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe said, some authorities tend simply to adopt the attitude "Find out what Johnny's doing and tell him to stop it".
  My hon. Friend's suggestion that perhaps 11.30 pm or 12 midnight would be a more sensible time is fair and

  957
  reasonable. In many parts of Britain, the pubs close at 11 o'clock. People usually do not go for fish and chips until the pubs have closed. They usually leave the pub at about 11.10, and should be allowed 20 minutes at the very least to get their fish and chips, otherwise we could deprive the public of a useful service.
  Public entertainment is a major problem in my constituency. However, we already have a good degree of control over it through the licensing laws. It may well be possible to have public entertainment without alcohol being served, but it has become increasingly difficult to do so. A number of discotheques in my constituency have effectively been closed simply by the denial of the licensing extension that they wanted. Here, too, those who complain will always be louder in their complaints than those who are prepared to testify to the value of a service or business.
  Provision for small business signs should be considered for inclusion in the Bill. We are building an increasing number of bypasses. As a result, we often leave the businesses in the town or village that is bypassed bereft of passing trade. Such businesses may wish to place small signs by the side of the bypass indicating that there is a pub or restaurant in the village. At present, they encounter much opposition from the highway authorities.
  I should like to have seen provision in the highways part of the Bill to regularise the position on small business signs. I realise that all such signs cannot be allowed, but equally they should not all be prohibited. We fall rather uncomfortably between those two stools to varying degrees throughout the country. This is an area of law that we ought to be considering in a Bill such as this.
  Some time ago, I served on a quasi-judicial committee that considered a private Bill promoted by the South Yorkshire county council, which sought to create a criminal offence for trespass on property that it owned or controlled. I think that the county council had education property particularly in mind.
  There is a good case for making trespassing a criminal instead of a civil offence, as it is at present. There is also a good case against doing so. However, it cannot be right for the law of the land to make trespassing an offence only in respect of the property of the South Yorkshire county council.
  I expect that the Duke of Devonshire would dearly love to see trespass on Chatsworth Park made a criminal offence. I expect that his Grace could advance reasons at least as compelling as those advanced by the South Yorkshire county council. However, if he tried to bring in a private Bill to make trespass on his own property illegal, I imagine that he would get a dusty answer. The piecemeal development of the law on trespass is unsatisfactory, and I should like that to be taken in hand through Bills such as this.
  In many ways, this is a rag-bag of a Bill. Because of that, there will always be items that hon. Members feel should be included and those that they feel should have been left out. Bearing in mind its broad provisions, it is a welcome measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby succinctly put it, I welcome it in the present situation in which we currently live.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Sydney Chapman: It is always a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris), and I shall refer in a moment to one of the points that he raised.
  It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller). I particularly share his views about the vague wording of schedule 3.
  I am also delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey), but on this occasion I shall not follow him into Binley Woods, even though this is National Tree Week. He raised some important points.
  I, too, apologise to the House for being unable to be here for all of the debate. I had a long-standing arrangement to meet members of my local branch of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament to discuss what they felt were vital political matters. I shall not say that going from that meeting to discuss the Bill is like going from the sublime to the ridiculous, because there are many fundamental points of importance in this legislation.
  I approach the Bill warily. The more that I examine the different parts of it, the more I realise yet again that we are trying to put on to the statute book legislation that will take away the rights of individuals. I do not object to that if it is essential. Once again, the Bill illustrates the delicate balance that we have to tread on behalf of our constituents—on the one hand balancing the rights of the individual, and on the other protecting them from nuisances such as pollution, noise and so on.
  Part I deals with the licensing of places used for public entertainments. As I understand it, the Government propose to extend byelaws that already operate in Greater London to other parts of the country. Those measures have been working well in London since 1965, and, for what my opinion is worth, it is right that they should be uniform throughout the rest of the country.
  I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West and the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) about what the Bill has left out, as much as what is included in it. I make no apology for raising again—there seems to be a sporadic outbreak of these establishments—proposals to change the use of existing shops to sex shops. There is a proposal, alas, in my constituency for such a change. The original use of a shop can be changed to a sex shop without the need for planning permission.
  Should that sort of establishment require permission of one sort or another? I say unhesitatingly that it should. It is totally wrong, and it causes a great deal of offence to many of my constituents, that a person should be allowed to change the use of a shop next door to a primary school in my constituency to a sex shop. Because of that, I believe that we should have a system of approval before such establishments can come into being.
  A better way in which that can and should be done is through a system of licensing by the local authority. That is preferable to the route of requiring the owner of the premises to submit an application to the local planning authority. I recognise that under the use classes order, if a person wants to change a shop into a gymnasium, a Turkish foam bath or a pet food shop, it is necessary for him to obtain planning permission because the premises are being changed from their conventional use to a new use that is deemed to be capable of causing a nuisance to neighbours. The change of an ordinary conventional shop

  959
  into a sex shop is in a similar category. My preference is for a system of licensing by the local authority. If that cannot be included in the Bill in Committee, because it may not fall within the long title, the Government, one of my hon. Friends or perhaps an hon. Member lucky enough to draw a place in the ballot for Private Member's Bills might consider adopting the suggestion.
  A problem arises over the code for street trading. No one wants to abolish street trading. There are, however, cases where shopkeepers have to pay massive rates to sell goods to the public, while street traders can get by without paying one penny. The Bill proposes a sensible balance between providing a service for the public and seeing that street traders pay their fair share of the costs that are incumbent on local authorities.
  Part III relates to the ability to move a closing order on a take-away food shop. I understand the reason for the provision, although I consider, on balance, that midnight to 5 am or possibly 6 am is a more reasonable requirement.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: This may cut to the core one of the historical traders of this country, the fish and chip trader, who, I am sure, is represented in my hon. Friend's constituency as well as in mine. Fish and chip traders offer food long after 11 pm, to the benefit of the community where they operate.
  Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend is right to raise that matter. If the House is minded to give the local authority this power, it must ensure that there are ways in which people can appeal if they feel that what is proposed is unfair, or feel that they are providing a service to the public.
  The other side of the coin is the nuisance caused to people living nearby. I am worried about the trend in recent years of people moving out of city and town centres into suburbs and new developments. This movement eats up rich agricultural land in our green and pleasant countryside, while the cities become empty. We have to try to reverse the trend. One of the more likely ways to reverse it is to make our city and town centres more acceptable places in which to live. While amenity includes being able to get fish and chips at 2 am, it also includes the avoidance of nuisance to people trying to sleep during conventional hours. That illustrates the importance of the Bill, although many people may think it deals with relatively minor matters.
  Part IV contains the provision for local authorities to consult the fire authority. I hesitate to see more bureaucracy connected with the building regulations, of which the fire regulations are a part. I must declare an interest. I qualified as an architect in my younger days. I define youth as anyone younger than a year older than I happen to be. I am also a fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I can quote, time and again, instances of people wishing to put up a development, required and wanted by everyone, but thwarted by the sometimes restrictive and constrictive fire regulations.
  I suspect, although I do not know, that fire doors have caused more broken arms by swinging back against people than they have saved lives. I can also quote instances where a chief fire officer has insisted on the most rigorous changes in plans, designs and specification on a bill of works, only to be replaced by a new chief fire officer who demands completely new restrictions. We must keep a sense of balance.
  960
  Finally, I want to refer to part X, which deals with drains. I am worried, because clause 23 gives the most sweeping power to local authorities to mend a drain or a private sewer and then decide who is to be billed for the expense. In my constituency there are many old drains, and it is difficult to find out who has the responsibility—an individual, the local authority, the water company or the regional water authority. Frankly, all the legislation on this subject needs to be clarified.
  Many of the provisions cover matters that have already been dealt with in local Acts. Anyone who has sat in Committee on opposed Bills or unopposed Bills knows that the Committee upstairs is very careful about giving powers to local authorities. We ask "Is there a precedent?", and if there is no precedent we tend not to give the powers. I know that it is the argument of the chicken and the egg, but for the sake of ourselves, in the mass of legislation that we have to scrutinise, and for the sake of the people whom we represent, there should be a much more rational approach to the making of byelaws or the consolidation of local byelaws into Acts of Parliament through general powers Bills.
  It is ridiculous that local authorities should have to come to Parliament for approval for certain things that they want to do, and then a few years later we find ourselves making those very things the norm throughout the country. There should be a more civilised, sensible and efficient way of dealing with these important matters. If that cannot be dealt with in Committee, it is something—and I say this with the greatest respect—that in due course and at the appropriate time the House should consider and act upon.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: We have had an unusual, interesting, varied, and certainly long debate on a miscellaneous provisions Bill. As the Minister of State said in opening, miscellaneous provisions Bills of this kind arise from the 1972 Act, which provided that until 1984—I understand that it is now extended until 1986—this House can look at private Bills put forward by local authorities and consolidate them for the benefit of all authorities. This Bill is not strictly a consolidation measure, but it is akin to one. That is why I say that it is unusual to have such a long and varied debate on it.
  I am encouraged by that, because it shows the enormous interest in local government that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides, particularly on the Conservative Benches, must have. It is unusual, too. that we have so much time for such a Bill because, so early in the parliamentary Session, I had imagined that another Bill might have come before the House—the Local Government Finance Bill. Alas, where is it? What has happened to it? Clearly, on the evidence that we have tonight of the interest that Conservative Members have shown in a miscellaneous provisions Bill, which is normally a minor Bill, we shall certainly need two or at least three days for the Second Reading of the Local. Government Finance Bill.
  I congratulate the Minister on his opening speech and—something that is very unusual from this Bench—I congratulate the Government Whips. When we began the debate this afternoon, only a few of us who are now present were in the Chamber. At times, the attendance dwindled to just the Under-Secretary and myself, and then it swelled. That clearly was due to the activity of the Government Whips. Indeed, the Bill mentions highways

  961
  and byways and they went to the highways and byways to find hon. Members to speak. They found the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) at a CND meeting and rightly brought him to the Chamber. They went further: they even went out of the House and found the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) in an Indian take-away and brought him back to discuss the Bill.
  The contributions by both hon. Members have been most valuable. That is why I thank the Government Whips for having extended the debate and for having given the House an opportunity to hear those extremely interesting, constructive and valuable contributions. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to use your influence with Mr. Speaker to ensure that those valuable contributions are given in Committee, so that all those hon. Members who have come to the Chamber may join the much expanded Committee to pursue the views that they have put forward.
  Mr. Wickenden: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there should be 20 Conservative Members to every one Labour Member in Committee?
  Mr. Oakes: No, but the Committee of Selection might consider the ingenuity with which some Conservative Members came into the Chamber, picked up the Bill and spoke learnedly on it. They are obviously invaluable to a Committee. Some of those hon. Members who spoke earlier in the debate might be too controversial for the Government Whips, because the Committee would continue for ever and a day. Those hon. Members are opposed to many of the Bill's provisions.
  In opening the debate, the Minister rightly said that when introducing a miscellaneous provisions Bill the measure should be precedented in recent local Acts. Indeed, he used almost the same words as I used in 1976, no doubt written by the same civil servant. He said that it should be "uncontroversial" and that no contentious item should be slipped into the Bill. That is in accordance with the normal precedent for miscellaneous provisions Bills. It is the normal precedent, although it does not have to be so.
  The Bill may be a useful package, but the speeches that we have heard—particularly from Conservative Members—have made it clear that the Bill, to use words from the Common book of Prayer, has
  "left undone those things which we ought to have done—And … done those things which we ought not to have done."
  I shall not say that there is "no health" in it, but such omissions are a considerable drawback.
  I have the honour to be the unpaid vice-president of the Association of County Councils. It wrote to hon. Members and said that the Bill did too little and too late. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said, it has made more than 100 different proposals. All those proposals were well accepted. They were not controversial and were agreed by the various associations and by local councils. It suggested useful provisions that could have been included in the Bill.
  However, the Minister said that there was not enough Government time to include them all. That is not necessarily so. On an uncontroversial Bill, there would not be much opposition to such useful measures. For example, the ACC suggests a provision to deal with something that has caused great contention in all our constituencies. I refer to the problem of parking of heavy lorries. That
  962
  problem includes heavy lorries parking at night and starting early in the morning, the parking of heavy lorries in car parks where the provision is for private cars and the parking of such lorries at the rear of residential premises. Such issues are uncontroversial and could easily be part of a miscellaneous provisions Bill.
  The Association of District Councils made the point that nearly all Private Members' Bills contain provisions for a county council or a district council to help industry by building factory shells, for example. Local authorities want powers and rights to assist industry, but there is nothing of that nature in the Bill. This is probably because the Minister of State is being blocked by his friends in the Department of Industry. I do not see why, because it would not be a measure of creeping Socialism. Both Conservative and Labour-controlled authorities want and ask for these powers for the benefit of their districts. Yet there is nothing remotely of that nature in the provisions of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) made a point which I took up and which we feel should come in the Bill at a later stage. There is a ludicrous discrepancy between local authorities, some permissive and some puritan. In one town a particular film can be shown and in another it is banned. One authority accepts the British Board of Film Censors' judgment on a film and another does not. All that happens is that the film is a box office success because a particular authority has banned it.
  It is said that film producers may make arrangements to ensure that the film is banned by one authority to give them extra publicity. I do not know whether that happens but it is ludicrous that the difference exists and the Bill should do something about it. Furthermore, the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils made this point and the Minister should heed them.
  In Committee, many more matters which have been discussed between the Government and local authorities could be fitted in. The long title of the Bill is sufficiently wide for that to be done and where there is agreement between authorities and the Government new provisions, clauses and amendments can be inserted. Can the Minister assure the House that the widest possible latitude will be given to members of the Committee to consider and add to the Bill many of the things that local authorities think should be added.
  One of the most interesting results of the debate has been the demonstration of the desire on both sides of the House for some provision to be put in the Bill regarding sex shops, which are an acute problem for many local authorities. As the House will know, a shop is a shop for planning legislation purposes. If the nature of the shop is changed to a sex shop that change does not come within the purview of the local authority. Most think that it should.
  There have been valuable contributions tonight from the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), Fulham (Mr. Stevens), Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) and Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill)—Southampton has a particularly acute problem—Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), and an excellent speech by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). All have said that control of sex shops should be included in the Bill. The Government may say that it is too controversial to be put into a Bill of this nature, but by including clause 3 they have pulled the rug from under their own feet. Members in all parts of the

  963
  House agree that there should be some control of sex shops. We are not asking for them to be banned but merely to be brought under control.
  In Widnes, to the astonishment of my constituents, a letter appeared in the local newspaper suggesting that a sex shop should be opened there. There was enormous opposition to that suggestion. Wisely, the firm decided that discretion was the better part of valour and that it would not open such a shop in the area. In St. Helen's the same firm contracted to buy premises but there was enormous opposition to the idea of a sex shop in the main street and near a school.
  The sex shop trade earns enormous profits from the degradation of women. There should be some control over it. Only last year the House passed an Act to prevent lurid literature from being put on open display, but despite that Act such shops proliferate outside Soho and London. A child walking along the high street will wonder and ask his parents what goes on behind the darkened window and why the shop is not an open shop like any other. If the Government take their courage into their hands and do something about that in Committee, they will have a responsive ear from the Opposition.
  Mr. Parris: With great trepidation I spring to the defence of sex shops. If such a measure were included in the Bill, would it not mean that no local authority would allow a sex shop in its area? I think that it would mean that. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman wants?
  Mr. Oakes: I should leave the decision about whether a sex shop should be allowed to the discretion of the electorate and their elected councillors. Representations could be made by the people who wanted to open such shops but the local council would have some control. Great anger is caused when a sex shop is opened on a main street in an area where there has never been such a shop before. Small industrial communities are not used to that type of shop and they resent the imposition of it without planning consent or control.
  There are many other sins of omission but I do not have time to discuss them all. Clause 3, which deals with takeaway food shops, is also contentious. The clause empowers a council to close such a shop if it provides a take-away service after 11 p.m. The argument developed into a north-south argument, except for the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I can understand that and I am sure that the Minister will also understand it as he represents the excellent town of Pudsey in Yorkshire. The hon. Members for Shipley (Mr. Fox), Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) and Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) spoke against the provision, either wholly or in part.
  The hon. Member for Shipley made it clear that the trade had not been consulted about the provision. It is dangerous to insert a clause in a miscellaneous provisions Bill without extensive consultations with the trade concerned, because that could be hurtful to that trade. He also pointed out that that was far from the accepted practice in accordance with the Minister's statement that it must he precedented in recent local Acts and uncontroversial. An attempt was made on 21 March 1979 with the West Midlands County Council Bill, which was thrown out by the Opposed Private Bill Committee.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us in how many and in which private Bills that provision is now contained. If
  964
  he cannot give us a substantial list of local authorities that have wanted the provision in the Bill, clearly clause 3 has no part in the Bill. I hope that when the Government recognised that it is uncontroversial, they will withdraw it.
  The clause is weird and wonderful and uses peculiar words. The essence of the wording is that the local authority must be of the opinion that there may be a nuisance to residents in the neighbourhood. There may not have been a complaint about a nuisance. Some local authorities may consider that take-away food establishments are a nuisance per se and that, in their opinion, without any complaint being made, those establishments must close at 11 o'clock. The word "neighbourhood" is wide. How far does the neighbourhood of a take-away food establishment extend?
  I agree with the hon. Members for Brigg and Scunthorpe and for Shipley that a useful service is provided by those shops. We know that there is always someone who will raise a complaint about something. If the council considers a complaint, it may satisfy one, two, four or five individuals, but during that consideration it deprives the public—who have previously made no complaint because they are happy with the service—of that service. It also deprives the proprietor—I am especially concerned for the small proprietor—of a living.
  Many shops used to have a lunchtime trade, but because of clearance that trade has disappeared. Many proprietors rely upon the late night trade. We must recognise that the days of curfew have gone. We must consider the hour of 11 o'clock. Pubs do not close until 11 o'clock, although they used to close at 10 o'clock. Auntie BBC used to go off the air at 10 o'clock because people were expected to be in bed, but now both it and ITV broadcast until after midnight. It is reasonable to expect that people can go out and buy something to eat at those hours.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend suggests that that clause should not be embodied in the Bill. Can he suggest how to resolve the problem, especially in areas such as mine where there have been repeated representations for many years?
  Mr. Oakes: It can be done partly under planning legislation and conditions imposed when the consent is given, or it can be done if a clause replacing clause 3 meets my hon Friend's legitimate point, although not in such a draconian way. The Government must be aware that many thousands of people, including humble proprietors of fish and chip shops, will deplore the legislation. They will not hesitate to tell their customers who are deprived of their fish and chips at 11 pm that the council has closed the shop because of Government action.
  We must be careful to see that legislation does not take away people's rights, particularly where one or two people may object and thereby deprive many hundreds, if not thousands, of others of their rights. They may prevent an industry, and especially individual shopkeepers, from making a living.
  In addition, it is clear that the legislation is controversial. Three hon. Members on the Government Benches oppose it, one of whom was a Minister and might have introduced the Bill only a few months ago. The Government should carefully reconsider clause 3.
  Mr. Rathbone: May I correct one of the right hon. Gentleman's assertions? It is not a north-south divide. Good fish are caught and good fish and chips are sold in the south, where there is just as much concern.
  Mr. Oakes: I apologise. I may have heard only part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I am delighted that the south has united with the north to oppose the way that the Government are imposing the legislation.
  Part IV relates to fire precautions. It is absurd by statute to require councils to consult fire authorities on fire matters. Which authorities object to doing that? Which impose requirements on caravan sites without consulting the fire authority? The matter is so axiomatic that it is absurd to include it even in a miscellaneous provisions Bill. If there is a reason to include the provision, I hope that the Minister will tell us.
  I am wary of and a little unhappy about part VI, which enables the police to institute proceedings without the consent of the Attorney-General in respect of offences against byelaws made by local authorities. I wish that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) was in the Chamber. We have today discussed the Scarman inquiry. Policemen are not park keepers or market inspectors. The enforcement of byelaws is often more a matter for a market inspector or a park keeper. It is not for the majesty of the law to intervene, unless the local authority wishes it.
  Secondly, many byelaws concern street processions and the right to demonstrate and to picket. The clause must be looked at carefully, as it gives the police a power that they do not at the moment have to prosecute without the consent of the Attorney-General.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax dealt thoroughly with acupuncture, tattooing, ear-piercing and electrolysis. Acupuncturists may be a little aggrieved at being lumped together with tattooists and ear-piercers, but I suppose that the evils resulting from the malpractice of those professions are similar.
  May we have clarification of part VIII, which concerns applications for permits to sell foods from stalls and containers? If an application is made, the local authority appears to have no choice. Clause 17(8) states:
  "On application for registration under this section the local authority shall register the application and if the applicant is for the registration of premises, those premises, and shall issue to the applicant a certificate of registration".
  There is no discretion to decide whether the person is suitable or unsuitable and no provision to take the licence and registration away from someone who is manifestly unsuitable. That registration should clearly be considered in Committee. It reminds me of Gilbert and Sullivan's
  "I've got a little list".
  All that the local authority would have is a "little list" and it would have no powers against the individual.
  If clause 3 operated and a local authority decided to impose an order requiring a chip shop or take-away food premises to close at 11 pm, the shop would close, but a mobile trader selling fish and chips could park outside those premises at that time and continue his trade with impunity. The Bill would put the shop proprietor out of business but no public nuisance would have been remedied and a public scandal would be created by somebody trading and being protected by the umbrella of an Act. The Committee will have to consider that. The Opposition will
  966
  not oppose the Bill, but I wish that the opportunity had been taken, five years after the last Bill, to produce a better Bill than this.
  9.33 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): As the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) said, this has been a substantial debate and there have been many contributions, which have produced four themes. First, there has been a general agreement that the Bill should be passed and, as the right hon. Gentleman confirmed, there is no suggestion that the House will divide. Secondly, it has been agreed that the Bill has been in preparation for a long time, and there has been considerable criticism about that. Thirdly, the Bill contains useful provisions, some of which have provoked criticism which I shall attempt to deal with. Fourthly, it omits a number of major matters which hon. Members on both sides of the House would have preferred to be included.
  I remind the House of the conditions under which such Bills must be produced. The right hon. Member for Widnes referred to them in his opening remarks. The legislation must follow fairly well predetermined paths, including being largely non-controversial and precendented, and containing matters for which there can be shown to be a considerable need.
  The Bill is following two previous miscellaneous provisions Bills of 1972 and 1976. It may interest hon. Members to know that the processes involved in attempting to gather the Bill's provisions together started before its predecessor in May 1976 had reached the statute book. A working party was established by the Department of the Environment to gather together the contents of the legislation that we are discussing. About 180 proposals have been suggested and, as the right hon. Member for Widnes said, many have been proposed by the ACC and other associations.
  The working group's efforts lasted from 22 January 1979. Although I accept a fair amount of blame for the preparation of the legislation taking such a long time—I know that hon. Members wish to see it take a shorter time—the process of consultation and agreement by associations of what might or might not be included—there is competitive pressure from them all to make some contribution—inevitably takes time. Each matter must be weighed against the criteria that I have described and against the fact that in several cases the local authorities might have desired to include matters that were already the subject of separate legislation that was under discussion. We might refer to one or two of the omissions in that context.
  My task is to endeavour to respond to the points made by the hon. Members who have contributed so richly to the debate.
  The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) dealt with the mandatory nature of some of the clauses and with the extension of local government powers that the Bill brings about. The only mandatory provisions—these extend the powers of local government—are in clauses 1, 7 and 20. They are in relation to the licensing of public entertainments, consultation between authorities about fire matters, and control of construction works under streets.
  The minimum number of mandatory clauses has been put into the Bill to avoid imposing increased duties on local authorities. In all these powers being provided, we

  967
  recognise that there will undoubtedly be some restraint on expenditure and on manning, but I think that the hon. Lady will recognise that, in so far as licensing is available in many of these cases, there will be a contribution towards the costs that might be incurred by some of the mandatory provisions.
  The hon. Lady went on to discuss glue sniffing, a subject that was mentioned by other hon. Members. That is a national problem. I attempted to get some advice from the Department of Health and Social Security about it. That Department does not consider that the problem of glue sniffing can be dealt with within the context of this Bill. Products can obviously be used for this purpose, but they are products that could equally be used for legitimate purposes, and the question of what products must be confined or restricted in their sale is one that will take a considerable amount of definition and will, I suspect, prove extremely controversial.
  Dr. Summerskill: I note that the hon. Gentleman consulted the DHSS. Is it not a Home Office responsibility to control the spread of glue sniffing?
  Mr. Shaw: The hon. Lady is right to correct me. It is a problem for the Home Office to contain, but the question of what is involved in terms of the risk to health is one about which the DHSS is concerned. I apologise for misleading the hon. Lady on that matter.
  The hon. Lady also asked about the Greater London Council's experience in relation to part I. This has been the basis on which this portion of the Bill has been put forward. It is reckoned that the experiences gained in London have been satisfactory and that the extension to other local authorities would be sensible.
  A number of hon. Members raised the question of acupuncture. The hon. Lady asks why this matter should involve a permissive power. I think that she should not draw distinctions that are too fine between what is permissible and what is mandatory. I have no doubt that local authorities will seek to use the powers in the Bill as widely as they consider their local area requires. I think that we can rely on that happening.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) was the first to raise the major point about take-away food shops. This matter was echoed by almost every hon. Member who spoke in the debate. Under part III and the clauses in it, the local authority will, if it is so minded, have powers to introduce a closing order. There is nothing magic about the time span that is offered between 11 pm and 5 am. Any time that the local authority deemed to be appropriate in regard to the problem could be used.
  Secondly, the clause is drafted in a way that makes it extremely individual. If hon. Members care to look at clause 4 they will see that it can be used against an indvidual premise, and clause 3(2) says:
  "A closing order shall be an order specifying individual premises and addressed to the person having the conduct or management of them".
  There is nothing that could force a local authority to apply a closure order on, for example, all take-away food shops, and certainly not all fish and chip shops, in its area from 11 pm to 5 am. It is empowered to take note of the premises which in residential areas cause a substantial series of complaints or some other nuisance on which it deems it sensible to act.
  The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) raised the question of appeal. I take his point that in the planning
  968
  laws there are procedures to handle those matters by a non-judicial route, but as we are dealing with an offence as opposed to a disagreement between a local authority's decision and that which the appellant seeks to establish in a planning appeal, it is essentially a matter for the courts. Also, questions of compensation could be raised should an appeal be upheld when a local authority has taken action to deprive a person of his livelihood. It is sensible that the matter should be dealt with by the magistrates' courts.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) raised the flag of the street traders and their important contribution.
  Mr. Oakes: I should like to ask the Minister two questions about part III. He talked of "substantial complaints". Those words do not appear in the legislation. Might it be so amended? Secondly, I ask him for the precedents of local Acts that contain that provison. Will he tell us how many there are and where they are?
  Mr. Shaw: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. The precedent need not be contained purely in local Acts. It could be legislation of a similar character. In this instance the precedent is the Late Night Refreshment Houses Act 1969. As the right hon. Gentleman will see from the explanatory notes that we have offered to him, that is the route through which the amendment has been made. In that Act there is provision for closure to be available for premises where refreshment or consumption takes place in the premises. Now we are dealing primarily with refreshment that takes place outside or is taken away from the premises.
  It is not incumbent upon them, but it is open to planning authorities to determine shopping policies under the structure plans or district plans—primarily the district plans. As a result, developments for shopping will be material factors when an inspector comes to discuss an application or appeal. It is important that local authorities should use that for dealing with shopping policies, particularly for take-away food and other premises that have collected in any number in certain areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) referred to the Brixton Road. The consequence for the remainder of the area and its amenities is substantial. Shopping policies in district plans may be one way of avoiding the creation of the problems that this modest Bill seeks to put right.
  Mr. Cryer: The Minister suggested that a closing order under clause 3 would be a criminal matter, but that would be at the discretion of the council to apply after a dispute. No criminal offence would necessarily be involved. The only criminal offence would arise from the application of the closing order subsequent to its confirmation under clause 5.
  Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman asked whether it would be more appropriate to provide a non-judicial route for dealing with appeals and I was seeking to answer him on that point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) was the first hon. Member to raise the major problem of the sex shops and the fact that that matter is not in the Bill. I suspect that that was the main anxiety of those who complained that the Bill omitted more than it committed. The issue of sex shops is one with which my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office and I have had to deal over recent months.

