Sitting of 19 October 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Death of a Member
Mr. SpeakerI regret to have to inform the House of the death of the right hon. Sir Rodney Graham Page, MBE, Member for Crosby, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the right hon. Member.
Death of a Member
  Writ Issued During the Adjournment
  Mr. SpeakerAcquainted the House that he had issued during the Adjournment, a warrant for a new Writ for Croydon, North-West, in the room of Robert George Taylor, esquire, deceased.

Gas and Oil Industries (Disposal of Assets)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the divestment of certain assets of the British Gas Corporation.
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Nigel Lawson)The House will be aware that I issued a direction last week under section 7 of the Gas Act instructing the British Gas Corporation to dispose of its stake in the Wytch Farm onshore oilfield. This needs to be seen in the context of the Government's overall plans for privatisation and competition in the oil and gas industries.
First, the Government propose to introduce legislation to allow the transfer—I would hope next year—of the entire oil-producing business of the British National Oil Corporation to the private sector, with the State retaining only a minority stake.
Secondly, the Government will also be seeking powers to privatise the British Gas Corporation's substantial offshore oil business. These powers will also enable the Gas Corporation to be required to dispose of its showrooms. As we have made clear, it is essential that safety standards are fully maintained. This will require complex safety legislation for which there is unlikely to be time during the coming Session of Parliament. However, the Government remain fully committed to breaking this monopoly as soon as practicable.
Thirdly, the Government also intend to introduce measures to abolish the Gas Corporation's unique statutory rights over both the purchase of gas and its sale to industry in particular. These outdated privileges have acted as a serious disincentive to the exploration and development of gas supplies on the United Kingdom continental shelf with the result that British industry has not had all the gas it needs. The measures to be introduced, which will include effective private access to the Gas Corporation's pipeline system, will for the first time introduce real competition into the market for gas.
Mr. ViggersDoes my right hon. Friend accept that his proposals will be enthusiastically supported on the Conservative Benches and, indeed, in the country because in a high risk industry State monopoly and State investment are not in the best interests of the consumer? Can my right hon. Friend be more specific about the sums of money involved and the timing?
Mr. LawsonSubstantial sums of money are involved. Indeed, I believe that it is no exaggeration to say that the measures that I have outlined add up to the biggest programme of privatisation to come before Parliament. In addition, the measures will introduce much-needed and long-overdue competition where it matters most. I share my hon. Friend's view that the proposals will be good for British industry, for the successful development of our oil and gas industries and, above all, for the nation.
Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will be seen as pure party political dogma? Does his decision to allow the BNOC to have a minority stake mean that he is prepared to renegotiate all the participation agreements? If he has
22
to reopen the negotiations on the participation agreements how will he safeguard the 51 per cent. of oil previously agreed? Now that the BNOC is to be a minority shareholder, is he certain that that will not reopen the whole question of the United Kingdom continental shelf rights? Instead of taking comfort in safety regulations, would it not be preferable to recognise that the wrong decision was made about gas? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposal will be construed as the Government bending to industrial blackmail?
Mr. LawsonThe right hon. Gentleman clearly misunderstood what I said about the participation agreements. I believe that I stated clearly that the BNOC's oil-producing business—the upstream business—was to be privatised but that its trading operations were to remain 100 per cent. State-owned, so there will be no impact on the participation agreements. With regard to his question about gas, I am sorry to see that even though the right hon. Gentleman has switched parties he is still in favour of monopoly.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. SpeakerOrder. I propose to call two more hon. Members from either side of the House. This is a reply to a question, not a statement.
Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen)Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is to be no interference with or reduction in the rights of landowners at Wytch farm and that their present and future interests are fully secured?
Mr. LawsonThere is no reason to assume that the rights of landowners will be affected in any way.
Mr. Merlyn ReesIs the Secretary of State aware that this is no way to put to the House a fundamental change of policy and that there must be a procedure to enable us to find out what the Government are up to? Is the House aware that the Government are once again showing, as they do on all occasions, that they are anti-public enterprise, even when, on any criteria, such enterprises have proved successful in other parts of the world?
What legislation will be required? I hope that it will not be such as to give a Secretary of State powers to act without parliamentary approval, as appears to be suggested in the proposals.
Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that a private company will increase the supply of gas and supply it at a cheaper rate than does the British Gas Corporation? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that we are at least grateful that he has announced the death of the proposal to sell gas showrooms?
Mr. LawsonThe right hon. Gentleman huffs and puffs in his customary way. There is every reason to suppose that under this freedom more gas will be developed and brought ashore which will be for the good of British industry. There is a shortage of gas. It is the only fuel of which there is a shortage. That shortage will be ended.
There will be ample opportunity to debate the details of the legislation. The Queen's Speech, which will contain the proposals, will be debated in the normal way. When the legislation comes forward it will be debated in detail in the House, as is right and proper. I felt that it was for

23
the convenience of, and as a courtesy to, the House that at the first available opportunity after the Summer Recess I should say what we intend to do.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. SpeakerOrder. As the House knows, I do not usually count the Front Bench when I say that I shall call two further Members from either side. I usually call the Front Bench at the end. I shall therefore call two more hon. Members from one side and one from the other.
Mr. Tim EggarI congratulate my right hon. Friend on his bold and imaginative statement, which was long overdue. Will he confirm that on the whole, the British Gas Corporation's monopoly of distribution and purchase has done untold harm to the economy over a number of years? Will my right hon. Friend go further than his statement and confirm that he will bring in legislation to ensure that he can introduce private equity into the British Gas Corporation in its new state?
Mr. LawsonI am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I believe that the monopoly has done harm to this country, particularly in recent years. That is why I propose the changes that I have outlined. However, I think that these proposals are substantial and go as far as we should go. It is not my intention to introduce legislation to have direct private equity participation in the public utility that is the British Gas Corporation.
Mr. David PenhaligonDoes the Secretary of State believe that the Wytch field would have been developed earlier, or at all, if the proposals that he has now made had been implemented a decade ago?
Mr. LawsonThe straight answer is that I do not know. I do, however, know that taking Britain's new-found North Sea oil industry as a whole, it was private enterprise that made it the success story that it is. It is private enterprise that is the key to its continued success.
Mr. Peter HardyWill the Secretary of State accept that what he has announced is such a sweeping betrayal of the national interest that we should debate the matter now rather than wait for some incidental interventions in the Queen's Speech debate next month?
With regard to showrooms, will the right hon. Gentleman say what action he is taking about those companies that imported appliances in anticipation of the divestment? These companies may have contributed to Conservative Party funds in anticipation of that divestment. Will he advise British Gas to tell importers to send the appliances back?
Mr. LawsonThe hon. Gentleman's crocodile tears in his last sentences are not intended, I believe, to be taken seriously. There will be ample opportunities for debate. It is uncharacteristic of the hon. Gentleman to be so impatient that he cannot wait for the Queen's Speech, which is not so far distant.

Robb Caledon Shipyard, Dundee
Mr. Gordon WilsonI beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing
24
Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the closure of the Robb Caledon shipyard in Dundee."
Until recently the shipyard employed more than 1,000 people in Dundee, but in 1979 British Shipbuilders announced its intention to close the yard, so ending a history of major shipbuilding in the River Tay that stretched back over 100 years. As a result of a sustained fight by the work force the yard was kept in business and reinstated as being capable of building ships, although British Shipbuilders preferred other work or the closure of the yard.
Despite the paper promises that were made, but never honoured, by British Shipbuilders, the order book dried up. British Shipbuilders, by voluntary redundancy and a process of attrition, scaled down the work force to just over 250. On 18 September British Shipbuilders sought to close the yard, with compulsory redundancies, but met with resistance from 145 of the men affected, who occupied the yard. It also met resistance from the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, which objected to the breach of an agreement, known as the Blackpool agreement, which sought to prevent compulsory redundancies from taking place within the shipbuilding industry.
British Shipbuilders is adamant and refuses to budge, despite the difficulties that its actions have caused to the industry and the provocation of industrial trouble. Seventy thousand shipbuilding workers have been involved in large-scale efforts to try to prevent redundancies.
This matter is specific. It relates to the future of the Robb Caledon shipyard and the damage that the actions of British Shipbuilders have caused to the already precarious economy of the city of Dundee. It is important not only because of the involvement of Dundee, but because of the danger to the shipbuilding industry. British Shipbuilders admits that losses are weakening the corporation and impairing job security.
British Shipbuilders has behaved in a discreditable manner. In its treatment of the Robb Caledon yard it has acted in a manner reminiscent of a Victorian coal and iron master. Serious allegations, including the allegation that British Shipbuilders has been a confidence trickster, have been made, and these should be investigated by the House.
The matter is urgent. Although industrial action has been called off, through the intervention of ACAS, the position remains grave for the 145 men leading the fight. I checked with the convenor of shop stewards, Mr. Bob Barty, this morning. He tells me that the men have not been consulted about a possible takeover and know little of what is happening. They look for an honourable settlement and the retention of their jobs. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that your will allow the debate to proceed, to give the House an opportunity to show its concern and also to investigate malpractices on the part of British Shipbuilders.
Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 noon midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the closure of the Robb Caledon shipyard in Dundee".
I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman. He was in correspondence with me on the matter during the recess.

25
I have listened with deep concern to his arguments. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman and I understand his concern. I have to rule, however, that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Energy Policy
Mr. Merlyn ReesI beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement of a Government energy policy that is a betrayal of the national interest".
The principle of the Government's announcement is clear, although some of the details are not all that clear. Whether it is a matter concerning the policy of the British Gas Corporation or the sale in BNOC in a manner that is not happening in most parts of the world, the House should not have to wait for two or three weeks to discuss the issue. Hon. Members should have the chance to influence the Government before the Queen's Speech. If that is not a normal argument, I would only remark that the Government themselves have chosen to make the announcement today in advance of the Queen's Speech.
This is an important matter. There is grave danger of a national strike. I may draw one conclusion, but other hon. Members may draw different conclusions. It is therefore vital that there should be a debate immediately on this important matter.
Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman askes leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement of a Government energy policy that is a betrayal of the national interest."
I listened carefully to the exchanges that took place this afternoon that led to this application being made. The House has instructed me to give no reasons when I reply to an application under Standing Order No. 9. I have given careful consideration to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I understand the strength of his feelings. I must, however, rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and that I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Orders of the day

  Companies (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  3.50 pm
  Ordered, that new clauses 1 and 38 be considered immediately before new clause 29—[Mr. Eyre.]

  Companies (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      REGULATION AND RECORD OF THE USE OF BUSINESS AND TRADING NAMES
      (1) Any person who carries on any trade, business, profession or occupation, in this Act referred to as a business—

      under any name other than his own;

      under his own name with any addition therto which does not form part of his name;

      under his own name at premises other than his principal private residence;

      in partnership with any other person, persons, firm or company;

      who has previously been registered or liable to register under the Registration of Business Names Act 1916 which is hereby repealed shall be registered under this Act.

      (2) Registration under subsection (1) of this section shall, subject to the provisions of subsections (5) and (7) hereof be effected by paying the prescribed fee and filing the prescribed form containing the following information—

      the full trading name of the business carried on;

      the purpose and general nature of the business;

      the principal place of the business, together with the addresses of all branches thereof;

      the full names and addresses of the proprietors, partners or companies who are the owners of the registered name and if a limited liability company stating its name and registered office and incorporation number;

      the date of commencement of the business;

      particulars of any other business name under which the business is carried on.

      (3) If after the prescribed form has been filed changes take place affecting the information registered under subsections (1) and (2) of this section the particulars of such changes shall be filed on the prescribed form.
      (4) The prescribed form referred to in subsection (2) shall be filed for registration on a date not less than 14 days prior to the commencement of business.
      (5) The prescribed for referred to in subsection (3) shall be filed for registration on a date within 14 days of such changes taking place.
      (6) The Registrar shall be empowered to refuse to register any name which he considers undesirable but any person aggrieved thereby shall have the right, within two months of such refusal, to appeal to the Secretary of State.
      (7) The registration of a business name shall be effective as from the date of commencement of business stated on the prescribed form.
      (8) On the filing of the prescribed form there shall be paid such registration fee as may be prescribed under subsection (16) hereof upon the receipt of which or as soon thereafter as shall be practicable a licence shall be issued.
      (9) A licence issued under subsection (8) hereof shall be for five years whereupon the licence will expire although a new licence for a further period of five years may be applied for on any date not earlier than two months prior to the expiration of the existing licence.
      (10) A licence issued under subsection (8) hereof shall be exhibited at the principal place of business together with a copy thereof at any and each additional place of business.
      (11) The Registrar shall keep an index of all firms and persons registered pursuant to the provisions of this Act.
      (12) Any person may inspect the documents filed by the registrar on payment of such fees as may be prescribed pursuant

      27
      to subsection (16) for each inspection; and any person may require a certificate of the registration of any firm or person, or a copy of or extract from any registered statement to be certified by the registrar and there shall be paid for such certificate of registration, certified copy, or extract such fees as may be prescribed.
      A certifcate of registration, or a copy of or extract from any statement registered under this Act, if duly certified to be a true copy or extract under the hand of the registrar shall, in all legal proceedings, civil or criminal, be received in evidence.
      (13) Any person who carries on a business liable to registration under this Act shall on all business letters, statements, bills, invoices, trade catalogues, trade circulars, business cards and other business stationery on which the business name appears state in legible characters the full name or names (or initials in the case of christian names or forenames of all the persons liable to register as being the persons carrying on the said business together with the words "Registered Business Name—" followed by the number allocated to the said name by the Registrar.
      (14) Any person who carries on a business liable to registration under this Act who fails to register or to register the particulars of any change and who carries on business without having so registered or who fails to display the said licence or to display his true name as required by subsection (13) of this section shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding £500 and shall not be entitled to enforce by action or other legal proceeding any rights under or arising out of any contract made or entered into in relation to the said business.
      (15) The Secretary of State shall have the power by regulations made by statutory instrument to make rules concerning any of the following matters—

      the forms prescribed for use under this Act;

      the duties to be performed by the Registrar and his officers under this Act;

      generally the conduct and regulation of registration under this Act.

      (16)

      The Secretary of State shall have power by regulations made by statutory instrument to require the payment to the registrar of such fees as may be specified in le regulations in respect of—

      the performance of such of the registrar's functions under this Act or under rules made under this Act as may be so specified (including the receipt by him of any statement, notice or other document which under this Act or those rules is required to be delivered, sent or forwarded to him);

      the inspection of ducuments filed by him under this Act.

      Regulations under this section requiring the payment of a fee or increasing a fee shall be laid before Parliament after being made and shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the regulations were made (but without prejudice to anything previously done under the regulations or to the making of further regulations) unless before the end of that period the regulations are approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

      In reckoning the period of 28 days no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

      Regulations, under this section, other than regulations to which paragraph (b) above applies, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

      it is hereby declared that the registar may charge a fee for any services provided by him otherwise than in pursuance of an obligation imposed on him by law.

      any fees received by the registrar by virtue of this subsection shall be paid for by him into the Consolidated Fund.

      (17) In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires,—

      "Business" shall mean business, trade, profession or occupation;

      the singular shall include the plural;

      28

      the male shall include the female;

      "person" shall include both a natural person and an incorporated body;

      "Registrar" shall mean the Registrar of Companies or such other person as the Secretary of State may determine shall be the Registrar for the purposes of this Act.'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

      Brought up, and read the First Time.
      Mr. John SmithI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. SpeakerWith this we may take the following:
      New clause 38—Retention of documents by the Registrar of Business Names.
      New clause 29—Civil remedies for breach of section 29.
      Mr. SmithDuring our previous consideration of the Bill we discussed the principle involved in the abolition of the Register of Business Names and the practical effects that will flow from that. It was considered both in this House and in another place, where on one occasion the Government sustained a notable defeat when opinion from all sections of that House combined to argue the case for a Register of Business Names.
      The new clauses try to reinstate an effective Register of Business Names and prevent the destruction of the records, which have been accumulated since 1916.
      The Register of Business Names is a useful device whereby people who trade under a name other than their own register that name and therefore the true identity of people running businesses can be made available to other companies, to consumers, to journalists and to the public in general. In the Bill the Government propose to abolish the register completely, although wide consultation revealed that nearly everyone who uses the register found it useful and argued against its abolition.
      The chambers of commerce were notable in their opposition to the abolition of the register. Since it is near the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State, I quote at random from the Birmingham chamber of commerce. It said that:
      "The Government's inflexibility over the issue of the Business Names Registry in the face of substantial opposition from many quarters is particularly disturbing."
      The chamber said that it was in favour of retaining the service and went on to say:
      "Whilst appreciating the need to reduce Government revenue spending we strongly recommend that in order to retain the Register and to improve both its accuracy and comprehensiveness, the fees charged should be increased to the appropriate levels to ensure that its operation is self-supporting."
      In evidence supplied by Shell UK Ltd, that company said that it was opposed to the proposal to abolish the Register of Business Names. It said:
      "It is a very useful aid to obtain or verify the details of the owners of businesses which we require for the purposes of legal proceedings or credit control. The fact that some of the records may be out of date does not detract from this view.
      It provides a valuable source of identifying business names presently being used when consideration is being given to establish a new business name. It assists for this purpose in identifying areas of possible conflict or 'passing off'.
      It is suggested that consideration be given to increasing the registration and search fees to cover the costs of maintaining the register.
      We see no reason why the users should not be asked to bear the full cost."
      Nor do the Opposition. The register is operating at a loss, for the very good reason that the fees have not been changed since its institution in 1916. It costs £1 to register.

      29
      Organisations which have presented evidence to the Government have suggested that the registration fee should be increased fivefold, to £5, and that the search fee should be increased to £1.
      When we debated the matter previously, the then Under-Secretary of State for Trade admitted that if fees were so increased the service would pay for itself. So, there is no difficulty in meeting the shortfall in revenue. The Government could immediately increase the fees and perhaps make a surplus on the operation of the service. There cannot be an argument on the grounds of cutting public expenditure.
      I understand that about 65 civil servants are likely to be dispensed with if the register is abolished. That is not a large number, although it may be the real reason why the Bill is being pushed through. I believe that the Department of Trade was asked to produce some sacrifices so that the Government could claim that they were reducing the number of civil servants. On this occasion they selected as their sacrificial lamb the Register of Business Names.
      Consumer organisations, business, industry, chambers of commerce, the professional associations—particularly the solicitors' professional association—have all given strong evidence to the Government saying that they find the register an extremely valuable service and that they do not approve of the alternative proposed by the Government.
      The Government say that a central registry is not needed and that it will be sufficient to have a requirement stating that the names of people running a business should appear on business notepaper and be displayed at the place of business. That is less adequate as a means of protecting the consumer than a central registry, but there is some merit in the proposal. It should also be adopted. That would be an improvement on the system, rather than an alternative way of carrying it out. The vast majority of people using the register want to continue to use it. They find it a useful service and they are prepared to pay for it. But they are now to be denied that service. It is ridiculous that the Government should ask for comments but pay not a blind bit of attention to what they have been told.
      The argument has continued for some time. It is not the first time that the Register of Business Names has been considered in detail. As far back as 1962 the Jenkins committee on company law reform said that it was a useful register and argued that it should be strengthened. It suggested a process of annual registration, bringing the register up to date, and so on. Now, the Government say that it is not comprehensive because not everyone registers under it. Perhaps we should look at that and see whether we can strengthen the register rather than abolish it. The fact that it is not comprehensive does not appear to have dissuaded many of those who use it from arguing for its retention. By all means let us strengthen it in some way and make sure that it is not in any way a burden upon the public, that it is self-financing and perhaps even profit-producing for the Government.
      For reasons that have not been stated convincingly, the Government remain obdurate to the criticisms that have been expressed inside and outside Parliament. We are not clear about the real reason for the Government's continued adherence to this policy.
      When the Bill was presented to the House, the Government, under the then clause 30, took powers to sell off the Register of Business Names, but, as the then Under-Secretary of State had to explain rather lamely in
      30
      Committee, they could find no takers for the information. The result is that it will be disposed of some time in April 1982, when all the paper will be recycled. All that useful information is to be destroyed. This is foolish Government ritual adherence to a view to which they have committed themselves without proper consideration of the arguments.
      The weight of opinion is against the Government's proposals. It would do them little harm to say that on further consideration of the matter they have decided to change their mind. Indeed, they would get a great deal of credit for it. However, unfortunately, there are many signs that the Government have lost their marbles in more than one direction. There was the foolish decision of the Secretary of State for Energy, which we heard earlier today, and oddities such as a referendum on local government rate increases. There are signs all over the place that some sweeping insanity is running through the Government. The continued pig-headed obstinacy in decisions such as this is further evidence that the Government are in a sad state of decline and decay.
      I hope that other hon. Members will join in this last plea to the Government to show a little common sense on this provision. At the end of the day it makes no sense to abolish a service that people want and for which they are prepared to pay. I should not have thought that that was any part of the Conservative Party's outlook, and I should not be surprised if some Conservative Members do not appeal to the Government to change their mind. In the perhaps forlorn hope that common sense might break out, I ask the House to approve the new clause.
      Several Hon. Members rose
      Mr. SpeakerOrder. I remind the House, in case it is under a misapprehension, that although we have changed the order in which we are considering amendments, we are discussing new clause 29 as well as new clauses 1 and 38.
      4 pm
      Mr. Anthony Beaumont-DarkI do not share the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) in his more excitable phrases, but if someone had lost his marbles the register might at least enable one to find out whether that person was honest.
      I shall not make a long speech, because we tend too often to repeat each other's arguments. The Under-Secretary of State for Trade is a personal friend whom I greatly respect and I have had lengthy correspondence and conversations with him on this matter. I am disappointed that I have been unable to convert him to my view.
      My view is not only a personal one. It is shared by a number of bodies for which I have great respect. I appreciate that Ministers have to respect the opinions of their civil servants and advisers, but I believe that if there is any doubt the benefit of it should be given to those who have to carry on the workings of this country, which is business.
      When companies such as Shell tell me that the abolition of the register will be a retrograde step, I lay great store by their views. The Birmingham chamber of commerce, the biggest and easily the most successful chamber of commerce in the country, also says that the Government's action is a retrograde step, and that view is shared by the banks, debt collecting agencies, solicitors and accountants.

      31
      I believe that the financial savings involved are the least important element. Indeed, in all the pleas that the register should be retained it has never been suggested that it should be a loss-making venture. Of course it should be costed, and if industry wants to keep the register it should be willing to pay a proper price.
      I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will think again, because unless more convincing arguments can be produced I shall support the Opposition in the Division Lobby.
      Mr. Martin Stevens (Fulham)I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) feels that the proposal is a sign of creeping insanity on the Government's part. The Government are not totally free from creeping insanity—what Government are?—but usually the creeping of Governments is in the opposition direction from that to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
      I have had the distinction of serving on two Companies Bill Standing Committees, and I know that we usually go to enormous lengths and vast expense to introduce new bureaucratic procedures in the hope of catching the tiny number of rogues and cowboys who could be better and more cheaply caught in other ways. I thank goodness that the Government are moving in the opposite direction and I shall support them if the House divides.
      The Register of Business Names contains about 2½ million names, and at least 1 million of the entries are out of date. It can be argued that a number of firms that the authorities wish to catch, or dissatisfied suppliers and customers need to identify, will be among the entries that are out of date or inaccurate.
      The Bill ensures that those who wish to identify either a trader's name or those behind a company will have a much better chance of doing so and of obtaining accurate and up-to-date information if the law requires that such information has to be exhibited at the place of business. Like other hon. Members, I have used the register and I know that the registrar has never been able to keep the list up to date, and I see no prospect of his ever doing so.
      The register could be operated on a commercial basis, but those who are offering to pay are not generally the businesses that need to identify the ownership of other businesses. They are searchers who seek to earn money by gathering information from public sources. There has been no suggestion by any of the bodies to which the right Member for Lanarkshire, North referred that the cost of searches should be increased.
      Mr. John SmithYes, there has.
      Mr. StevensSomebody else will be asked for the extra money.
      Mr. Clinton DavisI thought that the hon. Gentleman was present during our debates in Committee, but it is obvious that he could not have been listening to them. Did he not hear time and again in Committee, and has he not read in the volumes of information supplied by interested bodies, that we require not only an increase in the registration fee, but an increase in the search fee, with a suggested price of £1?
      Mr. StevensI am grateful for that intervention. If I am wrong I withdraw what I said.
      32
      I heard the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) suggest in Committee that the search fee should be increased, but while the lobbying that we have received from public and other bodies and letters that I have received suggest an increase in the registration fee, I have had no letters suggesting that the search fee should be increased. However, that does not prove that such letters have not been written and I cheerfully withdraw my earlier remarks.
      The Government propose that the State bureaucracy should be reduced and that better provision should be made available to individuals and firms who find that, even though they go to the registrar, they cannot get accurate and up-to-date information about who owns a firm. I believe that that is an improvement. We may find that it is not, in which case we can consider the matter again. The Government's case is surely that the present gigantic list for which we are paying is less accurate as a source of information than the proposal in the Bill.
      As a matter of principle, I am grateful when legislation proposes to reduce bureaucracy. Too often, company legislation from Labour and Conservative Governments has sought to increase bureaucracy without providing a corresponding benefit to the citizen.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Reginald Eyre)I am sure that the House would not wish to let the occasion pass without acknowledging the great loss that company law has suffered with the death of my late right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page).
      There is a tragic irony in the fact that a Companies Bill should take such a prominent place in the business for the first two days that the House will sit without the benefit of Sir Graham Page's wisdom and authority. We shall remember him in a number of capacities. I worked closely with him in Government during the previous Conservative Administration and greatly appreciated his personal kindliness and readiness to advise and help.
      It is right that on this occasion we should remember particularly Graham Page's expert, weighty and distinctive contributions in the past four years, when legislation on companies has been before the House virtually continuously. I shall remember him particularly as a most formidable—I should say the most formidable—member of the Standing Committee on the 1979 Bill and for his penetrating contributions on the Floor of the House at the various stages of that Bill and the one now before us.
      The student of company law will be able to gauge the extent of Graham Page's influence by studying the records of our debates and by the provisions, small and not so small—section 79 of the Companies Act 1980 on company secretaries, for example—in the legislation which derived from his meticulous and persistent concern for company law. He is very much missed in this debate.
      I have listened with great care to the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr Smith) and I have studied his new clause. I do not intend to dwell on the technical deficiencies that would result from the inclusion of new clause I—the effects on new clauses 30 and 31, for example. I shall devote my remarks solely to the main theme of the proposal, to which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, namely that the Registry of Business Names should be retained. That is the issue. We are agreed as to the objective, that persons who do business with an organisation carried on under a name

      33
      other than that of its owners should be able to find out details of that ownership. Those are perfectly reasonable and proper objectives. We are divided only on the means by which that objective can best be achieved.
      I recognise the sincerity of those who have argued for central registration and who wish the Government to retain, possibly with some improvements, the system that has operated for the past 65 years. I acknowledge, of course, the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), who has consistently expressed to me the view that he has expressed so strongly this afternoon. I know that many people have found the existence of central registration useful, and I understand their natural reluctance at the prospect of its removal.
      However, I ask the House to put aside such arguments in its consideration of the basic issue. The extent to which people may have become accustomed to an existing system is no test of its effectiveness, and no justification for arguments against consideration of any change. Even if the existing records were a reliable basis for the many important decisions which require disclosure of information about business ownership—we agree that it is not true that the records are a reliable basis—we should consider only whether the objective of such disclosure, in the circumstances of the business concerned, could best be met by central registration, the old pattern, or by means of the Government's alternative proposals, the new pattern outlined in the Bill.
      We must consider first the sort of businesses that are covered by the present register. It is true, of course, that some are large and well-known trading organisations such as Lilley and Skinner or Freeman Hardy and Willis, which are both business names of the British Shoe Corporation Limited, but the overwhelming majority of the 2½ million small businesses are owned by one or two private individuals. Such persons do not want or need the formality of company incorporation, where centralised registration is necessary to ensure compliance with the many detailed requirements that the Companies Acts properly impose in return for the privilege of limited liability, that is available to such bodies. The legislation with which we are concerned today, the business names, impinges on them in only two respects—that they should disclose the ownership of the business, and that some control should be exercised over the name under which they choose to trade.
      Against that background, let us consider the objective arguments relating to central registration. In theory, it should provide a central repository of accurate information, both current and historic, relating to all the businesses within the scope of the legislation which can be accessed in confidence by any person. How can that be achieved? Clearly, the first requirement is that businesses should register. Although the present legislation provides penalties against non-compliance, we know that those penalties have been ineffective for a long time. I remind the House of what I said in Committee, that inquiries of users of the registry some years ago showed that approximately 40 per cent. were unable to find the information that they needed. That point was strongly supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), who said that more than 1 million entries on the register were known to be completely out of date. It is interesting that samples taken in typical shopping areas in
      34
      April this year showed an even lower rate of compliance. Only about one-third of the businesses which should have registered had done so.
      Mr. Clinton DavisIs the Minister saying that quite suddenly compliance with the business names registry requirements has diminished to one-third from the figures that he gave of 60 per cent. not so long ago? What has accounted for that? We know, of course, that over the years the banks have begun to make the system work by policing it reasonably effectively. How does the Minister square what he says now with the information that he gave in Committee?
      4.15 pm
      Mr. EyreThe process of registration under the Register of Business Names has been declining and continues to decline. Moreover, it was declining when the hon. Gentleman was the Minister responsible for its administration, and it has continued to decline under the present Administration. The testing areas included an area in or adjacent to the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Hackney, Central. It revealed the great difficulty that in the inner cities, in particular, there has been a remarkable fall in compliance with the requirements of registration. Consequently, an enormous number of businesses are failing to comply. I ask again: how is the enormous number of businesses that currently fail to register to be persuaded to comply? Until that question is answered satisfactorily, questions about regular returns or more regular renewal of licences or other means to obtain the accuracy or availability of registered information are irrelevant.
      The immediate answer, of course, is that the only way to achieve satisfactory compliance is by a policy of vigorous and widespread enforcement. However, I must emphasise that, given the scale of the problem, no Government have ever contemplated providing more resources than would enable successive registrars to investigate particular complaints about non-compliance. That is all they can do. That is certainly our position. We do not believe that it would be a proper use of Government resources to put hundreds, if not thousands, of man years of effort into an exercise which could only be done effectively by personal visits to every business premises in the country. According to the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, that would only be a start. Once the register had been brought up to date, he says that it would constantly be checked to ensure its accuracy. All that, while no doubt desirable and attractive in the abstract, would need to be reflected in the fees charged for registration or inspection.
      Mr. Beaumont-DarkMy hon. Friend makes it sound as though he is doing industry a service and a kindness by abolishing the list. Will he explain to me—if he can, I shall be happy to support him—how people as sensible as the members of the Birmingham chamber of commerce, which he and I know to be the best chamber of commerce in the country, keep on saying that the register should be kept? Who am I to believe in this difficult world?
      Mr. EyreMy hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak knows that I am always humble in claiming to interpret with precise accuracy the movement of opinion in any part of Birmingham, and that applies to the views of the chamber of commerce. It is interesting to learn that business men tend to favour the old system and are

      35
      reluctant to accept the independent evidence that it is not working. The truth is that many of the people in the chamber to which my hon Friend referred do not deal with small businesses.
      The crucial practical aspect that I wish to put to my hon. Friend is that if we sought to enforce the whole old-fashioned system and to muster the resources to do so, the fees would need to rise to much higher levels than anyone has mentioned in this debate. Those fees would ultimately fall on the small businesses that make up the 2.5 million membership on the register. To go round the streets and compel companies to complete the forms and pay higher fees would give rise to great resentment and misunderstanding. I apologise if I appear to differ from the Birmingham chamber of commerce, but that is my view.
      Mr. Clinton DavisThe Minister mysteriously referred to "independent evidence". Will he divulge the nature of the independent evidence? I know that mysterious officials have been going round nooks and crannies in various constituencies. Indeed, they went to Hackney, South instead of Hackney, Central. During the recess, the Minister has no doubt been helping them in some way. However, what is the independent evidence?
      Mr. EyreThe independent evidence is the great number of those who are ineffectively making searches in the registry. There is a 40 per cent. failure rate in terms of effectiveness. That is the regular evidence of non-availability.
      When I remind the House that, even to recover the substantial deficit on the current costs of the present imperfect system, those fees would have to go up from £1 to at least £5 for registration and from 5p to £1 for each inspection of a record, hon. members will readily appeciate the financial implications of the proposals put forward by the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North which would require even greater increases. Hon. Members must consider the effect of an extra levy—through increased fees—on small businesses in their constituencies. They must consider that it would be necessary to exact that from the 2.5 million people on the register.
      The businesses concerned see no positive benefits from registration and, moreover, there must be a limit to the price searchers are prepayed to pay for information, particularly if it can be obtained more easily and cheaply by other means. That is the positive side of the alternative system.
      The right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North even went so far as to suggest that there should be a duplication of the proceedings. He suggested that small businesses should be subjected to increased fees and that they should also be required to comply with the requirements of the alternative system. The imposition of such expense on small businesses cannot be justified.
      The alternative means are contained in the Government's alternative proposals, which are enshrined in the Bill. I have no hesitation in commending them to the House as a practical solution to the problems to which I have referred. I am happy to pay tribute to the many constructive suggestions that have been made since our proposals were first outlined—many of which are reflected in the amendments introduced in Committee and in others that will come before the House. The new proposals
      36
      provide three methods of disclosure of details of ownership: first, by display at all business premises to which the public have access, and secondly, by publication on specified business documents. I emphasise that that includes business letters, invoices, receipts, demands for payment and written orders for goods and services. Thirdly, disclosure may be obtained in writing immediately on demand by any person with whom anything is done or discussed in the course of business. Taken together, these measures will enable a dissatisfied customer or supplier to obtain the information essential to any legal action at minimum cost and inconvenience while not increasing the burden on the businesses concerned.
      Mr. Clinton DavisI am trying to help the Minister. He continually stresses that the person who wants the information will incur a minimal cost. Let us suppose that a man who lives in Manchester engages in a business transaction with someone who lives in Birmingham and that he receives no response when he writes to that person for information. What is he to do? How will he minimise the cost of the searches that will be required? What will it cost him to ensure that someone goes to look at the premises to see whether the information is there? The Minister must answer that question. He did not do so in Committee.
      Mr. EyreThe hon. Gentleman has envisaged a person in Manchester who wishes to do business with someone in Birmingham. He has envisaged that, in accordance with the requirements of the Bill, the person in Manchester has written to that other person and has quite properly asked him for particulars of ownership. The hon. Gentleman has supposed that the man has received no reply. The fact that the Manchester man has been drawn to make that inquiry and to pose the question is highly relevant. In addition, he must be writing to an address and I would suppose it to be the address that the business was being carried on from. The inquirer must have written to some address.
      The inquirer is at least in a better position than he would have been if he had to send to London to search for particulars. First, he has been warned by the absence of any response. Secondly, he could complain to the Department of Trade about non-compliance. Indeed, that often happens now. Alternatively, he could ask the local trading officers to make an inquiry. The inquiry would probably be beneficial and of the type that they carry out in the course of their normal duties. The hon. Gentleman has described someone who appears to be carrying on his business in an irresponsible way. Therefore, it is highly likely that he would have come to the notice of the trading standard officers. I emphasise that the fact that the inquirer has put his mind to the matter and made an inquiry is a distinct advantage.
      I have described the three methods of disclosure of details of ownership. Taken together, these measures will enable a dissatisfied customer or supplier to obtain the information essential to any legal action at minimum cost and inconvenience whilst not increasing the burden on the businesses concerned. In particular, because it will not be necessary to refer to some possibly distant central registry, the information will be available more quickly at the point where it matters. Such information is available in the hundreds and thousands—even millions—of transactions that take place among respectable and responsible business men every week.

      37
      If the man in Birmingham—envisaged by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central—were a defaulting business man, he would not have complied with a central registration system. A large percentage of unscrupulous business men do not do that.
      Mr. Clinton DavisThe Minister continually jumps to all sorts of absurd conclusions. The mere fact that the man might not be thoroughly scrupulous does not mean that he would be debarred from seeking facilities from a bank. A bank would invariably request that particulars of registration be produced. Even an unscrupulous business man might be persuaded to comply. The Minister continually raises improbable situations in support of his improbable arguments.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. EyreThe hon. Gentleman knows that under the present system of registration a person can write to the central agency and receive one of its certificates. It could be used for fraudulent purposes all over the place. There is no check on the issue of such certificates. It is recognised increasingly that it has little value in that respect.
      Much has been said about the possible difficulty of reinforcement. Compared with the present system, which relies solely on centralised enforcement, with the unsatisfactory results to which I have referred, the new requirements will, to a considerable extent, be self-enforcing.
      Any person having dealings with a business carried on under a name other than that of its owners will be able to see immediately whether the information is disclosed as required. If it is not, the person will be able to ask for it. That is an important right which does not exist at present.
      If the information is still not forthcoming, the person may either take action himself to secure compliance through the courts, or seek the support of the Department in the way that I described in answer to the question by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis).
      The police and local trading standards officers will also be able more readily than at present to take account of offences against the requirements in the course of their normal duties.
      Finally, I intend to introduce a sanction of civil disability, as hon. Members can see from the Order Paper. I ask the hon. Member for Hackney, Central to take account of that. With his legal experience he will recognise the practical importance of that. I shall introduce a sanction of civil disability which will enable any person who can show that his position is prejudiced in law by tha absence of this information to ask the court to prevent the enforcement of the summons issued against him by the business concerned. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak will take full account of the extra provision. I believe that the civil sanction will substantially strengthen the whole system of self-enforcement, which will be an important element in the new system. It will be apparent if people are not complying with the requirements of the Act. Customers everywhere will be in a better position to enforce their rights in respect of the Act.
      The existence of this power should alert the businesses concerned to the dangers of non-compliance with the new requirements, which will be widely publicised following the enactment of the Bill. By these means we look to ensure a smooth transition from the present regime.
      38
      I shall now refer specifically to the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North in support of the proposal embodied in new clause 38 that the present record should be retained for a period of six years after the repeal of the 1916 Act and that it should be available for inspection throughout that period. I remind the House that we invited organisations that might be interested in the retention of the records to submit proposals, subject to certain conditions including continued public access.
      As I explained in Committee, although a number of organisations responded, none was prepared to accept the conditions. In particular, it was considered that the value of the records would diminish rapidly in the absence of any statutory registration requirement. As I have explained on several occasions, this is not an area in which the Government consider statutory registration to be justified, any more than experience has shown it to be effective. In any event, it would not have been appropriate to devolve statutory powers to a private organisation. On that basis we withdrew in Committee the clause that would have expressly permitted the Secretary of State to dispose of the documents.
      There are practical grounds on which I oppose new clause 38. In addition to the present deficiencies, the records will diminish in value following the repeal of the statutory registration requirement. In those circumstances, I do not believe that it would be right to devote the Department of Trade's resources to their preservation and to the maintenance of the public search facility, even with the payment of increased fees to cover the cost involved.
      Much of the material held by the registrar is already out of date. With the considerable number of businesses that have no registered, that makes the record so unreliable as to cast considerable doubt on its value at any time. That will certainly be so when registration ceases.
      Our alternative proposal to allow the continued provision of information about business ownership will take effect immediately on repeal. There will be no gap in the information and no need for elaborate transitional arrangements envisaged in the new clause. I ask the House to accept, therefore, that, on the repeal of the registration requirements, there will be no administrative need to retain these papers, although, as is usual when statutory records are no longer required to be retained by a Department, the Public Record Office will consider whether any of them have long-term historical value.
      I ask the House to reject both concepts contained in the new clauses. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will recognise that the Government's proposals afford a sounder basis for ensuring to those who need it the basic right conferred by the original legislation.
      The importance of the right has been demonstrated clearly by debates generated by the Government's proposals. Although there will be economies in Government administration as a result of our proposals, more importantly, we believe that they will enable the necessary information to be obtained far more easily than at present. The information will be available at the point of sale in the consumer's locality.
      Mr. Clinton DavisThe last time that we debated new clause 38 the Minister invited me to a party to celebrate the recycling of all the information contained in the registry. I believe that was to be in April 1982. Will the Minister also invite me to the party to herald the recycling

      39
      of speeches which have been distributed among Back Benchers in the last five minutes to encourage them to participate in the debate, when obviously they know nothing about it?
      Mr. EyreI am amazed that the hon. Gentleman has been able to observe so keenly what has been going on on the Benches behind him, where hon. Members are being encouraged to take part in the debate. I see that the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) has taken his papers and is keenly awaiting the opportunity to take part.
      With a feeling of great friendship, I repeat my invitation to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central, should the Public Record Office in due course decide that it wants only a small part of the records. If recycling proceeds, the hon. Member will be welcome if he wishes to accompany me to the ceremeony.
      I stress that our proposals will make available the necessary information to consumers far more easily than at present. Primarily on that basis, I ask hon. Members to oppose the proposals advanced by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central. They would effect only marginal improvements at a much increased cost and they would only improve the old system of registration, which experience has shown to be unworkable.
      I ask Opposition Members to accept the evidence that it has not been possible to make the 1916 registration system work properly, and also to recognise that throughout the years no Administration have been able to devote the resources necessary to police the system properly, to enforce the regulations and to make them work. Therefore, I believe that in due course people will welcome the fact that the problem has been gripped and that new alternative proposals have been brought forward.
      Mr. Tristan Garel-JonesCan my hon. Friend estimate the cost to the Exchequer of making such a system operative and viable? Has any work been carried out in that respect?
      Mr. EyreMy hon. Friend knows that a great deal of thought has been given to the subject. There is no question of any cost to the Exchequer. The proposal is that a fee be charged to those who use the system to cover the cost of registration. That is agreed ground. My hon. Friend may not have been in the Chamber when I explained that the practical problem is how to ensure that 2½ million small businesses comply with the registration requirements. The current percentage of default is far too high. Evidence shows that in many parts of Britain default is increasing.
      The system of central registration cannot be said to be working in anything like a satisfactory manner. Our inquiries show that the only way to enforce the system is to devote a large number of man hours to carry out street by street and door by door inspection, requiring small businesses to complete the relevant documents, and to send them to the central registry. The cost of such an operation would be so high that the small businesses, for whom my hon. Friend has great concern, would be unwilling to pay for it. That is why we are asking people to consider our positive new arrangements. They do not involve the problem of operating the central registry system that we have found unworkable. We must accept the evidence of life and adopt a new system with a self-enforcement quality. That would be in the interests of consumers as well as small businesses.
      Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)Has the Minister considered a simple adaptation to the new clause, namely that a civil contract should be unenforceable unless the registration number of the certificate issued by the Register of Business Names appears on the notepaper? Would that simple device lead to increased compliance with the law by small businesses?
      Mr. EyreI am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for putting forward a positive proposal that relates to a later amendment. He knows that we are not currently discussing that amendment. I am willing to consider any ideas to improve the system as a whole. I have adopted a number of proposals. A technical and practical difficulty arises on the hon. Gentleman's proposal. If he will forgive me, I shall refer to that in more detail when we deal with the amendment. I appreciate that he has been looking ahead and has made a positive contribution to improving the alternative system that we have developed. In the long term, that system will benefit consumers.
      Mr. Bruce GeorgeI apologise for the fact that I was not in the Chamber for the first part of the debate. I am a member of the Defence Committee that had a unique meeting with its counterpart in the United States of America, the Armed Services Committee, which prevented my being here before now. However, having heard the Minister's rather unconvincing arguments in Committee, I do not think that I have missed a great deal.
      I have had a few months to re-read the hon. Gentleman's speeches. I had hoped that the enormous pressure that had been brought to bear—not only by Labour Members, whom the Minister may choose to disregard, but by many other organisations including those that had, I repeat had, an affinity with the Conservative Party—would result in the Minister reconsidering what many regard as a loony proposal.
      We know that the Government are fanatically anti-quango. We understand that there may be a case for chopping them off at the knees if they are undesirable. However, an organisation such as the Register of Business Names must be regarded as effective, despite the difficulties of enforcement. There is no reason why the functions of that organisation should be emasculated. The Minister argued that enforcement achieved only a 60 per cent. success rate. He should talk to police chiefs, many of whom would be elated if their enforcement success rate approached anything near 60 per cent. It is closer to 16 per cent. in some areas. To argue that there is only a 60 per cent. success rate is saying that because the police cannot catch all criminals we should wring our hands, leave the game to the criminals and have no enforcement.
      Mr. Garel-JonesThe hon. Gentleman's suggestion is outrageous. He is equating the small business community with the criminal classes. That is an extraordinary statement.
      Mr. GeorgeI did not say that. You may have misconstrued what I said—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker"You"?
      Mr. GeorgeI apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not equating you with the criminal classes. My remarks were misconstrued. Undoubtedly, there are some criminals among the 2¼ million small business men. I was making the important point that enforcement must be valid