  969
  No doubt many hon. Members are aware that the Home Secretary is already advanced in his consideration of the application of a licensing scheme, particularly in relation to the Greater London Council. It is the Home Secretary's view that before reaching a further decision on this it would be sensible to assess the practicability of the GLC's proposed scheme. Hon. Members have been pressing to know how far the scheme has proceeded. Discussions on that Bill have now proceeded a fair way. Those involved in the discussions have already discovered some of the major difficulties involved in legislating in this area.
  The practical difficulties include devising an effective licensing scheme while preventing it from applying to forms of trading which I am sure hon. Members would regard as perfectly legitimate. For example, there is the danger of classifying Boots, the chemists, as a sex shop simply because it sells contraceptives, or of requiring the local newsagent to apply for a licence because he sells a few girlie magazines. Difficulties of that kind involving niceties of definition have already shown that there is a real problem in defining the form of trade which hon. Members on both sides seek to restrict.
  That Bill is being produced and, we hope, will be published shortly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford recognised, the GLC has the major problem in its area and will no doubt be the first to discover whether limits can satisfactorily be defined to catch the trade, while not preventing legitimate trade in articles which may so easily be associated with it.
  Mr. Chapman: Surely my hon. Friend is not suggesting that it is beyond the wit of Parliament to define what is a residential area as opposed to an industrial area. There may well be some people residing in industrial areas and some light industry in residential areas, but it is surely not beyond our wit to define exactly what we mean by a sex shop.
  Mr. Shaw: It may not be beyond the wit of my hon. Friend, but it will certainly be extremely difficult to provide a watertight definition in law of those articles which constitute a trade which we wish to license and those which constitute a trade which we do not wish to license. I can only tell him that, having defined the premises by virtue of the types of material sold, the questions which then arise as to what the licensing powers should be; how they should be administered, and so on, are formidable. Nevertheless, I can report to the House that the matter is now well advanced. Through the GLC powers Bill we hope to be able to see how the matter can be taken forward, as licensing is clearly a more appropriate route than the planning laws to which my hon. Friend has referred.
  I think that I have dealt with the take-away food shops which constitute a huge problem in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford. I hope that he will believe that the provisions of the Bill will help to close the Watford gap which causes such a problem. It is certainly our intention to do so.
  I must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) that the proposals in the Bill will reduce legislative time and therefore reduce cost. That, too, is a good point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen
  970
  (Mr. Mitchell), who is no longer present, referred to the problem of prostitution in Southampton. There is no doubt that the problems are particularly severe there. I can advise my hon. Friend that the Home Secretary's Criminal Law Revision Committee will shortly issue for public comment a working paper on the subject of prostitution. We hope that it will be issued in the first half of next year. It will include discussion of whether brothels should be licensed or otherwise permitted in certain areas of a city. The Government have no intention of introducing legislation on this matter in advance of the committee's report, which will be published only after the fullest consultation has taken place on the working paper. My hon. Friend may thus take at least some satisfaction from the fact that progress is being made by the committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) referred to the provisions of clause 19, which refers to the existing legislation whereby the appropriate authority may require persons responsible for premises bordering highways to prevent water from the premises falling on to passers-by or flowing over a footway. It is now intended to extend this provision to include the carriageway or roadway, in the interests of road safety. That is why the clause has been included.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asked why we had waited for so long. I have given some indication of the long period of preparation. My hon. Friend's concern was about mobile food traders and whether they would come within the provisions of the Bill. I think that I can reassure my hon. Friend. That will be possible under clauses 16 and 17. As the right hon. Member for Widnes said, such traders will have to be registered with the local authority. The purpose of registration is to secure before the start of a food-selling activity the essential identifying information. If that is not available by other means, the local authority must carry out its responsibility for enforcing the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act 1955. We hope that this form of retailing will also benefit from the provisions in the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was anxious about the future of rates. I assure him—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday—that the Green Paper will be published soon, I hope next month, when there will no doubt be much discussion about the alternative systems contained in that paper.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) asked about planning appeals, the time taken for them and their costs. I accept that this is a major cost restraint upon industry. My hon. Friend will know that we have made substantial progress in trying to speed up the system and that the average time taken to determine appeals has come down steadily, particularly in those cases determined by written representation as opposed to the full arrangement of an inspector's inquiry.
  I accept that the M25 orbital ring road has caused substantial problems, but my hon. Friend must recognise that this is the most difficult and contentious road that could possibly have been designed, especially as much of it passes through green belt land. Progress is being made, and I accept that the sooner we can proceed to completion the better.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) raised a number of points. I cannot comment

  971
  precisely on whether the "jam Bill" of 1981 will be upstaged by these measures. However, I fancy that things should be all right for the women's institutes in Cornwall.
  My hon. Friend asked whether clause 28 would include sanctions to enable a local authority to take action against a temporary market. Sanctions are already available. The purpose of the clause is to give local authorities time to use those sanctions. These exist under the Shops Act 1950 as well as under planning law. It should therefore be possible for local authorities to act more speedily. As I said, the sanctions already exist.
  My hon. Friend also asked about varying the conditions of an entertainment licence under paragraph 14(2) of schedule 1. This is the only case where the licensing authority may vary such conditions.
  Mr. Neale: Will my hon. Friend consider details that I can obtain from Cornwall about the enforcement procedure for markets? The authority tried to take action, but that was contested by the market operator, whose appeal was upheld by the Secretary of State. I should be grateful to my hon. Friend if he would look at any details that I send him.
  Mr. Shaw: Once an appeal has been upheld and determined by the Secretary of State, that is the end of the matter. I trust that my hon. Friend will feel reasonably sure that the matter was properly and fairly appraised before a decision was taken.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) raised the fascinating problem of the occult. I note what he said about marriage. As a former marketing director of Rowntree Mackintosh, I was often bewitched by the presentation of a box of "Black Magic". I do not think that the occult would necessarily be a suitable matter to be dealt with in the Bill. We are in enough trouble with what the Bill already contains, and I am glad that the occult has been left out of it.
  My hon. Friend asked whether clause 30 covered abandoned cars. Hon. Members will know that the clause refers to the recovery of lost property that has been uncollected. It seems possible to relate it to cars that are found on premises that are owned or managed by local authorities, but I believe that there are existing powers to deal with the matter properly under the Road Traffic Acts. I hope that that provides joy in the streets of Epsom and Ewell.
  I have already referred to the fact that the fish and chip business, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) so nobly defended, should not be seriously at risk from the provisions of the Bill. I remind him that the largest fish and chip shop in Great Britain is located in Pudsey, under the proud name of Harry Ramsden. Long may he continue to trade profitably and successfully.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) raised a particular problem about the pedestrianised highway. It is not a highway or a bridleway, it is a pedestrianised highway. No doubt, in the dim recesses of the House at the dim hour of midnight, I shall explain that even further.
  The Bill has provided much interest, even though many hon. Members are worried that it does not go far enough
  972
  in certain predetermined areas. It does not include provision for industrial development, a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Halifax. I accept that the Burns report, which was laid before the House some time ago, sets out conclusions about the review of local authority powers and makes recommendations on what might be done. We have not found it easy to get the full period of discussion with local authorities through, but we intend to do so rapidly and to provide our final conclusions on the report in the new year. That will help to clarify the matter, particularly as I know that local Acts are due to expire in 1984 to 1986.
  I remind the House that local authorities have many powers to assist industry. They have substantial planning powers. They have land registers in 35 cases and will shortly have them nationally. They have statute powers to help them to provide encouragement for industry, whether in co-operation with urban development corporations in London and Merseyside or by using the partnership schemes. There is much that they can and should do to help generate industry.
  This has been an interesting and well-intentioned debate on a wide variety of miscellaneous provisions. I am astonished, noting that the time is 9.57 pm, that the Bill has managed to obtain such a substantial discussion and airing in the House. However, its main objective is to provide what local authorities have sought so that the hassle of producing separate pieces of private legislation will no longer take up large parts of parliamentary time. No doubt there will now be a requirement for another Bill with miscellaneous provisions, as has happened in the past. I gained the impression from both sides of the House that, although there is disappointment, there is general agreement that this is a useful collection of miscellaneous provisions that should provide some assistance to local authorities in the execution of their duties.
  With regard to the two most contentious issues of takeaway food and the powers of local authorities to deal with difficulties in late night refreshment houses, I believe that local authorities will be sensitive in balancing the needs of their residents against the needs of the industries that supply the services. None of us disagrees that local authorities have an important role in planning an area that is pleasant to live in, but also an industrial climate in which small businesses and traders in take-away food can operate successfully.
  I commend the Bill to the House. I wish it a speedy and, I trust, successful Committee stage. No doubt amendments will be tabled. I trust that they will be amendments that will not destroy the basically uncontentious nature of the Bill, whose Second Reading I now commend to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Ordered,
  That the Standing Order of 4th July 1979 relating to the nomination of the Committee of Public Accounts be amended, by leaving out Mr. Nick Budgets and inserting Mr. Richard Needham.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

  Settle-Carlisle Railway (Closure)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]
  10 pm
  Mr. John Watson: I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House the topic of the future of the Settle to Carlisle railway. I do not think that it is premature to raise the question although, as I think hon. Members will be aware, it is fair to say that no closure proposal has even yet been made by British Rail, and none has yet been received by any arm of the Government. Nevertheless, it is fair to anticipate that, in the next two or three years, such a proposal might be forthcoming because the 70-odd miles of the Settle to Carlisle railway runs partly over something called the Ribblehead viaduct.
  The viaduct is apparently falling down to the extent that, according to British Rail, it is costing £150,000 a year to keep it standing. A full reinstatement, according to one version of British Rail's figures, would cost £6 million. According to British Rail, if that money is not spent the viaduct will not last for longer than six years at the most. In those circumstances, it is difficult to see how a closure proposal could be avoided.
  At the moment, the reinstatement of the viaduct, I understand, is not included in the British Rail capital programme. Even if it were, that would be no guarantee that the work would be carried out. The external financing limit is in itself not sufficient to cover the current capital programme. If, therefore, the viaduct and the work on it is to get not just into the capital programme but sufficiently high up the programme to ensure that the work is done, the viaduct will need a significant traffic load to justify the work. The traffic load, according to British Rail, has been declining and, quite deliberately, from May next year, it will decline still further because six inter-city trains a day which have been going over the viaduct between Nottingham and Glasgow will be withdrawn and sent by the westerly Lancashire route.
  I confess that I raise this issue substantially because I have a constituency interest. A large part of the line, including the viaduct itself, falls within my constituency. The railway itself generates some employment. If the line were to close, one station, Settle, would need to close too. Some quarry traffic of economic significance would be lost. Most important, the popular Dales rail service, which brings 6,000 people a year from the Leeds and Bradford conurbation with their much needed cash to spend on our hard pressed tourist industry, would presumably have to go.
  In all honesty, however, I would not be raising the topic if I were solely concerned about a constituency matter. There is a national significance. This is the highest railway line in England passing through some of the wildest and most beautiful countryside. Its construction in 1874 must surely have been one of the most heroic acts of the railway age. The line has a strategic significance, linking the conurbation of West Yorkshire to Scotland, and offers a valuable relief line for the Shap route. It is therefore reasonable and not premature to pose a number of questions.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman says. The biggest revenue earner for the line is Leeds in the West Yorkshire conurbation. The
  974
  immediate effect is wider than the hon. Gentleman's constituency interest, as he accurately pointed out. There would, for example, be a withdrawal of services from Keighley and Skipton that both of us, I believe, wish to see restricted and opposed.
  Mr. Watson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's contribution.
  There are five questions to which I would be grateful for a reply by the Minister. The first is a fundamental question. Does the re-routing of the Nottingham to Glasgow service have anything to do with the condition of the Ribblehead viaduct? It is almost with some apology that I feel it necessary to ask that question because my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary, in winding up last night, was commendable in his clarity when he said:
  "The diversion of the passenger service which has set off all the fuss was taken on commercial grounds by British Rail and has nothing to do with the physical condition of the viaduct."—[Official Report, 24 November 1981; Vol. 13, c. 831.]
  What could be clearer? Nor, unfortunately, is there anything much clearer than the statement to the contrary by the Secretary of State about three weeks ago in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph):
  "BR's decision to re-route the Nottingham-Glasgow service arises from the deteriorating condition of the Ribblehead viaduct".
  I shall, of course, be very interested to hear my hon. and learned Friend's reconciliation of those two statements.
  My second question is: are we, or are we not, now facing a major reduction in the passenger rail network? I understand from British Rail that, because of the current external financing limits, no less than 3,000 miles of track are considered under risk over the next few years. Yet I was heartened to see a recent letter from the Secretary of State, which said:
  "I have made it quite clear that I am not prepared to see any substantial cuts in the passenger rail network".
  Again, I shall be interested to hear my hon. and learned Friend's reconciliation of those two statements.
  The letter from which I have just quoted was sent on 28 October by the Secretary of State to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who I am happy to see here. I am sure that he shares my regret that his onerous responsibilities as Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury prevent him from participating in the debate.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: My hon. Friend will know that Chief Whips do not make speeches, and I do not know whether this can be called a speech or an intervention. May I say that I very much share my hon. Friend's views and his feelings about the Ribblehead viaduct? Although it is in his constituency, I sneaked in to look at it, and I could see nothing wrong with it.
  Mr. Watson: I am surprised and grateful to my right hon. and respected Friend for that intervention.
  I hasten to move to my third question: what is the significance of the freight traffic? Great play has been made of the removal from the viaduct of the six inter-city passenger trains per day. When I asked British Rail to what extent the viaduct was used by freight traffic, I did not get a consequential reply. I was led to believe that it was insignificant, and the only figure that I was given—informally, of course—was that it was something like six or seven trains a day.

  975
  Such is the enthusiasm for this line that many volunteers were prepared to sit by the railway line counting the freight trains over a period of days, during which time they came up with a figure that was far from six or seven per day. The average was nearer 30 trains per day carrying freight.
  What was most significant was the nature of the freight that was being carried: limestone aggregate, coal, steel and slow moving heavy goods. It is generally acknowledged that the carriage of such freight over the line and on the rail network generally has declined in recent years, coincident with the industrial recession. However, it should be acknowledged also that if we are to emerge from the current economic recession, one of the first signals of that emergence may well be a greater activity in the limestone aggregate industry or the steel industry. In those circumstances, such rail traffic might be among the first to pick up.
  My fourth question is: what would be the strategic ramifications of closure? Apparently, most of the traffic, including the freight traffic to which I have just referred, would need to be transferred to the Shap line. That line is very busy at the moment. Frankly, I doubt the feasibility of transferring 25 or 30 freight trains a day to that line at the moment, and if that freight traffic were to increase, as it might, the Shap line could become substantially overloaded.
  What happens when the Shap line needs maintenance? If we lose the Settle to Carlisle line and, for inevitable reasons, the Shap line were to be closed, there is only one alternative route throughout the west side of England, and that is the long, roundabout route through Cumbria and Whitehaven. I wonder about the reality of that alternative.
  I am given to believe that there is a tunnel in Whitehaven that is so narrow that trains can only just get through it. The diesel motor units that use it have bars on the windows to stop people leaning out. If people were to lean out of the windows as the train entered the tunnel, the passenger load of British Rail might fall for reasons that even the marketing department of British Rail has so far hesitated to anticipate. Therefore, I question the reality of so much extra traffic following such a roundabout route.
  What about the condition of the viaduct? I am no expert on viaducts or construction, but it is in my constituency and I have seen it. It looks okay to me. Apparently it will cost £150,000 per annum to keep it going. Has £150,000 been spent on it this year? If so, what on? Who says that it will cost £6 million to put it right? What consistency has there been about that £6 million? Why was reference made last night to £4·5 million? Has there been an independent assessment of the cost of putting the Ribblehead viaduct permanently right?
  I am bound to question whether the masive sum of £6 million is realistic, or whether it has not been injected for some wider cosmetic purpose. Even if we close the line, we cannot presumably leave the viaduct, like some ageing Roman aqueduct, on its own to rot as the centuries pass. Decommissioning would involve some cost and presumably that would have to be taken into account when working out what should be done.
  It seems likely that, sooner or later, we shall be asked to approve the closure of 72 miles of historic, scenic, strategically significant and economically important railway track in order to save, at the most, £6 million. That £6 million is the cost of building one mile of extra motorway at today's prices. If the public are to be asked
  976
  to approve such a proposal they are entitled to ask such questions. Therefore, before giving their approval, they are entitled to sound and rational answers to the questions that I have raised.
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch and Lytnington) rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Does the hon. Gentleman have the permission of the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson)?
  Mr. Adley: Yes, Sir.
  I shall be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson) on his persistence in obtaining the debate and on the way in which he so lucidly put the case on behalf not only of his constituents and those concerned with British Rail but of a far wider public, who regard the battle as important and of particular significance to those who, like me, watch the activities of the Steam Locomotive Operators Association with interest. As my hon. Friend will know, it is one of the few lines that is licensed to run steam engines.
  I have two brief questions to ask. What is British Rail's attitude to the future of the line, and what is the future of the Ribblehead viaduct? I shall not go over the points that my hon. Friend has made so lucidly, but in the past British Rail has often reduced a service and the income, increased costs and then put forward a sound case for closing the line. I fully support my hon. Friend's comment about an independent assessment of the work that needs to be done on the Ribblehead viaduct. We need a prompt and honest answer from British Rail about its intentions towards the line. It is a line that British Rail advertises as the most spectacular in England. The wild settings are incomparable. For how long will it be a main line?
  What about the Ribblehead viaduct? What are the costs? I make one suggestion to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister which he may pass on to British Rail. What about using the National Heritage Memorial Fund for the line? The National Heritage Act 1980 empowers the fund's trustees to give financial assistance towards the cost of acquiring, maintaining or perserving land, buildings, works of art and other items of outstanding importance to the national heritage. In its way, Ribblehead is as significant as Ingleborough, which God provided for this nation. The Ribblehead viaduct is every bit as significant as hundreds of the buildings that are listed as important.
  We put British Rail in a difficult position. If, by some weird and horrible mischance, the line is closed—albeit temporarily—the nation should retain a right to the track bed for possible future use either by British Rail in an emergency, or perhaps by others if British Rail cannot or will not keep it open. I give my fullest support to my hon. Friend and I hope that the Minister has some helpful and comforting words.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Christopher Price rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have the permission of the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson)?
  Mr. Christopher Price: Yes, Sir.
  I intervene as a London Member but a Yorkshireman. The line and its possible closure have implications far

  977
  beyond any constituency interest of the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson). I was brought up in and around the Ribblehead viaduct. It is a piece of the national heritage. It is unthinkable that it should disappear. I do not believe some of the estimates. It is ludicrous to say that the only solution is to build another viaduct alongside it.
  Anyone who knows and loves that part of Yorkshire must endorse the message of the debate—that the Ribblehead viaduct must survive as a working railway line which is necessary for the country and is part of that most splendid piece of the Yorkshire environment. I hope that we shall hear some comforting words from the Minister.
  10.16 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson) for raising this subject tonight. It has been the cause of comment in debates in the last two days. The Adjournment debate gives us the opportunity to look at the problem in the detail which has not so far been possible. There is a considerable amount of local concern about the future of the line which has been marked by the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has broken the silence normally imposed upon him in the House to express the concern of his constituents. I accept that there is a wider national interest in any speculation about the future of the Settle to Carlisle railway line.
  One or two recent incidents have provoked speculation. First, an announcement was made by the British Railways Board that the Nottingham to Glasgow service would be rerouted from May 1982 via Manchester and Preston instead of using the Settle to Carlisle line. That gave rise to speculation in the press about the condition of the Ribblehead viaduct. People are now beginning to speculate about the possibility of the line being closed altogether.
  The least that I can do is to explain what is happening and try to put the record straight. I apologise because part of the process of putting the record straight involves explaining a discrepancy between what I said last night and the contradictory statement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). That letter was written in error and on advice which was mistaken.
  The position is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science asked for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport's comments on a letter which he had received from an organisation known as the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Line Association. That organisation expressed the fears described by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton.
  The reply was sent upon advice but without consulting the British Railways Board. The assertion on the face of the letter from the constituents that there was a deterioration in the Ribblehead viaduct was accepted without question by my Department. The Secretary of State for Transport sent a reply which accepted the premise and proceeded on that basis.
  That letter eventually came to the notice of the British Railways Board which realised that it was inaccurate. We have since been assured categorically by the board that the
  978
  decision to re-route the Nottingham to Glasgow line has nothing whatever to do with the condition of Ribblehead viaduct.
  The decision was taken on commercial grounds because, rightly, British Rail is trying to improve the commercial practice of main line passenger services. It is commercially more attractive to take the trains through substantial centres such as Manchester and Preston instead of going from Settle to Carlisle. The main line route diversions, I am assured by British Rail, are caused entirely by sound commercial judgment. I have no reason to doubt that.
  The board intends to introduce a local service between Leeds and Carlisle. The scheduling of that service is a matter entirely for the board and not for the Department, but it enables me to explain that it is part of the commercial management of the railways and not based on the condition of the viaduct.
  Nevertheless the British Railways Board has also made it clear, no doubt to others as well as to the Department, that it is concerned about the condition of Ribblehead viaduct. It says that the viaduct requires expenditure. I do not have the estimate at my fingertips. The Department of Transport does not produce estimates of the cost of repairing structures, but the board says that the viaduct has deteriorated during the years and will require expenditure in the near future.
  That takes us, as did my hon. Friend, to the serious question of how that sort of structural renewal will be financed by the British Railways Board, given its present financial difficulties. It gives rise to perfectly proper questions about the level of financial support given to British Rail by the Government. The support that we give to British Rail is not based on an item-by-item bill being submitted to us. We faced the same problems, speculations and demands for specific sums of money when there was controversy last year about Barmouth viaduct on the central Wales line.
  The Government cannot accept individual submissions saying that a viaduct or a tunnel must be repaired or a station must be restored, which will cost £1 million for the first, £3 million for the second, and so on. We give the support that is judged necessary and which has been agreed with the board to provide the necessary passenger services that the Government have obliged it to provide.
  We put the board on an external financing limit which has been increased in recent years and which now stands at the staggering figure of £920 million for the current year. There is also the public service obligation grant which follows well-determined European Community rules. We placed the British Railways Board under a public service obligation, which was stated in 1974 to be to provide a service to the public that was reasonably equivalent to the service then prevailing. We then agreed with the British Railways Board the grant that the Government must give to subsidise the board and to provide that service, including capital investment on the line. Yesterday a massive increase in the 1981 PSO grant, to £754·7 million, was announced.
  In straightforward terms, in order to subsidise the board to provide the passenger service that it is obliged to provide, we are giving British Rail £2 million a day to support the services. British Rail must draw up its capital programmes within that figure so that it has its own priorities and can introduce any essential investment to repair structures or improve services.

  979
  I do not wish to reiterate what I said in my reply to the debate yesterday evening. Many people say that it is not enough money. However, the taxpayer is providing a substantial sum of money that enables British Rail to make large investments—much more than the Settle to Carlisle line would involve—including the introduction of the advanced passenger train, buying high-speed trains and signalling renewal at Victoria, Brighton and the West of England. That comes within British Rail's programme of capital investment. Within the PSO grant, it must determine its own investment priorities and make good the necessary structures upon which it runs its trains.
  Although I am not an engineer, I have listened this evening to two hon. Members who have visited Ribblehead viaduct. We may be talking about a few million pounds, but we must consider that demand for money against the background of the total cost of the railways, which is £2,500 million. The total finance limit is almost £1 billion a year and we give £750 million in grants. The board must determine its priorities within those sums to provide the service laid upon it by the Government on behalf of the public.
  As was said in debates yesterday, although rising steadily year by year, the EFL is still putting restraints on the board and it is finding it difficult to invest up to its ceiling and tot se all the PSO grant that it would like on investment. That, unfortunately, is because of the failing business performance of the railways, partly brought about by the recession. This is causing loss of revenue and the board has not so far been able to reduce costs to keep up the business performance.
  That means that the recent heavy investment in modernising the inter-city services has so far failed to generate the funds to improve the rest of the railway. Because of the failure of the inter-city services to operate as a commercial business without subsidy, we have not been able to give such a thing as a totally unconditional commitment to electrification. It also means that British Rail has difficulty refurbishing rural and provincial services.
  However, I do not deny that over the years there has been substantial neglect of track renewal and structural repairs on provincial and rural services. That is not new; it goes back 10 or 15 years. In any case British Rail has been unable or has ceased to do much more than patch and mend on provincial services.
  Nevertheless, if the business performance can be improved, and if the Government continue to be flexible and to give British Rail financial support, it is for British Rail to draw up its own investment programmes, to repair the structures and to provide the service which we oblige it to provide.
  Mr. Adley: Will my hon. and learned Friend personally ask Sir Peter Parker to take up the idea of the National Heritage Memorial Fund?
  Mr. Clarke: I give that undertaking. My hon. Friend's suggestion seemed ingenious. Not for the first time he produces an original proposition to support the railways. The thought crossed my mind that one difficulty that British Rail operates under is that it has over 700 listed buildings on its network through which it is supposed to run a modern railway line so far as conservationists and others will allow. There may be advantages in my hon. Friend's suggestion if it gives access to funds set aside for conservation purposes. I shall make sure it is explored.
  Mr. Cryer: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman also suggest to Sir Peter Parker that he explores EEC sources? I understand from a European Assembly representative that money might be available from the Common Market for a specific purpose.
  Mr. Clarke: That source is worth investigating, but we have had a preliminary look, and it is not very encouraging. It is outside my immediate area of responsibility, but I do not believe that Ribblehead is in an assisted area, which means that the regional development fund is automatically ruled out. However, if other European funds are available, I am sure that British Rail and the Government will be interested, but at present no specific transport infrastructure funds are provided by the Community, although the British Government are among the Governments who are most active in trying to make progress towards an infrastructure fund.
  That is the background, I cannot answer the other questions about the service. The Government simply cannot intervene in such matters as the levels of freight and passenger traffic. The routeing and timetabling of trains is the responsibility of management, and it is not right for the Government to interfere.
  A lot of freight traffic uses the route because British Rail has many wagons which cannot operate on a high-speed basis, so they cannot be fitted into the West Coast main line which they would otherwise use. Therefore, that kind of freight traffic may decline as British Rail continues its commendable progress in modernising its freight business.
  At the moment British Rail is putting on a local service between Leeds and Carlisle and has put absolutely no proposition to the Government for the closure of the route. Because of the recent speculation, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton fears that sooner or later the Government will be asked to approve the closure. We shall cross that bridge when we come to it. We cannot possibly go round the country prejudging possible closures, case by case. However, my hon. Friend will know that there is an elaborate procedure for closures. He will also know that my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Transport has reaffirmed exactly the policy of his predecessor. The Government have no wish to see substantial cuts in the passenger network.
  It is not possible, as we are sometimes pressed to do, to give an absolute undertaking that not a mile of railway line will go, but we accept the feelings expressed this evening that when important lines come into question the public would not wish the closure to be undertaken lightly. There is an elaborate procedure whereby the TUCC has to consider the hardship that might be caused by a closure proposal, and my right hon. Friend has to give his consent before it can take place. At present, that has not even been embarked on. We have had no inkling from British Rail that it is coming forward with a closure proposal. There is, therefore, no reason even to start the procedure.
  There is understandably, concern about the railway and speculation about its financial position. There is a lot of bidding from genuine friends of the railway who are trying to get a bit more to repair this, improve that or electrify the other——
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Sector Employment
  Public Sector Employment
  Royal Mint
  Royal Mint
  Oil and Gas (Tax Revenue)
  Oil and Gas (Tax Revenue)
  Retirement Pensioners (PAYE codes)
  Retirement Pensioners (PAYE codes)
  Income Tax (Assessments)
  Income Tax (Assessments)
  National Investment and Loans Office
  National Investment and Loans Office
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Public Order Act
  Public Order Act
  Sex Shops
  Sex Shops
CIVIL SERVICE
  Wages
  Wages
  Recruitment (Higher Grades)
  Recruitment (Higher Grades)
  Recruitment (School and College Leavers)
  Recruitment (School and College Leavers)
  Civil Servants (Places of Work)
  Civil Servants (Places of Work)
  Manpower
  Manpower
TRADE
  Sealink UK Ltd (Bid)
  Sealink UK Ltd (Bid)
  Advertising (Impact on Prices)
  Advertising (Impact on Prices)
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Helicopter Performance (Code of Practice)
  Helicopter Performance (Code of Practice)
  Helicopters
  Helicopters
ENERGY
  Fossil Fuel (Government Policy)
  Fossil Fuel (Government Policy)
  Power Stations (Closures)
  Power Stations (Closures)
  Oil Production
  Oil Production
  Oil and Gas (Profits)
  Oil and Gas (Profits)
  Helicopter Landing Officers
  Helicopter Landing Officers
NORTHERN IRELAND
  De Lorean Cars
  De Lorean Cars
  Parades and Demonstrations (Police Action)
  Parades and Demonstrations (Police Action)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Namibia
  Namibia
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  "No Barriers Here"
  "No Barriers Here"
  Apprenticeships
  Apprenticeships
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
INDUSTRY
  British Leyland, Bathgate
  British Leyland, Bathgate
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  European Community (Regional Policy)
  European Community (Regional Policy)
WALES
  Rents
  Rents
  Action on Smoking and Health (Grant)
  Action on Smoking and Health (Grant)
  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Steel Areas
  Steel Areas
  Local Authority Dwellings (Subsidy)
  Local Authority Dwellings (Subsidy)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Teachers (Cheshire)
  Teachers (Cheshire)
  Open University
  Open University
  Social Studies
  Social Studies
  Museums (Art Purchases)
  Museums (Art Purchases)
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
DEFENCE
  Prisoners of War (Pay)
  Prisoners of War (Pay)
  Shipping (Cape Route)
  Shipping (Cape Route)
  Cottingham (Unexploded Practice Bomb)
  Cottingham (Unexploded Practice Bomb)
TRANSPORT
  Port of London Authority
  Port of London Authority
  Glasgow-Kilmacolm Railway line
  Glasgow-Kilmacolm Railway line
  British Rail (Investment)
  British Rail (Investment)
  Cycling (Consultation Paper)
  Cycling (Consultation Paper)
  Oxford to Birmingham Motorway
  Oxford to Birmingham Motorway
  Advanced Passenger Train
  Advanced Passenger Train
  A40 (Ross-on-Wye Bypass)
  A40 (Ross-on-Wye Bypass)
  New Cars (Petrol Consumption)
  New Cars (Petrol Consumption)
  Flockton Bypass
  Flockton Bypass
  British Rail (Capital Expenditure and Manpower)
  British Rail (Capital Expenditure and Manpower)
  Trunk Road Programme
  Trunk Road Programme
  London (Public Transport)
  London (Public Transport)
  Rail Electrification
  Rail Electrification
  Armitage Report
  Armitage Report
  Provincial Rail Services
  Provincial Rail Services
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
  Long Distance Coach Journeys (Fares)
  Long Distance Coach Journeys (Fares)
  British Rail (External Financing Limits)
  British Rail (External Financing Limits)
  Leighton-Linslade Bypass
  Leighton-Linslade Bypass
  M40 and East Anglian Ports Route
  M40 and East Anglian Ports Route
  Women at Risk (Highway Lighting)
  Women at Risk (Highway Lighting)
  Vehicle Tests
  Vehicle Tests
  Civil Engineering Projects (Pre-contract Delays)
  Civil Engineering Projects (Pre-contract Delays)
  Traffic Offences (Penalty Collection)
  Traffic Offences (Penalty Collection)
  London Transport Police
  London Transport Police
  Public Transport (General Rate Fund Subsidy)
  Public Transport (General Rate Fund Subsidy)
  Dundee Diesel Depot
  Dundee Diesel Depot
  London and South-East Rail Services
  London and South-East Rail Services
  Privatisation Plans
  Privatisation Plans
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Pelican Crossings
  Pelican Crossings
  Trunk Roads (Construction Contracts)
  Trunk Roads (Construction Contracts)
  Trunk Road Schemes
  Trunk Road Schemes
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Testing)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Testing)
ENVIRONMENT
  Unrebated Rents
  Unrebated Rents
  Prefabricated Houses, Maghull, Merseyside
  Prefabricated Houses, Maghull, Merseyside
  Rent Rebates
  Rent Rebates
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Lost Working Days (Sickness)
  Lost Working Days (Sickness)
  Cystic Fibrosis
  Cystic Fibrosis
  Self-employed Persons (National Insurance)
  Self-employed Persons (National Insurance)
  Fraudulent Applications
  Fraudulent Applications
  Smoking (Public Places)
  Smoking (Public Places)
  Breast Cancer (Monitoring)
  Breast Cancer (Monitoring)
  Health Education Projects (Elderly Persons)
  Health Education Projects (Elderly Persons)
  Generic Prescribing
  Generic Prescribing
  Geriatric Beds (West Midlands Region)
  Geriatric Beds (West Midlands Region)
  Spanish Tinned Foods (Importation Ban)
  Spanish Tinned Foods (Importation Ban)
  Psychogeriatric Patients (Therapists)
  Psychogeriatric Patients (Therapists)
  Community Geriatric Services
  Community Geriatric Services
  Senile Dementia
  Senile Dementia
  Geriatrics (Consultants)
  Geriatrics (Consultants)
  Elderly Persons (Voluntary Helpers)
  Elderly Persons (Voluntary Helpers)
  Tribunals (Nottingham)
  Tribunals (Nottingham)
  Departmental Organisation
  Departmental Organisation
  Regional Office, Nottingham
  Regional Office, Nottingham
  Hydatid Disease
  Hydatid Disease
  Birth Statistics
  Birth Statistics
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Hospital Admission Statistics
  Hospital Admission Statistics
  Benefits and Pensions (Holiday Absence)
  Benefits and Pensions (Holiday Absence)
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Mobility and Attendance Allowances (Wiltshire)
  Mobility and Attendance Allowances (Wiltshire)
  Retirement Pensions (Credits)
  Retirement Pensions (Credits)
  Conditions of Entitlement Regulations
  Conditions of Entitlement Regulations
  Pension Rates (Purchasing Power)
  Pension Rates (Purchasing Power)
  Pensions (Tax Assessment)
  Pensions (Tax Assessment)
  Housing Assistance (Costs)
  Housing Assistance (Costs)
  Geriatric Beds
  Geriatric Beds
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Community (Wine Exports)
  European Community (Wine Exports)
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Smallholdings
  Smallholdings
  Northfield Report
  Northfield Report
  Intervention Stocks
  Intervention Stocks
  Stilboestrol
  Stilboestrol
  Binder-Hamlyn Report (Milk Production)
  Binder-Hamlyn Report (Milk Production)
  Forestry Commission Employees (Rents)
  Forestry Commission Employees (Rents)
SCOTLAND
  Rents
  Rents
  Prevention of Terrorism (Detention)
  Prevention of Terrorism (Detention)
  Social Work (Student Awards)
  Social Work (Student Awards)
  Councillors (Expenses)
  Councillors (Expenses)
  Trunk Road Schemes
  Trunk Road Schemes

Preamble
The House met at a quarter-past two of the clock: The Chairman of Committees on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.