      41
      and proper. Simply because there cannot be 100 per cent. enforcement, in any respect, it does not mean that enforcement should be abandoned.
      Statistics show that there were 100,000 inspections in a recent six-month period. That was a 14 per cent. increase on the previous six months. We are talking not of an unviable entity but of a widely used service. I do not wish to exaggerate, but I am troubled that we are seeing the philosophy of almost a Hobbesion state of nature.
      Last weekend I was approached by a constituent with a complaint about the planning appeal procedure. He was adversely affected by a proposed development and claimed that he had not been properly informed of the proposal by the local authority. He was told that the application had been housed in the library and that a small advertisement had been placed in a newspaper. However, because no one had commented he was told that it was tough luck that he had not seen the advertisement and that he could not complain if the planning application was approved and his environment adversely affected. I suspect that that is a parallel with the matter that we are discussing. The service may be somewhat old—
      Mr. Nicholas Baker rose
      Mr. GeorgeI shall be delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman. He had the opportunity to debate these points in Committee, but he did not take it. However, he did say that the register went back to 1916, as though samething 60 years old must be abandoned. As the Conservative Party is held to have such veneration for age and institutions, that argument is spurious.
      The Minister taunted Labour Members with not being present in large numbers for this debate. He should remember that the Conservative Party is supposed to be the party of business. A few months ago The Times stated:
      "It remains to be seen whether there are any on the Conservative benches in the Commons who will speak up for the public's right to know which individual or company is trading and under what name."
      The answer to be given to the author must be disappointing. Members of the party of business have not turned up in the Chamber in large numbers. If they do it will be to vote, and they will vote as their Whips tell them. The interests of the 2¼ million small businesses, which are ostensibly represented by the Conservative Party, are undoubtedly being jeopardised. That is happening, not gigantically, but in a small and important way.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) spoke about the representations of the Birmingham chamber of commerce. Representations have been made from many sectors. The Government should recognise that that chamber has presented an overwhelming case. Representations have been made by the Newspaper Proprietors Association and the CBI. That latter organisation is hardly in the van of revolution, but it is much opposed to the Government's proposals. Other organisations that take a view contrary to that of the Government include the Press Council, the Institute of Trading Standards Administration and the consumer lobby. Included in the list are the Consumers Association, the National Consumer Council and the National Federation of Consumer Groups. There are many more. In Committee we received representations from the Law Stationers Association, which is a reputable organisation, and from compaines such as Services to Lawyers Ltd.
      The purpose of these organisations is not merely to knock. They are not approaching the subject destructively.
      42
      They are presenting a constructive alternative. No one is arguing that the register is perfect, but the principle behind it is that anyone conducting a business in a name other than his own should register. I admit that enforcement is far from perfect. There are cowboys who are not registering and who are getting away with it. Our object must be to improve enforcement, and not merely to abandon it.
      If the Government's proposals are implemented we shall do a disservice to investigative journalists. There are not as many investigative journalists in Britain as there are in the United States. An important function in a democratic society is performed by journalists who burrow away and produce information that it is in the public interest to publish. Members of Parliament are not able to do so to the degree that they should because of lack of staffing. We should be worried, not for the specific journalists but for the function that they perform.
      There are many who regard the Government's proposals as a fraud's charter. That term may be rather journalistic, but I believe that it is true. I speak, not on behalf of creditors but on behalf of a number of organisations that operate in this area and have expressed their anxieties. The enforcement authorities have expressed their anxieties—for example, the police, trading standards officers and tax and customs officials, who all require information to protect the consumer from the fraudulent and the unscrupulous.
      It seems that the Government have made up their mind. Their loyalists are behind them on the Government Benches, and those who are not present will emerge in force to deliver to the Government a majority which they do not deserve but which they will get. When individual Members return to their constituencies they may be lobbied by their chambers of commerce and by those engaged in small businesses. They will rightly have to face considerable criticism.
      It was said at Blackpool last week that about 70 measures have been enacted to benefit the small business community. I have spoken to many small business men in my constituency. It appears that if 70 "helpful" measures have been enacted, most of the small business men in my constituency are oblivious to them. Little benefit seems to have accrued to the small business sector in my constituency, which is suffering over 17 per cent. unemployment.
      This is not a major Government decision that will have an obvious and dramatic effect on the entire economy. It is a decision that is almost incremental. It is part of a drip, drip, drip process. The business community wants to become more efficient. The consumer wants to be protected against fraud. The Government's proposals will make life easier for crooks and cheats. The inhabitants of Pentonville and Strangeways probably do not write to Ministers in support of their legislation, but some of them may endorse these proposals. When they leave their present surroundings, and when these proposals are implemented they may find that they are to their advantage. That is the solid block of support that the Government will seek at the next election. It is probably the only group that will support the Conservative Party.
      There are many who look to the Bill as a means of improving the lot of business men. The Consumers Association may have given up the ghost. It may now accept that the Government will not advance significant measures of consumer protection. However, we did not

      43
      count on the Government's enacting legislation to detract from the already inadequate legislation to protect the consumer.
      I accept that miracles do not occur in political life. However, in the next 10 minutes or so I hope that the Minister's conscience will be stricken or that he will be fearful of the consequences of the folly of his Government. Perhaps he is convinced by the arguments that we have advanced. He should pay far more attention to Labour Members and Conservatives who have made representations to him. Surely there are means short of what the Minister is proposing. I am not a great supporter of self-regulation, but if the register is to be scrapped there must surely be alternatives short of the disastrous proposals that have been presented to us.
      Mr. Robin SquireI begin by declaring a possible interest in my role as a consultant for Lombard, North-Central Ltd. That interest is certain, but I am not aware of the company's corporate views, if it has any. Its views may be the reverse of those that I am about to express. In common with the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), I was unable, because of parliamentary business, to be in my place for some of the earlier speeches in the debate. I hope that the House will accept my apologies.
      The hon. Member for Walsall, South shares a distinction with me that may be unknown to many hon. Members. On certain cold and blustery days the hon. Gentleman is the last bulwark of defence in the parliamentary football team. I am the penultimate bulwark. Those who do not understand the game may think that that indicates that we are often in sympathy. However, those who have seen us play would not form that conclusion. I shall not break our fine record by agreeing with his remarks.
      On balance, the Government's proposals are a marginal improvement on those that were previously before us. I did not take that view originally. When the proposed legislation first appeared I had some doubts. I listened to the representations that were made by various organisations. I listened especially to the representations of those whom we agree to call investigative journalists and who are employed by the BBC in producing programmes for radio such as "Checkpoint", and by other organisations. They have argued strongly that the existing powers should be retained.
      One of the advantages of a Summer Recess is that it gives one an opportunity to consider measures away from the hurly-burly that we face at other times of the year. Further consideration has led me to believe that there has to be change. I accept the reasons that have been advanced for that change. If we examine the current scheme in isolation, we cannot be happy with it. It appears that the cost of making it more satisfactory and effective will be either prohibitive or, in practical terms, a near impossibility. If that is so it does not mean that we have to amend the scheme, but there are further grounds for suggesting that clauses 28 and 29 carry with them the possibility of some improvement and therefore can be commended on their own, even without comparison with the present situation.
      44
      5 pm
      As my hon. Friend the Minister and others have repeated in many areas, if there is a high degree of inaccuracy—the figure of 40 per cent. is widely quoted—we must realistically explain to many of those who come to us that, notwithstanding the trust and reliance that they may previously have placed upon their investigations, on average at least 40 per cent. of that trust was misplaced.
      Mr. Clinton DavisWhat is the extent of non-compliance with the requirements of the Companies Acts with regard to the registration of company records, accounts and so on? Is there full compliance? If there is not, does the hon. Member suggest that the Minister should be recommended to do away with the companies register?
      Mr. SquireIn part, the hon. Member makes a valid point. I, too have spoken out on that matter. The Companies Acts contain areas where we could and should tighten up, and where existing legislation is not complied with. I am not sure that that is the same context, because no one is suggesting an alternative to replace the Companies Act, whereas we are discussing, and we discussed in Committee, a credible alternative that may make the compliance and accuracy of the information better than at present.
      One of my constituents who runs a small credit-searching business came to see me. He was concerned about this whole issue. Some of those who come to see us may say that the present information is better than nothing, but I am not so sure. If we were to allow businesses and individuals—we are talking about individuals and consumers with whom the companies deal—to delude themselves into believing that they have accurate information, the ultimate cost to them and to the community generally, and the lack of trust that that would engender in trading activities, could be greater. Therefore, there is a case for change.
      The economic argument has been mentioned. It would be possible to increase fees. My constituent who came to me suggested—as others have done—that he would be prepared to pay a much higher fee. That willingness is in no doubt. However, is that the end of the argument? I submit that it is not, not least because the cost would keep rising. The figure per search that has been quoted—£5 or more—is high. Essentially, £5, £6 or any other figure would not make correct what is incorrect. In other words, if the underlying accuracy of the information is suspect, no amount of self-financing, while welcome in an economic accounting sense, can change the fact of the underlying inaccuracy. To some extent, whilst the financial considerations have been raised, the heart of the problem has not been tackled. With regard to the registration of names, clauses 28 and 29 could be a better way of doing things and I look forward to seeing the effect of those clauses.
      I hope that the Minister and his Department will keep the operation of those clauses under review. If it is found that in practice the defences, the information and the protection—which are there to some extent at present—have, unfortunately and inadvertently been reduced beyond what was anticipated, I hope that the Minister will listen sympathetically to further representations with a view to tightening up the clauses, perhaps in what is required to be disclosed, so that we leave people

      45
      in no doubt that the protection of the consumer and of companies that deal with such undertakings remains an issue of great concern to hon. Members and to the Government generally.
      I recognise that my hon. Friend may suggest that that will not be possible, at least in present circumstances. However, I put in a short plea that we should try to bear in mind the continuing problem of those who set up businesses, close them and carry on the next day from the same address with another business of a totally different name, with, surprise, surprise, the same individuals concerned, and not just one, but a string of 10, 12 or 16 names.
      Some hon. Members will know that I have an interest in plumbers—not because I need one at the moment. At least, I did not when I left my house this morning. That area and others similar to it are in danger of being overrun by cowboy, overnight outfits, of which the whole purpose is to make money and to cause considerable human suffering whilst coining fat fees and payments. If it were possible I would suggest that, on the information passed out to those who inquire, all associate undertakings would have to be stated. I am sure that the Minister has considered that. If that is impossible—I am sure that my hon. Friend will explain the difficulties—I urge the Government to recognise those continuing problems. They are not getting any better but are getting worse, as my postbag on the subject shows.
      People ask why we allow these overnight outfits, which do a disservice to any craft or profession that they claim to represent, to be able to carry on in this way. They ask why the long arm of the law, if it finally catches up with such people, takes such a long time to do so. It takes years, when it should take months or weeks. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that those comments do not reduce my support for the new clause.
      Mr. EyreIt appears that my hon. Friend is talking about someone trading not as a limited company. That is a different area of difficulty, about which I know my hon. Friend is concerned. I too am concerned, and we shall do a great deal about that in due course.
      With regard to such a person carrying on business virtually on his own account and therefore bearing a heavy personal responsibility, whatever business name he trades under, I know that my hon. Friend will be interested in the argument that this alternative system would more quickly draw the attention of people doing business with him to his unscrupulous nature than would the system of a purported registration.
      Such people have always been unscrupulous and therefore have not registered under the 1916 Act. However, under the alternative proposals they will be obliged to provide particulars to anyone doing businesses with them. It will more quickly be brought to the mind of the person doing business with someone whether he is complying with the requirements of the Act. Therefore, it is likely that a respectable person will be carrying on such a business. I hope that my hon. Friend will find that helpful.
      Mr. SquireI thank my hon. Friend for that interjection. I share his hopes that at least part of the problem that I am identifying will be reduced or tackled in this way. I am pleased to hear his undertaking that we may look forward to a further instalment along these lines.
      46
      Time has enabled me to see the changes in a considerably more favourable light than when they first emerged. We now have a responsibility, which I am sure the Government recognise, to convince many of the bodies that have made representations that the new proposals will not only be as good as, but in many areas better than, those that they supplant.
      Mr. Geoffrey RobinsonWhile willingly associating myself with the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), I can in no way share his confidence—if, indeed, he has any as he is about to embark on the massive exercise of convincing not only the mighty Shell but the Consumers' Association and the Law Society as well. One can hardly conceive of a holier alliance than that represented by two of the partners, and Shell, as a massive organisation, must have very good commercial reasons for its decisions. But if the Tory Government cannot convince their own conference, their chance of convincing such diverse organisations as those that I have just mentioned must be nil. For the hon. Gentleman now to attempt to clear his conscience by saying that the new system will work is simply not acceptable, although I accept that he may well have been drafted in at short notice to speak on a matter which detained us for many hours in Committee.
      In Committee we had the same recitation, with the same lucidity and clarity of diction that we have had today, but not one new argument has been adduced for doing what the Bill seeks to do. Indeed, I do not think that there is a single valid argument for doing it. In asking why it should be done, we come back always to the simple fact that it started when the quango exercise got under way in the early macho phase of the Government's life. I do not know whether it was Sir Derek Rayner who was charged with the job of slashing as many heads as possible in the so-called quangos, or whether it was a departmental exercise in itself, but I am sure that each Department was asked—as is the case with many big corporations—to make some savings. Of that there can be no doubt. It would appear that the Department concerned, faced with a new Government who were known to be after the quangos, looked around to see what it could find. That is the fundamental reason why it picked on a little body called the Registry of Business Names, which was thought not to be functioning particularly well, being said to be only 60 per cent. efficient.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) mentioned the claimed rate of detection of the police force. Although the internal combustion engine is continually being improved, no one would claim that it was more than 30 to 35 per cent. efficient. So what is wrong with a 60 per cent. efficiency rate?
      Mr. Nicholas BakerThe hon. Gentleman is in the process of repeating the argument advanced by his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), that a 60 per cent. registration is a success rate. That has nothing to do with the point at issue. We are considering, surely, the number of people or businesses who ought to register as a whole. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will talk about the people who do not register.
      Mr. RobinsonThe hon. Gentleman, who served so admirably on the Committee, has made precisely the point that Labour Members have tried to make in Committee and have made today—that the registry is not as efficient as

      47
      it ought to be but that there is a case for keeping it and making it more efficient. I agree that it ought to be efficient. The Under-Secretary claims that the new system will be more efficient and that that is why he is introducing it, but he has yet to convince anyone who has listened to the debate in Committee or on Report that there is a single good reason for seeking to make the Registry of Business Names more efficient by the means that he has introduced.
      The Under-Secretary is introducing a complex system. The operations of the Registry of Business Names are much easier to understand. Given the new information technology, computers and so on, and all the other new things that we have at our disposal, the registry, so far from being disbanded, should be modernised and made really effective. But, of course, it was a quango, and that is why it was chopped.
      We have had a concession from the Government today, in the light of the feelings of the new Secretary of State for Energy and the feelings of discontent that emerged at the Conservative conference at Blackpool. The Government should now also reconsider whether they should be doing something in this Bill that in the end will cost far more money than seeking to improve the efficiency of the registry by the introduction of modern techniques.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. GeorgeDoes my hon. Friend agree that the Government's policy, whether deliberate or accidental, of liquidating many small companies, will make it much simpler to conduct a search of the registry?
      Mr. Robinson: I entirely associate myself with that point. The case against the change has been forcefully put in Committee and in the House today, and I shall not detain the House further on it. Will the Under-Secretary now answer some questions? Will he admit that the intention is to abolish a quango? The party loyalists are here. They are drafted in to make speeches after two minutes study—
      Mr. SquireI have been listening with rapt attention to the hon. Gentleman. In fairness I should explain that one of the posts that I hold as vice-chairman of the Back-Bench trade committee requires me to look at these matters for a little more than two minutes.
      Mr. RobinsonI only wish that the hon. Gentleman's speech had suggested that he had done so.
      It is clear that we are faced here with a simple cost-cutting exercise which involves abolishing a quango. It is my contention that the new provision will make it no easier for the consumer and no easier for trading companies to obtain information that is rightly wanted and should be readily available. I repeat my contention that it will be at greater cost.
      In abolishing the quango, how many people will be sacked? Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us that. All of them have families. We care deeply about the level of unemployment. We see no need—
      Mr. Keith Wickenden (Dorking)If it is true that Labour Members care deeply about unemployment, why was it that when we debated unemployment for more than four hours at the end of July, there were only four or five Labour Members present?
      Mr. RobinsonThe hon. Gentleman's question is totally irrelevant to the debate. Questions concerning unemployment should be directed to the Conservative Benches, because the Conservative Government have, with great callousness, allowed unemployment to rise to a figure of almost 3 million. If the figure is not reached this week, I am sure that it will be reached next month, and that it will be above 3 million next year. When talking about unemployment in general, we must look to the Government for a reply.
      Here the Government are abolishing a quango in order to make savings. We have been told that ad nauseam. They are proposing a system which, it is claimed, will be less costly to the Government and the user. Will the Minister, therefore, please say how many people are to be sacked? How much floor space is to be saved? How much equipment is to be disposed of? What savings is the Minister claiming to make? Unless he can convince us of those savings, he will fall far short of convincing us that he will be implementing a new system that is more convenient and less costly. I leave those questions with the Minister and ask him to reply to them.
      Mr. Nicholas BakerI should like first to associate myself with the remarks made about our late colleague, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page). We have had many debates in the last two years on company law, and the debate today seems incomplete without his participation. I mourn his loss, as a know we all do, although on this and many other matters I found myself in disagreement with him.
      My first point relates to the evidence that we have been considering in this debate and in Committee. Here I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) is not present. I asked the business men in my constituency whom I know—both large and small—how they felt about the proposal to abolish the Register of Business Names. The response was almost wholly negative. Nearly all admitted that it performed some function, but none had any enthusiasm for it. I found little evidence of people who had actually relied upon it to their credit or benefit. Indeed, I found a number of misconceptions about it. Many small business men actually believed, and still believe, that by registering they acquired some entitlement to use the name. Nothing could be further from the truth. That was the evidence from business.
      The evidence of consumer groups and people who search registers must be seen in the context of the job that they do. Of course, they carry out many searches. Of course they believe that if the registry operated as it should—and it is not for them to say whether it does—they would certainly be failing in their duty if they did not make searches. That is why they do so, and I believe that that, understandably, colours the reasons why they generally feel that the registry is useful.
      I cannot share the tears shed by hon. Members in this debate for the trade of investigative journalism. If investigative journalists had to rely on the information in the Register of Business Names, I should be more than surprised. They are equipped, as most people in our community are not, to discover—that is their trade—the information that they need.
      The evidence that I should like to see is evidence of frauds that have been uncovered as a result of people registering business names—frauds which might not be

      49
      uncovered if the registry is abolished—wrongs that have been averted and benefits that have been achieved through registration. The evidence that I have seen is minimal, if not non-existent. That is what we are really talking about. That is the evidence for which we should call in this debate.
      I was stung by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) accusing me of not having said anything in Committee.
      Mr. GeorgeAnything meaningful.
      Mr. BakerIndeed, I was criticised for saying far too much, although it is true that on those limited occasions when the hon. Gentleman appeared in Committee he was speaking, and therefore out of courtesy I was unable to say anything myself. He seemed to equate the discovery of crimes—the criminal detection rate—with the rate of registration at the registry. As I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) pointed out these are completely different species. They are in no sense the same. We are interested in those people who ought to register and do not do so, and in particular in those who suffer as a result of non-registration. The evidence that I have seen is that there is little or none of that.
      My second point relates to savings. Clearly, the savings in people, who one hopes would be redeployed, and in money is very small. Even Labour Members should accept, however, as indeed I think they do, that to make the registry system work would require an enormous expansion in terms of time and money. The potential saving to which we should address our minds, therefore, relates not to the registry as it currently exists but to that which would exist if it were made to function as it should. I have no doubt that the costs would be substantial. Beyond a certain point, it does not seem to me material whether the expenditure is incurred by businesses or individuals registering or by the taxpayer. We may argue on ideological grounds as to which we favour, but the expenditure must be undertaken none the less. I should have thought that unless there were a strong case for incurring that expenditure, we should do what we can to see that it is not incurred.
      Furthermore, I do not share the faith of many hon. Members in this or any Government's determination and ability to keep the fees of such a registry up with the cost of undertaking the work. I believe that it is highly likely that the fees would very soon fall behind the real cost of providing the registry service.
      Finally, this system of registration is completely different from that of Companies House. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis)—and I yield to no one in my admiration of his experience and authority—seemed at one point to be equating the two systems. They are not the same.
      Under the companies registration system a company is allowed to come into existence only by virtue of registration at Companies House, and we must be prepared to incur the cost of keeping that registry going.
      The registry here under discussion, however, is different. As we know, it was born in order to discover aliens who might be hiding behind other names and running businesses in this country at the time of the First World War. I do not believe that it functions in a way which helps business men, individuals or those who deal with them.
      50
      If there is money and time to be spent on finding out who is misleading the public, it should be spent in the areas where that is taking place, and be in the hands of those seeking to enforce the kind of remedies laid down in clauses 28 and 29.
      Mr. WickendenWhen I first began to take an interest in this matter some time ago, I confess to feeling surprised that we were actually to repeal some legislation. This does not go so far as those of us who believe that before any piece of legislation is introduced two others should be repealed, but at least it goes part of the way. Nevertheless, important aspects of the matter have been pointed out by Labour Members.
      We must ask ourselves whether the existing system satisfies the wishes that I believe that the whole House shares in relation to business activities.
      The Act passed into law in 1916–65 years ago. Since then there has been no amendment to it. That implies one of two things. Either the legislation is perfect and Parliament is satisfied with it, or it is totally ineffective, nobody takes any notice of it and Parliament has chosen to disregard the matter as not being particularly important. There seems to me to be nothing between those two extremes.
      We all know that the Act has not worked and does not work. I confess that when I inquired into this matter this morning I discovered that My own public company is in breach of the Act. We trade as Townsend Thoresen and there is no such company. We should be registered under the Registration of Business Names Act, but we are not, and I dare say that we have laid ourselves open to penalties as a result. I suspect that the amount of non-registration is far greater than has been suggested. I dare say that if one walked down the high street of almost any town or city in this country one would find a very high proportion of perfectly honest, decent businesses which are not registered.
      We must therefore ask ourselves, first, whether the existing Act works. Clearly, the answer must be "No". Could it be made to work at a reasonable cost? Is there a better alternative, or indeed any alternative at all? Sometimes people think that there are not alternatives to things. How many businesses are on the register? How many companies are on the register as businesses? I suspect that they make up a high percentage of the total. Many major companies register because they have to, although my own company has not. Yet everyone knows, for example, who carries on the business of Shell. In many ways, they need not be on it.
      5.30 pm
      It is also worth remembering what the registration requirements under the Act are, because they are minimal. A business that trades under a name other than the names of the proprietors shall register the names of the proprietors, the principal place of business—although not all the places of business—and whether any of the proprietors are other than of British nationality. There is no requirement to file accounts on an annual basis as there is under the Companies Act. There is a requirement to file a notice of change, but in the very nature of things these matters, even when complied with, are so far behind that they are of very little use either to investigative journalists, credit control departments or anyone else.
      Indeed, I inquired of my own credit control department how often we had searched the Register of Business

      51
      Names register. The answer was never within living memory. We relied on other means to establish credit control because the people we were really after would be unlikely to register under the Act, anyway.
      Let me pick up three points from the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). He persisted in telling us that this legislation was being introduced in order to abolish a quango. In fact, it is not a quango. A quango is a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation, but the Register of Business Names is a Government organisation. The hon. Gentleman also suggested, perhaps rightly, that this abolition has come about because the Department has been told to make savings. I certainly hope so, because that is the only way in which Departments can make savings. Someone must go in and tell them how to do it. That is how business does it, and I wish the Government would do it more effectively in other areas at the present time.
      Mr. Geoffrey RobinsonI am glad that we can agree on that point. Will not the hon. Gentleman also associate himself with me in asking for precise details from the Department about the savings, either net or gross, including redundancy payments and the like?
      Mr. WickendenIt is right that we should know the full facts, and I am happy to associate myself with the hon. Gentlemens comments.
      Mr. EyreI had to reply to the Committee debate. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) was not in his seat, and I therefore had to rise and make my speech. The hon. Gentleman, who was a diligent member of the Committee, raised this question then and I replied fully. If my hon. Friend looks at the report of the Committee proceedings, he will find that that information is available.
      Mr. WickendenI am grateful to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) referred to the decimation of small businesses. It is worth reminding the House of something that is not brought to public attention often enough, which is that this year 76,000 new businesses have commenced—a record figure. It is high time that we gave credit for that while at the same time paying due regard to the 7,500 businesses that have failed. About 10 times as many new businesses have started this year as have failed.
      The purpose of the Registration of Business Names Act registration is two-fold. It is to protect those who might grant credit to a business so that creditors may learn who are behind the business and whether they are proper people with whom they should do business. As I think I have shown, the Act has not succeeded in providing that service to creditors.
      Registration is also designed to protect members of the public from unscrupulous traders of the type that are regularly exposed in the BBC "Checkpoint" programme. I suspect that that is very much the sort of business that Labour Members have in mind.
      It is a sad fact of life that people who conduct their business in that sort of way are unlikely to have registered in the first place. Therefore, whatever the good intentions behind such an Act, I do not think that there is the slightest chance of an investigative journalist or anyone else
      52
      catching a dyed-in-the-wool villain because he has not paid his £2 registration fee at the Registry of Business Names.
      I do not believe that the existing legislation has worked, or is likely to work, at anything like a reasonable cost. It therefore seems reasonable that it should be abolished, provided that something is put in its place to fulfil the legitimate requirements of members of the public and the credit control departments of creditor companies. It may be—I hope so—that the new proposals will work. We shall have to give them time. If they do not, we shall have to find something else. If so, we could do worse than have a look at the method operated in many of the EEC countries.
      In Britain, the chambers of commerce and trade tend to be trade protection and lobby associations for trade in a given area. It is very different on the Continent. There, chambers of commerce have a statutory function that includes the registration of businesses in their own area and the supervision of those businesses. As it is done locally, it is much more effective.
      If the proposals contained in this legislation are not successful or do not work as we would wish, I hope that the Government will think seriously about examining the Continental system.
      Mr. Barry PorterI add my small tribute to the memory of Graham Page, who was the Member for Crosby. I say that as secretary of the Merseyside group of Conservative Members. He was always extremely active, helpful and generous to all members of that group, in particular to those of us who shared his profession. He was a great solicitor. I shall miss him a great deal.
      I would have welcomed Graham's assistance in this debate because I find myself in something of a dilemma. I have not had the opportunity to be a member of a Committee considering a Companies Bill, and having listened to some of the talk this afternoon, I am not sure whether that would be an opportunity I would necessarily welcome—certainly not if I were to be whipped by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) of whom I have had experience on other Committees.
      The arguments flow back and forth, and I sometimes wonder whether this type of debate is best conducted by those who served in Committee. One tends to gain an impression that the woods are occasionally lost for the trees. The debating points that are made may satisfy those who make them, but not the objective observer.
      I came into the House not that long ago in the naive belief that occasionally I would attend a debate where I would weigh up the arguments, reach a conclusion and scurry into whichever Lobby I felt so inclined to enter. However, that view lasted no longer than about a minute. My hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Goodlad) glares at me. He need have no fear, because in the dilemma in which I find myself I can reach no particular conclusion and am therefore willing to follow my leader.
      I know from my professional experience that the Register of Business Names does not work; and that is the problem. It is pretty useless. I do not know how it can be said to be 60 per cent. efficient. We have no idea of how many companies fail to register. The 60 per cent. is, I hope, no more than an informed estimate. However, whether it is supposed to be 60 per cent., 40 per cent. or

      53
      50 per cent. efficient, it is still pretty useless for the reason adequately explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden).
      Why then do the CBI, the chambers of commerce and other august bodies wish to retain the register? Large organisations, other than Townsend Thorensen—which no doubt is being registered this afternoon—find a use for its research facilities and tell their Members of Parliament that it should be retained. I believe that the Financial Times was quoted earlier. Why do people get heated about the need for the information to continue to be available?
      Mr. StevensThe bureaucrats in businesses write the letters and they naturally wish to preserve the existence of their species elsewhere.
      Mr. PorterI am grateful to my hon. Friend, but that can be no more than an opinion. I doubt whether the gentlemen who wrote the letters said that they were bureaucrats and liked bureaucratic institutions.
      I must take the views of those bodies into account. Serious bodies wish to have the information available. I am inclined to accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking that the register is expensive and does not work and that we should find another method to disseminate the information that people are entitled to have. I do not know whether the Treasury has found a proper substitute. It sounds a bit hit and miss. One hopes that the unscrupulous people the legislation is aimed at will give their place of business. However, for example, some businesses operate from newsagents, where there are advertisements for Gold Leaf cigarettes or St. Bruno tobacco. Those names are all over newsagents, which are used as accommodation addresses. I do not know whether that factor has been taken into account.
      I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to observe what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking asked and keep a strict eye on what is happening, although I shall faithfully follow him into the Lobby. If people do not get the information that they require, and if the new system does not work as well as we would wish, let us not leave it for another two generations before taking action.
      Mr. Michael BrownI declare an interest. Six weeks ago a friend and I formed a small business. Among the plethora of Acts that we had to comply with was that concerning the Register of Business Names. We completed our registration and we have our certificate. Now that I have an interest in business I have been keeping an eye on the legislation that a company has to comply with. My business colleague and I read the arguments of Labour Members opposing the measure and those of my hon. Friend the Minister.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden). His company is well known and has a great reputation and it is not registered. My little company has yet to establish its business record. I do not see how the registration of my company and the non-registration of his will matter one iota to those who trade with them.
      5.45 pm
      The register has been in existence for 65 years during which time there has been a great turnover in businesses, and now is perhaps the time to reform it. The Government in considering their budget need to examine whether the organisation is serving a useful purpose and whether money can be saved, although it must continue to protect
      54
      the general public. I see no way at present how the registration or non-registration of a company makes any difference to the public.
      I now take an interest in the creditworthiness of other companies, and with my short experience of business I would not dream of using the register to make such a check. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), I would not go to the register to establish the creditworthiness of another firm.
      Mr. Clinton DavisIf the hon. Gentleman wished to sue a business trading as a firm would he not seek to know who the partners were so that his judgment, if he could get it, would be more readily enforceable?
      Mr. BrownThat would be true only if there were sanctions to ensure that every firm registered. As has been said, that is not so. The Opposition's case would be strengthened if there was greater compliance with the Act, but what sanctions could be operated for non-compliance with the Act? As a result of the honesty and integrity of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking, shall we read in tomorrow's newspapers of a great prosecution by the Department of Trade? As long as there is a lack of knowledge of the purpose of the register or deliberate evasion by crooks, the Opposition's argument is redundant.
      I readily accept that, whatever happens, the Department of Trade and Parliament must do everything that they can to bring to book the rogues and cowboys, but I do not believe that the Register of Business Names has done so in the past. As one who has just begun to check the financial standing and creditworthiness of other businesses, I am prepared seriously to consider and to welcome the proposals.
      Mr. Clinton DavisI should like to join the Minister and other hon. Members in paying tribute to a man who performed his parliamentary duties with great skill and distinction over many years, namely Graham Page. I pay that tribute not only as a colleague of his over 11 years, but as someone who worked closely with him in the all-party solicitors group in the House. The care that he felt for the profession and for the people whom he served in a variety of ways should be an example to all hon. Members. We shall miss him greatly.
      I do not wish to take advantage of any emotional point. It is, however, worth noting that Graham Page cared about the law and spoke against the Government's proposals on Second Reading. He spoke forcefully and with great experience. I shall not pray his arguments in aid because there are many arguments that the Government have chosen to ignore during the debate.
      The hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) urge the Government to keep an eye on what happens. The trouble is that the Government have no intention of doing so. They do not want anything effectively to take the place of the Register of Business Names. I have always conceded that the arguments the Government have put would be valuable as a supplement to the activities of the registry. They cannot work by themselves. I do not believe that the Minister can expect a higher level of compliance with his proposals than with those already experienced.
      Many hon. Members including the Minister have advanced what they call evidence about the ineffectiveness of the Act. I do not claim that there has been full

      55
      compliance. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) and I urge is that a pretty effective system could be coupled with the Government's proposals for reform of the present system. That cannot be achieved if the Register of Business Names is abolished.
      I should like to examine some of the evidence that the Minister chose to ignore. In 1979, there were 134,561 new registrations. The figure for 1980 is 144,504. Changes registered, which amounted to 17,883 in 1979, showed a considerable increase to 23,208 in 1980. Cessations registered were 14,903 in 1979 and 19,527 in 1980. Inspections, an important statistic, amounted to 167,225 in 1979 and 201,982 in 1980. Despite difficult economic conditions, there have been 10,000 new registrations and a substantial increase in the number of inspections. This does not suggest that the system has broken down as the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) who is guilty, as we know, of non-compliance with the Act and may therefore have an axe to grind, suggests. I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman is to be prosecuted. I shall be prepared to attend court as a character witness for him. I am not sure what I would say but I would be prepared to attend. The fact is that there is substantial compliance.
      Running through the debate has been the observation by Government Back Benchers, who have been briefed to say so, that the whole operation has broken down catastrophically, that it is a total waste of time, that it confers no benefits on anyone, and that it should be got rid of. The Minister does not go so far because he knows the facts. What he does is to get little bits of information here and there from people who go down certain High Streets. No doubt, as I have already remarked, he was accompanying those people in scientific tests during the Summer Recess and relies upon those findings as evidence. The Minister has, however, to balance this very unscientific approach with the figures to which I have referred—I am sure that he does not dispute them—and with the overwhelming evidence of the professional bodies and all the business experience that is accumulated in a large number of bodies including the CBI, the chambers of commerce and the trade unions, which have argued time and again that the move to abolish the register is mistaken.
      Mr. Nicholas BakerWhat professional body does the hon. Gentleman suggest would be capable of saying that there are so many in number or such a percentage of companies or individuals that do not comply with the Act? Is the hon. Gentleman trying to say that there is not very substantial evidence—the Minister could not give a definite answer other than that there is substantial evidence—that a large number of individuals and businesses do not comply?
      Mr. DavisI have said that. The hon. Gentleman should unplug his ears from time to time. However, the hon. Gentleman cannot gainsay the fact that the Law Society, which does listen to its members from time to time and goes to some trouble in putting forward arguments to hon. Members on a variety of topics, does not enter into the matter willy-nilly and say that it can be left to the secretary of the appropriate sub-committee to put forward his own feeble views and hope to persuade the House of Commons that this is the view of the Law Society. That is an insult to the Law Society of which the
      56
      hon. Gentleman is a member. That is not how matters work. The accumulated wisdom of all those organisations to which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) referred is that the Government are wrong.
      I notice that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) spent his Summer Recess agonising over this matter. That is what the hon. Gentleman told the House. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not able to do other things. Apart from describing his qualities as a parliamentary footballer, he revealed that he was virtually the only man who, having considered the Minister's arguments, was converted by them. That is a record. The evidence accumulated by all these bodies has impelled them to the argument—they have not deviated—that the Government are making a great mistake. The evidence should be compelling. I adopt the arguments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), who clearly examined the evidence in detail and concluded that the Government are wrong.
      From the start, the Minister has been in miserable isolation among those in the outside world interested in this subject. What happened was not a design on his part to improve consumer protection. The very reverse is true. The Minister was told that he had to make a saving on the number of civil servants. It did not matter whether they could be self-financing. It did not matter what was the nature of their jobs. He was told that he had to get rid of a number of civil servants. He therefore alighted on the proposition of getting rid of the Register of Business Names. That is the stark truth.
      Everything the Minister says about trying to improve consumer protection is bogus. It would be surprising if the Government were concerned about consumer protection. One of their first actions was to get rid of the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. The right hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) purportedly presides over those affairs, not doing a particularly good job, although the Opposition are delighted that she has been defeated over gas showrooms, Why has the Minister not answered the argument that it would be possible to supplement the work of the Register of Business Names with the reforms that he has put before the House?
      The Minister says that to do anything about the registry would involve enormous cost. There is not a scintilla of evidence to support that or to suggest what cost would be involved. The hon. Gentleman merely makes the bland, bare assertion that small business men would not be prepared to bear the cost. What evidence has he for that proposition?
      6 pm
      Let us consider the Minister's own proposition, which is to abolish the register. How effectively will the Government enforce the provisions of the Bill? The Under-Secretary says that the police will be able to do it quite happily. But have the police been consulted? Do they want to undertake that additional burden on top of all their many other important duties?
      The Under-Secretary mentioned trading officers, but they are employed by local authorities and the Secretary of State for the Environment is busy damaging and breaking up local authorities. The Under-Secretary wants them to bear the additional burden. What would be the cost of that? What consultations have taken place? How many more trading officers would local authorities have to

      57
      employ? Would not the burden ultimately be borne by the consumer, and to a much greater extent than the Minister is prepared to concede?
      The Under-Secretary has also suggested from time to time that banks might be prepared to send people round to look at the displays advertising compliance with the Act. But who will pay for that? Will not bank customers ultimately have to pay? What will all that cost?
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) said, we should turn our minds to modernising the registry. It should not be too difficult. We could put it on a computer, arrange for more regular registration and increase the fees to £1 for a search and £5 for registration. That would not be an astronomical burden which small businesses could not bear and it is nonsensical for the Under-Secretary to suggest that that is the case.
      Mr. Wickenden: If it is the case, which few would deny, that more businesses should be registered in the Register of Business Names than under the Companies Act, surely the cost of administering the register should be at least similar to that of administering the companies register, in which case the fees would have to be a great deal higher than those proposed by the hon. Gentleman—unless there were to be an unfair burden on the taxpayer.
      Mr. DavisThe hon. Gentleman has not done his arithmetic. A wide variety of bodies who have looked at the matter with care—and I hope that he will acquit the Law Society, accountancy bodies, big business represented by Shell, the CBI and chambers of commerce of merely looking at the matter and pulling a figure out of the air—have all put forward a similar proposition. It is the Under-Secretary's rejection of the combined wisdom of so many who have no political axe to grind that I find so bewildering, and my view is shared by the hon. Member for Selly Oak.
      Mr. WickendenI have done my homework. There are 2½ million companies on the Register of Business Names and 1.3 million companies in the companies registry. The cost of the Registry of Business Names must be at least equal to that of the companies registry. The cost would therefore have to be similar and a great deal more than the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
      Mr. DavisThe hon. Gentleman overlooks the Under-Secretary's own argument. There is a lot of dead wood and a system of re-registration would eliminate the dead wood and constitute a saving. Obviously the hon. Gentleman did not consider that factor in his analysis of the cost.
      We have gone over the arguments in great detail for many hours and I do not propose to detain the House for much longer. It is a pity that the Under-Secretary should regard himself as the TINA of the Department of Trade. There he stands—oblivious to all the arguments, uncaring about the evidence, determined to shed about 60 civil servants and to get on with the job of demonstrating his concern for the consumer.
      Mr. EyreI know that the hon. Gentleman will remember that when he held my post the Labour Government produced a Green Paper—after an impartial examination of the circumstances that we are considering—and recommmended that the register should be abolished.
      Mr. DavisThat is a proposition that officials of the Department have yearned after. I opposed it bitterly. I have told the hon. Gentleman time and again in the House, in Committee and privately that the proposition was put forward, I disapproved of it and I suggested that we should test it in a Green Paper. We tested it and we got the response that I forecast.
      The proposition did not appear in the 1978 Bill, which included powers to increase the registry's fees. The Under-Secretary cannot use that argument.
      Mr. EyreSurely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Department issued the Green Paper without having examined the subject and that it would have made that recommendation without considering all the evidence.
      Mr. DavisThe Under-Secretary must know that not only Conservative Governments are concerned from time to time about reducing the number of civil servants. Such exercises, which are sometimes rather time-consuming and wasteful, also affected the deliberations of the Labour Government in 1978. The proposition was never put forward with my approval. I opposed it, and who won in the end? That is the test. What appeared in the Bill was a proposition to improve the registry. The hon. Gentleman will remember the Bill that included provisions to that effect. Ministers sometime have the last word, though that does not appear to be so in this case.
      The Under-Secretary has shown that he is not prepared to see reason. That is a great pity. I gather that we shall not have another Companies Bill next year. We are all delighted about that, because the hon. Gentleman is polygamous in respect of Companies Bills. We have had one after another and I fear that we shall have another the year after next if the Government are still in office.
      The arguments have been well rehearsed and I believe that the Government are making a great error. Outside opinion is against them and will continue to be so. Once we kill the registry we shall find it difficult to maintain an edifice that will protect the consumer as well as the register is capable of doing, subject to the improvements that we can still enact.
      The Under-Secretary is not so much imposing protections for the consumer as encouraging important protections to decompose. He has failed the House by using the arguments that he has put forward. I am the hon. Gentleman's friend, but I have to say that he has not reflected great credit on himself by adopting some of the extraordinary arguments that he has been compelled to use over the many hours of debate on this issue.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 256.

      Division No. 301]

      [6.10 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Adams, Allen

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Allaun, Frank

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Alton, David

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

      Anderson, Donald

      Bradley, Tom

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Ashton, Joe

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

      Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

      Buchan, Norman

      Bagier, Gordon A.T.

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

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

      Beith, A. J.