The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
John, Lord Bishop of Gloucester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Southwark and the Lord Bishop of Hereford.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells
John Monier, Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Rochester and the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

Yasser Arafat: Meeting
2.33 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy had given notice of his intention to ask the following Question:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are considering in response to the statement made in Tokyo by Mr. Arafat, the PLO leader—that he is prepared to accept the offer of Britain's Foreign Secretary to meet him for talks—defined by the Foreign Secretary, that might pave the way to a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian question.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, my noble friend has asked me whether in his unavoidable absence I would seek permission for this Question to be asked.
Lord Denham: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend I will, if I may, repeat the Answer that he would have given:
I am not aware of such a statement. Since becoming President of the Ten, I have made clear on several occasions that I would be ready to meet Mr. Arafat if such a meeting would further the cause of peace. We continue to urge the PLO to make clear their readiness to accept Israel's right to live in peace as part of a negotiated settlement in which legitimate Palestinian political rights will also be met.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, if I may, I should like to ask a supplementary question on behalf of my absent friend. Would not such a meeting, which has been reported in the press from Tokyo, help to clarify the attitude of the PLO to the recognition of Israel if the Saudi Arabian plan for peace were accepted?
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Carrington): My Lords, I must apologise profusely for being late. I had no idea that the House did not have a considerable amount of business before
752
Starred Questions. I have never before done this, and I apologise very much to your Lordships for not having been here.
If I may answer the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I would say that I know of no statement of that kind that has been made by Mr. Arafat. It has been the wish, and we have been trying over the last few months, to get the PLO to do precisely what the noble Lord has said. At the moment we have not succeeded in doing that. There is an opportunity for it to do so at Fez, where the Arab summit opens today and will go on for three days. There will then be an opportunity for the PLO to make clear its position on the seventh principle of the Fahd eight principles.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether he would insist on the PLO, or the Saudis for that matter, giving an undertaking to recognise the existence of Israel before talks take place?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I think that the ideal situation would be—and this is repeating the Venice Declaration—for both parties to recognise one another conditionally on the basis of a negotiated settlement.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the Foreign Secretary aware that recent manoeuvres, instead of being likely to promote peace, are likely to produce another war? Is it not necessary to be a little cautious? Is the noble Lord aware—of course he is aware—that not a single prominent representative of the Palestine Liberation Organisation has declared its readiness to recognise Israel, and that even the Saudi Arabian peace proposals do not recognise Israel? They do not refer to it at all, except to say that they want peace in the Middle East. We all want peace in the Middle East. Is it necessary to proceed with these manoeuvres? Should we not recognise that Israel will not allow Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or any of the Arab countries, to interfere with the Camp David proposals? Even if they appear to be innocuous, the proposals at any rate provide an opportunity to negotiate the possibility of peace.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord is quite right about the five principles. The seventh principle says that all states in the area shall have the right to live in peace. The Israelis have, understandably, pointed out that since the Saudis do not recognise Israel, it might very well be that Israel is not considered a state. But at a press conference which he gave in Riyadh when I was there, Prince Saud, in answer to a question, made it quite clear that he actually meant, after a negotiated settlement, the state of Israel. I think that that is a considerable move forward. With regard to the last part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I tend to think, and Her Majesty's Government tend to think, that in the end there must be a negotiated settlement and there really will have to be conversations.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that it is quite unrealistic to expect either side to recognise the other unilaterally? Was not the phrase

753
used by the late President Sadat very apposite?—namely, that what we ought to aim at is mutual and simultaneous recognition of both parties.
Lord Carrington: That would be much the best, my Lords; but I do not think that either side would have much to lose by saying, "I am prepared to recognise you if you recognise me".
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is it right to equate Mr. Arafat with the state of Israel in these circumstances? One is a state. It emerged by a revolutionary process, of which we were the victims. But the other is a representative of an association, which has proclaimed assassination as its principal instrument. Can the noble Lord really point to a single instance in history in which negotiation with assassins has promoted peace?
Lord Carrington: I could, my Lords; but the trouble with the PLO is that so often it makes a statement which sounds very moderate, but then, two or three days later, it seems to contradict it by saying something which is immoderate. The noble Lord is of course quite right when he says that there is the state of Israel, which we recognise, while the PLO is an organisation, and we do not recognise organisations. Her Majesty's Government have always said that the PLO represents a great many Palestinians. Indeed, there are some who think that there is no other recognised organisation which represents the Palestinians, and therefore it will have to be taken into account. It seems to me that if that organisation was to say in effect that it would recognise the state of Israel on condition that its own rights—the Palestinian rights—were recognised, that would be a step forward, and something which the Israelis ought to welcome.
Lord Paget of Northampton: But, my noble Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to put just one more point, I would say that I object not to the fact that the PLO is an association and not a state, but to the fact that it has formed and pursued the principle that its instrument is assassination. It is this principle of assassination which is building itself right through the Middle East and through the world.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, that is precisely what we are seeking to get them to renounce.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he would agree that quite responsible people who have met Mr. Arafat take the view that he is withholding any public statement about recognising Israel as a bargaining counter? Might not a statement by Her Majesty's Government that they support the United Nations resolution on this subject, and the Saudi Arabia plan, lead to a position where Mr. Arafat might say that publicly?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I do not think Mr. Arafat, the PLO or anybody else can be under any misapprehension about Her Majesty's Government's policy. We have made perfectly clear what we feel about the situation in the Middle East, and have set it out in a number of documents.

Nuclear Weapons: Soviet Proposal
2.41 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I apologise to the House for rising so often. I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their attitude towards the proposal of the Soviet Union that the present General Assembly of the United Nations should adopt a declaration that the state which first uses nuclear weapons would be committing the gravest crime against mankind, that it is the duty of the leaders of nuclear states to reverse the arms race by equitable negotiations, and that nuclear energy must be used only for peaceful purposes.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, the Government are committed to the negotiation of realistic, equitable and verifiable arms control and disarmament agreements on nuclear and conventional weapons. As President Reagan made clear in his speech on 18th November, no NATO weapons, conventional or nuclear, will ever be used except in response to attack. The Government do not believe that a declaration of the kind proposed by the Soviet Union would be a serious contribution to genuine arms control and disarmament, since it would not be a substitute for negotiated agreement.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while welcoming part of that Answer, may I ask the Government this question: Are they really going to decline to accept a declaration against the first use of nuclear weapons? Is the noble Lord aware that when he says they might be used against a conventional attack, inevitably such use would lead to an all-scale nuclear war?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, the first object of Western defence policy is to deter a war, not to fight one, and I am not at all sure that the proposal which the noble Lord is making would have that effect. It would seem to me that in a time of crisis it would really be of no use to rely upon the words of somebody having said that they would not use such-and-such a weapon first.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, while I hardly expect the Foreign Secretary to agree that the Soviet Union is the state best qualified to denounce crimes against humanity, would he not agree that the first use in war of nuclear weapons on either side would be likely to be entirely counter-productive?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, this is the sort of question which it is almost impossible to answer. If there were circumstances in which the whole of the western world seemed to be overrun and we were in danger of complete annihilation as a society and as a civilisation, I think one would have to think very carefully about what action one took.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that all these questions about doing away with nuclear war are extremely dangerous as they give the impression that conventional warfare is acceptable, whereas it is utterly unacceptable? Furthermore, would my noble friend agree that it also gives an impression of pacifism alike to the Oxford debate of 1936?
Lord Carrington: Yes, my Lords, I agree with my noble friend; I found conventional warfare extremely disagreeable at first-hand. I think that perhaps some of those who ask these sort of questions misunderstand the reasons why we have had peace in Europe for the unprecedented period of 36 years. I believe that it has very largely been due to the deterrent policy of the NATO Alliance.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in relation to nuclear weapons within the European theatre in particular, is the noble Lord aware that the public are very confused by the apparent conflict between the figures given by President Reagan in his television appearance the other day, which appeared to show a vast superiority by the Soviet Union in theatre nuclear weapons, and the denial by President Brezhnev that the Soviet Union has any such advantage? Is it not possible to get an agreement at least on the facts between the superpowers as to how many of these weapons there are on each side?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I think that would be a very good start to the negotiations. The problem—and the noble Lord will know this—is that in relation to the mutual and balanced force reduction agreements there is still argument going on after a number of years about what are the statistics and the facts. I think that what is essential in the negotiation which starts in Vienna on Monday is that there should be a real will on the part of both parties to these negotiations to come to an agreement and to get some results; and the first thing that they must do is to decide on the facts and what they are.
Lord Peart: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord that certainly we on this side will support his attitude and his view in relation to this issue.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that there are many occasions on which declarations and communiqués on international gatherings seem not to have a great deal of relevance to any settlement? Can he really say that there is any objection to a declaration of this kind being adopted by the United Nations?
Lord Carrington: Yes, my Lords; I thought I made clear in my supplementary answers exactly why I thought there was an objection.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that in giving support to his tactics no one on this side of the House, I think, is seeking to take
756
away from my noble friend Lord Brockway the view that there is a great and useful purpose in international agreements of various sorts? Would not the noble Lord agree that we have international agreements outlawing various kinds of war, and that therefore the outlawing of this type of war and the laying down of international agreements about the nature of war and the limitations of war is a useful step? Will he not therefore take a little more seriously what my noble friend suggests?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I think that when the chips are down declarations really are not of much use. It seems to me in circumstances of this kind that what one wants to do is to take an area of weapons, as the United States and the Soviet Union have done, and negotiate to see whether you can limit them down to nothing. That seems to me the practical way of doing it, because the real difficulty between East and West is a lack of trust and confidence. So why do we not start by trying to get arms limitation talks, which in the end will build up the confidence which I hope will bring down the levels of all arms?
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the only reasonable and rational declaration that the West can make in the present international circumstances is to be strong?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I like the noble Lord's supplementary on this Question better than his supplementary on the other one.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us are just as much opposed, or are as equally opposed, to conventional weapons as to nuclear weapons, and are aware of the fact that 50 million people were killed by conventional weapons in the last war? Would the noble Lord print in the Official Report the very short declaration which is now before the United Nations so that Members of this House may be aware of it?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I do not know what the rules are about that but I will certainly look at it. The only thing I would say about the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is that I think we must be very careful, as Lord Shinwell has said, not to allow this country to be defenceless.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the Government join with us on this Bench in welcoming the declaration of support for the principle of multilateral disarmament which we have just heard from the Labour Front Bench?
Lord Carrington: Indeed, my Lords, and from the Bench at the back.

Cable and Wireless: Conversion to Public Ownership
2.49 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what were the total costs to the company and to the Treasury involved in the conversion to private ownership of Cable and Wireless; what amount of the money realised by the sale of shares went to the Treasury, and to what use has that money been put.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, gross receipts from the sale of shares amounted to about £224 million. Net Government expenses were about £4½ million apart from stamp duty and VAT, which are regarded as transfer payments. Expenses of some £550,000 were incurred by the company, and £35 million was reinvested in the company by way of a subscription for new shares. Otherwise, the sale proceeds have not been hypothecated to a particular use.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, do I understand from what the noble Lord has said that the net proceeds to the Exchequer were of the order of some £35 million? The noble Lord will probably correct me if I am wrong. If it were around that figure, is not £5 million an excessive cost for raising that amount? Since we are talking about how much went to whom, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will comment on the report that because the shares were undervalued when quoted the "stags" made £15 million in the first day's trading? Finally, may I ask the noble Lord, whose financial experience I deeply respect, whether he really thinks it sound management to sell off a gross national asset and then use the proceeds, as he said, "unhypothecated"?—by which he means for current household expenses.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, so far as the noble Lord's first supplementary question is concerned, the gross receipts were £224 million. From that, one has to deduct £4½ million which leaves us with £219½ million. Of that, £35 million was then used in the purchase of new shares; which meant that the net proceeds would have been approximately £184 million. That, I think, is the correct figure. As far as the second supplementary question is concerned, it is true that when the shares first opened for trading they were traded at a substantial premium; but the number of shares traded represented only a small proportion of the total and it would be quite wrong to gross up from that figure in order to obtain a profit made by the people who had "stagged" this issue. "Stagging", unfortunately, is something which no one hitherto has found a way of avoiding; although, in this instance, obviously duplicated applications were rejected.
As far as the final supplementary question is concerned, it is the long established practice of all Governments that receipts are not hypothecated to a particular purpose; but I gather from what the noble Lord says that he disapproves of much of Government expenditure.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Lord recollect that these shares were put on the market at 168, but that on the first day of trading they rose by almost 20 per cent, and, therefore, those investors fortunate enough to get any made potential profits
758
of £40 million? Is it not highly inflationary to conjure £40 million worth of purchasing power out of the air in this way?—as the noble Lord never ceased to point out when talking about wage claims in the exchange that we had yesterday about the "free gift", so-called, of £50 to London Transport workers. Will the noble Lord comment on the suspicions voiced in the correspondence columns of The Times in the last fortnight, that the Government deliberately grossly under-price these shares in order to make a free gift for their friend in the City?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, if I may start with the last point first, there is no substance of any sort in that allegation. As far as the facts are concerned, they are perfectly simple and on the record. The offer for sale was made on 21st October. The price has to be fixed at that date. Between the time the offer for sale was made and the time the shares were first dealt with, there was a rise in share prices generally. After a few days in which the shares were sold at quite high prices, they have now been traded in the range of 190p to 194p. If the noble Lord looks at the movement of share prices over the whole of this period—that is, from the date when the price was fixed until today—then the relationship that the current prices pays to the issue price is not all that much out of line with the movement in share prices generally.
Lord Morris: My Lords, in the light of the previous supplementary question, would not my noble friend agree that there is no such thing as a profit until it is realised?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important and valuable point. When people invest money, including bodies such as pension funds and insurance companies, they do so in the hope and expectation of those investments appreciating in value. That appreciation does not go directly into consumption.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, despite the knowledgeable answer that he has given, the City itself said that the Government had underestimated the price of these shares when they closed on 31st October; and that no colourful expression like "hypothecating" will cover that fact? Do the Government, before they enter into this ideological obsession of privatising profits and socialising the losses, discuss with the Ministry of Defence the effect of sharing out and selling off of such shares as Aerospace and Cable and Wireless—which are not remote from defence—and that, with defence, there should be discussions before the action of selling the shares is taken?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a whole series of points. May I remind him that rather less than 50 per cent. of these shares were sold, so that what we have established is an equal partnership between the private and public sectors in this company. This is the sort of development that I should have thought the noble Lord would welcome—and I will make no more of it than that. If one comes to press comment, one can find in the press a very wide variety

759
of views expressed. The Standard newspaper on the day of issue said that it was:
"an ambitious price".
They said that the shares were not cheap. The Financial Times, a reputable authority in this field, the following morning said:
"priced tightly enough to discourage stags".
The Financial Weekly, another authority in this field, said:
"After the market shake out, the rating showed boldness".
One can quote a large number of newspapers expressing different views, as one always can; but at the time the offer was made there was no consensus of opinion at all that it was in any way underpriced.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, but the fact is that the shares in those 10 days were over-subscribed to the amount of £1,260,000 for £224 million worth of shares. That is the fact; and that is what was done with the public money.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am aware of the fact that the shares were over-subscribed. The noble Lord's complaint is that the shares were under-priced. I gather that his real complaint is that the issue was a success instead of a failure.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a well conducted family never has to sell the furniture to pay the grocery bill?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, there is no question here of selling the furniture to pay any grocery bills. What has happened is that half the shares in a company (where there is no strong case for it being in the public sector) are now in the private sector; and we believe that this is a more satisfactory arrangement.
Lord Denham: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will forgive me, we have been 26 minutes on three Questions. The House might think that after he has asked his supplementary question and my noble friend has replied we should move on.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, may I say to the Chief Whip and to the House generally that there is a case to be made for curtailing the replies on the first one or two Questions. Sometimes the time is used up on the first—
A noble Lord: Then get on with it!
Lord Beswick: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he will explain to his noble friends at the back that if one buys at 196 and sells at 235, one is realising a profit? While accepting from the Minister that a judgment must be made when floating a company on the market, nevertheless a pattern is beginning to emerge, that the underwriters are getting their 1½ per cent. without an element of risk.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am not aware that anybody sold at 235; in fact the highest price, to the best of my knowledge, was 205. This is an important
760
difference. I realise that criticism is commonly directed against underwriters, and it is a point that one needs to keep in mind. Nevertheless, it is the accepted position that issues of this sort are underwritten, and this guarantees that even if the market moves against the issuing body, nevertheless the money is received.

The Prison System: Reform
3.1 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the reforms introduced in the prison system in Northern Ireland are to be extended to England, Wales and Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we have no plans at present for introducing in England and Wales or in Scotland the changes recently made in the prison system in Northern Ireland.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, without wishing to repeat matters that were raised in last night's debate (from which I regret I was absent), may I ask the Minister this question? Is he aware of the very serious disturbance in our prisons not only among the prisoners but among prison officers because of the intolerable conditions which are now there? May I ask the noble Lord this in particular: in view of the overcrowding of the prisons, could there not be an amnesty for non-violent prisoners as carried out in many European countries on historical occasions? If this cannot be done at the New Year, could it not be done at the time of the birth of a child to the Princess of Wales?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, those are both interesting supplementaries but neither arises from the Question.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, may I take the opportunity of ascertaining an answer to the question I asked during the course of yesterday's proceedings—namely, what would be the reduction in the number of prisoners in England and Wales if the 50 per cent. remission which applies in Northern Ireland were extended to the mainland?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, am I right in thinking that in Northern Ireland male prisoners as well as female prisoners are now allowed to wear their own clothes? Am I right in thinking that that at present is refused to all male prisoners in Britain? Will the noble Lord explain why there should be this difference?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is the case that, under the changes made in Northern Ireland, all convicted prisoners in Northern Ireland may now wear their own clothes. The situation in England and Wales

761
is that all unconvicted and civilian prisoners, and convicted women prisoners, can wear their own clothes, and some items of personal clothing can be worn in dispersal prisons.
I would just point out to the noble Earl that there are more unsentenced prisoners on remand in England and Wales than there are prisoners of all kinds in Northern Ireland, and of course in England and Wales all unconvicted and civilian prisoners can wear their own clothes.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the reply that he has given is a little disappointing after the earlier reply to a similar Question which I asked some months ago? The Government replied then that they would be considering the application to England, Scotland and Wales of these conditions. May I ask the noble Lord this: is there not a great danger that the precedent that these reforms in Northern Ireland were brought about by deplorable methods may encourage prisoners in this country to take similar action to gain relief from the impossible conditions which are now in our prisons?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, changes were made in Northern Ireland on four different grounds. If the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who is always habitually fair, looks at those four different grounds he will see that there is really very little difference between England and Wales—and indeed I think Scotland—and Northern Ireland except on two counts: one is in what is called association between the H blocks in the Maze Prison in Northern Ireland, which of course is a matter entirely for Northern Ireland; and the other is a matter concerning the wearing of prisoners' own clothes.
Prison uniform is an aid to security and control in view of the very large number of prisoners and the very large number of prisons in England, Scotland and Wales against the comparatively small number of prisoners in Northern Ireland. Therefore, on grounds of security and control, the Government do not at the moment feel that it would he right to change the rules about clothing.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Belstead will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Scarman Report.
With the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about today's two short debates. Noble Lords will see from the list of speakers that both debates have a very large number of speakers. The debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Kimberley has 20 speakers and that in the name of my noble kinsman Lord Spens has 15. Both debates are of course strictly limited to two and a half hours. In the normal way, the opener of the debate should be entitled to approximately 15 minutes for his speech, and 20 minutes should be reserved for the Government reply at the conclusion of the debate. In addition, I suggest that one Front Bench speaker from the Benches
762
opposite should be entitled to a little more than the other general Members of the House.
I have asked the noble Lords, Lord Kimberley and Lord Spens, to indicate at the beginning of their speeches the time which can be allowed for each of the remaining speakers. I would stress to the House that if noble Lords speak for longer than the allocated time, they will deprive later speakers of some of their time or even of the opportunity to speak at all.
Perhaps I may remind the House of Rule 13 for the conduct of short debates which can be found on page 241 of the Companion to the Standing Orders. This reads:
"Pursuant to S.O. 34, on the expiry of the time limit, if the debate is still continuing, the Clerk at the Table rises and the Lord Chancellor brings the debate to an end by inquiring whether the mover of the Motion wishes to withdraw his Motion; or by putting the Question".

Personal Bills: Select Committee
3.8 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on Personal Bills be appointed, to which all Petitions for Personal Bills shall stand referred; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Cross of Chelsea, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Hampton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Teviot, L.

Wilberforce, L.

—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I wish to raise a matter on this Motion. It is with some diffidence that I offer one or two comments upon the Motion before the House. Three years ago I was asked whether I would serve on the Select Committee on Personal Bills and I consented to do so. I was assured that it would meet only rarely because Personal Bills were few in number. In fact, it met once during the period of my three years of membership. That was on an application by a man to marry his stepdaughter, which was forbidden by statute law and for which a Personal Bill had to be promoted. I sat zealously through the whole of one Session in order to reach a unanimous and sensible conclusion on that application.
I am sure that there must be some reason for a noble Lord to find that his name is omitted from the list recommended by the Committee of Selection, without warning, without reference, and without anything except the surprise of finding that a list is included in the Order Paper which omits the name of a noble Lord who has served previously. I fully accept that no noble Lord should be asked to accept the onerous burden of membership of a Select Committee that sits rarely and to do it indefinitely; but the courtesies of this House are well renowned both in Parliament and outside and there must surely be some more

763
courteous way of telling a noble Lord that he has been displaced on a Select Committee than his discovery that his name is omitted from the list of members proposed in a Motion of this kind. I leave it there. I have no undue complaint to make about it, but I do think there is a better way of doing it than this.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord feels like that. I can only draw his attention to the Companion to Standing Orders where it is perfectly clear that in nearly all Select Committees the members retire after three years' service. This is part of the rotation rule in order to allow all Members of your Lordships' House to take part in various committees. It is the normal procedure that after three years a member retires from the committee. That is the reason why the noble Lord's name does not appear on this particular committee; but of course, having been off the committee for a year or so, he certainly will be eligible to rejoin it. That is the reason for his name not appearing, and of course this is all decided by the Committee of Selection. That committee has only met recently, as it does at the beginning of every Session. I am afraid I cannot offer the noble Lord any more comfort than that.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, if I may be permitted to say so, I fully accept the explanation. As I said, I have no grievances about it and I apologise for not being familiar with the Standing Order to which the noble Lord has referred. It may be that I expect rather more courtesy than is available in your Lordships' House on a matter of this kind. A word to the effect that I retired under Standing Orders would have set my mind at rest. However, this is rather an embarrassing subject to raise. I tried to raise it in some other way. However, I have no more to say and I thank the noble Lord for his explanation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sound Broadcasting: Select Committee
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, with some trepidation I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting:—

Ardwick, L.

Cathcart, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Phillips, B.

Winstanley, L.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time;
That two be the Quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Committee have power to join with any Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting that may be appointed by the Commons;
That the Committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman for any joint meeting.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

NATO: Europe/USA Relationship
3.13 p.m.
The Earl of Kimberley The Earl of Kimberley rose to call attention to the relationship between the European NATO countries and the United States of America; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend went into the long list of speakers that we have, and I will endeavour to make my own speech shorter than I normally would have done. I would warn noble Lords that I think the average should be about six minutes per person.
I do not believe there is any noble Lord in this Chamber who would not agree that the whole security and peace of the world depends on amenable and trusting European/American relations. The essence of this relationship is NATO and at the moment NATO is beset by grave danger. We must ask ourselves why relations between Europe and America have deteriorated. The key question is: who benefits from this deterioration? There is just one answer—I am sure your Lordships all know it—and that is the Soviet Union.
So how have the Soviets engineered this position? They have done so by extremely clever propaganda, now directed throughout Europe, whereby they have exploited all the fears and frailties of the human race. In particular they have utilised the World Peace Council and, in many instances, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. They have been abetted, perhaps, in the past by the inept defence policy of former President Carter and recently may have been helped by hawkish announcements and apparently conflicting statements by certain members of the Reagan Administration. To counteract such fertile seedbeds for Russian propaganda, we must have closer collaboration and co-operation between America and her European allies.
The Christian Science Monitor said the other day, just after Mr. Brezhnev gave his interview to Der Spiegel, that he was a wolf in sheep's clothing; and I am not certain that I do not agree. But whatever he said in Der Spiegel I think we must take it with a pinch of salt rather than say that it was a complete lot of lies. If anybody wants to read that interview, it is in the Library here and it is well worth reading. He made no new offer for an imminent European nuclear arms control talk, and in that interview his target of course was West Germany, which he has just left today. Besides the target being West Germany, it was also the rest of us—the other Western Europeans. Let us not forget that his sole object is to try to make us reject these new American counter nuclear missiles so that he does not have to dismantle and remove his SS20s.
There is ample evidence of the KGB's hand in fostering unilateral disarmament. It is available and easy to find by anybody who cares to look for it. Last April, for example, the Dutch expelled a supposed correspondent from Tass, the news agency. He had

765
been identified as having taken part in espionage and covert operations. His primary role was with leaders of the Ban the Bomb movement. In fact, Vassilivech Leonor (for that is his name) stated that if Moscow wanted 50,000 demonstrators on the streets in Holland they would be there at very short notice. He should know, he said, because he was one of those who transmitted the orders from Moscow. His successor seems to have done rather better, because he produced over 100,000 the other day in Amsterdam. In America a similar role is fulfilled by a Mr. Uri Kapralov, who is a counsellor at the Soviet Embassy in Washington.
Last month in Denmark the peace activists of that country were given a rude shock when Vladimir Merkoulov, a second secretary at the Soviet Embassy, was expelled for bribing Arne Pedersen and his wife Inger over a nuclear-free peace advertisement. The Pedersens were subsequently arrested for aiding and abetting an agent of the KGB. One hundred and fifty Danish artists and writers signed that advertisement, but many of them said afterwards that they would not have done so if they had realised it had been financed by the Soviets.
I am now going to talk briefly about the CND, and I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, would let me finish because if he wants to shoot me down or have a go at me his turn to speak will be coming very shortly. Let us look at the activities of Monsignor Bruce Kent, General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. He admitted in a newspaper article dated 27th July working with communists. Although he has denied getting money from the World Peace Council, he has acknowledged that that council is a Soviet front and he even cabled congratulations to its meeting in Bulgaria in 1950. He attacked cruise missiles in a broadcast from East Berlin on 17th December last year. One year previously he praised Mr. Brezhnev's cosmetic withdrawal of troops from Europe, which was just before Afghanistan was invaded.
Monsignor Kent insists that all political views are represented in the CND, and so they may be. But the extreme political Left are more than adequately represented. There are at least nine card-carrying communists or sympathisers who are officials. Leading communists use the CND platform to attack United States militarism while praising so-called Soviet peacemaking initiatives. CND officials with communist leanings include: Sally Davison, Duncan Rees, Ian Davison, Michael Pentz, Christopher Horrie, CND press officer and member of the editorial board of Challenge, the paper of the Young Communist League, and Dan Smith who lectures at communist meetings and writes for the Morning Star but says he is outside the party. The Communist Party of Great Britain's industrial organiser, Mick Costello, has led a campaign at trade union conferences this year to win union support for the CND. In fact, top communists believe that the success of their CND selling campaign played a big part in this year's Labour Party conference's support for unilateral disarmament. Last, but not least—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would the noble Earl give way?
Several noble Lords: Order!
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, I said that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will have his say in a minute and he may shoot me down when I have finished my speech.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I want only one moment—
Several noble Lords: No!
The Earl of Kimberley: So, my Lords, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is one of the Kremlin's most useful and potent weapons. No one doubts the integrity of the genuine pacifist. But to find the genuine article one must ask the following questions. Is the unilaterist a pacifist or a political animal? How does he differentiate morally between one weapon and another—whether it be nuclear, chemical, biological or high explosive? Was Dresden less evil than Hiroshima? What defence policy does the unilateralist want for Europe? If his country were out-manoeuvred and attacked, would he just surrender or would he start screaming for help from the Americans? The largest peace movement in the world today is NATO, but it is losing ground every day as propaganda drives a wedge further and further between Europe and the United States.
In considering the undeniable need for arms reduction, I should like to remind noble Lords of some comments made in this Chamber last week in the foreign affairs debate on 10th November. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, referred to his growing disbelief in arms negotiations today, and said that in the '60s he thought there was more hope of disarmament. But, since then, who has been the major proliferator of arms?—the Soviet Union.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, who I know is to speak in a moment, said that the Soviets understood that they could not invade a NATO country, but could, with impunity, invade one outside NATO, as they did. There was a body of people, he stated, who seemed hell bent on encouraging us to disarm, while the Soviets waited for this to take place. He went on at column 140 of Hansard:
"There is no doubt at all that propaganda for unilateral disarmament is the actual enemy of multilateral disarmament",
and I am one of many who agree with him. In the same debate, my noble friend Lord Beloff stated that getting rid of cruise and Pershing missiles was not the CND's primary objective; rather it was to undermine NATO—a policy which the Soviets have consistently adopted throughout the postwar period.
It was also pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that the Soviets have no peace movement in Russia. The one demonstration that they had in East Germany the other day was entirely directed against the United States. And the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, warned of the present danger, when he urged European Governments to give the task of political enlightenment and information top priority, and drew attention to the way in which the Soviets fanned the flames of unilateral disarmament.
The noble Lord said that the Marshall Plan had guaranteed a new generation of Germans with material

767
wealth and, as I have said before, it is these young people, this new generation—whether they be Germans, whether they be English, whether they be Dutch or from any of the European countries—who have lived in peace throughout the whole of their lives and are played upon by Soviet propaganda. That is what led to the demonstrations which were held in Berlin the other day within sight of the wall, and also in Bonn.
Perhaps it is interesting briefly to mention that a poll that was held by the Observer the other day stated that 53 per cent. of those questioned wanted "Yanks go home". Nevertheless, 63 per cent. wished us to retain our own independent nuclear deterrent and 73 per cent. wished us to remain in NATO. The figure that is interesting is the 53 per cent., because the majority of those people were in the age group 18 to 24.
Therefore, we must somehow explain to this generation how they are being misled. But it is very difficult. They have grown up with peace and, because they have never had any other experience, they think in a way that is different from most of us. But that does not mean that they cannot be encouraged to take a close look at what they have gained through being brought up in an era of peace. Further, the cause of peace is not helped when men of stature lend their weight to decrying our own nuclear deterrent, or imply that even if we have one we will never use it. I consider that that is almost treason, because such utterances seek to destroy the whole object of the deterrent and they, therefore, strike at the very foundation of peace.
I shall be only one more minute. Arms control is not the exclusive province of unilateralists. We all want to see limitation of arms, but only by parity in weaponry shall we preserve the state of peace that has existed in Europe for 36 years. President Reagan's offer to cancel the deployment of cruise and Pershing II missiles, in exchange for a comparable withdrawal of Soviet strike power, is a most heartening opening towards that goal. We must hope that the Soviets will abandon their policy of subversive propaganda and respond in the same spirit. A poor harvest, and the ever-increasing sums required for their defence expenditure, may start influencing the Russians to negotiate. But withdrawal of their SS20s behind the Urals is not good enough, because they can still reach everywhere except Portugal
The recent tensions between the United States and her European allies must not be allowed to undermine the promise that President Reagan's initiative holds out, in spite of Mr. Brezhnev's immediate lack of concern about it. In Geneva on 30th November, and for as long as it takes afterwards to achieve a much reduced military balance, we allies must work together in mutual trust and harmony. The Americans are not only ours but Europe's allies, and none of us must ever forget it. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for raising this question and he is to be congratulated on the fact that he has been able to do it at a time when it is peculiarly
768
relevant to the destinies of Europe and of mankind. We have always maintained from these Benches, at any rate, that NATO should be an instrument not only of defence but of detente and of understanding, and at the present time it is particularly called upon to do so. We are on the eve—in fact, they have already begun—of very great discussions about the possibilities of agreed disarmament all round in Europe and in the world. It is going to be of great importance that the different members of NATO keep in close touch with each other, understand what others are doing and pursue common council.
Let us notice one of the things that has happened so far. When Mr. Michael Foot visited the Soviet Union a little while ago, Mr. Brezhnev made an offer that, if the deployment of the cruise missiles and other similar weapons was not proceeded with, he for his part would consider some reduction in the number of SS20s. I think a number of people felt that what Mr. Brezhnev offered on that occasion was not really adequate. Now, on the other hand, President Reagan has suggested that the deployment of the missiles on our side of Europe could be avoided, if similar weapons disappeared from the other side of Europe as well. He has proposed what is called the "zero option". May I say that I was glad to see that the leader of my own party welcomed that suggestion, and I was sorry to see that Monsignor Bruce Kent was quick to imply that President Reagan had an unworthy motive for making it.
Surely, what we are up against here are the opening moves in a bargaining situation, and it is quite natural for one side to say—one hopes without too much rudeness—"That is not a fair offer" and to put in one of its own. As the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, said, we must take these offers with a pinch of salt, but still recognising that they are something that can be built on. And it will be a long process, affecting not only cruise missiles and their counterparts in eastern Europe, but many other kinds of weapons. That is why, because it is such a long and complicated process, the nations of NATO must be in close contact with each other. One really wonders why they should need to be. The advantage to all the members of NATO of the existence of the alliance is so obvious and so enormous that one wonders why, every now and again, some of them are pernickety about it. For heavens' sake! I wish we had had an alliance like this in 1938 or, some would say, even earlier—in 1912. Now we have actually in alliance a country that is, like ourselves, a democracy and that is also the most powerful country on earth. Surely this is something that one cannot dispute the advantage of unless one is generally ill-intentioned.
I hope that I shall not try to approach this subject with too much rigid hostility towards the Soviet Union and her allies, but I do not think that we can avoid this fact: we for our part—and our allies—do believe in democracy. We do not always practise it perfectly, or 100 per cent., and there are plenty of faults in our political and social system that anyone could point out. But we do genuinely try to be democratic, and all of us in the alliance can come out of it at any moment we want. That is simply not true on the other side of Europe. They do not believe in that kind of freedom. In Poland, Solidarity has been told very

769
plainly that it had better stop talking about whether Poland remains a member of their alliance or not. These are important differences that they have to remember. They are not reasons why we should remain in a state of permanent hatred towards eastern Europe, but they are reasons why we should keep our defences up. And that is what NATO is about.
What on earth is it that causes there to be any difficulties between the NATO nations? To put it crudely, quite a lot of Americans think that we in Europe are an effete lot, probably made effete by too much welfare state, and that they can never be quite sure how far we will go in standing up for ourselves. Some people in Europe tend to take the view that they over there in America are a brash lot, always telling us how strong they are and how many weapons they have got, and we look upon them therefore as rather dangerous partners. These are perhaps quite natural reactions, but they are also very silly reactions. We in Europe have in fact played a good and useful part in the strength of the alliance, more than many American commentators sometimes realise. The United States has shown on many occasions in the history of events since the war that for all its strength it can act, and often has acted, with wisdom, patience and generosity.
What is needed, then, on both sides of the Atlantic is simply a better understanding among ordinary people in each country of what the other side of the Atlantic is like. This is partly a job for embassies and partly a job for various cultural organisations. However, I believe that it has not been studied sufficiently comprehensively.
I have made one point, the main point I wanted to make. It would be highly imprudent, as the clock is now showing six minutes, for me to embark upon another.