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Canavan, Dennis

      Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

      Cant, R. B.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Alexander, Richard

      Fell, Anthony

      Ancram, Michael

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

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

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

      Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

      Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

      Forman, Nigel

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Banks, Robert

      Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

      Bendell, Vivian

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

      Fry, Peter

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Blackburn, John

      Goodhew, Victor

      Blaker, Peter

      Gorst, John

      Body, Richard

      Gow, Ian

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gray, Harnish

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Greenway, Harry

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Grieve, Percy

      Braine, Sir Bernard

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

      Bright, Graham

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

      Brinton, Tim

      Grist, Ian

      Brittan, Rt. Hon, Leon

      Grylls, Michael

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hannam, John

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Budgen, Nick

      Hawkins, Paul

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Burden, Sir Frederick

      Henderson, Barry

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

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

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hooson, Tom

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

      Hordern, Peter

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

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

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Colvin, Michael

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Cope, John

      Jessel, Toby

      Cormack, Patrick

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Corrie, John

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Cranborne, Viscount

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Critchley, Julian

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Crouch, David

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Knox, David

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lamont, Norman

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Dover, Denshore

      Lee, John

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Durant, Tony

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Egger, Tim

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Loveridge, John

      Eyre, Reginald

      Luce, Richard

      Carmichael, Neil

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Lamborn, Harry

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Lamond, James

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

      Leighton, Ronald

      Cohen, Stanley

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Coleman, Donald

      Litherland, Robert

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Conlan, Bernard

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Cook, Robin F.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Cowans, Harry

      McCartney, Hugh

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

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Crowther, Stan

      McElhone, Frank

      Cryer, Bob

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      McKelvey, William

      Dalyell, Tam

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      McTaggart, Robert

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

      McWilliam, John

      Deakins, Eric

      Magee, Bryan

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Dewar, Donald

      Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

      Dixon, Donald

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Dobson, Frank

      Maxton, John

      Dormand, Jack

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Douglas, Dick

      Meacher, Michael

      Dubs, Alfred

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Mikardo, Ian

      Dunnett, Jack

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Eadie, Alex

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Eastham, Ken

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

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

      Morton, George

      English, Michael

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Newens, Stanley

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Ogden, Eric

      Ewing, Harry

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Field, Frank

      O'Neill, Martin

      Fitch, Alan

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Park, George

      Ford, Ben

      Parker, John

      Forrester, John

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Foster, Derek

      Pendry, Tom

      Foulkes, George

      Penhaligon, David

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

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Prescott, John

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      George, Bruce

      Race, Reg

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Radice, Giles

      Graham, Ted

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Richardson, Jo

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

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

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Hardy, Peter

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Robertson, George

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Rooker, J. W.

      Haynes, Frank

      Roper, John

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Ryman, John

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

      Sandelson, Neville

      Home Robertson, John

      Sever, John

      Homewood, William

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hooley, Frank

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Howells, Geraint

      Short, Mrs Renee

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Huckfield, Les

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

      Silverman, Julius

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Snape, Peter

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Soley, Clive

      John, Brynmor

      Spearing, Nigel

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

      Stoddart, David

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Stott, Roger

      Kerr, Russell

      Straw, Jack

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Whitlock, William

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

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

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Winnick, David

      Torney, Tom

      Woodall, Alec

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Wright, Sheila

      Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

      Watkins, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Weetch, Ken

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Welsh, Michael

      Mr. Frank R. White.

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Rossi, Hugh

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      MacGregor, John

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

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

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Madel, David

      Shepherd, Richard

      Marland, Paul

      Shersby, Michael

      Marlow, Antony

      Silvester, Fred

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Sims, Roger

      Mates, Michael

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Mather, Carol

      Smith, Dudley

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Speed, Keith

      Mawby, Ray

      Speller, Tony

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Spence, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mellor, David

      Squire, Robin

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Stainton, Keith

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Moate, Roger

      Stanley, John

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Steen, Anthony

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stevens, Martin

      Moore, John

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Stokes, John

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Mudd, David

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Murphy, Christopher

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Myles, David

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Neale, Gerrard

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Needham, Richard

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Nelson, Anthony

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Newton, Tony

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Trippier, David

      Osborn, John

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Viggers, Peter

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Waddington, David

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Wakeham, John

      Parris, Matthew

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Pawsey, James

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Waller, Gary

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Walters, Dennis

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Warren, Kenneth

      Pollock, Alexander

      Watson, John

      Porter, Barry

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Wells, Bowen

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Wheeler, John

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Whitney, Raymond

      Raison, Timothy

      Wickenden, Keith

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wilkinson, John

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Williams, D.(Montgomery)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Renton, Tim

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Mr. Donald Thompson.

    New Clause 29

      CIVIL REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF SECTION 29
      'Any legal proceedings brought by any person to whom section 28 of this Act applies to enforce any right arising out of a contract made in the course of a business in respect of which he was at the time the contract was made in breach of subsection (1) or (2) of section 29 of this Act shall be dismissed if the defendant to the proceedings shows—

      that he has a claim against the plaintiff arising out of that contract which he has been unable to persue by reason of the plaintiff's breach of section 29(1) or (2); or

      that he has suffered some financial loss in connection with the contract by reason of the plaintiff's breach of section 29(1) or (2):

      unless the court before which the proceedings are brought is satisfied that it is just and equitable to permit the proceedings to continue.
      This section is without prejudice to the right of any person to enforce such rights as he may have against another person in any proceedings brought by that person.'.—[Mr. Eyre.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 24

      ASSIGNMENT OR RELEASE OF COMPANY'S RIGHT TO PURCHASE OWN SHARES
      '.— The rights of a company under any contract approved under section 45 or 46 of this Act or any contract for a purchase authorised under section 47 of this Act shall not be capable of assignment.

      Any agreement by a company to release its rights under any contract approved under section 45 or 46 of this Act shall be void unless the release is approved in advance in accordance with subsection (3) below.

      The terms of the proposed release agreement must be authorised by a special resolution of the company before the company enters into the agreement; and subsections (6) to (12) of section 45 of this Act shall apply in relation to the authority for a proposed release agreement as they apply in relation to the authority for a proposed variation of an existing contract of purchase.'.—[Mr. Eyre.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. EyreI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 24 deals with two aspects of the power of a company to purchase its own shares which would offer scope for abuse unless provision is made to prevent this.
      The clause, first, in subsection (1) prohibits a company from assigning its rights under any contract of purchase authorised under clauses 45 or 47 and any contingent purchase contract authorised under clause 46. In other words, it will prevent a company from transferring any rights of purchase it acquires. If such provision were not made, a company would be able to speculate against its own share price by buying and selling rights to purchase, whether or not the share was traded on the listed or unlisted securities markets of the Stock Exchange. This is something which the Government, in introducing the power to purchase own shares, have sought to prevent. For example, it is to prevent this, as well as for other reasons, that the requirement has been made that shares must be cancelled on purchase, rather than held available for resale. Most respondents to the original Green Paper on this subject thought that this was an abuse which should not be allowed.
      The second matter with which the new clause deals is that of a company agreeing to release its rights under a contract of purchase or contingent contract of purchase

      63

      authorised under clauses 45 or 46. In contrast to the assignment of rights, for which we believe there is no commercial justification and which we have therefore proposed simply to prohibit, we consider there may be good and proper commercial reasons for a company to be permitted to give up its rights of purchase. Circumstances may have changed since the contract was entered into and it may be to the advantage of the company, the shareholder who has granted the right and the other members for the purchase not to proceed. Subsection (2) accordingly allows a company to release its rights under a contract, subject to an appropriate safeguard contained in subsection (3). This safeguard is essentially that the release should be subject to approval by special resolution of the company, with the shareholder who originally agreed to sell the shares in question disqualified from voting in respect of the shares which are the subject of the contract, in the same way that the entry into a contract and any variation of it must be authorised by special resolution. This safeguard is needed because, without it, there would be an obvious means for the company to avoid the prohibition on assignments or to provide funds to a selected shareholder or group of shareholders at the expense of the others by buying a right to purchase their shares and then releasing the right.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 25

      PAYMENTS APART FROM PURCHASE PRICE TO BE MADE OUT OF DISTRIBUTABLE PROFITS
      C.— Any payment made by a company in consideration of—

      acquiring any right with respect to the purchase of any of its own shares in pursuance of a contract approved under section 46 of this Act;

      the variation of any contract approved under section 45 or 46 of this Act; or

      the release of any of the company's obligations with respect to the purchase of any of its own shares under any contract approved under section 45 or 46 or under any contract for a purchase authorised under section 47 of this Act; must be made out of distributable profits of the company.

      If the requirements of subsection (1) above are not satisfied in relation to any contract—

      in a case within subsection (1)(a), no purchase by the company of any of its own shares in pursuance of that contract shall be lawful by virtue of this Part of this Act;

      in a case within subsection (1)(b), no such purchase following the variation shall be lawful by virtue of this Part of this Act; and

      in a case within subsection (1)(c), the purported release shall be void."—[Mr. Eyre.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. EyreI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 51.
      Mr. EyreNew clause 25 requires that any payment made by a company in consideration of acquiring a right to purchase its own shares, a variation of an existing contract of purchase, or in a release from any of its obligations with respect to a purchase, must be found from
      64
      distributable profits. If this requirement is not satisfied, the clause makes the related purchase of shares unlawful in the case of an option or variation and makes the release from an obligation void.
      The Government recognise that it is in the interests of companies and shareholders that it should be possible for companies to acquire options to purchase their own shaes or for contracts of purchase to be varied or companies to be released from their obligations. Such facilities are consistent with the overall objective in permitting companies to purchase their own shares of promoting investment in companies, and provision is made for them, subject to appropriate procedural safeguards, in clauses 45 and 46 of the Bill. As the new clause recognises, a company may also obtain a release from an obligation arising under a contract of purchase made under the authorisation procedure for market purchases laid down in clause 47. Such contracts may not, however, be varied under Stock Exchange practice. The purchase of options on the market is excluded by the requirements imposed by clause 46.
      The Bill also enables a private company to deplete capital reserves to pay the price for purchase of its own shares, subject to safeguards involving quite elaborate procedures. We see no commercial justification for allowing a company similarly to reduce its capital reserves to make a payment for an option, variation or release. The clause accordingly requires that any payments made in these circumstances may be made only from those funds which may be distributed to shareholders under part III of the 1980 Act, which safeguards the interests of creditors as regards the distribution of a company's assets.
      Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 51 are consequential on the introduction of new clause 25. The first two amendments delete provisions in clause 46 which lay down the requirements in respect of contingent purchase contracts and are now included in new clause 25.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Anthony NelsonOn Second Reading I referred to the part of the Bill dealing with the right of companies to purchase their own shares. I expressed some concern that burdensome and unnecessary restraints were being introduced on the ability of companies and shareholders to decline in size. I sought at that time to introduce a greater degree of flexibility to enable a company to purchase its own shares because the provisions in the Bill as drafted—and the same is true of the amended form—were more restrictive than I should have liked to see.
      The law in this area is based on common rather than statute law, and the attitude of Parliament and commentators to companies purchasing their own shares has always been that it is rather unclean and that there is something incestuous about companies purchasing their own shares. The provisions have therefore been tightened to prevent companies from effectively exercising an important aspect of their rights; an important area of provisions that should enable money to be invested more easily and enable companies to change their shareholdings more easily. This should result in more free enterprise as companies that are redundant either decline or go out of business, which is as important as allowing new companies to spring up.
      No substantial change was made in Committee. I do not press too hard for this, because I think that it is right to see

      65
      how these provisions work out, but will the Minister assure the House that if the legislation proceeds satisfactorily and if there is no abuse of the new rights that companies will have to purchase their own shares he will consider making the rules concerning purchase more flexible?
      It seems that the requirements for genetral meetings and resolutions by companies are unnecessarily costly, but, most of all, the source of finance for the purchase of shares or associated rights of purchase seems to be artificially restrictive. The definition of disposable income is an accounting one because net disposable funds left with a company, if not distributed to shareholders in the form of a dividend, for example, will be reinvested as reserve in the company and so acquire the status of capital. In a subsequent year that same money, even if it is held in a deposit or current account, cannot be utilised for the purchase of shares because it is no longer classified as undistributed profit and it then becomes part of the capital reserves of the company.
      I do not feel that we should have this plethora of restrictions on being able to purchase shares. I believe that a company that considers it wise to do so should be able to borrow money as much for working capital and investment requirements as for the purchase of its own shares if it considers that to be in the interests of shareholders.
      I understand that creditors' interests have been of paramount consideration in the drafting of the legislation. I have made my point. I hope that the Minister can offer a gleam of hope that if the legislation is not abused, and if the number of companies buying their own shares is minimal, he will consider introducing more flexible and encouraging arrangements that the present provisions allow.
      Mr. Clinton DavisI urge the Minister to exercise caution when considering the advice of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson). If the hon. Gentleman had said that the legislation was unduly convoluted, I should have agreed. Having embarked on an experiment, the Minister is right to take great care. Abuses could spring to light, but they might not emerge fully for a considerable time.
      The Minister should wait upon events. He should examine the position in due course although probably by then he will not be the Minister. He should try to ensure that unnecessary bureaucracy is avoided. The hon. Member for Chichester is asking the Minister to be too uncaring of the consequences that could emerge. Basically, I support the Minister's view in this matter.
      Mr. EyreI am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson). I understand his desire for flexibility. I appreciate his argument that perhaps we have been too restrictive. I might be able to help my hon. Friend with some clarification.
      I understand that distributable profits will be available for purchases even if they have been carried to reserves. My hon. Friend is incorrect in believing that the Bill carries them to reserves and therefore makes them unavailable for the purchase of own shares. Free reserves are available for that purpose.
      I acknowledge the danger of hastening too slowly in certain circumstances. However, we have tried to strike a reasonable and proper balance. As the hon. Member for
      66
      Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) said, in certain circumstances dangers are involved in breaking legislative ground too quickly. We have tried not to make that mistake. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to ask for a proper degree of flexibility if no improper advantage is taken of the opportunities offered under the legislation.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will suspend his judgment, because when I move new clause 26 I shall set out proposals to provide for the greater flexibility that my hon. Friend believes should be made available. I ask him to bear with us in the caution with which we advance along this road, because it involves new areas of judgment and responsibility. I am sure that the provisions in new clause 26 will meet the general principles so reasonably expressed by my hon. Friend.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 26

      POWER TO ALTER CERTAIN PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO REDEMPTION OR PURCHASE BY A COMPANY OF ITS OWN SHARES
      ?(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument modify the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to any of the following matters—

      the authority required for a purchase by a company of any of its own shares;

      the authority required for the release by a company of its rights under any contract for the purchase of its own shares or any contract under which the company may (subject to any conditions) become entitled or obliged to purchase any of its own shares;

      the information to be included in any return delivered by a company to the registrar of companies in accordance with section 48(1) of this Act;

      the matters to be dealt with in the statutory declaration of the directors required by section 51 of this Act with a view to indicating their opinion of their company's ability to make a proposed payment out of capital with due regard to its financial situation and prospects; and

      the contents of the auditors' report required by that section to be annexed to that declaration.

      (2) The Secretary of State may also by regulations so made make such provision (including provision by way of modifying the provisions of this Part of this Act) as appears to him to be appropriate—

      for wholly or partly relieving companies from the requirement under section 50(2)(a) of this Act that any available profits must be taken into account in determining the amount of the permissible capital payment for any shares under that section; or

      for permitting a company's share premium account to be applied, to any extent appearing to the Secretary of State to be appropriate, in providing for the premiums payable on the redemption or purchase by the company of any of its own shares.

      (3) Regulations under this section—

      may make such further modifications of any provisions of this Part of this Act as appears to the Secretary of State to be reasonably necessary in consequence of any provision made by any such regulations by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) above;

      may make different provision for different cases or classes of case; and

      may contain such further consequential provisions, and such incidental and supplementary provisions, as the Secretary of State thinks fit.

      (4) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Eyre.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. EyreI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Government put forward the new clause in pursuance of an undertaking that I gave in Committee to consider a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) with support from the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson)—namely, that bearing in mind the possibility that an opportunity to revise the provisions enabling a company to purchase its own shares may not arise for some years, it would be reasonable to take a power to adapt the provisions by statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution if, in the intervening period, it was found that they could, with advantage, be developed.
      The Government have given full and careful consideration to that suggestion. Obviously, there are objections to the provision of powers to amend primary legislation by statutory instrument, and we have not overlooked them. However, there are sound considerations that we believe justify such a provision in this case. In devising the legislative provisions to permit a company to purchase its own shares, we have attempted to take account of the foreseeable positions in which the interests of shareholders and creditors will need to be protected and to provide procedures accordingly. While we have received representations, such as those discussed in Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) was effective there—that some changes might be desirable, we are reasonably confident at this stage that the provisions strike just about the right balance. Their present form reflects the outcome of extensive consultations during their preparation. However, we acknowledge that a power to purchase own shares is a fundamental change in company law. It is impossible to know in advance all the circumstances in which companies will exercise that power, and what will be the effects for members and creditors. We are also sensitive to the concerns that have been expressed—for example, those referred to in Committee by the hon. Member for Coventry North-West and my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester—that in some areas, such as in the way in which we have defined off-market purchases and the detailed authorisation requirements we have applied to them, we have been unduly rigorous. We therefore see considerable attractions in providing a power to adapt the purchase of own shares provisions by statutory instrument, and that, in principle, is the purpose of the new clause.
      The Government have, however, been extremely careful to ensure that the proposed power goes no wider than what we consider necessary. We have, therefore, sought to set out in the clause not only those aspects of the provisions that seem to us, in the light of comments received from outside bodies and in debate in Committee, might need to be changed, but also, where possible, in what way those aspects might need to be changed. There is obviously a difficult balance to strike here. The power is intended to accommodate uncertainty, so the more precise its provisions, the less useful they might prove to be. We have done our best in the course of thorough consideration within the Government to strike a sensible balance, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that we have achieved that balance. We have, of course, provided for the fullest possible parliamentary scrutiny of any instrument by requiring that it be laid in draft and approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses.
      68
      To summarise, the Government believe that the new clause enhances the potential usefulness of the purchase of own shares provisions in a sound, commonsense manner that ensures proper parliamentary accountability. We intend to exercise the power, if at all, only in the light of experience of operation of the power to purchase own shares when there is reliable evidence to justify any change.
      6.45 pm
      We shall be considering a number of mainly technical amendments to clauses 43 to 57 on the subject of the purchase of own shares. The new clause effectively completes the edifice of our new provisions. Standing back from the necessary details of the statutory framework, it is appropriate to remind the House of the important and valuable objectives that will be served by those clauses. As we set out in the Green Paper last year, we envisage that the power to purchase own shares will provide additional flexibility in a wide range of circumstances—for example, where a bank or some other investor is wiling to invest equity in a company only if he can have an assurance that he will not be locked in, where an entrepreneur wishes to raise equity without giving up a proportion of the company's capital, where a major shareholder retires or dies and the stability or character of the company might be otherwise adversely affected, where a company wishes to redistribute surplus funds, and so on.
      We cannot predict exactly how the provisions will be used. That is one reason for taking a power of amendment. I am sure that many companies, investors and advisers will consider how they might be used to advantage. We believe the provisions to be a major and radical advance in company law. We are heartened by the response that they have received since the Green Paper was first published. We look forward with intense interest to their application in practice.
      Mr. Clinton DavisI very much welcome the Government's response to the proposals put forward in Committee by my hon. Friends. I am grateful to the Minister for having accorded that responsibility to them and for the response that he has made. The Minister has embarked upon a useful precedent. Few hon. Members who have served in Committee on companies Bills regard them as great examples of the efficiency of parliamentary procedures. We are bogged down with an enormous welter of technical detail. Few of us, including myself, understand much of that detail when it is before the Committee. The proposal establishes a useful precedent for dealing with technical areas of legislation.
      The Minister was right to stress that a draft statutory instrument should be laid before the House considers the matter. Knowing the Department of Trade, I imagine that the most careful consultation will take place with outside bodies both before the draft is prepared and after it has been published. The bodies with a professional interest in such matters have a great deal to contribute—more, I fear, than hon. Members when dealing with highly technical, non-contentious matters.
      I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to assure the bodies concerned that he will listen carefully to their representations on both the principle and the detail. I am sure that the Minister is right to say that we need a flexible approach when legislation in a narrow, technical

      69
      area is shown to be unduly burdensome. We should not have to wait for a further Bill, with all the problems of time that that poses for any Government.
      I wholeheartedly welcome the proposal. It is a great advance. I am glad that the Government have taken time to put it before the House today.
      Mr. NelsonI welcome this sensible improvement to the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the way in which he responded to my comments on an earlier new clause.
      The drafting of the new clause appears to be of a flexible nature. It has been drafted in a way that shows that any resolution will, if anything, make the position more flexible or beneficial for companies rather than more restrictive. In other words, the resolution-making powers in the Bill appear to be designed to liberate the position rather than to tighten it at a later stage.
      Normally I and, I suspect, some of my hon. Friends regard order-making and resolution-making powers within Bills as Trojan horses that are designed to keep extremely late in the House those who do not have pairs. We have not always thanked those who have been responsible for introducing order-making powers which have sometimes resulted in radical changes in legislation being introduced under the guise of a long since passed Bill. In this instance I think that the logic is accepted on both sides of the House, and I hope that the power will be used to advantage.
      The provisions to allow companies to purchase their own shares have been drafted rather tightly. I suspect that far fewer companies will exercise their rights to purchase their own shares than many hon. Members on both sides of the House hope. If there is no abuse of the provisions, I think that we shall be able to use the new clause to advantage.
      Mr. EyreI was glad to hear the approval that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) gave to the clause. I much appreciate his strong interest in this area of company law. I am happy to give the assurance for which he asked.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 37

      Supplementary provisions relating to Part III of the 1980 Act
      (1) For the purposes of determining by reference to any particular accounts whether any proposed distribution may be made in accordance with section 43 of the 1980 Act (determination of amount of distributable profits) subsection (7) of that section (reduction of distributable profits by amount of earlier distributions) shall apply if it would not otherwise to—

      any financial assistance lawfully given by a public company out of its distributable profits in any case where the assistance is required to be so given by section 40(5) of this Act;

      any financial assistance lawfully given by a private company out of its distributable profits in any case where the assistance is required to be so given by section 41(2) of this Act;

      any financial assistance given by any company in contravention of section 40 of this Act in any case where the giving of that assistance reduces the company's net assets or increases its net liabilities;

      70

      any payment made by any company in respect of the purchase by the company of any shares in the company except any payment lawfully made otherwise than out of distributable profits; and

      any payment of a description specified in section (Payments apart from purchase price to be made out of distributable profits) of this Act;

      being financial assistance given or payment made since those accounts were prepared, as if any such financial assistance or payment were a distribution already made in pursuance of a determination made by reference to those accounts.
      (2) Section 44 of the 1980 Act (consequences of unlawful distributions) shall not apply in relation to—

      any financial assistance given by any company in contravention of section 40 of this Act; or

      any payment made by a company in respect of the redemption or purchase by the company of any shares in the company.