The Scarman Report
3.34 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a Statement on the report of Lord Scarman's inquiry into the disorders in Brixton in April of this year, which I have published today.
"Lord Scarman's report has, at its centre, the disorders themselves. He describes these as riots—initially spontaneous and, throughout, inexcusable in their violence. He measures the immediate response to that disorder in these words:
'Those who were privileged, as I was, to hear the evidence during the inquiry, will have had many opportunities to marvel at, and be thankful for, the courage and dedication which was displayed by members of the police and emergency services in Brixton over that terrible week-end'.
"The report ranges more widely, and goes on to discuss those factors which, in Lord Scarman's view, led to the disorders. He sees then as stemming from a breakdown in confidence between the police and the coloured community, against a background of urban deprivation, racial disadvantage and a rising level of
770
street crime. The report acknowledges the good work which has been done, and is being done, by the police, and others, to prevent such events recurring but emphasises that all those concerned have important lessons to learn for the future.
"Lord Scarman's detailed recommendations on policing policy and policing arrangements add up to a statement of philosophy and direction for the future which rests on the need for the police to carry out their duty with the consent and support of the community. The report rightly leads discussion away from simple concepts of 'hard' and 'soft' policing, and focuses on issues which reflect the real variety of policing, and the duty of the police to apply the law firmly and sensitively without differing standards. Lord Scarman emphasises that the consent and support of the community depend on good two-way communications between the police and the public. The operational judgment of the police will be informed, and not undermined, by consultation with the community it serves. At the same time, the community has a duty to maintain discussion with the police, and respond to their initiatives. Without consultation of this kind there will not be accountability, and the necessary balance between preserving the peace and enforcing the law will be distorted.
"I accept and endorse this statement of philosophy. It will be my responsibility, and that of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in his area of responsibility, in consultation with all concerned, to see that it is carried into practice.
"In particular, I accept the need to develop formal arrangements in every police force area for consultation between police and community at different levels, and for the involvement of chief officers of police in local social and economic decisions affecting policing. Similarly, I endorse the need for regular and systematic consultation at borough level in the Metropolitan Police district, where Lord Scarman recommends that the Home Secretary should remain police authority. I shall set up early discussions on the arrangements for consultation in Lambeth.
"I accept the need for more effort to be put into training with a new emphasis on the problems of policing a multiracial society, and on the prevention and handling of disorder. We must concentrate on those now in the service as well as on recruits, especially in the area of supervision and management.
"I accept that the procedure for handling complaints against the police must be substantially reformed if it is to command public confidence. I have already given this matter a great deal of consideration, and I shall bring forward proposals to the House as soon as I can.
"Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, the rest of Lord Scarman's report is concerned with racial disadvantage, the law in the field of public order and social and economic conditions. All of these affect the problems of policing in a multiracial inner city environment.
"The report emphasises that despite the efforts of successive Governments, the problems of inner cities persist. Lord Scarman's recommendations point to

771
the need to seek ways in which better co-ordination and better value for money can be achieved. That is this Government's purpose, through the Merseyside task force in particular. Equally, the report—like the study I recently presented into racial attacks—illustrates the consequences of failure fully to understand the ethnically diverse society of our inner cities, and the response it demands. We shall need to pursue that response not only in relation to Lord Scarman's report but also in reply to the valuable report of the Select Committee of this House on Racial Disadvantage.
"The police have a right to look for action by society as a whole; they must not become scapegoats. As far as the Government are concerned, we accept the responsibility, in which we must all share, to make our multi racial society work more justly.
"Mr. Speaker, my right honourable friend the Leader of the House is ready to provide time for a debate in which we can examine this important report more thoroughly than will be possible today. The House, and the country, owe to Lord Scarman a considerable debt. I welcome the report and I thank him for it".
That, my Lords, is my right honourable friend's Statement.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for reading the important Statement made by the Home Secretary on what one can only describe as the historic report from the noble and learned Lord. Lord Scarman, to whom we are indeed greatly indebted, not only on this occasion but on other occasions too, for the public service he renders outside his ordinary judicial duties.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will have noted, I am sure with approval, some of the closing words of the Home Secretary's Statement; namely,
"As far as the Government are concerned, we accept the responsibility, in which we must all share, to make our multi racial society work more justly".
The gist of the statement has been directed, quite properly, to what is involved in the experience of Brixton and in the conclusions of the report for the relationships between the police and the public—a crucial element in the stability of our society. Not only is the report a cold, analytical, dramatic account of the dreadful events of last April, which are deplorable, but it is a pointer to the future.
We can make a new beginning based upon the recommendations of Lord Scarman. It is good to note in the Statement that not only is there support of the philosophy behind the report of Lord Scarman—and supports of philosophy can go here and there; philosophical attitudes can change—but what is significant here is the commitment that the Home Secretary will see to it that the statement of policy will be carried into practice. Its basis, as I understand it, is the greater accountability of the police and greater consultation between the police and the relevant local authorities. The need for consultation between police and community at different levels is emphasised in
772
the report and accepted by the Home Secretary, and he endorses, also, the need for regular and systematic consultation at borough level in the Metropolitan Police district. We are glad to know that there are to be early discussions on the arrangements for consultation in Lambeth.
On the proposals with regard to training, that also is a part of the report which is accepted. How soon does the Minister think that the proposed new procedure for handling complaints against the police will be introduced? The Home Secretary permits himself to refer—and not surprisingly, as there has been almost universal demand for this and indeed a recognition of the need for it by the police themelves at the end of the day—to the need for substantial reform of the procedure for handling complaints against the police.
The most sombre part of Lord Scarman's report is his warning that urgent action is needed if racial disadvantage is not to become:
"an endemic, ineradicable disease threatening the very survival of our society and that if the police neglect consultation and co-operation with the local community unrest is certain and riot becomes probable".
In regard to this aspect of the report I should like to ask the Minister what is the Government's response to Lord Scarman's view that the attack on racial disadvantage must be more direct than it has been and that it must be co-ordinated by central Government who, with local authorities, must ensure that the funds made available are directed to specific areas of racial disadvantage, and he refers particularly to education and employment. Have the Government any proposals in regard to those fields, the source of a great deal of the tragedies of the inner areas of our great city?
The conculsion of Lord Scarman is that the social conditions in Brixton do not provide an excuse for disorder—that is made clear throughout the report—but they cannot be fully understood unless they are seen in the context of complex political, social and economic factors which together create a predisposition towards violent protest. This is a critical moment in our social history. We should respond positively, quickly and actively; and what I detect in this report and the whole attitude of Lord Scarman is not the conclusion of Mr. Enoch Powell—"You have seen nothing yet "—but a firm belief that it is still not too late to repair the fences in our society.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we also are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for repeating the Statement made in another place. The report which is before your Lordships is in fact a profoundly important document for which Parliament and, indeed, the whole nation must be tremendously grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who has done his work so thoroughly and so competently in the short span of time that has been available to him since he was asked to undertake this work by the Secretary of State in April, and with that concern for justice and humanity for which the noble and learned Lord is so rightly renowned.
We warmly welcome the Statement by the Secretary of State for what is contains and particularly (if I may mention this) the emphasis on the in-service training

773
of the police which the noble Lord says should be compulsory. May I ask the Minister what steps have to be taken before this recommendation can be implemented? It implies (does it not?) that police officers will have to be taken off their normal duties for the additional training which they will be receiving.
The Government's acceptance of the responsibility to make our society work more justly for the racial minorities is also warmly to be welcomed. I should like to ask the noble Lord what the Government are going to do in their rÔle as employer to see that black people get a fairer deal and, in particular, also whether they have reconsidered their refusal to incorporate equal opportunity clauses in the contracts which they have as a Government. What resources are to be made available by the Government to ensure that deprived black people do get their fair share, particularly, as the noble and learned Lord says, of jobs and education—and also I should add of training and housing, where deprivation is equally important?
There are two matters which the Statement does not mention and I should like to ask the noble Lord to touch on them. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has said that there is evidence of racial prejudice among the police, and indeed of harassment as well. Will the noble Lord make it absolutely clear that this will not be tolerated and that new and vigorous measures will be taken to eradicate any signs of racial prejudice or harassment of minorities by the police?
Finally, would he care to say anything about Lord Scarman's recommendation that there should be amendments to the Public Order Act, first, to require advance notice of processions so that we know when fascists are going to take to the streets, but, more important, to ban racist marches in sensitive areas?
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Lord take our questions now or would he rather answer those two speeches first?
3.50 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am advised that I should answer the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and this I will do by first thanking the noble and learned Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for their response to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. I should, if I may, like to reinforce the thanks given at the end of my right honourable friend's Statement. This is indeed a remarkable report of very great importance to everyone and we are deeply indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for it.
I would not wish to add anything to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has said about the very kernel of the report, which, so far as the policing side is concerned, is to do with accountability and consultation; except perhaps one sentence, which is that I think it is important to take on board that Lord Scarman recommends no change in the basic statutory arrangements in the Police Act 1964, and indeed endorses the position of the Home Secretary as the police authority for the Metropolitan Police district. But, of course, he then goes on to make this very important emphasis about consultation and accountability needing to go even wider and deeper, and it is this which my right honourable friend the
774
Home Secretary has gone out of his way to say he accepts without reservation.
The noble and learned Lord asked about the police complaints procedure. The specific question was: How soon will the Home Secretary bring forward recommendations for alterations, which the Statement says is accepted by the Government for the complaints procedure? I am afraid that I am not in a position to give a direct answer to that question today. Consultation will need to go on in the Police Advisory Board, chaired by my right honourable friend, and I apprehend that there will be a meeting of that board fairly soon. But I am at liberty to say today that I know that my right honourable friend will wish to bring forward proposals as speedily as he can.
The noble and learned Lord asked about racial disadvantage, and this question was raised by both noble Lords. The Government have repeatedly emphasised their commitment to eliminating racial discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity. Lord Scarman has emphasised that where special needs exist special measures may be required. We have supported and we do support special programmes. We are urgently studying the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs of another place on racial disadvantage to see what more can be done to combat racial disadvantage.
Finally, the noble and learned Lord spoke about consultation and accountability, and I have answered on that. If I may turn to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, he asks me a specific question about training. The vehicle for changing the arrangements for training is, of course, the Police Training Council, which is chaired by the Home Office, but upon which the representatives of the police and local authority associations are to be found. I would not wish to add to what is said in the Statement, which is in essence that my right honourable friend accepts that there must now be more effort put into training, with a new emphasis on the problems of policing a multiracial society and on the prevention and handling of disorder.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me a second question, about the employment of people from the ethnic minorities, and particularly black people. It was, of course, precisely for this reason that what has been called the Merseyside task force was set up on the recommendation of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Within that there was the effort which was made by my right honourable friend to attract leading financial institutions, to try to bring into Merseyside more money in order to generate more employment; and not only in Merseyside but also in other inner city areas of the country.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, we on the SDP Bench welcome the announcement that proposals are to be made about a new procedure for dealing with complaints against the police, and we shall look at those proposals in a constructive spirit when they are available. My Lords, it strikes the eye, even on a short examination, that about three-quarters of Lord Scarman's recommendations are about the social background and what he calls racial disadvantage; whereas, would the Government not confirm, in the

775
Home Secretary's Statement about these recommendations the proportion is the other way round; it is three-quarters about the police and only one-quarter about the social background? Will the Government give at an early opportunity an indication of their approach to the very constructive recommendations on Government policy on the social side towards racial disadvantage contained in the Scarman Report? The Home Secretary having promised an early debate in the House of Commons on this report, can the Government undertake to let us have one here as soon as possible, and if possible before Christmas?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord criticises the balance of my right honourable friend's Statement. The terms of reference which were given to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, were an inquiry into policing as a result of the severe disturbances in Brixton, but deliberately the terms of reference were made wide by my right honourable friend; indeed, it was made clear that Lord Scarman would look into matters which had occurred in other parts of Great Britain in order that we could have the benefit of his advice on problems in inner city areas generally. I think those terms of reference are reflected in the sort of Statement which I have repeated in your Lordships' House today.
So far as a debate is concerned, this is a matter for the usual channels, but I know that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be considering this matter urgently with the Chief Whip.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question about consultation, which is something which professional policemen do not happily accept. May I ask my noble friend to give us an assurance that he does intend these consultations to be real? Where they happen in other countries, where they have been in existence since the war, there is considerable disappointment, and in England at present there are virtually none.
May I ask him one further question. How is it that when, during debates over about 10 years, a number of us have spoken about police training, about the lack of imagination among many senior officers, about consultation, and about the spread of knowledge of policing among far wider sections of the public, we have at the end of those debates had either no answer at all or the briefest reference, but when all these are put together in one report by Lord Scarman, the Government immediately adopt the lot?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend asks me about consultation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State endorses the need for more formal and systematic arrangements. My right honourable friend will want to hear the views of your Lordships and of another place before deciding whether legislation may be desirable. He will consult a full range of national bodies as well as taking account of the reactions of local organisations. To show that my right honourable friend's intentions are absolutely genuine in this matter, so far as the area for which he as the police authority is concerned he is setting up early discussions on the arrangements for consultations in Lambeth.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, while recognising the remarks of Lord Scarman about the need for greater sensitivity on the part of the police in these difficult areas, can we be assured that the Government Will not put financial obstacles in the way of enlarged training of officers? I have in mind the question of sending police officers to the countries of origin of many of the people who are now living in our cities. Is the noble Lord aware that a small group of officers, including a police officer from my previous constituency, which was very cosmopolitan, spent some time in Trinidad, where they were able to see how the carnival worked and were able to get some sense of the culture and feelings of the people in their own country? it seems to me that this is the kind of enlarged police training which would be very valuable, and I hope the Minister can assure us that money will not stand in the way of that kind of programme.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, money must always be a factor in deciding on training programmes. But I would agree with the noble Baroness that there are other factors which are very important. I should like to add two to the ones which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has put to the House. I think that one factor is that to prepare in the fields which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, emphasises—public order, community relations, and supervision and management—precise proposals on what is actually taught is something which must be given careful thought, and the Police Training Council is the vehicle for that. Secondly, there is the need to ensure an appropriate balance in training between training in the classroom, as it were, and training on the job, and between training centrally and training at an in-force level. That has got to be looked at as well and it will be looked at urgently in the Police Training Council.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister comment on a point raised by my noble friend Lord Avebury about the Government's role as employer? There have been questions raised about this matter both in your Lordships' House and in the Select Committee report in another place. It would be reassuring to know that the Government were reviewing their own policy as an employer, a matter which has been open to criticism on a number of occasions.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not want to be discourteous to the noble Baroness, but I did reply to a debate which the noble Baroness raised in your Lordships' House and I have nothing to add to what I said on that occasion.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord has nothing to add to his previous remarks. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, correctly, and certainly if I were asking the question, I would be asking the Government whether, as the largest employer of labour in the country, they will be taking steps to ensure that their employment policy is non-discriminatory and whether the Government, as the provider of the largest number of contracts in the country, will take steps to ensure that the people with whom they enter into contracts have

777
employment policies which are non-discriminatory. So far the noble Lord has not answered that particular question, and I hope that he will apply his mind to it.
I should also like to raise two other matters. The question of a debate here is, of course, for the noble Lord's noble friend the Leader of the House and the usual channels. But there are other matters that would need to be debated by this House. Indeed, at this point I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for his report and congratulate him on the marvellous job that he has done, particularly on the way in which he changed the whole atmosphere of the inquiry through his approach to the matter. As most noble Lords know, before he went to Brixton there was a big campaign to boycott the inquiry. The noble and learned Lord converted everybody and needs to be congratulated for that.
In fact, that is a diversion, although a very important one. What I want to ask the Minister is the following. The noble Lord in speaking about accountability said that it would not work unless it were statutory. I noticed that in anwer to the questions that have been put to the noble Lord so far, there is talk about exploring in discussions the possibility of establishing appropriate machinery in Lambeth. There was voluntary machinery in Lambeth before but it broke down. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said we need to have statutory—
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness Young): My Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but perhaps he would he kind enough to put his remarks in the form of a question.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, as the noble Baroness rose I was putting the question. The question which I was putting to the noble Lord was as follows: When are we going to discuss the question of the statutory responsibility for these discussions, because that will need to be discussed by Parliament? That was the point that I wanted to make.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, emphasises that consultation and accountability need to go wider and deeper than consultation between the police and the police authority. He wants the involvement of other community leaders and the community as a whole, and not just locally elected representatives. He wants consultation to take place at a local level below that of the police authority and the police area. Hence his recommendations for formal arrangements for consultation at the borough or police district level in the Metropolitan Police district and for local consultative or liaison committees in the provinces. I want to make it clear without peradventure that my right honourable friend accepts this need for wider and deeper consultations.
Lord Denham: My Lords, before your Lordships resume the debate on my noble friend Lord Kimberley's Motion, in accordance with the advice of the Companion to Standing Orders I have to inform your Lordships that there is now one hour and 50 minutes left until my noble friend Lord Trefgarne is due to begin his reply. I repeat, one hour and 50 minutes and that
778
begins from the moment that the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, rises to his feet.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him to work out the arithmetic of each speech?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I make it six minutes.

NATO: Europe/USA Relationship
4.6 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I shall do my best to confine my remarks to six minutes. I believe that this debate has arisen largely by reason of the recent contradictory remarks made by various American leaders, notably President Reagan's rather unhappy observation that a nuclear war might in certain circumstances, be confined to Europe and possibly also by increasing doubts on this side of the Atlantic, about the continuing validity of the doctrine of "flexible response", to say nothing of fear arising from the possible installation of cruise missiles and Pershing Its in Europe, the whole resulting in a great increase in and demand for unilateral disarmament—a fatal proposal for surrender to the Soviet Union. To combat and reverse this mood and to stabilise our relationship with America, I should like to make the following short suggestions.
It must be frankly recognised that, while the maintenance of the North Atlantic Alliance under the general leadership of America, is obviously essential if we are not, in Europe, to come under the influence of the Soviet Union, there is necessarily some difference in the outlook of European members from the outlook of Americans if only because if war should come, whether conventional or nuclear, Europe might well bear the brunt of the fearful damage that would in any case result.
Fear of nuclear war is consequently, greater in Europe than in America and if it could in some way be mitigated there would be more chance of rallying popular support in Europe for what might be called an effective defensive effort that could certainly raise the nuclear threshold. Enormous importance consequently attaches, in European eyes, to the coming negotiations over long range tactical nuclear missiles and it is hoped, of course, for a renewal of SALT. It is also probable that European opinion, in the, I am afraid, likely event of the "zero option" not being accepted by the Russians, will be more in favour of some compromise solution than will our major ally.
That being so, the European members might perhaps be more nearly associated than seems likely at the moment with the negotiations which would probably be greatly assisted if, during the course of them and contrary, I think, to the opinion expressed by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary this afternoon, there were first some joint declaration renouncing the first use of nuclear weapons and, secondly, the constitution of a zone on either side of the dividing line in Germany from which all "battlefield" and other nuclear weapons were to be withdrawn. I personally believe that, seeing that the Russians are probably just as

779
frightened of the possibility of war as we are, both those objectives might be achieved in the comparatively near future.
In support of these vital negotiations, and, indeed, largely irrespective of their outcome, we should not necessarily increase our conventional defences, but most certainly modernise them, which could be done without very much additional expense if we on this side of the Atlantic devoted to this purpose the sums or part of the sums which it is now proposed to spend on Trident—which I now believe will in all probability come to some £10 billion—and the Americans similarly diverted some portion of the present gigantic allocations for strategic nuclear missiles when they have at the moment more than enough already to counter any possible Soviet threat.
As it would, therefore, appear that there is a specific "European" interest and attitude towards defence, it might well be formulated in some meetings held in the general framework of the new Genscher/Colombo plan, which all of those who believe in European unity trust will shortly be approved by the Council of Ministers. The argument that this is impossible because Ireland, though in the Community, is not in NATO, makes little sense, as the meetings would not take place under the auspices of the treaty, but under the general aegis of the European Council, which is quite capable of adopting any procedure which it pleases, and it is questionable whether the Irish would object to the proposal anyway.
There are, naturally, other important aspects of the European-American relationship: namely, differences over economics, over policy towards the third world, over so-called "liberation" movements, to say nothing of the great overshadowing problem of the Middle East. On all these important issues there is, however, a forum in which a joint European policy can be hammered out with a view to arguing the toss with our great ally; namely, the forum of the Council of Ministers and the European Council. But there does not seem, as yet, to have been quite the same effort devoted towards arriving at a common European policy on the overriding issue of security and, more especially, the nuclear issue. The object of my short intervention is consequently to suggest that there should be, and to indicate the broad lines on which such a policy could conceivably rest.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Saint Brides: My Lords, misconceptions and misunderstandings arise even in the best regulated alliances, and there are two at the moment in our transatlantic alliance which I should like to mention. The first and the less grave of them has already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, and it is widespread in America. It is that we, the European members of NATO, are ourselves contributing scandalously little to the common defence while leaving the main burden to be shouldered by the United States.
This is a travesty of the truth, and to state the facts fully and firmly is all that is needed to refute it. But it keeps cropping up, as it did, for example, in Secretary Haig's confirmation hearings before the Senate last February, when he was asked by one senator whether
780
it was not the case that America's allies were failing to do their full share of the common defence. Mr. Haig vigorously and trenchantly replied that, if war occurred tomorrow, as a NATO commander he would have got 90 per cent. of his ground forces, 80 per cent. of his naval forces and 75 per cent. of his air forces from the European nations. Our Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, spoke in the same vigorous vein when she was in the United States earlier this year.
On this side of the Atlantic, there is a much graver misconception. As we all know, it is being put about in some quarters, that, for sinister motives, the Americans seek to give the ascending spiral of the nuclear arms race between the super-powers a new twist by introducing a new generation of theatre nuclear missiles and perhaps later the neutron bomb into Western Europe, by so doing greatly enhancing the risk that Europe will become the main battle-ground between the two super-powers.
Many—indeed, most—of your Lordships will share my view that these statements amount to a gross distortion of the truth; and that, on the contrary, the introduction into western Europe of theatre nuclear weapons in the numbers and according to the programme which was agreed by the whole of NATO in December 1979, failing an agreement with Russia for a reciprocal limitation on the deployment of such weapons, would be an essential means of restoring the balance of strength which has been changed so profoundly to our western European detriment. If America is seeking, by these and other means, to improve the military posture of the Atlantic Alliance, it is not at all for warmongering motives, but because the Soviet Union used the years of détente to build up both its nuclear strength and also the unprecedented array of conventional weaponry, far exceeding any imaginable defensive purposes, which stands there in central Europe today.
It is in consequence of these Soviet actions that the West has become relatively weak and now needs to catch up if it is to negotiate with the Soviet Union from a position of strength. As has often been said, it is only by negotiating from such a position that one stands a chance of achieving satisfactory results.
What I find so odd and so bizarre is that it is this process of catching up by the West to which the nuclear disarmers object, which they regard as immoral, and apparently not the overwhelming Soviet build-up of up-to-date nuclear and other weapons which has occasioned it. It was not during the years of the Soviet build-up, not during the deadly new twist which the Russians gave to the arms spiral during the years of détente, that the CND movement was revived in this country and its comparable organisations on the Continent grew to their present size; but latterly, in opposition to the counter-measures which the West has belatedly set on foot in the 23 months which have elapsed since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
In France President Mitterrand and his Foreign Minister have said firmly and with emphasis that there is an urgent need to restore the nuclear balance in Europe. The French Government have announced that they intend to take steps to strengthen France's own nuclear deterrent, the force de frappe. It is significant that in taking these steps and in making

781
these pronouncements the French Government undoubtedly have the support of the overwhelming mass of the French people.
My Lords, I do not fully understand and cannot explain why the Russian threat to Britain and its European partners should be underestimated in some quarters in this country. Perhaps the desire to minimise the Russian threat is the result of wishful thinking; perhaps it comes from a belief in the possibility of appeasing Russia if we take a sufficiently complaisant attitude; or perhaps it comes from a failure to grasp the profound difference in ethos between the two super-powers, between the ethos which applies in Russia—one of a basic belief in coercion—and the ethos of America where there apply the principles of freedom under law which were inherited from Britain. But, my Lords, the British people have a long history of reacting appropriately to the full facts when they are laid before them. I believe that they will do so on this occasion. Therefore, I have no fear of the long-term outcome. It is a major step forward that our great ally, the United States, should at long last have proclaimed a co-ordinated and constructive arms control policy behind which we can put our weight and our support.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, the anxiety which prompted my noble friend Lord Kimberley to put his Motion on the Order Paper is certainly soundly based in history. Twice in this century it has been proved that faced with a powerful and offensive enemy it required the combined strength of Europe and America to contain and defeat aggression; one or the other could not have done it, and one or the other could not do it now. That is why NATO was formed and the joint obligation was underwritten to defend the Continent and the Atlantic Ocean. Defence on that scale cannot be improvised.
Therefore, it is necessary—whether we are thinking in terms of organising the deterrent or whether we are thinking in terms of the reality of war—that the Europeans, the Americans and the NATO Council should keep in step all the time. Is that alliance still necessary? The answer must be an unequivocal Yes for two reasons, because no one has yet been able to think of a better way of keeping the peace than the balance of power. It may be man's fault, but no better way has been found.
The second reason is that the Soviet Union—and in this the Soviet is alone among the nations—openly proclaims that there are circumstances in which force may be used to achieve a political aim. Following the examples of Czechoslovakia and the more recent one of Afghanistan, and the squeeze on Poland, no one can say for certain that a country of Western Europe could not be a political aim.
Is there any faltering of will among the European allies of the United States? If there is, I think the hesitation lies in the nuclear dimension in the balance of power. The fear in Europe that if the philosophy of deterrence breaks down then the democracies of Western Europe would bear the brunt of the nuclear exchange, which breeds a corresponding fear in the United States that having accepted the responsibility—and it is an awful and awesome responsibility—of
782
defending Europe (the United States has undertaken to do no less than that) the Europeans themselves might deprive the United States of the means by which they could fulfil their commitment. One understands then a certain fear on both sides, but fear is a notoriously bad counsellor, and the answer for the alliance must be to make the deterrence work.
In weighing the response of the Western democracies to the problems posed by Russia's mobilisation of fire power facts must be faced. It is demonstrable that weakness tempts to aggression. Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan are witnesses to that. While doubtless it is true that the Russian leaders will not contemplate a pre-emptive nuclear strike, nevertheless 40,000 tanks are offensively deployed in the Warsaw Pact area and relative to that the NATO strength is weak.
There are only two ways in which such a force could be neutralised. The first is if the Russians know that the NATO alliance has the defensive weaponry to make the risk of aggression too high. The second is mutual and balanced disarmament. I believe that the fear among the young, particularly in Europe, recently expressed in marches and demonstrations is not because they are convinced of the virtue or security of unilateral disarmament, but because the emphasis lately seemed to be concentrated on rearmament to the exclusion of disarmament. The speech of President Reagan has begun to correct that imbalance.
Obviously I cannot speak for other countries, but I believe that the people of the United Kingdom will accept the defensive missiles as necessary, provided urgency is given to negotiation on concrete measures of disarmament. I hope we are entering into a period of more rational and less emotional assessment in negotiations in which people will be able to judge the facts. It is necessary to give a word of caution. When I last negotiated with the Russians they would not sit down at the table unless the words "mutual and balanced" were taken out of the formula. That is some measure of the difficulty we will face. The Russians have never yet agreed to verification of obligations undertaken. I hope we have all learned something since then.
This is a short debate. I shall not prolong it. But I hope that we shall have less loose talk in the context of nuclear and conventional arms. All that needs to be said is that if the Russians were to launch an aggression NATO would use those weapons which are required to defeat it. We need not say more, and we ought not to say less. In Europe we could do more to recognise what I have called the awesome commitment of the defence of Europe undertaken by the United States. We are lucky to have such an ally. With a little more comprehension and understanding, I believe the alliance will remain united and will succeed in its double task of deterring aggression and guarding the peace.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, it is only a fortnight since the House last discussed NATO, but during that fortnight the deadly blockage of the last two years has begun visibly to loosen up. It is now understood in Washington that if Russia is wrongfully occupying Afghanistan that is not a reason to refuse contact; it may even be a reason to accelerate contact so long as nothing is done which condones that occupation.