      (3) In this section—
      "financial assistance" has the meaning given by section 40(6) of this Act;
      "net assets" has the meaning given by section 40(7) of this Act; and
      "net liabilities" in relation to the giving of financial assistance by any company means the amount by which the aggregate amount of the company's liabilities (within the meaning of section 40(7)(b) of this Act) exceeds the aggregate amount of its assets taking the amount of the assets and liabilities to be as stated in the company's accounting records immediately before the financial assistance is given.'.—[Mr. Peter Rees.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Minister for TradeI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause makes clear how part III of the 1980 Act, which is concerned with what a company may lawfully distribute, applies to payments to companies in respect of the purchase or redemption of their own shares and the giving of financial assistance for the purpose of acquisition of their own shares.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 36

        DISTRIBUTIONS IN KIND
        'The following section shall be inserted after section 43 of the 1980 Act—
        "43A. Where a company makes a distribution of or including any non-cash asset and any part of the amount at which that asset is stated in the accounts relevant for the purposes of that distribution in accordance with section 43 of this Act represents an unrealised profit shall be treated as a realised profit—

        for the purpose of determining the lawfulness of that distribution in accordance with this Part of this Act (whether before or after it takes place); and

        for the purpose of the application of paragraphs 12(a) and 34(4)(b) of Schedule 8 to the 1948 Act (only realised profits to be included in or transferred to the profit and loss account) in relation to anything done with a view to or in connection with making that distribution.". '.—[Mr. Peter Rees.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Peter ReesI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        It was appreciated that the demerger provisions that were introduced in the Finance Bill 1980 might not operate quite as they were intended to if there were not a slight relaxation of the rules on the distribution of unrealised profits. It is often an aspect of such demergers that real property, or alternatively shares in other companies of the same group, may be passed out in the course of a

        71
        demerger. The purpose of the clause is to provide that where a company distributes an asset in kind which contains an element of unrealised profit the amount of that profit shall be treated as though it were a realised profit, thereby meeting the provisions in section 39 of the Companies Act 1980, or at least not contravening it.
        I venture to reflect that this is a measure of common sense and I hope that on that basis it will commmend itself to the House.
        Mr. Clinton DavisMay I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his transfer, or is it elevation, to the Department of Trade?
        The Secretary of State for Trade: It is an elevation.
        Mr. DavisI am given that assurance by the Secretary of State, but such an assurance is always slightly dubious when it comes from that quarter. However, I am sure that it is an elevation. I wish the hon. and learned Gentleman well in the job that he will perform. He is an old friend. I look forward to crossing swords with him on many occasions, but not on this clause. I thought that he moved it brilliantly.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New clause 28

        Old public companies
        "Subject to section 33(1) of this Act, any reference in this Act to a public company or to a company other than a private company shall unless the context otherwise requires be construed as including a reference to an old public company (within the meaning of section 8 of the 1980 Act) and any reference to a private company shall be construed accordingly.'.—[Mr. Peter Rees.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Peter ReesI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        The Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 58.
        Mr. ReesI thank the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) for his extremely courteous and generous words. I am sure that he and the House will be tender of my innocence on this occasion, even if, as the hon. Gentleman forecast, we may have to cross our rhetorical swords on some other occasion. I hope that that occasion will not be presented by the clause, which is of extreme simplicity. Its purpose, together with the related amendment, is to ensure that where appropriate the Bill's provisions that are applicable to public companies and companies other than private companies apply also to old public companies in the meaning of section 8 of the Companies Act 1980.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 27

        INTERNATIONAL BONDS
        '.—p(1) Section 71 of the 1980 Act (exclusion of things done in connection with international bonds from prohibition on
        72
        insider dealing) shall have effect subject to the following modifications.
        (2) In subsection (1)—

        after the word "debenture", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or any right to subscribe for, call for or make delivery of any debenture";

        in paragraph (a)(ii) for the words "before the date on which it is decided" there shall be substituted the words "before the decision is taken"; and

        in paragraph (b) after the word "debenture", in both places where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or right".

        (3) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—

        "(1A) Where an individual holds unpublished price sensitive information in relation to any securities but by virtue of subsection (1) above he is not prohibited by section 68 above from doing anything in relation to those securities, he shall not be prohibited by virtue of his holding that information by section 70(2) above (prohibition on counselling persons to deal on stock exchanges outside Great Britain, etc.) from doing any other thing in relation to those securities.".

        (4) In subsection (2)—

        in paragraph (b) of the definition of "international bond issue" for the words "are so offered" there shall be substituted the words "are or are to be so offered"; and

        the following words shall be inserted after the definition of "issue manager", that is to say, "and "off-market dealer' has the meaning given by section 70(3) above.".

        (5) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)—

        "(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision—

        permitting persons of any specified class to be treated as issue managers for the purposes of subsection (1) or (1A) (or both) of this section;

        permitting persons of any specified class to be treated as off-market dealers for those purposes;

        permitting an issue of international securities of any specified class to be treated as an international bond issue for those purposes;

        extending the exemptions conferred by subsections (1) or (1A) above (or both) for things done in relation to other advertised securities or other advertised securities of any specified class;

        amending or disapplying paragraph (i) or (ii) (or both) of subsection (1)(a) above in relation to any international bond issue or any international bond issue of a specified class.

        (4) In subsection (3) above, "international securities" means any securities (whether listed or advertised or other) which are in any way connected with a country outside Great Britain, for example, securities issued by a body which is incorporated or resident outside Great Britain or which are denominated in a currency other than sterling or which are dealt in by bodies incorporated or resident outside Great Britain or by individuals so resident.

        (5) Regulations under subsection (3) above—

        may make different provision for different cases or classes of case and may contain such incidental and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks fit;

        shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing them has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Peter Rees.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Peter ReesI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        This is a clause of greater complexity than the previous one, but I think that it can be put fairly simply. It is designed to relax to a small degree the provisions relating to insider dealing, as these might otherwise have had an effect on the market in international bonds. Part of the clause is designed to put right certain defects in section 71

        73
        of the 1980 Act, which provides a defence to a charge of insider dealing for certain operations of the international bond market. The rest of the clause gives the Secretary of State power to amend that section by order in certain respects.
        The rationale underlying the clause is that the international bond market is essentially for professionals. If the regulations are drawn too tightly in respect of dealings on that market there is a substantial risk that the market will be driven overseas, to the detriment, as I put it to the House, of Britain. As it is essentially a professional market for professionals, there is not quite the same need for the protection of the unwary and inexperienced as that which is contained in section 71.
        The international bond market has, of course, many international dimensions and its character alters rapidly. The possibility of the Secretary of State being able to introduce the necessary primary ligislation to make appropriate amendments year by year is remote. I feel that the House would be rather irked if a fresh Companies Bill were introduced every year purely to make the necessary amendments to the provisions relating to the international bond market.
        I hope that the House will feel that in this instance it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to have power by regulation, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to amend as he thinks proper, after due scrutiny by the House, the provisions relating to this rather specialised market.
        7 pm
        Mr. Clinton DavisIf I am critical of the Government, I am in no way being critical of the Minister of State who bears no responsibility for the observations that I want to make.
        We have many lessons to learn from the way in which we conduct our company legislation in the House. Part of the problem may be cured by the device of which we spoke in our discussions this evening.
        I wish that the defects of the 1980 Act were confined to section 71. The trouble with the 1980 Act—to some extent like the Bill—is that it is legislation by second thoughts. The Government did not order their thoughts on the 1980 Act, and they have not done so for the Bill. In both cases they decided to limit the legislation. They then found that they could not do that because the long title of the Bill did not permit them to do so.
        The Government changed their minds about the 1980 Bill, and by the time they did so the only ay in which any progress could be made was to get the parliamentary draftsman to work overnight on a defective brief because the time scale was against him. A massive number of new clauses were introduced in Committee—the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and I were both on that Committee—in a way that did not enable the Committee to make any reasonable scrutiny of what was placed before it. On Report a number of new clauses were introduced, but there was little or no opportunity to consult about them. That cannot be a sensible way to conduct company legislation.
        One would have thought that the Government would have learnt something from the experiences of last year, but evidently they have not. Unfortunately, we are today faced with a large number of new amendments and clauses and there has not been sufficient time in which to engage in effective and proper consultation.
        74
        This procedure is one on which we should not embark too quickly again in the near future. That applies not only to company legislation, but to all technical legislation. The House of Commons must devise a better way to deal with these matters. We have a new procedure, but I do not believe that it is more than experimental. I am not satisfied that it satisfactorily covers the scrutiny that we need to undertake when we consider matters such as the one in new clause 27, which is highly complex. I have consulted no one about it. I do not know what defects it contains, but I wish that the defects highlighted by the Government on this occasion represented the end of the matter.
        Accountancy bodies have represented their extreme concern about other aspects of the 1980 Act. It is a pity that we are to be denied an opportunity to put them right. It would be better if we could put right those aspects by employing the procedures that were outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), the principles of which were accepted by the Government in a recent debate.
        The Government must now consider carefully the much more extended use of the statutory instrument procedure, subject to the safeguards that we have outlined. They should not come forward at the last moment with substantial changes in the legislative proposals as compared with what was before the Committee. Having said that, I do not object to the principle underlying the new clause. I shall not recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.
        Sir Brandon Rhys WilliamsI believe that this is the appropriate stage on Report for me to make some serious remarks about which I have already warned Mr. Speaker.
        It is proper to draw attention to the way in which the Department is handling company law, particularly in this Bill, although in earlier Bills as well. By my reckoning, when the Bill was first introduced to the Lords it had 109 pages and 62 clauses. When it came from the Lords, it had 131 pages and 79 clauses, many of which were extremely difficult and technical. However, they are not only important to a handful of people, but they make significant differences to the way in which many companies are run.
        When the Bill emerged from Standing Committee, it had 165 pages and 106 clauses, many of which included entirely new matter which was not in the Bill on Second Reading in the House. Now on Report there are a considerable number of new Government clauses to be taken, some, like this one, of considerable complexity. There are at least 150 new Government amendments. That is not in accordance with the long-established procedures of the House. Someone should reprimand the Department for slipping into this way of conducting its business.
        I am particularly disquieted because, knowing what we do about the way the Department plans to reform company law, we hear that there is unlikely to be another Companies Bill in this Parliament. But Clause 103, which is to cover amendments of the Companies Act, seems to give virtually carte blanche to the Department to amend company law in any way it likes and to put its amendments before the House to be rubber-stamped without discussion. That is a wrong approach. Many people are involved. Company law is a difficult matter, but it is a matter of wide application, not to be considered as purely a departmental concern.
        I wish to raise another matter because I believe it to be germane. That is the question of the selection of hon.

        75

        Members for the Committee on the Bill, and probably for other Bills as well. The House knows that I have a particular interest in company law. I have introduced either a new Bill or a significant measure of reform for company law in every Session of the House since 1969. Company law is also very much a constituency interest for a large number of people in my division. I spoke on Second Reading and was looking forward to taking part in the Committee as I had taken part in the Committees on earlier Bills.
        Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman is now addressing himself to a matter that relates to the Committee of Selection. We are discussing a new clause in which the Committee of Selection is not mentioned.
        Sir Brandon Rhys WilliamsI entirely accept that. I took the precaution of consulting Mr. Speaker on this question before I raised it. If you will allow me to complete my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that you will see that they are germane to our consideration of the matter which the Minister has brought up for the first time in this new clause.
        This matter could have appeared in the Bill on Second Reading and should have been included during the Committee stage because it is of sufficient interest and importance to have merited the discussions that such matters can have in Committee. In considering whether it should approve new clause 27, the House should take note that many of the clauses were not dealt with as completely as they might have been in Committee; and this is now a Committee point which is being brought up on Report. If I am not allowed to make these remarks now, I must seek your guidance on the appropriate time to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker's guidance was that it would be proper to raise the matter now. Therefore, I hope that you will allow me to continue, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        I understand that the policy of the Committee of Selection now is to ensure that on the Government side all the hon. Members appointed to the Committee are Members who have undertaken to support the Government on every clause. I was asked whether I would give such an undertaking if I were nominated to the Standing Committee. I was unable to give that assurance, because I do not think it would have been a proper assurance for any hon. Member to give, therefore I was not able to serve on the Standing Committee.
        Sir Albert CostainOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I intervene as a member of the Committee of Selection. Is the House to be told by hon. Members about things that the Selection Committee is alleged to have done? I can assure my hon. Friend that such matters as he has raised are not taken into account.
        Mr. Deputy SpeakerI have served on the Committee of Selection and am aware of the procedure. I think that the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) is now off that point. Perhaps, if he will remain off it, we can proceed with the business.
        Sir Brandon Rhys WilliamsSince I have been challenged, perhaps I might be allowed to conclude this section of my remarks by saying that I consulted the Chairman of the Committee at the time and he assured me what his policy was as Chairman. I spoke to him today and
        76
        he repeated it. I warned him that I was intending to raise the matter in the House today. If I have misunderstood him, I hope that he will correct the matter in the House, because I would not want the House to be under any misapprehension.
        Mr. Clinton DavisI make no reflection on the Committee of Selection, but I very much missed the independence of judgment that the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) has displayed on other Bills on which I have had the privilege of serving with him. I missed the expertise which he has clearly had to offer in respect of company legislation. What he has divulged to the House is not a reflection on the Committee of Selection but is a grave reflection upon the Government Whips.
        Sir Brandon Rhys WilliamsI do not want to apportion blame. I do not know that it is a blameworthy matter. Other hon. Members might think that it is perfectly proper. But the constitutional issue which arises in the consideration of the amendment—if it is proper that the House should take it in this way at this time—is whether the Committee should be constituted in such a way that the Government Members are Members who are prepared to give an undertaking to support the Government on every clause. If that is the way in which selections are made, hon. Members should bear in mind when the Bill comes back to the House on Report that a constitutional change is taking place, since this is the way in which the Committee of Selection, as I am assured, now deals with the question of selection of hon. Members to serve on the Government side.
        Mr. Nicholas BakerMy hon. Friend seemed to suggest that an undertaking was required of Conservative members of the Committee on the Companies Bill that they would support Government policy. That was certainly not my experience. No undertaking was required of me.
        Sir Brandon Rhys WilliamsI was asked to give that assurance and, because I was not able to do so, I was not nominated to the Committee. Possibly the Committee stage was all the better because I was not a member of the Committee—that is a matter for the other hon. Members to consider—but it is right to draw attention to the fact that this constitutional change has taken place, and that the Department, particularly with reference to company law, is treating the House, as it seems to me, with contempt. I hope that the Chair, as the protector of minorities in this House, will take note of the position and reflect upon it, even if Mr. Speaker may not feel willing or ready to intervene in any way. I hope that—
        Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. As there have been several references to Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may say that I have no doubt that he will read this part of the Official Report with considerable care. I hope that the hon. Member will now move on.
        Sir Brandon Rhys WilliamsI hope, too, that an opportunity will be given to members of the Committee of Selection and the Chairman of the Committee to comment fully on what I have said, and that the whole matter may be resolved in the open. I would prefer that, and I think that all hon. Members would like to have some reassurance on this point.
        7.15 pm
        Mr. Neville TrotterLike my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), I was not asked to give any such assurance. It may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), who is raising the issue, has a record of being against the Government on a number of matters. Perhaps it was for that reason that he was approached. But I do not believe that it was general with the members of the Committee, and it certainly did not happen in my case.
        Mr. Deputy SpeakerI appeal once again to the hon. Member for Kensington to come back to the new clause.
        Sir Brandon Rhys WilliamsI do not want to say more about the new clause. As far as I am able to understand it——
        Mr. Clinton DavisAgain I make no aspersions against the Committee of Selection, but the Government Whips knew who the "chocolate soldiers" were and that they could expect total compliance from them. I said that at the beginning of our debate. I was right and the hon. Member for Kensington is right.
        Sir Brandon Rhys WilliamsI think that the right thing for me to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is to obey your injunction and to draw my remarks to a close. I have not had the opportunity of looking at new clause 27 in the way in which it would have been looked at in Standing Committee, but I do not think that it would be right for me to dwell further on its merits and demerits. As far as I am able to judge, it is an admirable proposal, but it is one which ought not to have been introduced to the House in this way.
        I hope that my protest will serve a useful purpose, and I am grateful to you for your forbearance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in allowing me to make it.
        Mr. Peter ReesI intervene with some diffidence, for the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) have not directed much fire at the new clause. However, I should like to deal briefly with some of the general points which have been made.
        The hon. Member for Hackney, Central said, in charming and epigrammatic phrase, that this was Government by second thoughts. But he, with his long experience of the Department and his long experience of company law—very much longer than my own—knows that this is a rapidly developing field, where the Government of the day—I am sure that it was as true of the Government of which he was a distinguished ornament—are subject to a great deal of outside pressure and representation, and very rightly so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington well knows, it is a complex field which affects a wide range of interests and is of practical significance. Therefore it is right that the Government of the day should be sensitive to the points made to them.
        In an ideal world, it would be right for every clause and major provision to be there for the House to see nd debate on Second Reading, before the Bill goes to a Committee. But my hon. Friend the member for Kensington, who has been in the House longer than I have, knows that we do not live in an ideal world. That is certainly the case with Finance Bills, on which I have had to labour for far too long. Unless the House is to be overloaded with primary
        78
        legislation Session by Session—and I do not think that that is the wish of the House as a whole—it is right that the Government of the day, of whatever party, should take an appropriate opportunity to fit in new measures.
        The provision has, of course, fairly far-reaching effects, but it is primarily in relation to section 71 of the 1980 Act, so that it is not a new conception that has sprung from the forehead of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. It is the development of a series of provisions that were introduced in the 1980 Act.
        I hope, therefore, on that basis—although I recognise that it is desirable that the House should have the maximum opportunity to scrutinise these provisions on the Floor of the House and in Committee—that the House will accept the clause, particularly since no substantial criticism has been levelled at its substance.
        It would be quite inappropriate for me to come between my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and the Committee of Selection, and I therefore pass over that matter. I am genuinely sorry, as I always listen with keen interest to the interventions of my hon. Friend in many fields—particularly that of company law—that the Standing Committee was deprived of his services, for whatever reason. But a virtue of the Report stage is that it gives hon. Members who did not have a chance to contribute to the proceedings in Standing Committee the opportunities to bring their considerable experience to our debate. That is perhaps its justification for our debate here this evening.
        I hope that, notwithstanding the reservations about procedure to which I shall of course make a point of drawing the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the substance of the new clause has been thoroughly examined and will commend itself to the House.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 30

        PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
        (1) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (a) of section 175 of the 1948 Act (saving for disclosure of information by solicitors)—
        "(a) by any person of any information which he would in an action in the High Court, or in Scotland, the Court of Session be entitled to refuse to disclose on grounds of legal professional privilege except, if he is a lawyer, the name and address of his client;"
        (2) In section 446 of the 1948 Act (saving for disclosure of privileged information in criminal proceedings) for the words from "nothing in this Act" to the end there shall be substituted the words "or the Secretary of State, nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any person to disclose any information which he is entitled to refuse to disclose on grounds of legal professional privilege".
        (3) In section 116(1) of the 1967 Act (saving for disclosure of information by solicitors) for the words "the production by a solicitor of a document containing a privileged communication made by or to him in that capicity" there shall be substituted the words "the production by any person of a document which he would in an action in the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session be entitled to refuse to produce on grounds of legal professional privilege".—[Mr. Eyre.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. EyreI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 140 and 151.
        Mr. EyreNew clause 30 deals with the complex question of legal professional privilege as it applies to investigations under the Companies Acts and to proceedings brought under the 1948 Act. Under the present legislation there are provisions in the 1948 and 1967 Acts with a bearing on this question. Under section 175 of the 1948 Act disclosure is not required by a solicitor to the Secretary of State or an inspector of any privileged communication made to him in that capacity except as regards the name and address of his client. Under section 446 of that Act, where proceedings are instituted under the Act by the Director of Public Prosecutions or by or behalf of the Lord Advocate, nothing in the Act is to be taken to require any person who has acted as a solicitor for the defendant to disclose any privileged communication made to him in that capacity. Finally, under section 116 of the 1967 Act, as amended, nothing in part III of that Act, which is concerned with inspection of a company's books and papers, shall compel the production by a solicitor of a document containing a privileged communication made by or to him in that capacity or authorise the taking of possession of any such document which is in his possession.
        Paragraphs 8 and 32 of schedule 3 to the Bill, which the new clause supersedes, would have extended these provisions to counsel.
        The Law Society argues that the privilege should extend not only to communications in the hands of a solicitor, or under schedule 3, in the hands of counsel, but also such communications when in the hands of a client. We agree.
        As the House will understand, the legal professional privilege with which the Acts are concerned is the privilege of the client and not of his legal representative. We feel that there is a need to remedy an uncertainty in the present law as to whether, if a person waives privilege, inspectors may obtain documents in relation to which privilege lay from that person's lawyer. There is also a need to include a minor amendment to section 446 to bring it into line with the amendment to section 334(5) proposed in clause 86(2) of the Bill which refers to prosecutions instituted by the Secretary of State.
        Subsection (1) of the new clause will amend section 175 of the 1948 Act to the extent that a person, whether a lawyer or not, shall not be required to disclose any information which he would in an action in the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session, be entitled to refuse to disclose on grounds of legal professional privilege except, if he is a lawyer, the name and address of his client. This meets the suggestion of the Law Society to which I have referred and also clarifies the question of waiver of privilege inasmuch if privilege is waived by the client in the High Court or Court of Session documents can then be obtained from his lawyer.
        Similarly, under subsection (2), nothing in the Act is to be taken to require any person to disclose in proceedings instituted under the 1948 Act any information which he is entitled to refuse to disclose on grounds of legal professional privilege. The proceedings referred to include those brought by the Secretary of State as well as those
        80
        brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions and Lord Advocate, so bringing section 446 into line with section 334(5) as proposed to be amended by clause 86(2).
        Subsection (3) amends section 116 of the 1967 Act in a similar manner to the amendment to section 175 of the 1948 Act, proposed in subsection (1), subject to the inherent difference in the investigation procedures under the relevant sections of the 1948 and 1967 Acts. Investigations to which section 116 of the 1967 Act apply require as a first step that documents be produced, whereas sections 175 and 446 of the 1948 Act contemplate oral evidence being given without the necessity for any initial production of documents.
        I should add that amendments Nos. 140 and 151 are merely consequential.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 34

        TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF POWER TO REQUIRE COMPANY TO CHANGE ITS NAME
        '(1) In relation to any company which was first registered, or registered by a new name, at any time during the period beginning with 18th March 1981 and ending with 23rd August 1981 section 18(2) of the 1948 Act (power of Secretary of State to direct company registered by name too like an existing company's name to change its name) shall have effect as if for the words "within six months of its being registered by that name" these were substituted words "before 24th February 1982".
        (2) Where in the case of any oversea company the relevant date within the meaning of section 31(2) of the 1976 Act (date of delivery of certain documents on the company's first establishing a place of business in Great Britain or date of return as to change in the company's corporate name) falls within the period mentioned in subsection (1) above, section 31(2) (which restricts the power of the Secretary of State to serve a notice under subsection (1) of that section in effect requiring an oversea company to use a name other than its corporate name for carrying on business in Great Britain) shall have effect in relation to that company as if for the words from "six months" (in the first place where they occur) to "this section" (in the second place where they occur) there were substituted the words "23rd February 1982".
        (3) This section applies in relation to any such company as is mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) above notwithstanding the fact that the period of six months mentioned in section 18(2) or (as the case may be) in section 31(2) has expired in the case of that company before this section comes into operation.
        (4) In this section "oversea company" has the meaning given by section 406 of the 1948 Act.'.—[Mr. Eyre.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. EyreI beg to move, That the clause be read a second time.
        Before dealing formally with this and the subsequent clause I should say that these clauses deal with an attempt to alleviate the difficulties of the Civil Service industrial action.
        I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the backlog of work at the companies registration offices in both Cardiff and London arising from the recent industrial action in the Civil Service has now been cleared and the normal microfiche search service has been reinstituted.
        Additionally, the registrar is now making available for free inspection in the public search rooms a directory of companies in microfilm form which will give certain basic details for each registered company, such as its registered office address and the made-up date of the last annual

        81
        return and accounts received by the registrar. This should assist searchers to obtain certain key information more easily than at present.
        I turn to new clause 34. One of the results of the recent industrial action within the Civil Service was that the index of company names was not updated by the Registrar of Companies between 18 March and 23 August 1981 inclusive and was therefore not available for inspection by members of the public. This index is the present non-statutory version of the index which will be required to be kept under clause 23.
        In practice, many companies maintain a close watch over the content of the index and if a new name appears which they feel is "too like" their own they will lodge an objection with a request that the Department exercises its power under section 18(2) of the Companies Act 1948 by issuing a direction against the newly registered company to change its name within six months of the date of its registration. In respect of names registered during the absence of the index, objecting companies may subsequently have, or have had, only a restricted time in which to examine the index and lodge their objections before expiry of the six-month period. We have received representations about this and consider that the absence of the index caused by industrial action may have resulted in companies being registered by names which are "too like" those of existing companies and that, in the circumstances, we are justified in extending the period in which a direction under section 18(2) may be given in respect of names registered in that period.
        We propose, therefore, that in relation to company names registered on any day between 18 March and 23 August 1981, that being the period during which an up-to-date index was not available to the public, the power to direct a change under section 18(2) should be extended for a further six months until 23 February 1982. This will allow a full six month period after an up-dated index became available in which to consider whether the name by which a company was registered during that period is "too like" that by which another company was already registered.
        7.30 pm
        A similar problem, of course, arises in relation to the corporate names of overseas companies which registered under part X of the 1948 Act or changed their names during the period in which an up-to-date index was not available. Subsection (2) of the new clause will enable the Secretary of State to take appropriate immediate action under section 31 of the 1976 Act for a period of six months after the updated index became available.
        Mr. John FraserThe Minister said that many companies keep a close watch on the index to see whether a company is registered with a name similar to their own. That simply is not true of the majority of British companies. They have better things to do than to search the register of names every six months or so. Therefore, what the Minister said must apply only to companies that are rich, large or well known and have that sort of facility. Most businesses have far too much to do. They must cope with the recession, high interest rates and other matters. Besides manufacturing a product, they have far too much to occupy their time without having to go to the trouble of searching the register.
        The Minister also said that many companies closely watch the register. That is demonstrably not so. But what
        82
        he said perhaps indicates the inadequacy of the new system, whereby the company must keep a watch on the index rather than on the registrar.
        Let me suggest something that could be done on a non-statutory basis. As the Under-Secretary explained, during the period of the Civil Service industrial action the register was not available for inspection. Therefore, if it comes to the registrar's attention that two names are very alike I hope that he will voluntarily draw the attention of the first registered company to the similar name in case that company wishes to make an objection. Britain's manufacturers and producers of services have better things to do than constantly to inspect the register.
        Mr. EyreI am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the Registrar of Companies could not enter into an obligation to act in the way that he has requested. I am sure also that if the registrar had knowledge of what the hon. Gentleman has described he would be willing to notify another company.
        I have always found the registrar to be most helpful in making the system work. I hope that we can leave the matter there. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there will be an updated index. That will be of great help to companies. It will be available and updated regularly, and it will enable a check to be made on the likely names of companies that might become too similar to that of a registered company. It will assist companies to look after their own rights in this respect.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

        New Clause 35

          CONVERSION OF CREDITORS' VOLUNTARY WINDING UP TO MEMBERS' VOLUNTARY WINDING UP IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
          (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, where a company is being or has been wound up voluntarily and—

          the winding up is or was a creditors' winding up; and

          a statutory declaration which satisfies the requirements of subsection (2) below is delivered to the registrar of companies;

          from the date on which that declaration is so delivered referred to below in this section as the conversion date) the winding up shall be treated for all purposes of the 1948 Act as if it were or (in the case of one already concluded before that date) as if it had been a members' voluntary winding up and (in the case of any such winding up, whether concluded before or still in progress at that date) as if it had been a members' voluntary winding up at all times since its commencement.
          (2) A statutory declaration made for the purposes of this section must be made by the directors of the company or, in the case of a company having more than two directors, by the majority of the directors, and must state—

          that a statutory declaration complying with the requirements of subsections (1) and (2)(b) of section 283 of the 1948 Act (statutory declaration of solvency in case of proposal to wind up voluntarily) was made by the directors (or by the majority of the directors) of the company in accordance with subsection (1) of that section within the five weeks immediately preceding the date of the passing of the resolution for winding up the company (as required by subsection (2)(a) of that section);

          that it was properly addressed to the registrar of companies, pre-paid and posted on a date within the period beginning with 7th April 1981 and ending with 1st August 1981; and

          that a letter so addressed and posted would in the ordinary course of post have been delivered to the registrar of companies before the date of the passing of the resolution for winding up the company.

          (3) For the purposes of sections 283(3) and 288 of the 1948 Act (consequences of actual or prospective failure to pay debts in full within the period stated by the directors in the declaration of solvency) the period specified in the declaration under section 283 of that Act in the case of a winding up to which subsection (1) above applies shall be taken to have been twelve months from the commencement of the winding up unless the contrary is shown.
          (4) Nothing in this section shall affect the validity of anything validly done in a winding up to which subsection (1) above applies before the conversion date.'.—[Mr. Eyre.]
          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Mr. EyreI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          As with the previous new clause, the purpose of this clause is to permit some alleviation of the particular difficulties experienced by a number of companies as a result of the recent Civil Service pay dispute. I hope that the House will bear with me while I explain that, under current legislation, section 283 of the Companies Act 1948 provides that before a voluntary liquidation may be carried on as a members' voluntary winding up the directors must make a statutory declaration of solvency to the effect that they have carried out a full inquiry into the company's affairs and have formed the opinion that the company will be able to discharge its debts fully within a period not exceeding 12 months from the commencement of the winding up.
          The Act further provides, in section 283(2), that the declaration shall not be effective unless it is made within the five weeks immediately preceding the date of the passing of the resolution for winding up the company and is delivered to the Registrar of Companies for registration before that date.

          If the declaration of solvency is not made and delivered within these time limits, section 283(4) provides that the liquidation must be carried on as a creditors' voluntary winding up. Although the provisions of section 283 of the 1948 Act are to be amended by clause 96 in order to provide more flexibility concerning the delivery of the declaration of solvency, that clause will apply only to liquidations commenced after the appointed day.
          The purpose of the clause, therefore, is to enable companies that proposed to be wound up by members' voluntary liquidation but were affected by delayed deliveries of post during industrial action between April and August this year to be so wound up and to validate actions taken on the basis that they were members' voluntary liquidations, provided that the directors deliver to the Registrar of Companies a statutory declaration that they fulfilled all the requirements of section 283 of the 1948 Act except delivery within the prescribed period.
          A creditors' voluntary winding-up is much more onerous administratively and more costly for a company than a members' voluntary winding-up. It involves the calling of meetings of creditors and advertising in the London or Edinburgh Gazettes and local newspapers. In circumstances where companies have gone through all the proper procedures to achieve a members' voluntary winding up, and have failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Act only because of delayed deliveries of post caused by the industrial action to which I have referred, it would clearly be desirable that they should
          84
          avoid this inconvenience and expense. Although only a few companies are affected, I hope that the House will support this proposal.
          Mr. TrotterI ought to declare an interest. I am the liquidator for some of the companies involved. I welcome the new clause, because there has been considerable difficulty for those companies that were unfortunate enough to fall foul of this administrative problem.
          The companies with which I am involved are subsidiaries of a public company. Owing to a restructuring of the group, they are no longer needed as trading entities. The management decided that they could sensibly be put into liquidation and removed from the scene. There is no question of insolvency but, for the reason outlined by my hon. Friend, the declaration of solvency was not acted upon in these cases, and without the passing of the new clause they are technically to be treated as insolvent. That would not only give rise to delay and cost, but could lead to the stigma of insolvency. Those who see these things in the London Gazette might say "Ah, those companies are insolvent". Some people might know the parent company, and an unfortunate impression might be given as a result of circumstances beyond the control of myself as liquidator, the companies themselves or the management of the parent company.
          I am sure that there are many such cases throughout the country. I drew my hon. Friend's attention to my situation, and I put on record my thanks to him for the way in which he has been able to find a solution to the problem.
          What steps can be taken to publish as widely as possible and as soon as possible in the accounting press the effect of the clause? Many other accountants may be going through the laborious and costly procedure with their liquidators of converting their companies into insolvent companies. Perhaps there could be a press release from the Department so that unnecessary delays and costs are not incurred by other liquidators.
          Mr. EyreI thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) for his remarks. I appreciate the fact that he alerted my office to the difficulties and gave us an opportunity to prepare some measure of alleviation.
          My hon. Friend asks me to take all steps possible to publish the good news. The registrar will be writing to all the companies concerned, which I hope will be most helpful. We are also always grateful to the press, and particularly to City journalists who write on such matters. It is important to get over to people that the measure is available to ease them out of a particularly difficult situation. We shall appreciate any coverage resulting from my hon. Friend's intervention.
          Question put and agreed to.
          Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

        New clause 23

          REGISTER OF PAST DIRECTORSHIPS
          '.—(1) Section 200 of the 1948 Act (register of directors and secretaries) shall have effect subject to the following modifications.
          (2) In subsection (2)—

          in paragraph (a) (particulars of directorships to be kept on the register) after the words "particulars of any other directorships held by him" there shall be inserted the words "or which have been held by him";

          in the proviso (particulars not required to be kept on register) for all the words preceding the words "and for the purposes of" there shall be substituted the words—

          "Provided that it shall not be necessary for the register to contain on any day particulars of any directorship—

          which has not been held by a director at any time during the five years preceding that day;

          which is held by a director in any company which—

          is dormant or, in relation to the company keeping the register, is a relevant company; and

          if he also held that directorship for any period during the five years immediately preceding that day, was for the whole of that period either dormant or such a relevant company;

          (c) which was held by a director for any period during the five years preceding that day in a company which for the whole of that period was either dormant or, in relation to the company keeping the register, a relevant company;";

          and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the words "and

          a company shall be treated as being or as having been dormant during any period during which no transaction occurs which is or was a significant accounting transaction (within the meaning of section 12(6) of the Companies Act 1981) for that company; and

          (iv) a company shall be treated as being or as having been at any time a relevant company in relation to any other company if at that time it is or was a company of which that other company is or was a wholly owned subsidiary or if it is or was a wholly owned subsidiary of that other company or of another company of which that other company is or was a wholly owned subsidiary.".

          (3) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (7)—
          "(7) If any inspection required under this section is refused or if default is made in complying with subsection (1), (2), (3) or (4) of this section, the company and every officer of the company who is in default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or on conviction after continued contravention to a default fine not exceeding one-tenth of the statutory maximum.".
          This subsection shall not have effect in relation to any offence committed before the appointed day.
          (4) Subsection (4) of section 200 (notification to registrar of changes in register) shall not apply in relation to any change in the particulars contained in a company's register of directors and secretaries made solely by reason of the coming into force of subsection (2) above but if, after any such change has occurred and before the company makes its next annual return, any other change in those particulars occurs, the company shall send to the registrar a notification in the prescribed form of any such earlier changes and the date on which they occured at the same time as it notifies the registrar of the later changes in accordance with section 200(4).'.—[Mr. Eyre.]
          Brought up, and read the First time.
          7.45 pm
          Mr. EyreI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take the following:
          New clause 4—Disclosure of former directorships.
          New clause 17—Duty of court to consider disqualification of directors.
          New clause 18—Disqualification of directors etc.
          New clause 19—Duty to consider disqualification.
          New clause 33—Prohibition on directors of insolvent companies from acting as liquidators, etc.
          Government amendments Nos. 1, 110, 114, 139, 146 and 166.
          Mr. EyreOne of the most important issues which we discussed in Committee concerned the effectiveness of the
          86
          powers to disqualify persons from managing companies. As a result, we have looked carefully at the provisions concerned and brought forward a number of amendments, of which new clause 23 on the disclosure of past directorships is one. We are thus also proposing further improvements to clause 87 on the disqualification of directors and a tightening up of section 187 of the Companies Act 1948 on the disqualification of undischarged bankrupts. The Opposition have proposed a measure to improve the effectiveness of section 9 of the Insolvency Act 1976.
          However, we continue to hold the view that clause 87, taken with these other measures, will constitute an effective reform of the power to disqualify. It will permit magistrates' courts to disqualify for up to five years a person convicted of an indictable offence in connection with the promotion, formation, management, receivership or liquidation of the company or who has been in default at least three times in making returns to the registrar. These changes will improve the effectiveness of the Department and the police, since they will avoid the need for the present time-consuming and costly procedures involving application to courts of higher jurisdiction. The deterrent effect of disqualification will also be improved, partly by widening the coverage of the disqualification order—it will include all stages of involvement in the life of a company—and partly by extending the maximum period for which a person can be disqualified from five to 15 years—although this power will be exercisable only by courts of higher jurisdiction.
          There is a further point. Some of the concern which has been expressed has been over the ability of some of those who ride roughshod over their customers or suppliers—whether out of unscrupulousness or extreme carelessness—to avoid winding up. One difficulty which has hindered the Department in pursuing such cases is the effect of the judgment in the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Schildkamp in 1971. That judgment held that the criminal remedy for fraudulent trading applied only in circumstances in which the company was being wound up.
          Therefore, I draw the attention of the House to clause 88, which would enable a case of fraudulent trading to be brought whether or not the company was being wound up. Furthermore, as fraudulent trading is an offence which can be tried either summarily or on indictment, clause 87 would enable an application for disqualification to be made in a case tried before the magistrates.
          Our conclusion, therefore, is that the improvements already proposed in clause 87, together with our further proposals to which I shall come shortly, and the reform embodied in clause 88, will go a considerable way to meet the concern which has been expressed on this sensitive subject.
          I turn first, however, to the Opposition's proposals. I do not believe that it is practicable to contemplate introducing a procedure for automatic disqualification, because the courts would undoubtedly entertain applications for leave to act from such so-called automatic disqualifications because of the serious consequences to the individuals concerned of such disqualification. The courts could not accommodate the resulting increase in work; nor has the Department the staff available to give evidence on such applications for leave to act. That latter

          87
          point is very important. The courts will not be able to decide whether a person should be given leave to act as a director unless it hears evidence from the Department.
          This argument applies with particular force to the attempt by the Opposition in new clause 18 to render automatic the provisions of section 9 of the Insolvency Act 1976. They suggest the deletion of the test of a director's lack of fitness in that section—which is required before a disqualification order can be made—thereby making disqualification an automatic consequence of involvement in two insolvencies in five years. Those so disqualified would be able to apply for relief and, as I said, could be expected to try to clear their name and apply for relief with the quite impracticable results with regard to the demand on resources which I described.
          I also point out that new clause 18 takes no account of the improvements that we are making in clause 87 which I have already described in outline. I believe these improvements meet the need for stricter and more effective means of disqualifying directors without the impracticable staffing consequences of the automatic disqualification proposal put forward by the Opposition.
          I am, however, grateful to the Opposition for bringing forward new clause 33. We believe that it will most usefully strengthen the provisions of section 9 of the Insolvency Act 1976, particularly as regards the extension of the maximum period of disqualification for involvement in two or more insolvencies where the court considers that a director's conduct makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company. The widening of the coverage of such a disqualification order to include promotion, formation, receivership and liquidation will bring the section into line with the improvements we are making to section 188 of the Companies Act 1948.
          Before turning to the Government's new clause 23, I should like to comment on new clauses 17 and 19 which have also been selected for debate. New clause 17 would place a duty on the court, in the course of the winding up of a company, to consider whether a disqualification order should be made. New clause 19 is similar, except that it would require the court to consider disqualification when entertaining a petition to wind up a company on the grounds of insolvency or fraud.
          The intention of the proposal is no doubt to avoid the need for an application to be made to the court so that orders can be made without action by the Secretary of State. We believe that the proper way for such matters to be handled is to require an application to be made to the court for a disqualification order, which is what the law provides for at present in section 188 of the Companies Act 1948 and section 9 of the Insolvency Act 1976. In the circumstances of winding up, section 188 enables an application to be made to the court by the Secretary of State, the official receiver, or by the liquidator or by any person who is or has been a member or creditor of the company.
          Section 9 of the Insolvency Act 1976, which enables application to be made where a director has been involved in at least two insolvencies within five years and where his conduct suggests that he is unfit to be concerned in the management of a company, enables the official receiver, who is the person who will have access to the facts of the case, to make an application. I would recommend to the
          88
          House that these rights of application are entirely adequate and proper to ensure that disqualification orders are sought.
          I also observe that, if the court were to have the power given to it by this proposal, it would need to call for evidence, particularly from the Department, to determine whether there are grounds for disqualification. This would represent an unnecessary duplication of obligation, since the Department would already in such cases be considering whether to apply for a disqualification order under the existing statutory powers.
          To the extent that the proposal is intended to underline the need to disqualify persons where their conduct or convictions suggest that disqualification is an appropriate penalty, I am happy to confirm that it is the Department's policy to seek a disqualification order wherever it appears to be merited. I wish to emphasise the forthrightness of that declaration of policy. I do not therefore believe that there is any need to place a duty on the court as such to consider whether to disqualify a person. In the circumstances—I apologise for the length of time I have taken going through these complex matters—I therefore invite the Opposition to consider withdrawing this proposal on the basis of the considerable improvements that I have summarised and also taking account of the contribution made by Opposition Members to the tightening of the provision of disqualification in regard to section 9.
          The same criticisms also attach to new clause 19. I do not, therefore, believe it to be necessary. There would also be a further difficulty in that the power of the court would apply before a winding up order was made. In those circumstances, no liquidator would have been appointed and thus there would be very little evidence on which the court could come to a view as to whether disqualification was appropriate. I would therefore stress that the present procedure—that of enabling applications to be made by those who are likely to be in possession of the facts and the importance of this will be appreciated by the Opposition—is best suited to the seeking of a disqualification order.
          I turn now to the Government's proposal in clause 23. That clause will require companies to keep details of past directorships held by their directors in addition to the details of other current directorships which they are at present required to keep by virtue of section 200 of the Companies Act 1948. These details will be available for inspection in two ways. First, any member of a company or any other person—I am thinking here particularly of creditors or potential creditors or members—will be able to see such details on the register of directors that the company is required to keep at its registered office. Section 200(6) specifically provides for such inspection. Secondly, they will be able to examine such details on the company's file which is held in Companies House.
          The purpose of the clause is to enable interested parties whether conducting business with a company or considering investment in it to be able to ascertain details of the record of any of its directors. It will in future be possible to obtain a list of all companies of which a person has been a director in the past five years and to inquire as to the success or otherwise of these concerns. I believe that our proposal more than meets the substance of the changes advocated by the Opposition in new clause 4 which would require a director who is involved in an insolvency to