783
If we are to wait for a virtuous Russia before talking about disarmament, we shall see no disarmament. We live in a world of sinners: and sin, by definition, is not the monopoly of other people.
President Reagan's opening bid for the coming negotiations was a reasonable one, and we in Europe should certainly close ranks behind it. It included four things in a comprehensive framework: the European nuclear missile balance; strategic arms reduction talks, the new formulation, START; conventional reductions, and confidence building measures; and lastly the European disarmament conference beloved of France. It is good to know that this package was welcomed, though in measured terms, by Professor E. P. Thompson, the brains of CND. And within a few days of this Mr. Brezhnev had gone to Bonn and unveiled his own opening bid.
True enough, they are far apart: America wants Russia to dismantle all its IRBMs, or presumably all of those on the western front, including not only the SS20s but also the ancient SS4s and 5s, in return for NATO cancelling the intended deployment of cruise and Pershing II missiles. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, offers a reduction of IRBMs, without saying which type, and I quote, "not by dozens, but by hundreds". Nor does it specify the quid pro quo. But I think in context we must read this to mean in return for the same quid pro quo; namely, the zero option on the Western side. As bids in a still completely public negotiation go, these are not too far apart. One can already foresee quite a few possible compromise outcomes. But let us leave the negotiators to their work.
Hope has returned, and we should record the outstanding part played in its return by Chancellor Schmidt, the leader of the German Social Democrat Party. Let us remember his extremely eloquent and skilful speech to the Labour Party Conference in 1974 when he begged that party to maintain its European Community allegiance. What a pity it did not listen to him. Let us remember his Alastair Buchan memorial lecture of 1977 when he expressed here in London, and in English, the principle which his country has followed since; the "two possible ways".
"There are two possible ways"—
he said—
"of establishing a conventional balance with the Warsaw Pact states".
And the remark is equally true of the nuclear balance.
"One would he for the Western Alliance to undertake a massive build-up of forces and weapons systems: the other for both NATO and the Warsaw Pact to reduce their force strength and achieve an overall balance at a lower level. I prefer the latter",
said Chancellor Schmidt. So do we all. Let us also remember the fortitude with which Chancellor Schmidt recently, despite alarming ill health, stood his ground against a big unilateralist swing in the SPD, and unilateralist demonstrations in Bonn of unexampled size, and succeeded at last in bringing all the horses to the water. We should now pray that they will drink.
A new tone was set in Washington by President Reagan's speech last week. In it he at last, at long last, became the first American leader to avoid the shameful designations, "theatre nuclear weapons"
784
and "tactical nuclear weapons". He called the things throughout by their right name; intermediate range nuclear forces. We should be very grateful for that. With any luck, the stories about the Reagan Administration's supposed willingness to fight a nuclear war to the last European can now be laid to rest. Let us file them under the labels "canards" and "Aunt Sallies". The first great point about deterrence is, and always has been, that it should look as doubtful and as horrible as possible. That is how you deter. The other great point about it is, and always has been, that it is the second most dangerous way of getting through the nuclear age. The most dangerous way would be unilateral disarmament. The least dangerous is multilateral disarmament. Nobody in their senses would prolong a high level deterrent policy for a moment after they had the opportunity of establishing a lower level one by multilateral disarmament.
The next move, therefore, has to be towards minimum deterrent forces. At present the two sides face each other with nuclear stockpiles a thousand times what would be needed to deter either from attacking the other. Let them get that down to say, 10 times, or even five; the deterrence will still be complete. Let us then all draw a deep breath and see if we can go further.
At a certain point in the procedure the British and French independent nuclear forces become relevant. It must be the purpose of all nuclear powers to possess only that minimum of nuclear forces needed to achieve deterrence in a world where nuclear weapons still exist. This is the key to the whole matter. It is the doctrine of minimum deterrence: the French and Chinese Governments act in accordance with it. It is also implicit in what Secretaries Haig and Weinberger and Mr. Eugene Rostow, the Director of the Arms Control Disarmament Agency in Washington, have been recently saying. Lord Mountbatten espoused it. It is favoured in Pugwash.
Britain and France have in fact always been at the minimum level, but when the super-powers have reduced their nuclear weapons enough for our minimum forces to become relevant, then Britain and France must become directly interested and, if their own forces are to be discussed, they must of course be full parties at the negotiating table. That is some time ahead. In the meantime, we must salute not only Chancellor Schmidt's achievement, but also the new attempt by the super-powers to resume nuclear disarmament negotiations after a gap of 15 years or more. We must use words according to their meanings, and "disarmament" does not mean refraining from building weapons nor moving existing weapons around; it means dismantling and destroying weapons. That is why the present moment is so hopeful.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not dissent from anything that has been said today, but I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that all speakers have so far concerned themselves with what I might call the military aspects of the alliance. I do not think anybody would doubt the value of the alliance and the need for free and independent people to defend that freedom. On the other hand, I believe the main quarrel at present between us and our allies, the

785
Americans, is that there appears to be a total concentration of effort on this military aspect, whereas I believe there is another arm which should be examined.
At the North Atlantic Assembly meeting earlier this year, Mr. Eagleburger, the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, said the United States were concerned about pressures in Europe to change a policy which had prevented war for over 30 years. I do not know why there should be concern that the policy should be challenged. It should be challenged and it is certainly challenged. It is challenged by a new generation of people born in times of world peace. in an era of comparative freedom. That generation points an accusing finger at NATO, at what it sees as an association of ageing World War II veterans who are pursuing much the same policies, those of arms and deterrence, as were formulated 35 years ago. They ask, through conferences, demonstrations and so on, a number of questions which are difficult to answer. Indeed, we as parliamentarians have totally failed in the alliance to answer those questions, and we leave it to the newspapers and indeed to our enemies to put answers into those questioning mouths.
In the summer there was a meeting in Oxford of the Atlantic Association of Young Political Leaders. I attended it with colleagues from the Education, Cultural Affairs and Information Committee of the Assembly and we were greatly distressed by the ill-preparedness of the delegates who came to discuss matters such as we are discussing this afternoon. They were totally unaware of any of the achievements of the alliance, either through the Assembly or through the military alliance, and at the end they said, "Surely there must be a way to teach history, civic education and ethics, all developed one with another, through the curricula of schools. There should be an opportunity to expose young people to the realities of international affairs".
We in this country do not do that very well, nor do we do it very well in Europe. Indeed, at the Assembly's meeting in Munich in October, one speaker after another, unconcerned with the Education, Cultural Affairs and Information Committee, called for educational programmes so that the questioning and challenging generation could be made aware of what was being done, and why. M. Aumont of France, Snr. Falluchi of Italy and Herr Hupka of the Federal Republic of Germany, among others, all called, in their separate ways, for a wider educational process. The Education, Cultural Affairs and Information Committee adopted a text calling on the Assembly to provide the facilities, but the reality is that there are no funds available. The Secretary-General himself said: "We publish reports of the Assembly's deliberations, but we do not have the resources to disseminate that information".
Until such time as proper resources are provided for what one might call the talking or parliamentary arm of the alliance to do their kind of work, and they are ready to do it, there can be little change in this questioning attitude and the relationship between ourselves, particularly in Europe, and the North Americans, where there is a gulf of misunderstanding, suspicion and distrust. That gulf can be healed only by a greater knowledge of each other's way of thinking, our attitude towards current political and military problems and a realisation of what is being done.
786
I urge all members of the alliance to provide those kind of funds for this peaceful occupation of energies concerned with NATO and its relationships.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the last two speakers have done something to rescue the debate from disrepute as a result of the manner in which the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, introduced the matter. He did a disservice to his own cause and to this House. It is not for me to assist his cause, but I am concerned about the reputation of your Lordships' House and Parliament. The purpose of Parliamentary privilege is not to enable noble Lords to slander and attack people in a manner which they would not be prepared to do outside this House.
It is extremely damaging for a member of the Labour Party to be declared to be a communist. Some years ago the Daily Mirror had to pay £10,000 to George Elvin, General Secretary of the ACCT, because they said he was a member of the Communist Party, a communist or was sympathetic to communism, or something of that sort. I suggest that if the noble Earl were outside this Chamber and accused Monsignor Bruce Kent or Professor Michael Pentz in the terms he used inside this Chamber, it would cost him about £100,000. If the noble Earl disagrees with that, let him put the matter to the test; let him have the courage to say outside this Chamber what he said inside it, and then we shall see what substance there is in what he had to say. I believe the law would demonstrate to him that there was no substance in it whatsoever.
As for the nature of the campaign, the CND is an organisation of protest and it is obvious that it has members of the Communist Party in it; it would be impossible for that not to be the case. But because of that, is it right for the noble Earl to try to denigrate the entire organisation? Is everybody who supports unilateral disarmament to be accused, as another noble Lord put it, of wittingly or unwittingly playing the Russian game? Are noble Lords here who support this cause to be accused of that? Is the new Shadow Defence Spokesman, Mr. John Silkin, to be accused of disloyalty because he does not believe in the present policy of the Government?
What are the Government beginning to say? They are getting themselves into very deep water if they are saying that everybody who fails to agree with them is disloyal to this country. That is the position they are getting themselves into, and they are beginning to say it about some people about whom they have no right to say it. If any kind of dissent with Government policy, if disagreement with the development of nuclear war, is to be regarded as disloyal and in some way incapable of being uttered by anyone with the real interests of this country at heart, then that is a position about which the Government had better think again.
I believe that the Government are beginning to think again about it. We have not heard from the Front Bench recently the kind of McCarthyite business which we were hearing a few months ago. I believe that the Government have realised that this kind of thing does not pay, and I am rather inclined to wonder whether they will regard the noble Earl as having performed a

787
service on their behalf this afternoon. I am somewhat inclined to doubt it.
In a recent debate in which I took part at Bristol University the case for the NATO proposition, full-scale nuclear arming, was put by Mr. Peter Blaker, and Colonel Alford of the Institute of Strategic Studies, in a manner which commanded respect. They did not attempt to denigrate their opponents. They put their case straight, and we put our case straight. We won, but by a fairly small margin, and it is my belief that this was precisely because they did not attempt to denigrate the cause that we represented, but tried to face the facts of the position.
Since I have had to spend my time in defending our integrity—I have spent four minutes in that—I have left myself with only one minute in which to try to put our case. Clearly I simply cannot do that, and I shall have to leave it to other speakers. However, I would say to your Lordships that I hope that when, on another occasion, we return to this subject, we shall do so on a different basis, because there is a reasonable argument to be put and to be heard on both sides, and that is what I was told this House was for when I came into it.
4.41 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, perhaps it is as well that due to lack of time I am prevented from replying to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. At the risk of striking a slightly discordant note, I should like to refer to two recent happenings, both on the other side of the Atlantic, one of which at least your Lordships will already have heard of, perhaps almost too often. I refer to the recent exchange between Mr. Haig and Mr. Weinberger. As your Lordships will remember, Mr. Haig, as the Secretary of State, is reported as referring to the fact that NATO had a contingency plan for firing a demonstrative nuclear weapon across the bows (as it were) of the Russians in time of war, if they thought that they were going too far. That was contradicted by Mr. Weinberger, the Minister of Defence, who said that there was no such contingency plan and—I think I am right in saying this—there never has been.
Now, the question is, who was right? At this point there enters into the discussion a third authority, for whose existence I personally can vouch, but whom I cannot identify, who said that in fact they were both right, because Mr. Weinberger had been referring to contingency planning—he said that there had not been such a contingency plan—while Mr. Haig, on the other hand, was referring to options; and it was clear that the firing of a nuclear shot in certain circumstances was a possible option, or might become so. Therefore there was no connection between the two.
Then, within a few hours of that happening, I turned on my television set, and what did I see? I saw Mr. Haig, with whom I am acquainted, and whom therefore I can recognise, and I heard him say that NATO has contingency plans for the firing of a nuclear shot across the bows of the Russians. So where are we now? One is saying one thing, one is saying the other, and the third apparently is disagreeing with them both. Where are we? Well, I hope that we are in the same position of loyalty towards and trust of our friends, the allies, as we were previously. But that does not make it very
788
much easier, and in my opinion it has three effects.
The first effect is to cast doubts on the truth or otherwise of what is actually said. The second effect is to raise doubts concerning the responsibility (if that is the right word) of those who make these statements. What reliance are we to place upon them? I shall mention the third effect in a moment when I have said something about the CBS reports.
Some of your Lordships, perhaps most of you, will have seen these reports. They were transmitted on British television a few weeks ago, and they dealt with the defence of the United States. I think there were five of them, but at any rate the last one (which is the one I am thinking of) dealt with what is known as the notion of the integrated battlefield. The idea of this is, roughly, if I understand it properly, that one cannot shift from non-nuclear warfare—I refuse to use the word "conventional"—to nuclear warfare without a lot of logistical upsets, movements, and running about which would draw the attention of the enemy, and so forefeit surprise. Therefore there is the expedient known as the integrated battlefield, in which one starts with all the weapons readily deployed, and so one is enabled to shift from one to the other, from non-nuclear to nuclear, and back again—in my opinion a crazily dangerous idea, if ever I heard one.
That point came out in the programme. Again, we had another authority coming in, and, when he was asked a question about this point, in the course of his answer he produced a statement to the effect that American strategic policy is not made by the CBS cameras. No, it is not made by CBS cameras, and the programme was not made by them, either. It was made by American officers in uniform, talking and training in front of the CBS cameras, by which it was recorded, and through which it was broadcast presumably to the rest of the world.
That is a very alarming state of affairs, and it brings me straight to the third effect that I mentioned a few moments ago. It amounts to this. Such a programme might have been written deliberately as a recruiting programme for the CND. In saying that, I imply no criticism at all of the CND; I merely state this fact—and I believe that it is a fact.
When one member of the alliance, any alliance, speaks, or seems to speak, with what I would describe as a bewildering or uncertain voice, I believe that other members, or individual citizens of other member countries, have a duty not to maintain a discreet and tactful silence, but to speak up, and say so. I hope your Lordships will agree.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Gore-Booth: My Lords, I hope that I might make the shortest speech of the debate, which has been full of very important and very encouraging speeches on this extremely critical situation, which might become worse before it gets better—and that means a very great deal. I wish to allude very briefly to two items which seem to me to be working against us and which we need to be aware of, even if they are not susceptible of improving by legislation. One of them, quite frankly, is a feeling which hangs like a shroud over many people. It is that for some reason or another which they do not quite know, they do not like Americans.

789
I agreed very much with the noble Lord—two speakers ago, I think—who said that the educational process would play a very important part in the immediate and near future in strengthening our own affairs and keeping our morale straight. We live in an age which is only gradually recovering from what one might call the era of decadence in much of British literature. I want very much to underline the point that in so far as people who write can get out of that era, that will improve in every other way our capacity to give a good account of ourselves if the worst should happen. Of course, one must not forget what the worst would be like if it did happen. Not only is it our duty to arm ourselves sensibly and efficiently; I am quite sure that we need to arm our psychological side, too. I think that this really refers to all parts of our country's activities. I think this also applies to the writing of literature. Not only that—this is a purely human thing, but, after all, the most important thing in the world is the survival of human beings—but we need to have more consciousness of what can be done by false information and by aggressively pessimistic views of our own country and our own society. I believe this to be a very important aspect of our whole civilisation and its preservation.
As I said, this is not a thing you can do by legislation or by making a law about this, that or the other; it is simply that there is a need in our society for a consciousness that we have been through a period in which many great things have been done and have been invented, and that it will continue. But it is really very important, to my mind, that the backward-looking and pessimistic view of our society that so many people indulge in by way of careless talking—and I do not mean this about armaments or any such thing, but simply the talking down of our own society, its abilities and its potentialities—can create more of a pessimistic feeling throughout the country, even if not intended, than should ever be the case.
One thing that perhaps increases our vulnerability (and this has been alluded to already) is the lamentable ignorance in our country of what Americans are like—what they do, whether they are for us or against us, and so on. I think that our educational side, whether it be the private sector or otherwise, has been very much lacking in informing our people of the nature, the talents and everything else of our absolutely vital allies; because if things did go badly then I think it is common understanding that if we did not have the Americans as our trusting allies our prospects would indeed be very poor.
I hope that this rather short and perhaps not very eloquent account of this danger has at least shown that there is a problem on the psychological side in our present society of which we must be conscious, and that there must be a conscious effort by our Government, by our rulers, and by those of our people who do not feel like this to make quite sure that this kind of psychology does not grow.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the 30 and more years of peace and growing prosperity that Europe has enjoyed has been due to two innovations in the post-war world, both of which we owe largely to American inspiration and leadership. One is the North Atlantic Alliance, which is our proper subject today, and the
790
other is the movement for European integration, particularly economic integration, with which it is closely connected and of which it is an important support. Both these are now simultaneously, as we know, under criticism and under attack.
One of these has been mentioned; indeed, it was mentioned at the beginning of this debate by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, when he spoke about the CND. I am not perhaps over-worried about the impact of the CND and that type of thinking in this country. We have had that sort of thing with us for a very long time. Noble Lords from north of the border will remember that Robert Burns wrote an ode to a member of the CND:
"Wee, sleekit, cow'rin', tim'rous beastie,
O what a panic's in thy breastie!".
But it is the effect on others; it is the effect on the young; it is the effect on other countries. In a broadcast yesterday morning Mr. Michael Binyon, The Times correspondent in Moscow who has done a great deal, I think, in the past few years to explain to us the nature of Soviet society, its aims and its fears, pointed out from Bonn that the Russians had clearly arrived there vastly over-estimating the impact that these peace demonstrations had made, and therefore believing, quite wrongly, that they would find Chancellor Schmidt very ready to give way. Equally on the other side of the Atlantic these reports are bound to create some questioning.
But the important thing is not, I think, even now, these movements, however large they are: the important thing is Governments, present and future. The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, has pointed to the fact (and no one could deny it) that in the presentation of American policy there is from time to time a good deal of confusion and disarray. It is the nature of the American governmental system that it should be so. But at the same time we have to admit that not only within this Administration but as between succeeding American Administrations there has been no departure from the fundamental belief that it is in their interests to preserve the freedom of Western Europe and to promote its further integration.
It is when they look at this country, for instance, that they find a Government which is united but a Government which could be replaced by an opposition party which denies both the foundations of this 30 years of peace. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, pointed out, the Opposition is now represented on defence matters by a self-confessed unilateralist. They are represented on European matters by Mr. Eric Heifer, one of whose main points in his political career in recent years has been to denigrate any value to be got out of our association with Europe. It is true that the right honourable Denis Healey still figures on that Front Bench, but what he is doing there it is difficult to say, unless he believes in the medical adage that every gouty foot needs a foot-stool.
I think it is up to those who represent that party in this House to say whether they accept the policy of their party or whether they reject it. In the case of Back-Bench Members like Lord Stewart of Fulham, we know precisely where he stands; but he is not, I think, in the position of the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Peart, who in the debate on the Address declared,

791
"I am not a unilateralist".—[Official Report, 10/11/81; col. 220.].
And he repeated that declaration today. I must say that I have some sympathy with the erstwhile noble Lord, the erstwhile Lord Stansgate, when he says it is odd to have people representing a party in a formal capacity and denying its party policy; and I can see that across the Atlantic, or even across the Channel, there must be grave confusion. What credibility can be given to a British Government today if it could be replaced by a Government taking precisely the opposite view? That, I think, is the question to which the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, will have to address herself when she replies to this debate from the other side of the House.
In the debate on 10th November, in which she took part, she said—and I quote from Hansard, column 117:
"We do not have to be rigid militarists, multilateralists, unilateralists or to belong to any one particular category".
I do not know whether, if she seeks spiritual consolation from the right reverend Prelates, she says, "Do I have to be a Christian, a Jew or a Moslem, or would some combination of these do?" It is our contention on this side of the House that unilateralism and multi-lateralism are not one and the same thing: one is deeply and totally opposed to the other.
5 P.m.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, in the last 31 years since the United States agreed to an association with the other countries of the West in the North Atlantic Alliance and President Truman agreed, provided conditions were satisfactory and that we would meet our obligations, that the then General Eisenhower would be sent over to Europe to act as Supreme Commander, relations have been strained; but they have been of a minor character. After all, we must take note that even among the Americans relations are strained. General Haig does not always agree with Defence Secretary Weinberger; and sometimes we do not know who President Reagan agrees with. Sometimes the Americans doubted our sincerity and whether we meant business or whether we would provide the manpower, equipment and expenditure and sometimes we were a little doubtful about the Americans because they tried to indulge in domination and occasionally insisted that we must purchase weapons that we did not think necessary.
But in spite of these minor difficulties the fact remains (there is no escape from it) that for the last 30 years the maintenance of peace and the prevention of another war has been due to the association of the United States with other Western countries; and so it must remain, whether we like it or not. I like it. It does not bother me a bit and I hope that other noble Lords will like it. But we have to accept that there are exceptions. But whether we like it or not, we have to rely on the strength, the influence, the military power and the financial resources of the United States in the Atlantic alliance in order to maintain peace and, in the event of a conflict of a conventional character, to resist aggression. There is no escape from it. All this talk about demonstrations and unilateralism and multilateralism is quite irrelevant.
I am speaking in terms not of the possibility of
792
nuclear war but of conventional war. Now dealing with nuclear war, I do not believe for a moment that the Russians want a nuclear war. Indeed, I am pleased, to some extent, with what happened the other day at Bonn between Chancellor Schmidt and President Brezhnev. They did not completely agree, but I think they are on the right road in having discussions and consultations. The Russians do not want a nuclear war. What will they gain by it? Supposing that they destroy London and Glasgow and Edinburgh; supposing that they annihilate millions of people in this country, with a scorched earth policy, do you think they will send their parachutists over and take possession of it? No. They are not looking for that. Neither do we want nuclear war. But there is always the possibility of a conventional conflict.
Now I come down to brass tacks. What I wanted to know from this debate is this: Are we satisfied with the strength, the influence, the equipment and the strategy of the North American alliance? That is the important consideration. Are we satisfied about the manpower, about the equipment, about the training, about the forces that will be available in the event of conflict? Are we satisfied about the mobility of transport, about the provision of foodstuffs for the civilian population in the event of conflict; and also what is required for the forces themselves? These are the considerations that ought to be entertained by Members of your Lordships' House and by all those concerned.
The fact is that we do not know about these things. We get very little information about these matters—partly on grounds of security; and I do not understand why security should enter into the argument at all. These are matters upon which the public are entitled to be informed and, at any rate, we are entitled to be informed. I wonder whether we will get information tonight. I doubt it. Perhaps we ought not to expect it, but we ought to be saying this. Are we satisfied with our strength or are we dismayed at our weakness? These are primary considerations. I make no bones about it. I do not believe in anything unilateral. I do not think that the unilateralists could achieve any objective of any advantage. I can understand people believing in that. Why not? It is a free country. We have eccentric people. Some think they are insane. I do not go as far as that. I sometimes think they are obscene; but they are entitled to express their opinion. I reject their views.
I rely on what I have said in previous debates. We must maintain the Altantic Alliance. It is unity that we want. The strength we have got, not for purposes of using it, but for a deterrent to begin with. But, in circumstances which we cannot control, we must act in unity in order to provide security for our people and to provide security for the people of the West. That is our purpose. I hope we will have no nonsense about that. Whether the unilateralists become powerful or weak or whether we decide on unilateral discussion, whether anything of that sort happens, let us make it a primary consideration, along with the United States of America, that, despite the occasional differences, we will maintain the alliance in order to promote peace—and that is the first consideration—and, in the event of a conventional conflict, to resist aggression.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, in attempting to speak for only six minutes one must cut out some of the niceties of debate. The public and parliamentarians alike must have been surprised by the seeming spontaneity with which large crowds gathered in almost every Western European NATO capital in recent weeks and weekends to shout anti-American slogans, to urge unilateral nuclear disarmament and to call for peace. In calling for peace, they are only echoing what every one of us wants. For many years, it has been Moscow's ambition to drive a wedge of hostility and misunderstanding between the USA and Europe. The Soviets see more clearly than perhaps the 250 million of us living in Western Europe that if the USA become disenchanted and withdraw their 350,000 troops from Western Europe, their aircraft, their tanks, ships and their nuclear shield, the alliance will collapse. That is why the Soviets devote so much effort to NATO's disruption.
I saw a BBC programme called "World Tonight" on November 12th where Don Milner interviewed Dr. Joseph Luns who has been the Secretary General of NATO for over 10 years. In reply to Don Milner, Dr. Luns gave three instances. He said
"In all the reports I see from agents of the KGB, or other security services, who defect to the West, all mention the fact that the Soviet Union is paying for the Peace Movements".
He went on, secondly:
"On the 19th October, a KGB defector before the German wireless declared that the Soviet Union was paying for the Peace Movement in Western Europe".
Thirdly, he said:
"At the end of October a Soviet diplomat was expelled from Denmark and some days later one of the leaders of the Peace Movement in Denmark and his wife were arrested for having received chunks of money from the Soviet Union to promote the Movement and for having been in constant connection with those spies".
We saw well-meaning people collecting in numbers of 150,000 or even 250,000 (depending upon whose figures you believe) in Hyde Park recently to demonstrate. Special trains and special buses were provided for all and these were quite free of charge. At the annual meeting of the United Kingdom CND recently, the chairman—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was in the chair at the time; and I am sorry he is not here at the moment—was asked where the money came from. No one was able to get a reply. The Labour Party and the TUC have both said that they did not finance these gatherings. Who paid for the special trains and for the special buses? Who paid for them to go all over Europe, across frontiers, to gather huge crowds demonstrating on similar lines in all the capitals?
I think this is an incredibly well organised campaign and it is nurtured, as we have heard from fundamentally honest people of great integrity, by Moscow and the Soviets. They have achieved outstanding success. When, in 1976, they mounted a campaign to dissuade President Carter in his early days from building the neutron bomb, they had the first of these great successes. I saw recently published in the American Bar Association intelligence report for April 1981 the following figures: The Soviets launched a major propaganda campaign against the neutron bomb. It is officially estimated that this specific campaign cost £100 million
794
dollars. It was part of a Soviet general campaign aimed at preventing NATO from modernising its theatre nuclear forces.
Such was the success of that campaign that they are following on now to try and prevent the deployment of theatre nuclear forces to match the SS20s now being deployed every two weeks across the Iron Curtain and in Europe. Fortunately—and I think I have to say this—if you read the MORI report in The Times today, this country is much more staunch than perhaps some of our allies realise. The report published in The Times says that 69 per cent. of our population oppose unilateralism, that 23 per cent. are in favour.
It is somewhat disturbing that in the younger element who knew nothing of the last war, the 15 to 24-year-olds, there is a bigger percentage; 29 per cent. of those favour unilateralism. I picked up today—the CND are working feverishly in the schools—a phamphlet being circulated in the schools called Schools against the Bomb. It is put out by Monseignor Bruce Kent and other members of the nuclear disarmament campaign. We have to counter this, because if they indoctrinate the young they will grow up and they may influence our allies into believing that we are rotten at the core. We are not. We are solid, honest and reasonably well armed, and we must say so wide and handsome.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in a recent speech in this House, said that Her Majesty's Government have documented evidence of the extent to which alien political influences are exploiting the peace movements in western Europe and the USA. If this is true, I would say to my noble friend who is to wind up that surely we must publish these facts. The intelligence people in all countries like to keep the cards so close to their chests that they never actually expose them and help our cause.
Has not the time come to say where the money is coming from, who is providing the money, what are the routes? It must be known who paid for the trains and who paid for the buses all over western Europe. Cannot our intelligence service publish these facts and go on the radio and tell the population about it? I would urge my noble friend to be more forthcoming. We are going to lose this battle unless we publish the facts high and wide.
5.14 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to put a European Community point of view in regard to relations between European members of NATO and the United States. Having been for many years president and chairman of the European Atlantic Group and later vice-president of the European Parliament, I think we should welcome President Reagan's American concept of peace, and we must all recognise and emphasise the value of deterrent nuclear weapons as tools of peace in a world where one political leader does not know the potential for good or evil in another. In the non-communist world the people can democratically dismiss one Government for another. Not so in the USSR. In non-communist societies mankind has a spiritual end—love thy neighbour as thyself—and not the purely material ends of marxism. I feel, therefore, that we should challenge the Soviet Union to abandon its self

795
appointed role as propagator of communist revolution and allow people to choose and evolve their own political systems.
This is the kernel of the conflict in Poland and Afghanistan. If the USSR withdrew from Afghanistan and allowed Poland to develop its own political institutions, the whole international climate would change. The European Community is a practical example of the recognition of common interests in political co-operation: of feeding our indigenous populations and promoting relations with less developed countries. I believe we should invite the US Administration and US firms to assist in these developments in order to strengthen Europe as a bastion of basic human freedom.
In a short speech let me also salute the US decision to purchase trainer aircraft manufactured by British Aerospace and the co-operation between US and British firms in developing the Harrier aircraft which I have looked at closely in St. Louis, Missouri. I should also take up the call of my honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence in his lecture on the 17th November for specialisation among the European members of NATO. The United States can certainly assist this process through consistent purchasing policies.
I think we should also remind the United States that the Community has unique treaty obligations to the African, Caribbean and Pacific states, designed to help their own internal social and economic growth; and I hope that following the Cancun summit the United States Government will co-operate with Community institutions in developing these new relationships.
I believe that the proposals of Herr Genscher and Signor Colombo should be supported by Her Majesty's Government—that is, proposals for a joint analysis of worldwide and regional threats to the Community, the United States and other nations, and proposals for the development of common policies to counter such threats with the aim of improving the Community's collective capacity to react in consultation with the United States and NATO. I believe, too, that such consultation should be extended to include China and Japan, and that we should all jointly develop policies for stability based on an equilibrium of forces.
I would end by challenging the Soviet Union to abandon revolution and disarm unilaterally in nuclear weapons. I often ask, since the USSR supports unilateralists in western Europe, why do they not set an example by unilaterally disarming themselves? Having regard to their vast lebensraum and rich resources within their own territories and the existence of large buffer zones between themselves and the states of a different ideology, I think they could safely do so.
We may welcome President Brezhnev's offer to withdraw some SS20 missiles behind the Urals. But in my view, nothing less than an offer of total unilateral nuclear disarmament will really make us in the West feel that the Soviet Union is genuine in its desire for peace.
I have a few seconds left and I want to mention the Diligent Report to the European Parliament on the protection and surveillance of shipping routes for oil and raw materials which was approved recently
796
by the European Parliament. I should like to draw that to the attention of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. Finally, I think that we should say to the United States that an effective challenge to Soviet Marxism depends not only on social and economic progress in the West, but also on a new European-North American Marshall Plan designed to bring the peoples of the less developed countries to what some describe as the banquet of life.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, a lot has been said this afternoon about the pacifists, whose views I respect, and about the fellow travellers, with whom I disagree. But rather less has been said about a section of our communities which I think is more disturbing—that is, the number of sensible, moderate, ordinary, intelligent people who have always felt a loyalty to the alliance but who now feel that things are getting out of control, that we do not know what we are doing and that war in Europe is more likely.
In one way, it is not surprising that sensible people are worried. For 36 years we have sheltered under the American nuclear umbrella, and now people have been allowed to get the impression that, because of Soviet military strength, the American deterrent may only deter an attack against the United States itself and that plans are being made to fight a limited nuclear war in Europe. This is a travesty of the situation. It is partly the penalty of a free press and a free society, and I am afraid it is partly the fault of the Governments in the alliance, which until recently—and I emphasise that word "recently"—have either been coy about their defence policies or have even been confused about them.
I do not myself believe that the danger of war in Europe is any greater than it has ever been since the war, and, indeed, if you look at it from Soviet Union's point of view, with China on one flank and with supply lines going through Poland on another, they would be very foolish to run risks at the present time. The risk is not one of war: it is one of intimidation or collapse of determination, and that is why the European leaders in 1978—and let us remember it was the European leaders and not the United States who took the initiative—felt that something had to be done to counter the menace of the SS20s and thus to avoid decoupling Europe from the United States. The aim of modernisation of the theatre nuclear forces was, as we all know, to show the USSR that it could not risk an attack in Europe or a threat to Europe without exposing its own territory to attack from Europe, and thus for Europe to avoid nuclear blackmail—in other words to extend the concept of deterrence by showing that there is a way of defending Europe other than through the use of long-range strategic weapons.
To the unilateralists, this is seen as the United States preparing to fight the USSR on European soil. The truth is that it is demonstrating a continuing United States commitment to Europe to deter the USSR from calculation in Europe: in other words to show that there is a continuing third choice between the alternatives of being "red or dead". It seems to me that the real risk would come if we ever got to the stage of doing so little ourselves as either to drive the United States back into concern to defend itself alone or to let the Soviets think that the only alternative which we had was submission. It is that situation which I suggest to your

797
Lordships would make war in Europe more likely than the present situation.
While no one can pretend that the present situation is other than making the best, or perhaps I should say the safest, of a bad job in a world where absolutes no longer prevail, it is a policy which is designed never to let the Soviets, who are by nature cautious, think that the only alternative we have is surrender. But of course it is very important to avoid a new arms race and to ensure stability at the lowest level of military balance possible. That is where the new arms control negotiations come in and why we must pray that there is a positive response to President Reagan's proposals.
We should do everything we can to assist those negotiations, but I suggest to your Lordships that we must remember one thing. The negotiations are bound to be long and difficult, not just because neither side will want to make concessions which are not matched by the other side and not just because of the technical complexities and the problems of verification, but also because one of the Soviet Union's weapons in the negotiations will be the propaganda one, which, because they have a controlled press and a controlled people, they are well placed to wage. We must therefore go on encouraging the United States to negotiate for success, as I believe they intend to do, and try to convince our own people accordingly. But we must also remember where our true interests lie and the great danger that would face us if ever there was a collapse of resolve in Europe.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks and congratulations to my noble friend Lord Kimberley, who has initiated this important debate today. I think my noble friend Lord Home is the only speaker during the course of this debate so far who has pointed out that it is not only since 1945 that the democracies in western Europe have depended upon the assistance and support of the United States, but throughout the century. That is indeed the main fact of the 20th century. We should not have survived the threat from German military despotism in the First World War, any more than we should have survived the threat from the Nazi totalitarian tyranny during the Second World War, without the arrival—late, as we took pains to point out then, but in time—of the United States as our ally.
Furthermore, the United States has given, not only since 1945, substantial economic assistance to Western Europe: in the 1920s, for example, the Dawes and the Young Plans were rehearsals for the Marshall Plan of 1948. That main fact of the 20th century is one that is not fully appreciated by public opinion in this country or in western Europe as a whole. It is certainly something which would have surprised previous generations. The great Gibbon, in his The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, assumed that the barbarians in future would never triumph in Europe, since, before they could conquer, they would cease to be barbarians. That has not been the case, and we have seen, particularly in central Europe between 1939 and 1945, and in other parts of Europe
798
since, that barbarism such as would not have been dreamed of before has taken over free countries.
In these circumstances, it would be very foolish indeed to do otherwise than support most vigorously the efforts now being most patiently made by President Reagan's Administration to revive the alliance and recover the initiative psychologically and strategically, and in respect of propaganda as well, against the Soviet threat.
Of course we are likely to have nuances of difference with the United States' Administration particularly after a period when, as my noble friend, Lord Kimberley, pointed out, as happened during the Carter Administration, many of us had severe doubts about the will of the United States' Administration. But of course the Reagan Administration would not have won the election last year had it not been that the Americans themselves had doubts about the capacity of the Carter Administration. We have to consider the Reagan Administration against that background and also against the increase in Soviet power—an increase over the last 10 years which, as one noble Lord pointed out, passed remarkably unnoticed during the 'Seventies by the still surviving Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
It is easy to understand (and I think this accounts for some of those who support the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) those who feel that this permanent dependence upon the United States alliance is an irritant and a challenge to our national tradition. The late Lord Dalton thought the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the 1950s was the last fling of British nationalism. It may be that the recovery of CND in the 1980s owes a certain amount to a similar illusion that Britain can independently take actions which will have moral effects on others.
When we talk about our undertakings or attitudes being a change from British national traditions, we might also recall that this permanent alliance which the United States has assumed in relation to us is also a very great change from their national traditions. The main speech which governed American foreign policy between the 1790s and, indeed, the 1940s was George Washington's farewell address, which warned Americans very specifically to avoid permanent alliances with foreign countries and to avoid being entangled in European caprices. Should Europeans show a continuing ingratitude for the magnanimity and generosity of American support over so many years, it is only too likely that there may be some in the United States who will take another and close and perhaps even ill-inspired look at that speech by the first President of the United States.
When speaking of American traditions, I agreed very much with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, who pointed out that we in this country do not know enough about the United States. Study of United States literature and history is, very largely, neglected in our schools, which is surprising considering the attitudes of North Americans to ourselves. Perhaps, if nothing else, some recognition of that may be recorded as a useful memorial of this debate.
5.32 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, time does not permit me to comment on the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who has just addressed us. He represents a new species in this House—the Conservative intellectual. We now have half a dozen of them. When I came to this House, any kind of intellectual was a rarity. But we now have half a dozen of them—and very good speakers they are—such as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. But I am afraid that time does not permit me to say more about their speeches.
I ought to make it plain in self-defence that it was no fault of mine that my name was left off the list, and it was no fault of my revered Chief Whip, either. These things happen veryrarely in this House, but just occasionally a machine turns out to be human. However, I am under the usual restrictions. If I had even less time, I would be inclined to say "Ditto" to the speeches of my noble friends Lord Shinwell and Lord Stewart. They are eminent socialists and I support them entirely in their attitude towards multilateral disarmament. Like them, I feel that there is no middle way between multilateral and unilateral disarmament, so I support them faithfully.
But if I have two or three minutes more, I should like to follow a line of thought suggested to me—though I admit that I prepared these remarks earlier—by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. How are we to keep our public here—it will be a long struggle—loyal over the years, not only in thought but in deed, to the very strenuous and rather complicated policy that we have to follow of maintaining, so far as we can, the strength of the West and of seeking arms control? How is this to be achieved in British psychological terms? I am entirely in favour of strengthening the armaments of the western alliance, in order to achieve at least parity with Russia, and also of seeking arms control. Those are two large objectives. They are not incompatible, but they appeal to rather different emotional sides of the national character and we must pursue them both.
The point I am making is rather different. Arms control and rearmament are not, in themselves, very inspiring policies. People recognise the rational necessity for those courses if we are to survive and bring about some hope of peace. But something else is necessary if we are to appeal to the young people who were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and others; something of the inspiration that was produced in my generation by the League of Nations in the old days. Is it quite out of the question that any such ideal can be pursued?
Twenty years ago, here and elsewhere, many of us, under the leadership of the aged Lord Attlee, found that ideal in the cause of world government and I still believe that that is a cause which could inspire everyone, if people thought it was in the least likely to be achieved. But for a good many years now, entirely owing to the attitude of the Soviet Union, that attitude does not seem to be practical politics, and therefore it does not figure in any of these discussions, as it did 20 years ago.
Therefore—and I shall be well behaved because I shall be down in well under the five minutes—I want to lay before the House the thought that, in addition to strong western defences and a policy of arms control,
800
we have to seek something nobler, more inspiring, and I would myself describe it as world government.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, like every previous speaker in this debate my noble friends and I most warmly welcome the proposals of President Reagan on disarmament and arms control. I think we probably all agree that a major positive statement of this kind was very badly needed from the United States, in order to bring NATO together and to hearten the multilateralists and those who are resisting the challenge of Soviet communism.
This morning I read in the papers that, according to a BBC poll, only 14 per cent. of the British people consider that President Reagan has sound judgment. This, I am afraid, is a reflection of the early statements on foreign policy and defence which he made at the beginning of his administration—statements which called for a vast increase in weaponry for the United States, at one stage for nuclear superiority, and which disparaged disarmament and arms control. These statements divided NATO and were a godsend to Soviet propaganda and to the western unilateralist movement.
Though President Reagan has many admirable qualities, I find it a mystery how the leader of a great country, with access to a vast network of policy advisers, intelligence analysts, diplomats, speech writers and so on, can yet come up with such patently unhelpful public statements on vital and sensitive questions. That, thank goodness, seems to be over and, with this new initiative from President Reagan, a new unity and purpose has been injected into NATO.
I agreed so much with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, whom I still acknowledge as a tutor of 45 years' standing since pre-war days—and I can still learn from him today—because he said not only that he is a multilateralist but that you cannot be both a multilateralist and a unilateralist. Many of us welcomed the statement of the leader of the Labour Party which was warmly in favour of these East-West negotiations on disarmament, because, of course, one cannot at the same time call on the nations of East and West to disarm by agreement together, and call on the nations of the West to disarm, without agreement, by themselves. One cannot do that. If it is possible, perhaps the noble Baroness who follows me will explain how one can take both those points of view.
But, obviously, as many noble Lords have pointed out, these negotiations are bound to be difficult and long-drawn-out. I am afraid we have to face the fact that we cannot isolate the cruise missiles, the Pershings, the SS.20s, the SS.4s and the SS.5s from all the other weaponry, not even from the other theatre nuclear weapons. I do not think you can isolate this problem and deal with it separately from the strategic weapons, or even from the battlefield nuclear weapons. Therefore, these negotiations are bound to be difficult and prolonged. However, my noble friends and I most warmly hope that a sincere, determined and sustained effort will be made to make them successful.
May I ask the noble Lord who will be winding up for the Government whether he can give us a little more information about the role which the European countries can continue to play in the course of these

801
negotiations? It does still seem to be a little anomalous that there should be no participation by any of the European countries. I know that the Government take the view that it is the Soviet Union and the United States who have provided the nuclear weapons, but that is not altogether true. The Americans certainly have not provided all the weapons for the West. If the British and the French nuclear deterrents come into the equation—which they may—certainly the British and the French must participate in the disarmament negotiations.
May I also ask the Government what input, from now on, from Europe will go into these negotiations? Is the NATO consultative group to go on? When is it meeting next? What rights of access does it have to the proceedings? Can an agreement be reached without the agreement of the European countries? These are important matters. It seems to us that the European nations have shown good judgment and a consistent line on arms control and on disarmament. Therefore, we hope profoundly that they will have an opportunity again to display those qualities.
In the meantime, we hope that these countries of Europe, with the Russians and the Americans, can make a real effort to win success from these negotiations. We hope that they will not be blinded by their military advisers. Surely the first step is not to be blinded by science by their military advisers and always to remember that, though there may be risks in a particular agreement on disarmament or arms control, those risks are likely to be far less than the risk of continuing the lunacy of the nuclear arms race as at present.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, I must briefly praise the self-discipline of the House for the way in which this debate has been carried through. There have been excellent speeches, mostly, which have been very well argued, and we have kept completely within the time limit. We owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for raising this extremely important subject. Of course, NATO and our relations with the United States is a matter of fundamental importance. However, I must also tell the noble Earl that I profoundly disagree with his arguments about propaganda. The peace movements do not need propaganda from Russia or from anywhere else. The whole world can see the danger that we are in. As the House knows, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, looks after himself very well indeed, but I say with some sorrow that I very much regret that the noble Earl took the opportunity of a serious foreign policy and defence debate to vilify sincere and legitimate peace movements. Indeed, I feel it is unworthy of the standards of this House.
As to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—in so short a time I want to make my own argument and not to change the direction of my speech, but I will just observe that in schools now our children are all taught about most of the major religions of the world. I am sure that the right reverend Prelates to whom he referred strongly approve of that. Similarly, your Lordships' House will be, and always has been, strengthened by the expression of widely different views on all subjects from all sides—whether informed militarism, multilateralism (to which I believe most
802
noble Lords subscribe) or unilateralism, which is a perfectly tenable argument.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, would the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, in the time I have got I would rather not. The noble Earl did not give way, either. It is not necessary for noble Lords to respond to the wilder expressions of Tory intolerance. The subject which we are discussing is much too important.
We live in very sombre times, more dangerous, I believe, than for very many years. However, we must find, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, as did many other noble Lords, President Reagan's speech last week, and the meeting of President Brezhnev and Chancellor Schmidt this week, hopeful signs of the beginning of a thaw in the frozen foreign policies of East and West. I am sure that President Reagan has been influenced not only by Governments but also by the astonishing peace gatherings all over the world, in Europe particularly. And not by any means only young people but people of all ages are at those gatherings. So we must not dismiss the President's speech as mere propanganda, as some people do. I believe that it shows n new, perhaps overdue, change of attitude by the American Administration to European opinion. We must hope that it shows now a real crystallisation of ideas inside the Administration instead of the contradictory statements which have so alarmed the world.
In a recent fascinating article, Ambassador George Kennan, whom we know to be a man of wide experience and wisdom, described the Russians' historical,
"congenital sense of insecurity: the distrust of the foreigner and the foreigner's word, the neurotic fear of penetration by other powers"
—all too often justified historically—
"and a persistent tendency, resulting from all this, to overdo the creation of military strength".
But, as with the Americans', the Russian policies seem to be moving, too. From that point of view I thought also that the noble Earl's speech was unhelpful. The Russian visit to Bonn was of very great importance not only to the West but to the Russians, too. The newspaper Pravda said the other day:
"In the present complicated international situation, the significance of this visit goes beyond bilateral relations between Germany and the Soviet Union".
However dangerous, and in our view wholly immoral, the Russians' actions in, for instance, Afghanistan are, as my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham and I both said last week, there is no doubt whatever that Russia needs peace as desperately as do the NATO nations. Leaving aside the unimaginable horrors of a nuclear war even for so huge a country as the USSR, the Russian economy is in as serious a condition as the recession has made the West. They need peace to build it up. They need Western technology. They need credits. They need foreign currency. We all know that they need grain. Therefore, I do not believe that the article in Der Spiegel was simply propaganda. And their recent agreement to construct the gas pipeline with Germany, despite efforts by the Americans to prevent it, is I believe evidence that they

803
are trying to overcome their historical and cultural suspicion of entanglement with foreigners. And this we must and do welcome.
As the Financial Times says today, the discussions in Bonn have brought no break-through on nuclear disarmament but they have been very far from a waste of breath. They have to some extent cleared the ground before the vitally important Geneva Conference next week which we on this side believe to be of prime importance and on which we profoundly regret the absence of a NATO presence. The House understands, as the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary pointed out, that we cannot expect quick results but something concrete must emerge before the autumn of 1983—before, that is, cruise and Pershing can be deployed at all, as Chancellor Schmidt himself has said. That gives us only two years.
The zero option is a start, though there are many versions of it. And no versions of it are agreeable to all the participants as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, pointed out. The West thinks that all medium range missiles in Europe on both sides should be abolished or not installed. The Russians will wish to include United States bombers and submarines as well as the French and the British nuclear capabilities. Chancellor Schmidt has also made it clear that he feels that these would have to be taken into consideration at some point. All this is very difficult, but a start must be made somewhere. We on this side of the House are glad that, like the Labour Party, the right honourable lady the Prime Minister has now welcomed the zero option.
Important as Bonn has been and as we hope Geneva will become, it is essential that the Russians and the Americans should talk together at top level. There are more hopeful signs that Presidents Reagan and Brezhnev are thinking more positively on these lines and we should like to ask the Government to urge on both sides that they should meet soon.
The most vital truth is that the world must accept that it is impossible to negotiate without trust. Of course, there is mistrust on both sides. There is the whole vexed question of verification, to which the noble Lord, Lord Home, referred, but even on that subject President Reagan has called for more openness and creativity and this is a welcome addition to the present dependence on satellite monitoring and spying. Mr. Brezhnev, in his article in Der Speigel said:
"Some other forms of control might be worked out, given confidence".
All these movements, however slight and however, in some senses, contradictory, are of basic importance. I believe that the world is still in serious danger, if only from inadvertence if not from wickedness. The very existence of weapons, nuclear or conventional but particularly nuclear, is the greatest danger of all. There is the deep Russian suspicion of the West's plans; as President Brezhnev said:,
"All Western weapons could hit Russian soil but Soviet weapons could not reach the United States";
and the ingrained American fear and hatred of Communism is still very present. But, when one-third of the world is existing in dreadful poverty, the world is still wasting an appalling amount of its resources
804
on building up defence spending, one wonders how sane we really are. As Ambassador Kennan has pointed out:
"We are heaping up fancy and expensive new equipment that we do not have the manpower to operate or the money to maintain".
On this side of the House we deeply regret that NATO is not to be represented at Geneva, but we appeal to the Government to do everything in their power, to bring every possible influence to bear, and to state publicly that only by working positively towards world disarmament can we hope to survive the worst crisis that the world has yet seen.
5.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, it is hard to remember a time when it has not been claimed that the accord between Europe and the United States is drifting on to the rocks. Late in 1956, a former and most distinguished British Prime Minister wrote to President Eisenhower from his retirement—it was his last intervention in world affairs—and I quote the late right honourable gentleman Sir Winston Churchill with diffidence. He wrote as follows:
"There is not much left for me to do in this world and I have neither the wish nor the strength to involve myself in the present political stress and turmoil. But I do believe, with unfaltering conviction, that the theme of the Anglo-American alliance is more important today than at any time since the war …
There seems to be growing misunderstanding and frustration on both sides of the Atlantic. If they be allowed to develop, the skies will darken and it is the Soviet Union that will ride the storm".
I quote these words first in order to remind your Lordships that, whatever the differences of perception between Europe and the United States today, to which almost every noble Lord has drawn attention this afternoon, the problems we face are as nothing compared with those following Suez 25 years ago. And, secondly, to point out that the U.S-European relationship is one which has been tested in the past by very real divergences but which has always survived. It is stronger for this, not weaker.
Before moving to the specific issues raised this afternoon, let me try to put the subject as a whole into perspective. The fundamental aims and interests of the European NATO countries and the US have always been close and will remain so. These links have been forged by history, especially the pattern of emigration from Europe to the United States and have been bonded by the pattern and growth of trans-Atlantic trade and commerce. The cement of this relationship is the military threat to the West from the Soviet Union and its allies. The simple fact of the matter is that it is in the common interest of all the free world to resist any encroachment of the Warsaw Pact on to Western European territory.
To suggest that the United States would allow Western Europe to be submerged while they hid behind their own barricades is simply not part of the American character, and flies in the face of the history of trans-Atlantic relations in this century. Such an appalling scenario would no more be in their interest than in ours.
This said, it is inevitable in a close and well-tried friendship of this kind that there should be differences of

805
emphasis or of opinion. The very openness of the democratic forms of government which we have espoused on either side of the Atlantic makes it inevitable that we should not fear to air such differences. Doubtless if there were any suggestion of such freedom of expression among the allies of the Warsaw Pact we should hear such a jarring cacophony as to make us find the concept of concerted action by them almost unthinkable. It is always going to be one of the products of our system, based on free expression and freedom of the individual, that dissenting voices and opinions will be heard. It should be a source of pride both to your Lordships and elsewhere that this is the case. But it would be utterly wrong to suggest that such differences as do exist threaten the Atlantic Alliance and all that it stands for. As I have said, there is a fundamental shared body of interests which run far deeper than the differences of emphasis which have been mentioned during the course of this afternoon.
Perhaps one reason why the rumour of a rift has been going round just now is that there is a new Administration in the United States whose policies are still taking shape. The Reagan Administration is active and vigorous: it looks at the problems facing it with new energy and considers new options and new ideas. And new ideas are always liable to lead to controversy. But there is nothing wrong in that. Indeed, it is constructive, provided, of course, that there is consultation among those concerned. I am glad to say that consultation among the allies has recently been intensive; in fact it has become a growth industry since Mr. Reagan became President.
I have mentioned that there are bound to be differences even between the closest of friends. It is these differences which hit the headlines. Headlines are designed to catch the eye and they and many of the analyses one reads below them often say nothing about the multifarious threads of constructive co-operation between the United States and Europe which make up the essential fabric of the alliance. There is not time for me to go into detail about the daily consultation between ourselves, our European friends and the Americans on a host of subjects in the political, defence, commercial and other fields. But it is this daily interchange which sets the tone of the relationship and makes any passing differences look like ripples on the surface.
Let me give just one example—and there are many others—which illustrates the co-operation I have been mentioning, and show how wrong it is to assume that the Administration reaches its foreign policy decisions too hastily. A year ago it looked as though efforts to bring Namibia to independence might soon bear fruit. But difficulties appeared. When the new Administration took over they made a careful appraisal and a detailed exploration of the views of their western partners and of African Governments. Efforts to find a solution are now back on course, with America setting the pace. The fact is that Europe and America are fundamentally interdependent. The United States knows that a strong and self-confident Europe pursuing coherent policies will strengthen democracy in the world and will contribute a potent voice to the Councils of the West. But we in Europe need America's strength to guarantee our security, just as America without Europe would be isolated in its resistance to the international
806
ambitions of the Soviet Union.
Let me now, focus for a moment on the subjects which are currently of much concern to all of us, defence issues, East-West relations and the Middle East. On defence issues, as fellow members of the Alliance the United States and the United Kingdom share a common approach to the protection of western freedom. We regard it as our first duty to preserve our democratic way of life, in ways that will ensure that nuclear weapons will never be used against us, or by us. The policy of this Government and the Governments of our western allies is based on deterring any aggression against us, and at the same time pursuing, through international negotiations, agreed limits and reductions to the present high level of arms.
Let me explain what I mean by deterrence. I mean that we have to ensure that the Soviet leaders, present and future, understand beyond peradventure that any attack upon us will provoke from within the alliance a response which will render their aggression pointless. To achieve this comprehension in the mind of the Kremlin we need, therefore, to demonstrate both the political will and the military capability to react firmly and quickly. All members of the North Atlantic Alliance are firmly convinced that nuclear weapons are for preventing wars, not for fighting them. Talk of nuclear warfighting is dangerous nonsense, because their would be no winners in a nuclear war at any level. Despite the public concern, we do not think nuclear war is likely today. We are not on the brink, precisely because the policy of deterrence is working. It has kept the peace in Europe for over 30 years. That is why we support the recent American decisions to improve the effectiveness of their strategic forces.
But that is not the end of the story. Otherwise we would be condemning ourselves to an endless arms race. We must try to prevent this. Hence NATO'S commitment to negotiated arms control and disarmament—a commitment stated in the plainest terms in President Reagan's recent message to President Brezhnev. By seeking arms control agreements we attempt to make the military balance more stable; by seeking multilateral disarmament we attempt to bring down the appallingly high level of armaments on both sides. We see deterrence and disarmament as necessary and complementary ways of achieving our overall objectives of peace and security.
We in Europe have, therefore, strongly supported the efforts of the United States and the Soviet Union to reach agreement on the limitation of strategic arms, and we have welcomed the American emphasis on moving towards substantial reductions in present levels when the Strategic Arms Reduction talks get under way in 1982. We have also given our strong support to the negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union on limiting long-range theatre nuclear forces. These negotiations will begin on 30th November, and we have taken a full part in the close consultations which have been held within the alliance to establish the American negotiating position. As the Prime Minister said in another place on 19th March, we have noted with pleasure the emphasis given in President Reagan's speech on 18th November to arms control as an important element in United States foreign policy, and we particularly welcome the President's intention to seek massive nuclear dis-

807
armament in Europe. The negotiations opening on 30th November will offer the Soviet Union the opportunity to demonstrate that they share the western objectives of achieving substantial reductions in nuclear weaponry based in Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, referred to the absence of Europe from the TNF talks which will be starting next week. These negotiations are, of course, concerned with American and Soviet weapons. That is why they are conducted bilaterally. But the Special Consultative Group, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred, which is the NATO body responsible for TNF matters, has met regularly to concert the US negotiating position, which has the full support, of course, of all members of the alliance. The SCG will continue to meet as necessary after the negotiations have begun. I understand that it held its last meeting on 20th November.
In Europe, nuclear disarmament must, of course, be accompanied by steps to reduce tension and conventional armaments. At the Madrid CSCE meeting we and our allies have backed the French proposal for a conference on disarmament in Europe to negotiate militarily significant, politically binding and verifiable confidence and security building measures applicable to the whole of Europe up to the Urals. We continue to work for agreement between NATO and the Warsaw Pact on Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions (MBFR) in central Europe. In all of these fora we work closely and effectively with our American allies.
We and the Americans are of course at one in recognising the horrors of nuclear war. But as my noble friend the Foreign Secretary said recently in Luxembourg,
"abhorrence of war is no substitute for realistic plans to prevent it".
Against this background the Government do not accept that unilateral disarmament is a safe or a sensible policy. Even talk of unilateral moves may well encourage the Russians to block negotiations—in the belief that if they wait long enough the West will disarm on its own, damaging our security interests without seeking Soviet reductions in return. Thus, any one-sided reduction by the West would weaken our ability to deter aggression and could, therefore, make war more likely, not less likely. It would open us to the threat of intimidation and political blackmail. Nor would Britain be safer without nuclear weapons: our industrial and strategic importance would still make us a tempting target in any conflict. A related and most important area, and one in which there is the closest co-ordination between the Europeans and the US, is that of the wider East/West relations.
The current strains in East/West relations are the direct consequence of Soviet behaviour. Soviet expansionism during the 1970s, culminating in the invasion of Afghanistan, destroyed the climate of trust which is essential if East/West relations are to prosper. We fully share American determination to bring home to the Russians that restraint in the conduct of international affairs is the sine qua non of our generating any long-term warmth in our mutual affairs. But we also support President Reagan's commitment to a dialogue with the Soviet Union, of which arms control
808
negotiations which I have already mentioned form an important part. And we welcome the decision by the Foreign Ministers of the United States and the Soviet Union to follow up their recent discussions in New York with a further round of talks in January.
The Government have repeatedly made clear the importance they attach to East/West communication, particularly at a time of increased international tension. We therefore welcome the talks that Chancellor Schmidt has been having with President Brezhnev in the past two days and the opportunity these have provided for the Chancellor to give an exposition of the full range of shared Western policies.
Meanwhile, events in Poland remain of great concern to all her friends. It is important that the Polish Government and Solidarity should avoid confrontation and continue to seek agreement through peaceful negotiations. Above all, Poland's problems must be solved by the Polish people themselves. Outside interference would mean the end of detente. On the economic side, both the US and ourselves, together with a number of our European NATO allies and others, are members of the Committee which discusses concerted action to help Poland out of her present severe economic problems. This is a matter on which there is the closest transAtlantic co-operation.
We continue to attach great importance to working with the United States in the Middle East. We share the common objective of a comprehensive peace settlement negotiated between the parties and ensuring security for Israel and a future for the Palestinians. We are in no doubt that the U.S. must continue to play a central role in Middle East peace efforts. Whatever differences of emphasis there may be between us, we shall not lose sight of this central fact.
Both we and the Americans have taken a close interest in the eight points put forward in August by Crown Prince Fahd of Saudi Arabia. We agree with President Reagan's view that these points contain positive elements and can be a beginning point for negotiations. There is, of course, considerable common ground between the eight points of Crown Prince Fahd and the Venice Principles, to which we remain committed as a framework on which we believe Middle East peace can eventually be built. My noble friend Lord Carrington was encouraged by his recent visit to Riyadh to discuss these questions with the Saudis. We believe that the Camp David process has important achievements to its credit, not least the establishment of peace between Egypt and Israel and Israel's agreement to withdraw from Sinai next year. Something more may be needed, and that is why we are exploring further ways forward towards a basis for negotiations to which all can agree.
Our commitment to peace in the Middle East has recently been demonstrated in a practical way by our agreement, together with that of three of our European partners, to a United States request to provide a contribution to the proposed peacekeeping force in Sinai. There is little I can add to the statement made on this matter in the other place by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal on Monday. But I would stress that our agreement to participate shows how we in Europe can co-operate successfully with the United States in the Middle East. We very much hope that the Government of Israel will be able to accept the

809
offer to participate which we have made in response to a request which had their support. We attach considerable importance to maintaining and strengthening the peace which has been achieved between Egypt and Israel with such great effort on both sides so that it can be used as a basis for further progress towards a comprehensive peace. At the same time, as my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal has made clear, we remain committed to European policy in the area as set out in the Venice Declaration. We continue to believe that the key to progress lies in mutual acceptance of the two principles at the heart of the Venice Declaration: the right of existence and security of all states in the area, including Israel, and the right of the Palestinians to exercise fully their right to self-determination.
I think that I have covered most of the important points that were raised during the course of this debate. Therefore, I shall not delay the House further by dealing with some of the specific matters.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, will the noble Lord make some reference to the possibility of some conversations on security and the general aegis of the forthcoming Genscher-Colombo plan?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I could detain your Lordships for a considerable time with a dissertation on that topic. Suffice it to say that, in the context of political co-operation among the Council of Ministers with which the noble Lord will be familiar, there is now some discussion on the political aspects of security which I hope go some way to meet the anxieties of the noble Lord.
At the opening of my remarks, I reminded your Lordships that the history of the United Kingdom's relations with the United States (and this applies as much to our other European allies) has not been without the occasional strain. Perhaps I may end by quoting again from history, from a document which issued less than a year after the Churchill letter to which I earlier referred. It is the Declaration of Common Purpose of October 1957. Agreed during Mr. MacMillan's visit to Washington for discussions with President Eisenhower, it said:
"These two countries have close and historic ties, just as each has intimate and unbreakable ties with other free countries.
"Recognising that only in the establishment of a just peace can the deepest aspirations of free peoples be realised, the guiding purpose of our deliberations has been the determination of how best to utilise the moral, intellectual and material strength of our two nations in the performance of our full share of those tasks that will more surely and promptly bring about conditions in which peace can prosper. One of these tasks is to provide adequate security for the free world".
Well, take away a bit of the 1950s verbiage and I do not think that would require much redrafting for today.
6.14 p.m.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, in the brief moment left to me I should like to thank very sincerely all those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this afternoon and to thank them for the very short, succinct and to-the-point speeches that they have made. I obviously cannot answer all the points raised; I can make very few comments. I should
810
like to mention in particular my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth and the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, who spoke about the education of the young. I thought that that was an extremely good point.
But basically all noble Lords this afternoon agreed that the only way to achieve peace is to pursue the policy which most of us have discussed this afternoon even though we may have gone about it on different roads. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, was slightly unfair in attacking me because I did not actually call anybody a communist by name—I said that they had leanings towards it, which is patently obvious and true. One thing that always puzzles me is why communists think that they have this divine right to sue anybody for libel if they are called communists whereas if someone calls me a Tory I do not sue him for libel or anything else.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Several noble Lords: Order!
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I understand that we have come to the conclusion of the two and a half hour debate, and therefore I express the wish of the House that the noble Earl should withdraw his Motion.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Workforce Expansion Policies
6.15 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens rose to call attention to the urgent need for Her Majesty's Government to take positive steps to encourage employers to expand their workforces; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to call attention to the urgent need for Her Majesty's Government to take positive steps to encourage employers to expand their workforces. I am extremely pleased to see that all Benches in this House are to be represented in this debate, and I am very proud of that fact. However, I must tell your Lordships that the time limit again is not all that large and I am advised that it should not be more than eight minutes per speaker. In fact, I think that your Lordships may be able to get a little more time than that because I do not believe that I shall take up the full 15 minutes that has been allotted to me.
I put down this Motion on the day after Her Majesty made her gracious Speech because I was very disappointed in the only reference to unemployment which appeared in that speech; namely:
"My Government share the nation's concern at the growth of unemployment and will continue to direct help to those groups and individuals most hard-pressed by the recession".
It seemed to me that that was taking a very negative attitude about what should he done for unemployment and I felt that I ought to put down a Motion of this sort, and I was lucky in the ballot.
But, unless Her Majesty's Government believe in fairies—and I do not believe that they do—it is no use expecting the new industries to arise out of the blue to solve the unemployment problem. There are, however, some immediate steps which can be taken in order to reduce the numbers of unemployed. The first one, of course, is artificial—reducing the pension age and/or increasing the age at which young people come on to the labour market. That could be done at any moment. The second is to create new businesses. We had a debate about that last May, so there is no need to touch on it again except for one very small aspect which I shall mention later. The third is to spend billions on promoting jobs in the public sector, and to hell with inflation! The fourth is what I hope we shall debate this evening—to encourage existing businesses to expand their labour forces.
I was interested to see that the Economist on 13th November included an article which is very close to my own thinking on this subject. It was headed "Seven winter suggestions". Looking through them I was thinking of four and a half, and the other two and a half I shall leave to other noble Lords perhaps to use. However, the suggestions that I want to make I put into two categories: first, those that will not cost the Government anything; and secondly, those that will cost the Government something if they are to be adopted.
My first suggestion is to set employers free from the restrictions of the Employment Protection Acts. I have to say "Acts" because although the 1958 Act is called an Employment Protection and Consolidation Act, it has not cancelled various other Acts which all employers still have to take into account. Employees are now so over-protected that employers are refusing to create new jobs. Therefore, I think that something must be done about this. You cannot get rid of an unsatisfactory employee, nor make someone redundant without having to pay through the nose.
Of course, there are temporary reliefs. No claim for unfair dismissal can be made during the first year of employment and, in the case of very small firms of 20 people and under, I think that that period goes up to two years; no redundancy pay can be claimed during the first two years. However, I do not think that those reliefs are nearly enough. I should like to quote a couple of sentences from a paper which I do not usually use as authoritative but which, in this case, I think is. It is the Sunday Express of 1st November. First:
"Job protection has been so heavily written into the law of the land that employees now virtually 'own' their jobs".
Secondly:
"Who is going to risk his capital and hire men and women for a new venture if he has to pick up a big redundancy bill should new technology make his venture unprofitable?"
Time and time again I hear people say that if only they did not have to pay redundancy money, they would take on new people. That is particularly the case in industries like the construction industry which are labour intensive and which could use more labour very easily. Just the other day I spoke to a contractor and asked him how he was doing. He said that things were looking up and that he was getting more opportunities. So I said: "Will you expand your labour force?" and he said: "No, not at all. I cannot because I have to
812
plan ahead for 18 months at least, but I might have to lay off people after two years, and at that stage the redundancy law comes into effect".
I should like to suggest that at the moment these periods in the Employment Protection Acts are too short; I should like to see the conditions altered to five years and also increasing the numbers which would qualify as small firms, say, from 20 people to 50 people. An opportunity is coming to do just that, when the new Employment Bill comes before us. That is just the sort of provision that could be put into that Bill.
The second suggestion, which will cost nothing, I shall leave to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It is about wages councils. I should like to see them disappear and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will say something along those lines.
I turn to suggestions which will cost a little money, and come to one point which I want to pick up, new businesses. The Business Start-Up Scheme is beginning very well but it is limited to new business companies. It does not cater for partnerships and sole traders. I know that it might be difficult to get them into the scheme, but if something could be done to give them a similar amount of help, I believe that more new businesses would be able to be started.
Secondly, I should like to see the VAT threshold raised quite extensively. I should like to see it go up to at least £50,000 of turnover, and preferably to £100,000. I am not quite certain what the present limit is—whether it is £15,000 or £17,500—but if it is £15,000 of turnover, it means a turnover of less than £300 a week, which means that almost every business that is now involved in trade is caught by the VAT operation. It is very costly and it stops those businesses from expanding.
I should like to see abolished the national insurance surcharge of 3½ per cent. on every employee's earnings. I know that this is a ticklish subject at the moment because of the financial situation, but I want to point out that this charge is a charge on costs and not on profits. It is a charge on costs because it is built into the cost of labour and, therefore, it increases the price of the product, and thus it increases inflation artificially. I believe that something should be done to lower that surcharge.
I should like to see direct subsidies given to employers rather than to spend so much money, as is being done at present, on these temporary schemes. If there could be some combination of this, it would be very useful. Again, I was talking to a friend who has just made use of the YOP scheme, but at the end of six months he had to get rid of the girl who was working very well as a secretary; he wanted to take her on, but he could not afford to do so because the minimum wage limit for a secretary was too much; she also wanted to be kept on. I should like to suggest that even if no direct subsidies are given, some arrangement should be made whereby young people could be allowed to contract out of these minimum wages limitations, which are so high that they are not able to get their first jobs. Of course, they would have to contract out voluntarily and it would have to be a mutual contract on both sides.
Finally, I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the powers which local authorities have and which I do not believe are being used sufficiently extensively. Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 reads:

813
"(1) A local authority may, subject to the provisions of this section, incur expenditure which in their opinion is in the interests of their area or any part of it, or all or some of its inhabitants…"
Subsection (2) says:
"It is hereby declared that the power of a local authority to incur expenditure under subsection (1) above includes power to do so by contributing towards the defraying of expenditure by another local authority in or in connection with the exercise of that other authority's functions".
Subsection (4) says:
"The expenditure of a local authority under this section in any financial year shall not exceed the product of a rate of 2p in the pound for their area for that year or if some other amount, whether higher or lower, is fixed by an order made by the Secretary of State shall not exceed the product of"
such an order.
My Lords, I should like to see the Secretary of State make such an order and increase the right to spend money locally by doubling the present levy, by raising the limit from 2p to 4p. I should also like to see the new local authorities, the district councils, made aware of the possibilities of this section of the Local Government Act. A lot of them are still too new to realise what they can do under this section, and I believe it is something which would bring them into solving the problem of their unemployment locally. I have reached the limit of my time, and I therefore beg to move for Papers.
6.31 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for initiating what I am sure will be an interesting debate on an unexceptionable Motion. I am afraid I cannot say that all the arguments he has deployed in support of his Motion are new, but that is because I have had the fortune of listening to him with his usual force and clarity deploying them in the Select Committee on Unemployment. I am afraid I cannot say that I have been persuaded by them, but at least I have been persuaded to think rather more about why I do not find myself persuaded by them. Secondly, I should like to apologise to the House for the fact that, due to the fact that this debate has been called at somewhat short notice, I am afraid I shall have to leave during some period of it, and indeed because of the Statement we heard from the Government earlier this afternoon I shall have to leave quite soon after I sit down. I apologise for that in advance.
Let me turn to the Motion. We should be pleased to see such a Motion because at least it suggests that the Government should take some positive steps to expand employment. The general position of the Government is that they are not responsible; that they do not require to take any positive steps to expand employment, to deal with inflation, to lower interest rates, for the balance of payments, and all they have to do is to carry forward with their monetary policies and if anything goes wrong, or it takes rather a long time for the level of employment to rise or to stop going down, well then that is our fault. At least, it is someone's fault; it is not the Government's fault, and you cannot ask the Government to do anything positive about it.
From that point of view I think we can all welcome this Motion which says that the Government should take positive steps to encourage employers to expand
814
their workforce. Nevertheless, it is not much good taking positive steps unless the steps you take are in the right direction. In this respect I should like to disagree with the noble Lord in respect of, I think, three, and possibly, if I have time, four, of the suggestions that he put forward. I want to refer to the remission of the national insurance surcharge, which I think is the best of his ideas; the employment protection legislation, which is possibly the worst of his ideas; abolition of wages councils, and what he says about direct subsidies for employers.
It is true that the national insurance surcharge was introduced on a temporary basis. It is true that the Government now raise something like £3 billion in a full year from the national insurance surcharge. It is true that it is a tax on industry. It is true that the remission of the national insurance surcharge could possibly increase jobs. It is true, as the CBI says, that it hits exports and excludes imports. The problem is that no one can tell us, if we remitted one half, or all, of the national insurance surcharge, what effect that would have on jobs, and especially what effect that would have on jobs at the present time. Everything depends on the elasticity of demand. Everything depends on whether, if we remitted the national insurance surcharge, the employers kept the money or reduced prices, or made it up in profits, or whether in fact they increased their labour supply. Since we do not know, and since the effect of this would be very significant and the economy would lose something like £3 billion in a full year, it seems to me that now is not the time to spend this money on a total remission of the national insurance surcharge.
I would think that far more could be done in positive job creation by expanding and extending the present job creation programme, and in particular by turning the present job creation programme from a short-term measure into a long-term measure. I hope at another time—indeed when we have a debate in the House next week—to say something about how that should be done. My point about the national insurance surcharge is, yes, of course it is an impost on industry, but whether at this moment the best way to increase employment is to remit the whole of the NIS I have reason to doubt.
Secondly, let me turn to employment protection. It is quite impossible to get some noble Lords in this House and others elsewhere to face the facts about the present employment protection legislation. Of course, just to take a few random facts that the noble Lord, Lord Spens, mentioned, most workers in construction who are dismissed on grounds of redundancy get no redundancy pay at all. They have not been working long enough. Of course, the great majority who get dismissed for redundancy in the construction industry, and indeed in most industries, will be lucky if they get more than three or four weeks' pay. Of course, the employers do not pay the great majority of that because it comes out of the redundancy fund. These things are paid for by general taxation and by general imposts on industry, and they do not affect particular employers, and therefore they should not affect them in not taking on labour.
Lord Spens: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way for a moment on that? The redundancy fund

815
pays only 50 per cent. of the sum and it pays it in arrears, so that there is quite a substantial pressure on the wage flow of the employer before he gets half of the redundancy money back.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I did not say that the employer did not have to pay. I said that in the overwhelming majority of redundancies in the industry which the noble Lord took particularly as an example, no redundancy pay is available. Let me turn to the other aspects of employment protection. There is a wealth of evidence, most of which we put before the House at the time of the Employment Protection Bill, to show that the overwhelming majority of employers do not give employment protection legislation in respect of unfair dismissal, or equal pay, or equal opportunity, or maternity rights, as anything like the most important reason why they do not take people on for work.
In some surveys these things come 23rd; in some surveys 24th; in some surveys 2 per cent. say they are important, and in some surveys 1 per cent, say they are important. In a recent survey produced by the Department of Employment on the impact of employment legislation on small firms—another area which I know is dear to the heart of the noble Lord—it was revealed that 50 per cent. of those interviewed said they had no experience of this employment legislation at all. Only 2 per cent. said that employment legislation was their main difficulty. Only 6 per cent. said it was among their main difficulties. All kinds of other difficulties, including, I must say, the depressed state of the economy were given as the more important reasons for not taking on labour. Most employers most of the time, when asked about it by sample surveys, do not give employment legislation as the reason. Nevertheless, from time to time we have these complaints about the effect of employment legislation on employment.
Now let me say a word about wages councils. If one is to believe that wages councils are a significant cause of unemployment one has to believe that the labour market works in a perfect way. One has to believe that the wage council rate imposes a universally statutory ceiling and floor on the wage system. One has to believe that if one changed that by abolishing the wages councils the elasticity of demand would be such that there would be a relatively immediate increase in employment. One has to believe, in other words, that a relatively small change in price would come about, and that relatively small change in price would bring about an improvement in demand. All the evidence—and there is a considerable amount both from academic surveys and from surveys, I am afraid, conducted by the Department of Employment—goes against that.
We have now abolished a considerable number of wages councils; in jute, cutlery, paper box and so on. Detailed surveys have been done and one thing which is clear is that the employment in those industries after the abolition of wages councils continues to decline at much the same rate as before. Some groups get more pay, some less, and those at the bottom get lower pay than they were getting before. There is no evidence that the abolition of wages councils over
816
the last 10 years or so has had any effect at all on employment levels. All it has done is to make things more difficult for those who previously were getting wages council rates, and those who were getting something less than those rates, because most surveys show that about 20 per cent. of workers in this country in wages council industries do not get the wages council rate because of the shortage of insectors. All it does is ensure that those people slip further down the pay scales to become more and more unemployed.
I do not have time to go into the aspects of the other measures the noble Lord put forward. The fact is that all these suggestions are what might be called supply-side solutions; they are all attempts to argue that there is no general deficiency of demand in this economy, that one does not really need in any way to create the conditions in which more jobs are available and that by operating on the supply side of the labour market, and in particular by doing things that are intended (although I do not believe they will) to cut workers' wages, one will somehow price the country back into full employment. There is no evidence for this and therefore I cannot support the arguments put forward by the noble Lord.
6.42 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I shall resist the temptation, which is not very strong, to enter into the Punch and Judy show between the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Spens.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Which is which?
Baroness Seear: It has a very familiar ring to me, my Lords. I seem to have heard somewhat similar arguments advanced in the Select Committee on Unemployment and it is less than exhilarating to hear them rehearsed once again on the Floor of the House.
This afternoon in the Statement we were given another compelling reason why it is necessary to do something, and to do it now, to alleviate the appalling unemployment figures. Although we are told by the official figures that they are below 3 million, we all know that that is an understatement, that there are increasing numbers of people who are unable to find jobs and that in some parts of the country the situation has reached disaster proportions. In one area of Liverpool—I say this with hesitation in the presence of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. but I think he will confirm it—over 40 per cent. of the people out of work have been out of work for over 12 months. And, when we find that something like 25 per cent. of all the unemployed people in that area are under 20, it is not surprising that we are getting social difficulties there.
I shall concentrate this evening in the short time available on a couple of practical things the Government might do now to deal with this cancer in our midst. We must resist the temptation to do things which would help immediately but would in the long run make the employment position more difficult. It is at the heart of the problem that so much that would help in the short run would make the position worse in the long run. I do not mean that only in terms of checking inflation for its own sake. It would make the unemployment position worse in that people could

817
be put back into employment now, but only at the price of making the chance of sustained near full employment even less likely in the future.
The heart of the unemployment problem lies in the uncompetitiveness of British industry, and, if we accept that, then it is vital to do nothing that would increase that uncompetitiveness. Instead, we must do everything we can to enhance the competitiveness of British industry. That must be the starting point of any action that can be taken. Nevertheless, in doing that we must still find ways of getting people back into employment because the price we are paying—there is not time to go into that now—in a whole variety of ways as a result of this continuing unemployment is something we cannot sustain. I am therefore against any measures which encourage employers to take on more people than they need—to over-man—when so many of our problems in the past arose from over-manning. I do not want us to take that path because along it lies no permanent cure.
I wish to discuss one practical step which the Government could take, and take now, which would quickly make a difference. I do not believe in the cutting of working hours. Already we have reports from the PSI and the Anglo-German Foundation which show that a reduction in working hours does not lead to an increase in jobs. It simply means that the existing people, those left in employment, cope with the work. In other words, the evidence is all against the argument that a reduction in working hours will increase the number of people in employment. What it is more likely to do is to put up unit costs, and that only reduces the competitiveness of British industry.
There is, however, a world of difference between cutting working hours and sharing jobs. Will the Government look at the possibility of the positive encouragement of job-sharing? By that I mean using two people for one job. It would have to be done on a voluntary basis. I realise that at first sight this may sound somewhat fanciful to some of your Lordships, but let us consider certain groups of people to whom this could quickly be applied. There is the obvious group of the young, the school-leavers. What is there to prevent us having two youngsters for each job—sharing the job and sharing the money—and spending part at any rate of the time they are not in employment in further training and education? I know the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will tell me that they will not train unless they know there is a job at the end of the training. Time is too short to argue that point, though it can be effectively argued.
If they do not wish to be given training, these young people could continue with their education. The Engineering Employers' Federation told me when I discussed this with them that they needed a larger number of people with the educational ability to adjust quickly to new technology. So many of our youngsters leaving school have not acquired that ability. But, once they are employment-based, then, going from employment into training and education, linking those two together, they will he able to see some connection between what they are being taught and what opportunities there are in the world of work. Then, I believe, the incentive to learn will be there
818
for at least a majority of them. If we could do that, it would at once reduce the number of unemployed youngsters. By definition, if employers would take on two youngsters for every job, that would reduce the number of youngsters kicking their heels and, because they are tired of kicking their heels, kicking other things around the streets.
Then we come to people who are within five years of retirement. It is suggested that there should be a lowering of the pension age. It is a popular idea that people should retire at 60. Instead, why not encourage job-sharing within five years of retirement? Average earnings are now £140 a week—about £7,000 a year—and half of that is £70. For a man who has paid off his mortgage, and whose family is off his hands, to work half time and spend the other half perhaps in some job on the side or on a hobby must be an attractive proposition. Surely that would be far more satisfactory than condemning people at the age of 60 to old-age pension levels of pay, and no job to do in which they have any particular place. On the other hand, the sharing of employment at that age has a great many attractions, in that it is in effect gradual retirement.
My Lords, your Lordships' House is full of people in a state of gradual retirement. I happen to be one of them. It is a very attractive position to be in, and I believe that it is a situation which would appeal to a great many people. If it were done voluntarily, there would be no need for the Government to pay such people anything in addition. The average of £70 a week, which is what the average man working half-time would earn, is not intolerably low.
Similarly, it is a proposition which would appeal to a very considerable number of women, married women in particular; and, for that matter, why not to a certain number of men? This is not the debate in which to raise the point, but we speak of the possibility of younger men sharing domestic chores. There are situations in which the wife is earning more than the husband, and in which if he went on a shared job basis while the wife continued in full-time work, that would suit much better the family budget and the way in which the family runs its affairs.
This would cost extremely little. The Government would not have to supplement it. I suggest that the incentive to carry out such a scheme should be that the employer should not have to pay any national insurance contributions for people who were on a twinning basis and that people who shared jobs should also not have to pay national insurance contributions, but should have their cards franked so that their social security entitlement would be maintained. As I see it, all it would cost the Government would be the forgoing of the national insurance contributions which would be a very small amount compared with what is paid out to an unemployed adult male, where the loss to the Government is in the region of £5,000 a year per person.
I ask the Minister to think very seriously whether there is no way in which a scheme of this kind could be introduced, at least on an experimental basis, in the areas in which unemployment is at its highest, to see how it could work. It would have positive social advantages. It would cost very little and, as I see it, it would be the quickest way to reduce the actual number of human beings wasting in unemployment.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in accordance with the custom of the House I should at this stage declare an interest as chairman of a company which employs a substantial number of workers and which might well stand to benefit from a number of the proposals which are being put forward in the debate. Having said that, I am sure that the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for raising this immensely important and significant subject, though I part company with him, I am sorry to say, in respect of the phraseology that he has used. His Motion could be construed as suggesting that all employers should be encouraged to increase their workforces. I fear that that must not be so. Certainly there are a number of employers, in particular in the public sector, who are still grossly overmanned and whose competitiveness—if I may pick up the argument of the noble Baroness—is weakened by their overmanning; for example, British Steel or British Airways. However, so far as the private sector is concerned, and some parts of the public sector that are operating reasonably profitably, it must make sense to facilitate the expansion of their labour forces.
I most emphatically agree with the noble Baroness who has just spoken. The type of employment that we want to create must not be of a temporary or artificial nature. It must be proper employment, in work which has a reasonable chance of producing a product for which people are prepared to pay a reasonable price. Simply to put a great deal of public money into work creation schemes, however admirable in the short term their social effect, must, as the noble Baroness so well said, in the long term aggravate the problem of unemployment, which is the biggest social problem of our time.
It is profitable employment that we should make easier for employers to provide. I was in the United States last month, and in a factory there I saw displayed a great notice which I think makes the point better than anything I can say. The notice in that American works read: "Customers make pay day possible". There, in one succinct trans-atlantic sentence, is the real key to this problem.
One comes then to the question of what the Government should do—because it is the Government whom we are urging in this debate to take particular action. I pick up quickly the question of the national insurance employers' surcharge. I agree wholly with the noble Lord, Lord Spens, that it should be drastically reduced. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that one cannot here and now quantify its effect in stimulating employment. But surely it is elementary that if one wishes to encourage something, in this case employment, it is really nonsense to impose a specific tax on it. It does not answer the case that the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has made to say, "Oh well, we can't assess exactly how much employment you would get". You would undoubtedly get some employment, and surely it is wrong in principle to impose this tax.
Here I should like to say one thing in parenthesis. As some of your Lordshps know, many years ago I was responsible for the national insurance system, and I am bound to say that neither I, nor my immediate predecessors or successors, would have agreed to any Chancellor of the Exchequer imposing by way of
820
revenue tax a surcharge on national insurance contributions. In those days national insurance contributions went to the national insurance fund, and indeed we took a substantial additional subsidy from the Exchequer. I am sorry that some of my successors, in both parties, have allowed Chancellors of the Exchequer to use this particular contribution as a vehicle for taxation.
In a time of high employment it might not be particularly vicious, but in a time of massive unemployment a tax on employment, a tax on the British product which does not fall on its competing foreign one, must be a nonsense. I know that there is a lot of revenue involved, but I say to my noble friend the Minister that it is essential to reduce this particular impost, even if that sacred cow the PSBR is enlarged a little. Undoubtedly the obsession with the PSBR is tied up with the feeling, for which there is much to be said, that it is relevant to inflation. But, my Lords, nothing could be more inflationary than a tax on the labour costs of British industry. To convince oneself that because the PSBR is being kept down by this revenue contribution, one is dealing with inflation, when in fact one is putting up inflation as a result of this impost, is, with all respect to my noble friend, self-defeating.
I should like to make a specific suggestion which would have a dramatic effect upon youth employment. Let us suppose that the Government were to say that on young employees below a certain age the employer's surcharge would be wholly remitted. I believe that that would give a very great stimulus to employers to take on young people coming from school, and the social benefits of that would be enormous.
The only other point that I want to make is the one that the noble Lord, Lord Spens, indicated I would make. It concerns the question of wages councils. The Minister, my noble friend Lord Ferrers, knows that I really asked him two questions about the Government's attitude to the wages councils, and if he will allow me to say so, his replies to the questions were superb examples of masterly ambiguity. The wages councils were set up over 70 years ago, at a time when there were real sweatshops in certain industries and when they were very much needed to protect workers who otherwise would be grossly underpaid. But today, with a substantial level of unemployment benefit as a floor, that is not a serious risk. But what these wages councils do, in the limited number of industries in which they still operate, is to impose a legal floor, which means that an employer cannot take on a worker, who would be willing to be taken on, at a rate below the wages council level.
Of course, the effect of that is particularly vicious on those who are not particularly strong candidates in the labour market—again, the young people and (dare I mention it?) certain of the people in the ethnic minorities—because they tend to come late in the queue in the ideas of many employers as to who they are going to take on; and if you force up by force of law what must be paid to them to a level which may be well above the value they are or could be to their employers, then you are simply dooming them to unnecessary unemployment.
My Lords, if my noble friend cannot indicate that the Government intend to do away with the remaining

821
wages councils altogether—and I suspect he cannot, because certainly at official level the Department of Employment has a great affection for these bodies—then I hope he will try to give to the House a simple reason as to why it is necessary to retain them. At a time when it is desperately important to increase the number of jobs, artificially to peg wages at a specific level again really does not seem to make sense; and if one studies the history one sees that in fact in wages council industries in the last decade they have forced up wages considerably further than the rate of inflation by itself would justify, and they have therefore undoubtedly deprived a certain number of people of jobs which employers could otherwise have given them.
My Lords, we have far too little time in this debate to deal properly with this enormous subject, but I have put to my noble friend two specific suggestions which it seems to me, and I suspect it seems to some of your Lordships, could really help—a reduction of the national insurance surcharge, with perhaps an absolute remission in respect of young workers, and the abolition as speedily as possible of the wages councils, which are now nothing more than an incubus on industry and a handicap to the provision of employment.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, I, too, welcome the initiative taken by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, in discussing various aspects of the most important economic subject of today, that of unemployment. I very much agree with several of his suggestions, which I think one could describe as making the labour market rather more free—and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has made the same point. There is no doubt that the labour market is now far too cluttered up with all sorts of difficulties and regulations which are helping to make the whole economy more paralysed than it ought to be at a time when we are moving into a period when we need to be as flexible as we can possibly be.
I must be as brief as possible. I have only two points that I wish to raise. The first is that I agree very much with what a number of speakers have already said, that it is a pity to create, as it were, artificial jobs that spin out the work or to pay workers for not doing anything. The best way to induce employers to provide more work is to see that they get more orders, and to that extent I feel quite strongly, as I said in the debate on the Address, that the Government must alter the stance or the push of their policies away from the present deflationary attitude towards at least some movement in the other direction; for instance, as has already been suggested by both the noble Lords to whom I have referred, the removal of the insurance surcharge. That is the sort of thing that is likely to create genuine work.
This is no place to go into a discussion of the whole matter, but I suggest that those interested in this might read the article by Mr. Maurice Green in today's Daily Telegraph. The Daily Telegraph is the strongest supporter of the Government, and Maurice Green has an impeccable record, both as an economist and as to the colour of his tie, shall I say. I think he goes extremely well into the difference between a general budget-balancing policy and one in a deep recession.
The other suggestion that I want to make is both
822
a current and a long-term one. I touched slightly on this in the debate on the Address, but I think it is important enough to be worth expanding a little. This recession, because it is so deep and because it has gone on so long, besides producing the beneficial effects that we know it has had at least in the private sector, has done a good deal of damage to the economic structure, both in capital formation and, particularly, in the effect on the labour force, because the push on all employers produced by the reduction in aggregate demand has forced them to dispense with labour. Quite often they have tried, wherever they possibly could, to encourage the older people to take early retirement or redundancy pay; but to a very large extent the flow out of the labour force of skilled and experienced people has not been remedied, as it normally is, by the inflow at the other end of the younger people.
Here, I think things like the Youth Opportunities Programme are not constructive enough. When the economy begins to expand again—and we all hope (and some of us are determined about this) that it shall expand—the limit on expansion of employment is created when the economic structure will not support any further expansion of output beyond the point at which it pays for itself. The bottlenecks set in, exports are held back and imports are encouraged. When you come to this point of expansion, if there is a shortage of skilled labour the expansion will be cut off too quickly.
There is also the capital side of it; and, of course, I feel strongly that if there is any money going it ought to be spent on capital formation projects. But on the labour side it seems to me—and I think the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, who is not in his place, hinted at this—that we want something that will not give people just a little bit of casual experience but will train them properly for the time when they are going to be needed. I feel that if the Government are going to spend money, if they can be induced to spend it at all, it would be a very good thing if they could do it in some way which would encourage employers everywhere to take on apprentices and to pay them, if necessary, the whole cost of the apprenticeship, and to do this for a considerable period.
That would not run into the present difficulties because we know that young people are complaining that what they get now does not help them to get a job later on. We know that some employers are using the people they take on to do more or less unskilled work and that they get rid of people, so you do not gain anything there. But if the money was directed much more to apprenticeships and training schemes, it would give hope and encouragement to those who were given the jobs, but, much more important, it would help to create the economic structure which will be absolutely essential when we come to the expansion period and which, I am afraid, as a result of the recession, is being undermined now.
7.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I am somewhat nervous lest these propositions that the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has been suggesting to us put in front of us a belief that employers can do more than lies within their capacity; although I believe that some of the ideas that we have heard, especially those

823
about work sharing which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, put before us—work sharing by both young people and older people—would help. It was a bold and wise move of the Government to send the Secretary of State for the Environment to come and spend three weeks in Liverpool this late summer and now to have particular responsibility for Merseyside for a further year. We have a powerful and vigorous Secretary of State who is putting repeated challenges to employers; and in a number of situations employers have not responded, often because they feel they are not able to do so.
Let me give an example of one area in which there has been some willing response, just in that area which the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, has been mentioning about proper training. The Secretary of State challenged the biggest firms in Merseyside to produce between them 3,000 places for training. Let me tell your Lordships that the score at the moment stands at 700. If everything goes very, very well we may reach 1,000. It is a reminder that the actual ability of industry and commerce to respond to such challenges is sometimes limited. And that has been the area in which there has been the most willing response to his different challenges. Let us not put too much hope on what private employers can do without major encouragement, or we may do no more than tinker with the vast problem which many of us believe needs fundamental changes to tackle it.
The present situation is the result of at least five sets of causes: first, structural changes caused by new technology and by changes in the world economy; secondly, social changes such as the role of women; thirdly, individual employers' priorities; fourthly, cyclical recession and, fifthly, Government policies of the day. This Motion focuses only on No. 3 of those five, when, in the face of the other factors, many firms are in a survival struggle. Ignoring structural change will lead us to short-term policies. An upturn in the economy will not necessarily bring more jobs. Industry is slimmer and leaner because it believes it needs to be. It has a good deal of unused capacity against that upturn.
I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and others who have spoken are calling upon us to believe that market, efficiently run, will bring back full employment. I believe that to be untrue and to be misleading the country. A sea-change is going on. There are structural changes caused by new technologies and changes in the world economy which mean that the market, as I believe, will not produce full employment or anything like it in the foreseeable future.
For many years of my life, the initials "MCC" had a certain magic to them. I now have the experience of initials crossing from one world to another. Nowadays I have to bow in a different way when the Merseyside County Council tell me something. The Merseyside County Council's sector-by-sector report in May of this year forecast that Merseyside, already at the bottom of the league, is going to have a continuing net job loss of 80,000 further jobs from 1981 to 1986. The point I want to make is that we must face the fact that there is a sea-change in employment patterns and that can be met only by fundamental
824
changes in attitude. I would ask whether the Government and whether every party would not acknowledge that this is the case. Repeatedly, I am told, most politicians behind closed doors believe it but it is not the acceptable thing to say in public. If a Government reduced unemployment in the next five years, say, to 1·5 million, they would be regarded as having achieved marvels. I want to say that it would not be good enough; for reducing unemployment to 1·5 million, relying on the operations of the market, if it were possible, would probably wipe out serious unemployment in the more affluent parts of the country. But it would scarcely alter anything in Northern Ireland, Glasgow, the North-East or Merseyside.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, reminded us of some of the massive unemployment in some areas of Merseyside. I was having my first glimpse of the Scarman Report and it reminds us that Leece Street Employment Office, between 1976 and 1980, fluctuated between 17,000 and 18,000 unemployed. Between 1980 and 1981 the figure went up to 21,000. If we come down to 1·5 million nationally, I suppose we might get back to 17,000 or 18,000. It would change very little of what we have been facing and of what the other priority areas face. When people say that 5 per cent. is an acceptable figure that we must get used to in a nation, that means 10 per cent. in Merseyside, 20 per cent. in Kirby and every area like it; and has done for years.
If we could admit that the market will not produce anything like full employment it would lead us not to wring our hands in hopelessness or to bland statements about how pleasant it would be to have endless leisure; it could lead us to a healthy positive debate about how a country could best use the resources of the very large numbers of people that the market will not require. There are genuine jobs, not make-believe jobs, which are crying out to be done in the community. Each unemployed person costs the state at least £4,500 per annum. Those who are lucky enough to have a demanding, high-earning job, should stop wingeing about taxes and be glad to pay more so that the most precious resources of the nation, our people, may be given work which truly needs doing. It is true that such public spending needs a profitable, slimmed-down industry; but we need to stop setting public and private against each other. Industry and commerce also need good standards of health, education, transport and the rule of law. I hope that, as we look at some of the very modest and proper calls that should be made to industry and that responsible industry is trying hard to respond to, we shall not slide away from the much more fundamental debate that we need.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I join others in congratulating my noble friend Lord Spens in bringing this Motion before us and for moving it so forcefully. I agree with the kind of approach that he adopted. I should like to have said to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that I would join him in deploring the present levels of unemployment if he would join me in deploring the rising trend of unemployment before 1979. What I think is most deplorable about this saga is the extent to which unemployment has been aggravated over a long period of time by politicians of both parties, animated by nothing more

825
lethal than good intentions. It seems to me that diagnosis must start by acknowledging there has been a steeply rising trend in unemployment, along the lines that the right reverend Prelate spoke of, since 1965. If we look back to before 1960, the total unemployment in one year seldom rose above 300,000. After 1965 the average unemployment has never fallen below half a million. Since 1976 it has not fallen in the best year below 1¼ million. Yet the whole of that period was not marked by savage deflation; the whole of that period was marked by unparalleled expansion in budget deficits and monetary aggregates however one measures them. We need not be reminded that the result has been a massive and continuing inflation in labour costs per unit of output.
Labour costs per unit of output doubled first in 17 years from 1950 to 1967; and they doubled again in seven years, 1967 to 1974; and they doubled yet again in only five years, 1975 to 1980. It seems to me that this dismal record should direct our search for remedies away from repeated talk of so-called reflation at which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, hinted. Instead we should consider the micro-economic effects of increased labour costs on the demand for labour in the market place.
To assist your Lordships, I offer for your consideration a little more precisely than the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the following proposition from the textbooks that it is difficult to confute. Other things being equal, fewer people will be employed at a higher than at a lower cost. If the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, were in his place I would appeal to him for support since his own ingenious if somewhat shortlived selective employment tax sought to revive the demand for labour in manufacturing by the process of reducing its cost. All Government job subsidies work on precisely the same assumption.
It follows that all those well-intentioned policies from both parties over the years which have raised labour costs have inadvertently tended to increase unemployment. Why should we lack the candour, or the courage, to assert that many workers have been priced out of work by the operation of coercive trade unionism, the compulsory wages council mentioned by several noble Lords and costly measures of employment protection?
During the past decade or so the burden of excessive wages has been intensified by rising national insurance and other statutory charges which now add 25 per cent. to the wages bills of the employer.
At the same time, the value of these higher wages has been eroded in the hands of the worker by national insurance and taxation which he starts paying at a marginal rate of 37.75 per cent. on earnings as modest as about one-third of average earnings. The damage to incentives is even worse if we allow that much of this high taxation goes to provide social benefits that are often more enticing than net take-home pay from employment.
A particular example: a married man with two children earning £95 per week from November 1980 would have been £3 a week better off if he had deliberately chosen to be unemployed for six months of the year. That does not allow for the possibility that he might do some work for cash in what is sometimes delicately called the "unobserved economy".
826
The right reverend Prelate had some hard things to say about the market and created the impression that the figures of unemployment were a great immovable, growing mountain of discarded people. I want to put this to him: despite all the distortions and discouragements to which the market has been subjected, it is surely astonishing that beneath this well-advertised figure of 3 million unemployed we have a very lively labour market, a "dynamic" labour market, in the words of the Manpower Services Commission, in which about half a million new jobs are taken up each month, and in which the Manpower Services Commission estimated that in 1980 there were 7 million changes of jobs in that 12 months.
Unlike my former noble friend the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, I remain a medium-term optimist. I believe that in the longer run there are improvements in productivity, which companies are already achieving in this severe recession, that will enable the rise in real wages to be resumed without this haunting risk we have faced of pricing our people out of their jobs. Meanwhile if we are truly concerned with hastening the decline in the unemployment figures, it is crucial that wages and salaries are held back—that is to say, held down—not least so that profits can be rebuilt as the only sure guarantee of expanding future jobs.
But more immediately we are faced with less alluring choices. I believe that the most promising positive steps would be to combine a cut in taxes on earnings with a freeing of impediments in both the labour and housing markets. A radical approach would include not only reducing trade union privileges on the lines now proposed by the Government, but the repeal of wages councils, where I follow other noble Lords, and the misnamed "employment protection". I would go further, at the same time I would start moving to phase out rent restriction and council house tenantry as two of the most damaging obstacles to the mobility of labour.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who said that so long as social benefits stand above the net earnings of so many families in jobs it is no longer plausible to argue that minimum statutory wage protection remains necessary to keep workers out of indigent penury. Above all, I think that the reduction in Government spending still holds the key to cutting rates and taxes which I believe would do more than any other single measure—in the words of the Motion—
"to encourage employers to expand their workforces";
and, I would add, to encourage employees to expand their own efforts to price themselves back into work.
7.27 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for putting down this debate. I also ought to declare an interest as a small private employer. One aspect that has not been broached in this debate is high interest rates. In order to start or to expand a business the average employer has to go to a bank for money, unless he has a lot of cash in the bank, which is rather rare these days and, with inflation, is foolish. People wanting to start businesses or to expand business, if they are viable, ought to be able to borrow

827
money at a lower interest rate than at present prevails. If money has to be borrowed at 18 per cent. or 20 per cent. it is very difficult to expand a business.
I agree that in the old days monetary supply was controlled completely by high interest rates. That situation does not apply today. After all, public expenditure is over 60 per cent. of the gross national product, and therefore high interest rates do not really control the economy as they used to do. I should like to make that plea for small businessmen who wish to expand their business or for someone responsible who wishes to start a business. They ought to have access to cheaper money.
A point which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, concerns the Protection of Employment Act. It is important, but perhaps is not quite so important as has been made out in the penalisation of employers. Of course it is important, but why chiefly I object to it is that it is a complete reversal of British law. The employer is adjudged guilty before he is proved not guilty. The employee may perhaps have been drunk and been an extremely bad employee: the employer gets rid of him and then the employee is able to go to an industrial tribunal. Provided that the employer can prove that the employee has been a bad employee, he will be found not guilty; but I think it is extremely wrong that he should be adjudged guilty before he can prove his innocence.
I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is in his place, because the other thing I should like to draw attention to concerns the wages councils. I have often wondered whether people on those councils have ever paid wages out of their own pockets, because the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, if I understood him aright, appeared to think that very high wages had no effect on the economy. He thought it did not actually make us non-productive; but, as I said during the debate on the Queen's Speech—and I hate repeating myself—between 1970 and 1980 wages increased by nearly 400 per cent. and productivity by barely 15 per cent.—so of course high wages affect productivity and also, therefore, our competitiveness. I think that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter had something to say about wages councils. I am just trying to remember what it was: it was very good—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend wish me to assist him?
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, my noble friend said that we ought to abolish wages councils. I quite agree with that, because the point is that there is no fear of sweated labour today, with the welfare state. I have actually met employees who have said to me: "We are quite prepared to take less, but of course the employer cannot give less under the law". If you abolished wages councils, you could have more inspectors who could go round and see whether there were employees who were taking lower wages than has been laid down and whether they were doing it completely of their own accord, and that the employer was not taking advantage of them.
The other thing I should like to say is that I support my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter 100 per cent. regarding the national insurance surcharge. It is a great
828
drag on industry. I also think that my noble friend's suggestion that there should be no national insurance surcharge for employment below a certain age is a good one. I do not know what the age would be; I do not really know when a youth becomes a man, but I think the law lays down that an adult wage must be paid from 20 years old: I think that is right. I believe that would be a great help, because youth employment is the most important factor and has the greatest effect on the whole of unemployment. While I welcome what the Government have done regarding the youth opportunity schemes, anything else that can be done to alleviate youth unemployment will be of immense benefit socially.
I was rather surprised to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool say that we ought to take unemployment down instantly to one and half million: of course that is quite impossible. You can only do that by borrowing more or printing more money. As I pointed out in the debate on the Queen's Speech, between 1974 and 1979 the then Government borrowed or printed more money than had been borrowed by all British Governments in the last 200 years. We cannot go on like that. You cannot borrow money to create artificial employment: it is the road to perdition: it is the way of the Gadarene swine; and it is crazy economics.
My Lords, I have almost come to the end of my time limit, but I should just like to say that I favour the idea of lowering the pension age. It has been suggested in this House on previous occasions. It will cost the welfare state more money, but it would be a good idea. I should like, if I may, also to refer to job-sharing, which I have referred to once or twice before. I think it is a sound suggestion for older people, and perhaps for the young also, but it is of course quite difficult too organise. For example, obviously both people could not be paid full wages. One cannot pay two men full wages for doing the one job, but, if it could be organised in some reasonable way, it would be helpful.
I do not want to say very much more, except to reiterate that I should like the Government to do everything they possibly can, as they are doing, to help youth employment, since it is so important for social reasons.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Reilly: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Spens for suggesting that I might take part in this debate, for it gives me an opportunity to air for six minutes just two topics; namely, design and craftsmanship. The role and status of design in British industry are to my mind subjects which deserve a debate to themselves, but I think design is also relevant to the Motion before us this evening. Surely the most important question facing British industry is what to make—not how much, how cheaply or how quickly, but simply what?—and that cannot properly be answered without the designer. So pursuing the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for positive steps, I would urge the Government to do all in their power to stimulate and enhance design in British industry through better education of designers and manufacturers alike, through intelligent promotion and propaganda and, most effectively of all perhaps, through

829
deliberate, discriminating patronage, though there is surely no excuse whatsoever for public money, whether central or local, to be spent on any but the highest available standards of design, provided the price is right. On that point, let us not forget the old saying that, "Good design is always cheap at the price".
In any event, is it not time that we began shedding our "lowest tender" mentalities? If it were to become known throughout British industry that the public purse, the biggest purchaser and the biggest customer of all, would not only demand the best but would also eagerly buy British whenever British was the best, I believe (as does this week's Economist) that our standards would soon rise, to the exclusion of much foreign competition; and in our craft-based industries the new business thus generated or diverted from imports would certainly encourage employers to expand their workforces. I heard a manufacturer of some excellent British furniture say in the Design Centre only last week: "In my company we are very proud of our technology, for our technology is people". It is surely in such labour-intensive areas that work forces can most sensibly be expanded.
May I now turn to the most labour-intensive area of all—that of the craftsman? Here successive Governments have had a reasonably good record, following the lead given by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, when he was Minister for the Arts. But I still doubt whether it is widely enough recognised in official circles what a success story attaches to the internationally acclaimed work of our Crafts Council, of which I was proud to be a member until released last month. It has been a success story in terms not only of skill and vision but also of turnover and employment. It has been a wise and imaginative investment of public money and, to my mind, an investment which should be increased, since the Crafts Council maintenance grant of just over £33 a week enables its recipient both to create new artefacts and to earn an income, rather than to join a dole queue at a still higher cost to the state.
Once established via a Crafts Council grant, most such carefully chosen craftsmen develop into small businesses employing three, four or even 10 skilled apprentices while several such master craftsmen have actually opened small factories. The numbers so benefiting are, of course, still very small—indeed, the total employment of creative craftsmen is only a drop in the ocean of unemployment—but a caring Government counts persons as well as people.
There is one other area of labour intensity that no Government can afford to overlook; namely, those crafts associated with the building trades. Here also the Crafts Council is active, having recently set up the first national register of conservation skills in the building industry—an activity which should well complement the Building Conservation Trust at Hampton Court, in which I must declare an interest as its chairman, while thanking two Members of your Lordships' House, the noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Sandford, for serving as joint honorary treasurers.
This is not the occasion for marshalling the many social, political and economic arguments for building conservation. All I would say, in the context of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, is that conservation can be done only by hand. It is, therefore,
830
an ideal area in which to take positive steps to encourage workforce expansion, without running into the danger or folly of over-manning.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for providing the opportunity to discuss employment in this way this evening. Charges are sometimes made against the Government that they are uncaring in their attitude towards the number of unemployed. It seems only too clear and logical to me, however, and, I am sure, to others in your Lordships' House, that there can be little validity whatever in this view. In national, economic and even party terms, it is, of course, tragic to have unemployment on the scale which, sadly, exists today, unless, as is the case, it is the temporary, unfortunate side effect of a policy that is designed ultimately to increase industrial output, improve competitiveness in world markets, stimulate more orders and lead to the expansion that is necessary to achieve them, and hence to more jobs.
The broad thrust of the noble Lord's argument in proposing his Motion was directed towards the ways in which existing bodies might be encouraged to take on more employees. He and other noble Lords have suggested ways in which the Government might further stimulate opportunities in this direction. I agree with many of them, but I should like to develop the theme in a slightly different way, directed more towards opportunities for employment which could be created by increased numbers of businesses.
One of the considerable advantages to industry of the Government's policies over the last two and a half years, coupled to some extent with the effects of the recession, has been the opportunity given to businesses to shed their manpower excesses. It has left them with an increased level of productivity per employee, and on the whole, industry is leaner and more competitive because of it. The disadvantages of carrying unproductive manpower in any organisation are enormous and obvious. Coupled with this, the Government have introduced, and are developing, a string of measures designed to assist small firms both to start up and to develop. Indeed, I have here a list of some 73 different measures designed specifically to assist the development of small firms and hence to increase employment.
In starting any new business, there are two significant elements which the entrepreneur must consider. One is personal financial risk and the difficulties of persuading others to share the financial risk. To a very great extent, the Government have acknowledged and mitigated the effects of this with their introduction in June this year of the loan guarantee scheme. I am particularly glad to see that this scheme has been so widely taken up.
I understand that the value of guarantees available has been raised recently from £50 million to £100 million, that over half the guarantees have gone to firms in the manufacturing sector and that a total of 1,172 guarantees, representing £41 million, were issued up to 31st October. My guess is that there will continue to be a considerable run on this scheme. I hope that my noble friend who is to reply may be able to indicate that the Government would consider a further

831
extension of it, should the demand continue, and that he might also be able to say whether a reduction in the Government's 3 per cent. premium could have a beneficial effect on the number of applications made under the scheme.
There is, I believe, a vast amount of enterprise and talent, a host of good ideas and the enthusiasm to develop them available within the country. The loan guarantee scheme has helped the entrepreneur enormously, by lessening the financial risks which pursuing his good idea entails and, in turn, has led to increased opportunities of employment. But there is another element, and that is in the acquisition of the financial skills which are necessary to put the good ideas into practice. After all, the success of any commercial enterprise boils down, in the end, to management of finance. Abundance of skills and ideas there may be, but the people with them do not, in many cases, possess the financial skills which are needed to implement them.
I should like to suggest that the Government develop their magnificent theme of encouragement further in this area. I should like them to consider introducing a scheme to help the entrepreneur obtain advice and limited training as to how to arrange the financial aspects of his projects, on topics such as financial modelling, sensitivity analysis and all the other measures which should be used to test the continuing financial integrity of a project. I believe that this could be done through special financial advice bureaux, not unlike Citizens' Advice Bureaux, in selected parts of the country, where the prime mover could obtain advice and training on how to organise the finance of what he wanted to do.
I believe that this could be financed by the Government, or by the agency which gives the advice, taking a slice of the action—5 or 10 per cent. of the profits of the project over a negotiated period. Additionally, the Government might consider sub-contracting a scheme such as this to existing centres of financial expertise, such as the ICFC. But the important point is that the scheme must, in the end, finance itself; the Government, directly or indirectly, recovering their costs over a period of time through the success of the business which they have advised. The Government have done much to help the entrepreneur set up new business and to mitigate the risks the individual takes in doing so. It would be impossible, if not wrong, to remove all the risk. Anyway, an element of risk is a considerable incentive to success. I hope that this suggestion in relation to financial advice might be considered sympathetically as a useful addition to the provision of other counselling services which are designed to help start-ups and prevent failures.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we are all agreed that we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for having introduced this Motion. We all know the noble Lord's interest—I was going to say passionate interest—in the subject. Certainly he was one of the prime movers in the setting up of your Lordships' own Select Committee on Employment. We are very grateful to him for having introduced the topic this evening.
832
The noble Lord set out a number of proposals which were designed to encourage employers to increase their labour force. The party of those of us who sit on this Bench also put forward six proposals. They were put forward by Mr. Roy Jenkins in the Warrington by-election campaign and I outlined them in some detail to your Lordships during the debate on the gracious Speech, so I will not go through all that again. However, there is one aspect of those proposals which I should like to take up because it was not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, though I am delighted that it was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Reilly, when he referred to the building trades in relation to conservation. I want to go a little wider than that and have a brief look at the whole of the construction industry, where again my right honourable friend Mr. Jenkins made some positive proposals at Warrington.
Everybody knows that the construction industry is labour intensive. I think it is calculated that something like 300,000 building workers are on the dole. At the same time, our national housing situation is deteriorating to a quite alarming degree. The total expenditure on housing fell from £6,072 million in 1975–76 to £4,256 million in 1980–81. The number of flats and houses—dwellings on one, two or more floors—in Great Britain which are now unfit, lacking in basic amenities, or in need of substantial repair was recently estimated by Shelter at 3,300,000 dwellings. Our suggestion is that those receiving unemployment or supplementary benefit should be given the opportunity of working in this field at, say, an additional £15 or £20 a week above their benefit levels. The initial cost to Government would be simply this additional sum and there would be a direct and indirect tax feedback. Social, community and individual needs would be served at no vast cost. Mr. Jenkins estimated the cost of getting 250,000 people back to work at no more than £250 million in a given year, which is a very great deal cheaper than most job creation schemes and would also go a long way towards providing us with the habitable dwellings that we so desperately need.
Here I should like to advance for the second time (I apologise for the fact that it is the second time I mention it; I mentioned it on 12th November in the economic debate) my own variant of this scheme. I should say that it is not yet party policy, even in draft form, so I am not committing anybody but myself to it. However, I cannot for the life of me see why this modest sum, at whatever level it is agreed on, whether at £15 or £20 a week, should not be available to unemployed people wishing to improve their own homes, whether rented or owned, if it could be shown that the dwelling lacked amenities or was in need of substantial repair. We are, after all, a nation of handymen now, with a few regrettable exceptions such as myself, and "do it yourself" flourishes, or was flourishing when people could afford the tools and materials to get on with the job. A grant for the materials would also be necessary, of course, but the cost to local authorities would be greatly less than was the case with improvement grants, now mostly abandoned, because the labour element would be provided. The noble Lord, Lord Spens, spoke about stimulating employers to expand their workforces. I am talking about stimulating self-employment at no great cost and with great benefit not only to the housing

833
stock but to builders merchants, tool manufacturers and various other branches of manufacturing industry.
I come now to my final and more general point. The noble Lord, Lord Spens, has concentrated on measures to encourage employers to take on more labour. But we are facing a crisis in demand. This was the main burden of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. There is no employer in the world, with or without subsidy, who is going to increase his labour force on any considerable scale if he can see no outlet for his product or service. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to "profitable employment". He also gave us the neat little phrase, "It is the customers who make pay-day possible". The present Government have attempted to create an atmosphere in which enterprise and initiative can flourish—it was the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who made the orthodox case for this—in the hope that this will revitalise the whole economy and engender new employment. I think (one has to say more in sorrow than in anger) that this has failed. Despite the flickering dials of some economic indicators, there is really no strong sign of a spontaneous revival of economic activity. The trickle-down theory, according to which butter and jam spread lavishly at the top will seep down and lubricate every level of the economy, is coming increasingly under fire, even in that bastion of enterprise, the United States. Mr. Stockman blew the gaff on that the other day.
The recession is widely blamed, but this is simply the best scapegoat we ever had, for the recession is not God-given but man-made and could, with patience and determination, be reversed. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, talked quite rightly about competitiveness, but if world trade is throttled owing to the strangulation of third world economies by their burden of debt to us and to the institutions we have set up, there will be no net growth of export opportunities, and such as there are will be gobbled up by countries only too eager to work in the sweated labour market. My view is that it looks, sadly, as if the West, despite a discernible shift in the position of our own Government, missed an important opportunity at Cancun. If wealth is not constantly redistributed, it chokes itself.
And what is true on the international scene is no less true on the domestic scene. Perhaps it is even more true. How can employers be expected to increase their workforces to any significant extent with present prospects? The production-consumption balance is out of joint and this imbalance will not be helped by the real cuts we are promised, and which we on this Bench will resist, in social security benefits. The Government say, "Let industry improve its performance and then we will spread the jam more widely". The opposite must also take place. Only a wide and fair distribution of wealth, not least to those who are sick or out of work through no fault of their own, can prime the pump of demand.
Here I am afraid that with some trepidation I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, who is an expert. I do not go along with the general burden of his remarks on social security payments. I noted that he also referred to the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor. This morning, re-reading the debate of 12th November, I picked out from the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, the following quotation:
834
"our neighbours who have been so much more successful … had a bigger dose of Keynes and Beveridge since the war, not a smaller one. Social security and full employment were more consistently pursued in post-war Germany, Austria, France, Sweden, Denmark and Norway than they were in Britain. Yet they have not been enfeebled but very much enriched by those policies".—[Official Report; col. 359.]
Any Government that neglect or belittle social policy these days or treat it reluctantly as charity are in for very big economic trouble.
I hope I have not strayed too far from the mark. My point is that, though I respect the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, and would agree with him on one or two of his suggestions, notably that on the national insurance surcharge, I cannot, frankly, see employers flocking in their thousands to embrace them unless they also see a reasonable chance of selling what they make or the services they provide. In the meantime, I submit that the modest proposals for the construction industry which I have made are an uncostly step in the right direction while, as we must, we come to grips with these wider issues.
8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for giving your Lordships the opportunity of discussing a matter which is of great concern not only to all of your Lordships but also to every man, woman and child in the country. Unemployment is a real anxiety and it is a personal tragedy. The fact that we have been able to have a debate today which has been totally devoid of partisanship, and which has been wholly constructive, I think is a cause for great satisfaction, and I can assure your Lordships that what has been said today will be studied with very great care.
Unemployment itself not only causes financial hardship to people but, worse than that, it eats at a person's pride and self-respect and for those reasons, if none other—and there are plenty—the Government would wish to see unemployment lowered. There is no denying the serious nature of the problem of unemployment itself, as yesterday's figures have reminded us. It is a waste of the nation's resources and it is a waste of men and women.
If I may say so, I thought the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool in a most graphic manner brought to the debate a realisation of the problems which affect Merseyside. I approve of all his diagnosis of the reasons for their coming about, other than when he came to the fifth reason, when he said that inflation or recession was the fault of the Government, but I shall come to that a little later. He said that there was a sea change going on. I think there is, but I would take issue with him on one thing. I hope, but of course it is only conjecture, that his prognosis that there will always be a perpetual level of unemployment will not prove to be right. It is rather like when people say that because we are entering the era of the computer we must always expect unemployment. If we take that attitude we are saying that this generation of all generations has come to the end of the frontiers of science and knowledge and therefore we shall not be able to progress. I should not be able to accept that.
But, my Lords, as we try to overcome this problem

835
we must recognise it for what it is. It is a symptom of a far deeper problem which faces not only us but practically every other western country. The recession and unemployment is the outward manifestation of the worst recession which has hit the world in the last 50 years. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said that it was all our fault. Well, maybe it is our fault, but nobody succeeds—
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I did not say it was all our fault: all I said was that it was man-made and not God-given.
Earl Ferrers: Well, my Lords, that seems to me to be rather similar. However, I will accept that and, even if it is man-made, it is man's business to try to overcome it; and that is not a very easy task. That is the background which we have to accept, whether we like it or not—and we do not—before we consider what effect our own peculiar national circumstances may have in contributing to the problem.
We are not alone in suffering from unemployment; other countries in the world are also affected. The continuing world recession has raised unemployment levels, for instance, in France to 2 million, so that unemployment there stands now at 10·6 per cent. Unemployment in Germany rose by 100,000 last month alone. Belgium has an unemployment rate of nearly 15 per cent. So we are not alone in these difficulties. In a number of industrialised countries unemployment is now rising even more quickly than it is here. Although there are 10 million people unemployed in the European Community as a whole, the fact is that we have a higher percentage of our population in employment in this country than any other member state in the European Community except Denmark. These high levels of unemployment in our partners in the Community are a cause of great concern to us as well because we have to trade with those countries, as they do with us. The international recession itself, therefore, delays our own recovery. If that is so, it merely emphasises the vital importance of our being able to get ourselves into a competitive position as we come out of the recession.
The recession comes on top of the underlying problems from which we in the United Kingdom have suffered and which, at least up to now, have left us in a worse position than our competitors. I agreed so much with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when she said that the heart of the problem is uncompetitiveness. I agree; I think she is right. The hard facts are that for 20 years or more we as a country have been falling behind in competitiveness as wages have outstripped production and as we have failed to modernise and make our industry more efficient.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that if you cut wages you will not necessarily price yourself into employment. That may be so, but the converse is that if wages and costs rise, you price yourself out of employment. The results of this period of 20 years have been inflation and lost markets and ever-increasing unemployment. But if one looks at the effect on wages and output over the last three years for which one has full figures, the figures themselves tell a horrifying story.
836
Between 1977 and 1980 the average hourly rate of pay went up in West Germany by 17 per cent., in Japan by 23 per cent., in the United States by 27 per cent., in France by 46 per cent., and in the United Kingdom by 59 per cent. If one looks at the other side of the coin—the average output per hour over the same period—in West Germany the average output went up by 6 per cent., in the United States it went up by 6 per cent., in France it went up by 14 per cent., in Japan it went up by 23 per cent. and in the United Kingdom it went up by 1 per cent. So, my Lords, we have been top of the list for paying ourselves more and bottom of the list for producing more.
No one can say that those facts, which we as a country have imposed upon ourselves, irrespective of the existence or otherwise of any worldwide recession, have not made their own contribution to unemployment. Management and unions must share the responsibility for that because usually in collective bargaining it is they who are responsible for what is demanded and for what is offered and for what is finally agreed. No one can divest himself of the responsibility for a state of affairs to which he has contributed. We all have to accept responsibility for our actions. The result is that we have delayed too long in making changes which our competitors have taken for granted. An unwillingness to take tough decisions and the difficulties of overcoming entrenched attitudes and restrictive practices have led to overmanning, uncompetitive prices and failure to adapt to the needs and the requirements of the market. The truth is that employment can only be sustained if the goods and services which are produced can be sold in the market.
The Government cannot halt the recession. If we tried to mask inflation by relaxing fiscal controls, it might have short-term attractions and short-term effects but it would throw the economy into even worse confusion and make inflation even greater. What we can do, and what we are doing, is to create conditions in which employers and workers can themselves, by their own efforts, make existing jobs secure and try to create the new jobs which we need. Only industry—not Government—can do this. Government can set the guidelines but it is only industry—the men and women involved—who can take the initiative and create the opportunities.
The main instrument by which the Government can help is through our fiscal and monetary policies, which set the framework for holding down public spending and inflation. We can trade only by being competitive. We can be competitive only by keeping prices down. Inflation runs counter to all this. It makes people lose confidence in the present and in the future. It undermines stability and it undermines investment; and it is upon investment that the future is determined, and it is by investment that jobs are created. That is the reason the Government see the attack on inflation as one of the highest priorities, irrespective of the unpleasantness of the methods by which this has to come about. We cannot control unemployment without controlling inflation. The short-term attraction of relaxing our grip on inflation would only lead to greater and cumulative long-term problems. This means that inevitably we are strictly limited in the other measures which we can operate,

837
however attractive they may appear, because they can only add to costs which are already too high.
Nevertheless, we are doing a great deal to encourage the economy by removing unnecessary barriers and by giving incentives to change. In particular, we have a wide range of measures to help the new small firms which will provide future jobs. We have reduced bureaucracy and we have encouraged the flow of new finance, particularly to small firms, and we are encouraging new technology. I was glad that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur referred to what the Government have done for small businesses, because he spoke, if I may say so, in a most constructive and informed way, and I will certainly see that the suggestions which he has made for the further encouragement of small businesses are taken into account.
We are encouraging private enterprise to take over from the state. But above all, our aid to industry is designed to stimulate investment and efficiency, because a sound industrial base is essential to achieve economic growth and a real increase in jobs. Your Lordships have made several suggestions as to how this should be done. The noble Lord, Lord Spens, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that they wished to see the national insurance surcharge removed. I fully realise the strength of feeling in some quarters in favour of reductions. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that if you want to encourage employment you do not tax it; he would not have done it 20 years ago. I accept that, but of course things have changed in 20 years and we have a level of inflation, and regrettably of recession, which we did not have 20 years ago. But the other side of that argument is, that although one does not want to tax employment, if wages are a high cost it may be that the national insurance surcharge can be a way of encouraging competitiveness, because it is a cost and not a tax on profits. Of course I accept that £3·8 billion comes from this tax this year, and it certainly remains a possible candidate for reduction if the resources are available, but the scope for tax measures is very much dependent upon public spending decisions.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to intervene? He said, so rightly, that this surcharge was a cost, but does he appreciate that it is a cost not borne by our foreign competitors?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may be perfectly true, but what I am telling my noble friend is that nevertheless it does produce a vast sum of money, and if that sum of money has to be produced from elsewhere one has to shift the burden of tax. That may be possible; it may be desirable. Certainly my noble friend's suggestions will not go unheeded.
The noble Lord, Lord Spens, said that he would like to see alterations in the employment protection legislation. Well, the Government are conscious that the employment protection legislation has been inhibiting employers, and particularly the smaller employer, from recruiting. We have made a number of amendments to these provisions which have been specifically designed to ease the position of employers and to encourage them to expand, and so progress has been made there.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Spens, referred to wages
838
councils. He said he was not going to say much because he knew that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was going to refer to that matter. I could not help but be amused when my noble friend Lord Massereene said he could not remember what Lord Boyd-Carpenter had said, because I thought what he had said was most trenchant. What he said was that he wanted wages councils to be abolished. He did refer to the fact that he had put down a couple of Parliamentary Questions to which I had the privilege of replying. I am not certain whether it was a compliment or a cause of displeasure, but he said my replies were "masterly ambiguity". I thought he really meant that they were a source of total clarity but they did not happen to agree with what the noble Lord was saying.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me, he has very nearly got it right. What I was really trying to suggest was that the noble Earl, with his habitual ability, was making the best possible defence of the wholly indefensible.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that, if I may say so, is totally different, and it could very well even be true. I would say this to my noble friend, that there is a case which can be made—and the noble Lord, Lord Spens, did make it the other day at Question Time, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has made it before—for abolishing the wages councils. If you did that you would of course lower the rates which they set. If you lower the rates which they set, the inference is that more people will be employed. The danger of that is that there could be pressures on those people who are already employed, who would have the wages council rate fixing removed, to do the same work for less money. That may be desirable—it may be; I am not saying it is. The reason why the wages councils were set up in the first place was to stop just that. The only places where they are kept are where there is no other system of collective bargaining, and in places where the people involved are fairly diverse; they are also the lower forms of income group. Few of the adult rates exceed £58 per week, and that should be seen in the context of national average weekly earnings of £140 for men and £91 for women. They do refer to those who are at the lower end of the wage scale.
All I would say, as I said the other day to Lord Spens, is that there is an argument both ways, and the Government are not at present convinced that the argument for the abolition of wages councils is greater than the argument for their retention. There are at the moment very few wages councils in practice; they have been reduced a very great deal.
The noble Lord, Lord Spens, said that he wanted to see local authorities spend a 4p rate and not a 2p rate. Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that a local authority may spend up to the product of a rate of 2p in any financial year for purposes which, in their opinion, are in the interests of their area or any part of it or all or some of its inhabitants. It does not exist to enable money to be spent by an authority where other statutory powers already exist. Apart from this restriction the power is a discretionary one, and it is up to each local authority to decide for

839
itself how to use its power, subject of course to the need to justify its actions to the district auditor. The Government have no power to intervene in those decisions.
My Lords, in what, if I may say so, was a most interesting speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred particularly to job sharing. I welcome the recognition that in general any action which is taken should not remove our competitive ability. The noble Baroness suggested that the sharing of jobs could provide a helpful way of reducing unemployment. It is certainly an interesting idea and I have no doubt that for some groups, such as young people, it could be useful. There are already examples of firms—and I think that GEC is one of them—which have taken on young people in this very way. It might also appeal to other workers who are near retirement, but I rather fancy that there may be problems over pension rights if that happens. However, there may be the possibility of those people being able to share work and where this can be done voluntarily and those involved are ready and prepared to live on lower wages it could prove attractive.
We should have to be very careful about waiving national insurance contributions in such cases given the public expenditure costs involved. I think that there must be some doubts about the scale of the potential for these arrangements. The Government's programme of special employment measures is kept under review and I assure your Lordships that this and any other suggestions from the Select Committee will be most carefully considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, suggested that more money should be spent on apprenticeships. We are already providing £9.6 million in 1981–82 and £11 million in 1982–83. This will bring the total support to industry's long-term training needs in the current year to about £50 million. It would be wrong if we were to manoeuvre ourselves into taking steps which would damage our chances of recovery. It is absolutely vital to secure a future reduction in wage costs and inflation, which have shown a marked reduction over the last year. It is a long haul, but the encouraging signs cannot he denied. Unit wage costs have stabilised after the steep rises of the last few years. Manufacturing output rose by 1.5 per cent. in the third quarter of this year. Short-time working has fallen and overtime has increased. Unemployment has gone down marginally over the last two months, but I would make no great case over that—I merely state the fact. How soon real recovery comes will be bound to depend on world economic conditions. And unemployment will not come down properly until that recovery is established.
Of course, we should all like to see more jobs created now. But we need to have permanent viable jobs sustained by profits. There is no point in encouraging employers to take on workers whom they do not need. This merely adds to their costs and makes them uncompetitive. We must not, for sympathetic reasons, permit a return to overmanning and low productivity.
The startling fact is that by and large those countries who have adopted new technologies in the past and who have the most robots in their factories are the countries which have the lowest levels of unemployment.
840
Why?—because they are competitive. That makes their goods required and when their goods are required that creates employment. The way to create the permanent, viable jobs which we need is not simply to encourage employers to take on more workers now, but rather to help them become more efficient, to help create the opportunities for profitable expansion and the opportunities for new businesses as recovery develops.
My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard virtually clouted the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool verbally for suggesting that he would like to see unemployment down to 1½ million. I thought that that was a very acceptable suggestion. Then my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard went on to say that he would like to see interest rates lower. The very factors for which he was castigating the right reverend Prelate apply to his own arguments. Of course, everyone would like to see lower interest rates, but once you do that you then run into other fiscal problems. There must be a balance. While we need to make our industries more competitive, we also need to help, so far as we can, those who are worse affected by the ravages of recession, and to do so in a way which will better enable industry to exploit economic recovery. Training for both young people and adults is a high priority among our measures to encourage industry to become more competitive. The response to the Manpower Services Commission's consultative document A New Training Initiative indicated that there is considerable support for the objectives.
The noble Lord, Lord Spens, in his Motion calls on the Government to take positive steps. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that the Government always say that they are not responsible for unemployment or inflation and can do nothing about it. The Government can do things about it. I have explained some of the things that they have done. I shall also explain what we have done in the positive steps that we have taken, because they are positive. We have initiated the Business Start-up Scheme, to which my noble friend Lord Glenarthur so correctly referred, to encourage small businesses. That is only one, as he rightly said, of over 70 measures which the Government have taken since May 1979 to help small businesses. We started the Community Enterprise Programme for the long-term unemployed. That is taking £99 million of Government money this year. Then there is the Job Release Scheme to help people retire early in order to make way for the unemployed. That is costing £167 million this year. There is the Youth Opportunities Programme for the young unemployed, costing £414 million this year. On 4th January we are starting the Young Workers' Scheme which is expected to cost £60 million in the next financial year. There are other schemes too. So when the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, says that the Government say that they cannot do anything about it, all I would tell your Lordships is that we shall be spending even more next year, a total of no less than £1.5 thousand million on these and other measures.
The Government are doing a great deal to help through temporary measures of support. But the long-term answer can only be to restore a sound economy which will give real and viable jobs—jobs which are there because the goods are wanted; jobs which are there because the goods are good; jobs which are

841
there because the goods are available at the right time, at the right place and at the right price; and jobs which are there because the companies are successful and profitable. That is not political dogma: it is sheer basic commercial common sense. We have seen our competitors overtake us and take over our markets. It is this which we have to reverse. This commercial competitiveness is fundamental to the success of any company and fundamental to the success of the economy. The Government's policies are designed to achieve this, and I think that they will do so if we hold the course which we have set.
I merely thank your Lordships for the way in which we have had a debate on a highly sensitive subject which has been totally devoid of partisanship and which has been immensely constructive and helpful. I can assure your Lordships that we shall take note of all that has been said.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank all of your Lordships who took part in this debate, which I believe has been extremely interesting. I should particularly like to thank the Minister for his remarks. He has obviously listened very carefully to what we have said and I am quite certain that he will get the Government to think again on some of the points and the very interesting new suggestions which have been put to him this evening. I do not wish to say much more, except to point out that I did not wish to imply in my own suggestions that I wanted to see employers getting into an overmanning situation again. No; what I am afraid of is that, as the recession turns—and I think it is about to turn—employers will not have the encouragement to carry out the expansion which will then be necessary for the increased demand which I hope will come along.
I should like to direct a few words to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. He made a point about the Loan Guarantee Scheme, and I agree with him that it is being very successful. I am very glad to see that the Government have doubled the amount of money that they are putting into it. But I believe that the banks, which are now responsible for only 20 per cent. of the loan, are still applying their normal banking practice in deciding which businesses should be recommended to the Department of Industry to go ahead with using the guarantee scheme. I have in my possession some letters, which I do not propose to produce this evening, which tend to make me think that, unfortunately, that is still happening.
Finally, I must come back at the Minister about something he said concerning wages councils. He said that pressures might be put on employees to do the same work for less money. Surely, if that is going to happen, that is economic common sense. We must remember that the wages councils were set tip a long time before the welfare state came into existence, and that now there is no need for anyone to do any work for less money than they could receive by doing no work at all. Therefore, I do not believe that those pressures are important. My Lords, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  SINGLE STUDENT MAINTENANCE AWARDS
  SINGLE STUDENT MAINTENANCE AWARDS
  STUDENT MINIMUM GRANT AWARD
  STUDENT MINIMUM GRANT AWARD
  PARENTAL MEANS TEST: COST OF ABOLITION
  PARENTAL MEANS TEST: COST OF ABOLITION
  STUDENT MANDATORY AWARDS AND PARENTAL MEANS TEST
  STUDENT MANDATORY AWARDS AND PARENTAL MEANS TEST
  PARENTAL MEANS TEST: COST TO PARENTS
  PARENTAL MEANS TEST: COST TO PARENTS
  STUDENT MAINTENANCE AWARDS: GOVERNMENT ASSESSMENTS
  STUDENT MAINTENANCE AWARDS: GOVERNMENT ASSESSMENTS
  OPEN UNIVERSITY FUNDING
  OPEN UNIVERSITY FUNDING
  IMPORT CONTROLS
  IMPORT CONTROLS
  THE WIMBORNE BY-PASS
  THE WIMBORNE BY-PASS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: INTERIM REPORTS ON EDUCATION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: INTERIM REPORTS ON EDUCATION
  SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS: TAKE-UP
  SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS: TAKE-UP