          89
          disclose to the Registrar of Companies his former directorship of any other insolvent company, unless the court grants him relief from so doing.
          Although, as I said in Committee, such a proposal is subject to two fundamental criticisms—I shall be mentioning them briefly—which our proposal is designed to avoid, I wish to record our debt to the hon. Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) for the idea embodied in their proposal, which we have adopted and I believe made practicable. The first defect of new clause 4 is that it would apply to any former directorship irrespective of how long ago the company concerned became insolvent. I doubt the relevance of information about a person's career going back, say, 30 years. The second defect is that the flow of applications for relief would be considerable, because any director who felt that the insolvency was not caused by his actions, or who wished to suggest that it was not, would apply for relief from disclosure. Such applications for relief could lead to an unmanageable load of work for the courts and the Department of Trade which would be expected to take a view as to whether they should be contested in the public interest.
          New clause 23, on the other hand, avoids the crucial manpower problems to which the Opposition's proposal would be prone. It also covers all directorships within a period of five years, irrespective of whether the companies concerned have become insolvent, thereby leaving the inquirer free to look at the business record of any such companies and not simply at those that were insolvent.
          I wish to conclude with a few words about the detail of new clause 23. Subsection (2)(a) introduces the requirement that details of past directorships must be kept, while subsection (2)(b) relieves companies from keeping details of past or present directorships of a "relevant" company—that is, of any other company in the same group—or of a dormant company.
          These two provisos are intended to avoid requiring companies to disclose unnecessary detail. Thus, one person may be director of a number of companies in a group, thereby leading to overlapping disclosure by each such company, yet the identity of the other members of the group can be readily found in the group's annual report and accounts and it is therefore unnecessary to require disclosure of directorships of other group companies.
          8 pm
          On the other hand, a "dormant company" is defined in subsection (2)(c) as one in which no "significant accounting transaction" has taken place—that is, any transaction that is required to be entered in a company's accounting records—other than one arising from the taking of shares in the company by a subscriber to its memorandum in pursuance of an undertaking of his in the memorandum. This exemption will, therefore, relieve shelf companies—for example, those promoted by specialist firms—from having to disclose the inevitably numerous but purely nominal past directorships of those persons who act as their directors until they are sold and begin to trade.
          Subsection (3) increases the penalty for refusal to permit inspection of the register, for default in keeping it, or for failing to send details of it to the Registrar of Companies, to the statutory maximum, which is currently £1,000. At present, the fine on summary convictions under section 200(7) of the Companies Act 1948 is one-fifth of
          90
          the statutory maximum—that is, £200. Similar increases are to be made in the case of conviction for continued contravention, and they represent the importance we attach to full disclosure of past directorships.
          Finally, subsection (4) permits companies to send the new information on past directorships to the registrar when their next annual return is made, unless they have occasion to make a return of changes in the register of directors before that time rather than immediately after making the change in the register. This will avoid burdening companies with the need to make an extra return and avoid the risk of burying the registrar's staff under an immense mountain of paper.
          Whilst I am dealing with technical details, I shall also speak on those Government amendments which have been selected for debate with new clause 23 since they are consequential upon it.
          Amendments Nos. 139 and 166 increase the penalty and repeal the existing one for failure to make an annual return to the Registrar of Companies.
          Amendment No. 146 introduces a definition of "the statutory maximum" into the Companies Act 1948 to apply to section 200 of that Act, as amended by new clause 23. Amendment No. 114 therefore deletes the definition in the Bill of "the statutory maximum", which is no longer needed. Amendments Nos. 1 and 110 will delete definitions to "the statutory maximum" in the Bill which also become superfluous.
          I apologise again for having had to go into detail on these new clauses and amendments. I have spoken so fully, first, because it was necessary to establish the detail of an important matter such as this and, secondly, because I wanted to emphasise the great progress that has been made as a result of these changes. I refer to the tightening of procedure in an area about which I know Opposition Members were as concerned as we were. Certainly improvements were desired. I am glad that those improvements have been brought about. Further, I wanted to explain to the Opposition the difficulties about automatic disqualification. In the interest of tightening the system as much as possible, we have made what I believe are practical proposals which improve the situation. In the circumstances, therefore, I hope that the Opposition will consider withdrawing their new clauses.
          Mr. John FraserI am grateful for the Under-Secretary of State's acknowledgment to the Opposition, and we, in turn, acknowledge our debt to organisations such as the Consumers Association and programmes such as "Checkpoint", which have highlighted what has been an abuse of company law.
          I am grateful for the new clause that the Government have put forward and for the fact that they accept our new clause 33, on which I hope we shall have the opportunity to vote since the Government have indicated that they are willing to accept it.
          Limited liability is a privilege that enables people to have no liability for a company's debts, provided that their shares are paid up. It is a necessary privilege. Without it, commercial investment would be impossible. But, like all privileges, it is open to abuse, and to some people limited liability has proved to be a racketeer's charter. The racket—or abuse—with which the Opposition clauses try to deal is the practice of companies bleeding the public of their money and escaping from liability by going into liquidation and then, much worse, the persons involved

          91
          forming another company and repeating the exercise a second, third, or fourth time and sometimes, even using the name of earlier failed companies. It is an abuse by people who bleed the company's money like leeches and have a statutory reincarnation. Having sucked enough blood and dropped off the body, they have gone into demise and have been able to re-form themselves and carry out the same practice time and again. Perhaps the best known example is that which has been outlined in Money Which?—that of the Lylybet case. I shall describe to the House the number of times that Lylybet has undergone a statutory reincarnation.
          Lylybet Dishwashers Ltd. was formed in 1972 and dissolved in 1973 because it was not trading. Lylybet Dishwashers (Southern) Ltd. was formed in 1972 and the latest accounts show that the company is insolvent. That was followed by Lylybet Dishwashers (North West) Ltd. which was formed in 1974 but has been in compulsory liquidation since 1977. But the company had a charmed life because next came Lylybet Dishwashers (East Midlands) Ltd. which was formed in 1974 but dissolved in 1978 because it was not trading. Then there was a slight change of name to Lylybet Regulators and Controls Ltd. which was formed in 1977 but so far no accounts have been filed. We do not know what has happened to it. Then there was another slight change of name, to Dishmaster Ltd., which was formed in 1971 but was in voluntary liquidation in 1973 due to insolvency. Almost the same promoters then formed a company called Bridgedec Limited in 1970, but it was dissolved in 1979. They did not give up entirely. They gave up the name that they had got used to and started a company called Loftrooms Ltd. in 1978. The 1979 accounts showed a loss of over £65,000. To finish the whole thing off, Loftrooms (London) Ltd. was formed in 1969 but it stopped trading in 1978. Almost the same group of people was involved in every company.
          If I drove through a red traffic light on three different occasions I would probably be disqualified from driving, but far too often a person can metaphorically run down his creditors, be reckless towards consumers, and disregard all the commercial signals and nothing seems to happen. He can go on from one corporate form to another, continuing to take money from the general public without necessarily committing a criminal offence. It is to that abuse that our set of new clauses is directed. The courts have been too lax in the exercise of their powers to disqualify people who are involved with insolvent companies and who abuse the privilege of corporate identity. The law that gives the dog two bites—it says that if a person has been involved in two or more insolvencies he may be disqualified—has not been tightened. The object of the new clause is to try to deal with those problems a little more forcefully in order to protect consumers and the general public.
          A person can form a company and sell a product from door to door, take a considerable sum in deposits and pay such excessive salaries to directors or favourite members of the staff that the deposits are exhausted. If the company does not have enough money to continue trading it must go into liquidation, but no criminal offence has been committed and the persons involved can conduct the same operation time and again.
          Another example of malpractice is the selling of goods with a guarantee. For example, someone may guarantee
          92
          to protect a car from rust for 20 years—a somewhat exaggerated claim, but one such company is mentioned in "Money Which?"—or guarantee that a mended roof will be rainproof for 20 years. The problem is that people sell those guarantees knowing that they intend to put their company into liquidation within two or three years and will subsequently engage in the same operations using a company with a similar name. That racket must be stopped.
          I acknowledge the improvement that will result from the Government's new clause 23, which accepts the idea that I put forward in Committee of making directors disclose their former associations. I should like the clause to have gone further so that an asterisk was put against all former directorships that ended in the winding-up of a company on the grounds of insolvency. It is not good enough to leave the public to try to distinguish between successful and unsuccessful companies.
          I believe that it would be right to put a duty on the courts to consider disqualification, so that a judge or magistrate would at least have to think about it and ask himself whether the conduct of a director had been so antipathetic to the interests of the general public that he ought to be disqualified. That approach is outlined in one set of new clauses.
          Our other approach is even more far-reaching. It is that there should be automatic disqualification of all those involved in an insolvency unless they prove to the satisfaction of the court that the insolvency and the loss of money by creditors and consumers were not due to their mismanagement. That would be the ideal position. If a company goes bust and consumers and creditors lose money should the burden of proof be on the creditors or on those who took part in the management and conduct of the company?
          I believe that if we are to tip the scales they must be tipped against those who have abused the privilege of limited liability. That is why the Opposition new clauses provide for automatic disqualification, subject to the persons involved being able to ask the court whether they may be absolved.
          The Government's new clause is not enough, but it is a distinct improvement, and taken with our new clause 33, which the Government are willing to accept, it will begin to remove some of the difficulties. I welcome the fact that we have been able to make some progress.
          We should prefer not to withdraw our new clauses, which we still support, but perhaps it will not be necessary to press them to a Division.
          8.15 pm
          Mr. TrotterI welcome new clause 33. It is a matter of continuing concern to those who provide credit to companies that there are cases—not as frequent as is sometimes made out, considering the vast volume of trade which takes place every day without fraud—in which a number of people are active in defrauding creditors of a limited company and using the privilege of limited liability to do so.
          There is concern on both sides of the House that such people should be dealt with adequately, and I am concerned that we are not dealing with them adequately. The onus is too much on those associated with the liquidation, whether the liquidator, shareholder or creditor, to originate action. That is difficult for those people.

          93
          My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred to section 188 of the 1948 Act which provides that the court, on application by the official receiver, the liquidator, a shareholder or a creditor, may make an order to prevent someone from being a director of a company. I suspect that few such orders have ever been made and I have certainly not been involved in any cases where that has happened.
          I am not convinced that section 9 of the Insolvency Act 1976 is yet being used to the degree that I wish or with the speed that I should like to see. The gentlemen with whom we are concerned can operate with remarkable speed and can build and leave the shells of two or three companies in the time it takes for their activities to receive due attention.
          It is the duty of the authorities to take the lead in dealing with such people. It cannot be left to those associated with a company, the victims or the liquidator. Often a company has hardly any money left in it and no funds are available for an investigation. I am pleased that the Government are prepared to accept new clause 33, which is an improvement on the present position, though I am not sure that we shall not have to have a second bite at the cherry, perhaps when an insolvency Bill is presented in a future Session.
          New clause 33 provides that prohibition will apply also to someone acting as liquidator of a company. That is to be commended. I have in my hands a report about a liquidator who is apparently handling about 300 liquidations. He has a criminal record. He was convicted of two offences of dishonesty early in 1970, was adjudicated bankrupt some years before and, while bankrupt, he pleaded guilty to handling stolen goods. He has also been convicted of contravention of the Companies Act and has been in prison.
          Yet that man has been able under the present law to act as the liquidator of companies. That is wholly wrong and I hope that new clause 33 will provide the power to deal with that sort of person as well as with directors. Clearly such people should not be allowed to act as liquidators, and I was delighted to read that he was removed by the court when a creditor engaged counsel and went to court. However, most creditors are not prepared to do that, whether with a director or one of those happily rare black sheep who act as liquidators.
          I am delighted that the Government are prepared to accept new clause 33 and I hope that it will be applied with vigour. The clause will be of no use unless it is vigorously applied by the Department of Trade.
          Mr. EyreI appreciate the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) and also the good points that were made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). All hon. Members will appreciate the significance of Sir Kenneth Cork's committee and the study which is going on which will provide a basis for advance in this commplex area.
          Question put and agreed to.
          Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

        New Clause 2

          DIRECTORS' REPORT TO INCLUDE, IN CASE OF CERTAIN COMPANIES, PARTICULARS OF EXPORTS
          '(1) If, at the end of a financial year, a company subject to the requirements of paragraph 13A of Schedule 8 to the 1948 Act whose business consists in, or includes, the supplying of goods does not have subsidiaries, then, unless the turnover for that year (so far as stated in the accounts in respect of that year in pursuance of that paragraph) does not exceed £1,400,000, there shall be contained in the directors' report relating to that year—

          if, in that year, goods have been exported by the company from the United Kingdom, a statement of the value of the goods that have been so exported from the United Kingdom during that year;

          if, in that year, no goods have been so exported from the United Kingdom, a statement of that fact;

          if, in that year, goods have been imported by the company to the United Kingdom, a statement of the value of the goods that have been so imported to the United Kingdom during that year;

          if, in that year, no goods have been so imported to the United Kingdom, a statement of that fact.

          (2) If, at the end of a financial year, a company has subsidiaries, then, except in a case in which neither the business of the company nor that of any of the subsidiaries consists in, or includes, the supplying of goods, or a case in which the company submits in respect of that year group accounts prepared as consolidated accounts in respect of itself and all its subidiaries and the turnover (so far as stated therein in pursuance of the said paragraph 13A) does not exceed £1,400,000, there shall be included in the directors' report relating to that year—

          unless, in the case of the company and of each of its subsidiaries, no goods have been exported by it in that year from the United Kingdom, a statement of the aggregate of the values of the goods which, in the case of the company and of each of the subsidiaries, have been exported by it in that year from the United Kingdom;

          if, in the case of the company and of each of its subsidiaries, no goods have been exported by it in that year from the United Kingdom, a statement of that fact;

          unless, in the case of the company and of each of its subsidiaries, no goods have been imported by it in that year to the United Kingdom, a statement of the aggregate of the values of the goods which, in the case of the company and of each of the subsidiaries, have been imported by it in that year to the United Kingdom;

          if, in the case of the company and of each of its subsidiaries, no goods have been imported by it in that year to the United Kingdom, a statement of that fact.

          (3) For the purposes of this section, goods exported or imported by a company as the agent of another person shall be disregarded.
          (4) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not require the disclosure of information in the director's report of a company if the directors thereof satisfy the Secretary of State for Trade that it is in the national interest that the information should not be disclosed.'.—[Mr. Geoffrey Robinson.]
          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Mr. Geoffrey RobinsonI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this we may take amendment No. 178, in clause 16, page 25, leave out lines 39 and 40.
          Mr. RobinsonIt is with the indulgence of my right hon. and hon. Friends who speak officially for the Opposition on these matters that I make my maiden speech from the Dispatch Box. If I approach it with something less than the tense excitement that I savoured in anticipation of it, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all right hon. and hon. Members will understand why. However, the legislation must go on. The Government have introduced it, and it is our duty, where we think it

          95
          inappropriate, to oppose it. The purpose of moving new clause 2 is to reinsert in company legislation information that we believe is properly the property of the public and necessary also in the national interest.
          May I say at the outset that it is difficult, in drafting any clause of this kind, to know where to draw the line as to which companies should or should not be included within the legislation. I would not die at the stake for the figure of £1.4 million which we have stipulated as being the amount above which the sort of information that we regard as necessary concerning a company's imports and exports should be provided. I personally would be prepared, if the principle were conceded by the Government, to put it at a considerably higher figure.
          We discovered during the Committee stage of this Bill that underlying the opposing views of the Government and the Opposition was a fundamental attitude of mind. The Opposition attitude had inspired the Labour Government's Green Paper entitled "The Future of Company Reports", and within that was a statement with particular reference to exports and imports of individual companies, the future of company reports and the international trade statement that we requested within it. The Tory document, "Company Accounting and Disclosure", was a complete misnomer. In other words, it was accounting and non-disclosure. However, not satisfied with not disclosing, the Government now propose to go even further and remove from the 1967 Act a part regarding the importing and exporting of particular companies, so that even less information is available than in the past.
          I shall not delay the House on this matter, because there is a sense of urgency to make progress this evening. However, I shall give one example from my personal experience when working as a senior executive with the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. We were discussing a certain development programme involving Government aid to a large multinational company, Philips. The case was being made that Government aid was necessary so that the company could continue its marvellous export record. We were keen on the idea. The IRC was set up to stimulate investment and exports and, most important, to increase net exports. That must be the intention of all Governments, except this Government, who for some reason wish to increase imports and reduce output and exports. However, it must be the intention of all Governments to increase gross output and net exports.
          When we considered the figures provided by the Philips corporation as a whole, we discovered that the corporation was a net importer. In other words, it imported more from its various plants abroad into this country than it exported from the United Kingdom. We then entered into a form of planning agreement with Philips, whereby the imbalance in its internal trade was eliminated, Government support of a certain kind was provided, and consequently the national economy benefited.

          But, with the ineffable lucidity which characterised him throughout our debates in Committee, the Under-Secretary said that such information could be misleading. I quote what he said:
          "that figure is likely to be of little interest to shareholders and can be misleading—for example, when a company's exports consist largely of imported goods which may have been re-exported."—
          [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 18 June 1981; c. 138.]
          96
          That is precisely why we want the information. We want to know the net exports of the large multinationals or the large national companies.
          The only other reason given by the Under-Secretary in that debate for deleting what is already on the statute book was that a lot of companies provided goods to other companies, making goods in the United Kingdom which are subsequently exported, and that they would not receive credit for that. That is true, but the Under-Secretary does scant justice to those of us who are keenly interested in the performance of our manufacturing sector and the companies within it.
          There is a further reason for disclosure. The Under-Secretary quoted as an example the motor components industry in the West Midlands, which both he and I have the honour to represent. He said that the motor components industry was one that largely supplied the domestic-based motor industry and therefore received little credit for it.
          We all know that the motor components industry throughout the world is becoming increasingly internationally traded. Indeed, the reason that he gave for not having disclosure, is the very reason why we should have it.
          I am pleased to see that the Minister of State in his elevated position, is present. He will recall the many late night sittings, which I hope will not be the case tonight, that we shared on two Finance Bills. There is no reason to withdraw the new clause. It should stay and be expanded. The new clause may be inadequately drafted—a matter on which the hon. and learned Gentleman is a greater expert than I. However, unless he is prepared to give something, we shall be bound to press the matter to a Division. This is a retrograde step—one which goes in the wrong direction.
          Mr. TrotterI have given considerable thought to the issue, but I cannot see what use these figures would be. It is all very well to say "Let us have them", and Opposition Members may find them interesting, but millions of hours would be needed to produce them. There are no book-keeping entries now on imports and exports in companies' books. Separate analyses and separate statistics would be needed, and a great deal of cost would result, as well as additional overheads for no benefit. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) should tell us who would benefit from those figures. They cannot be of interest to more than a few curious people. No doubt the examples that the hon. Gentleman gave from my hon. and learned Friend's speeches in Committee were right. The figures would often be misleading, even to those curious enough to look at them. It could also be argued that publication of those figures could be helpful to a company's competitors. Therefore, I cannot support the new clause.
          8.30 pm
          Mr. Peter ReesI am sure that the House would like me to congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) on his maiden appearance on the Opposition Front Bench. We have had many amiable encounters in Committee proceedings on Finance Bills and I am delighted that the fortunes of war, or of politics, have brought us again into such close juxtaposition. However, I am not sure whether I am the appropriate person to offer congratulations as I have only recently taken up my present responsibilities.
          I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, having offered my congratulations—which I hope he will

          97
          feel able to accept—I take issue with him most strenuously on the substance of the new clause and the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) puts the case succinctly and practically and we all depend on his experience as a practising accountant. He posed two questions: what use would the information be; and to whom?
          One must balance the burden on companies—their directors and accountants—with the value of the information disclosed to those who have a right, whether shareholders, creditors or perhaps employees, to require it. Merely because companies have the privilege of incorporation and perhaps of limitation of liability, we are not obliged to demand that they should disclose a wealth of information that is of little relevance to those who have a right to scrutinise their activities. A balance must be struck.
          The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West gave us an interesting example, which was derived from his considerable and distinguished industrial experience. We all know the contribution that he has made to the motor industry. I do not say that in any pejorative, critical, spirit. We know how successful he was in the areas of management to which he devoted his talents. We also know the contribution that he made to the activities of the IRC. He drew on that. However, if a company legitimately applies to the Government for financial support—whether through the Department of Industry or some agency of Government—the Department or agency is normally entitled to require information that will enable it to assess fairly the claim. Therefore, I was not impressed by that example.
          Is it important that the shareholders and creditors should have detailed knowledge of the breakdown of the company's turnover as between exports and imports? It may be a matter of curiosity and of some general interest, but we must continually bear in mind the burden placed on the corporate sector. In our sophisticated, late twentieth century society the State imposes many burdens. We must scrutinise them and ask ourselves whether the value is justified. With a little diffidence, I differ from the hon. Gentleman—although he has more managerial experience than I—and argue that it is not justified.
          I have less experience of this matter in relation to the Department of Trade than the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis). However, I doubt whether the Department would benefit from such information. The resources are not available to process company accounts in such detail.
          The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West might press me and argue that if the House were to decree that such information should be included, additional people would have to be hired to process it. However, the Department of Trade has other sources of information. No doubt the hon. Member for Hackney, Central can confirm that. It bases its analysis of the country's trading position on the statistical information collected by the Customs and Excise. That is probably a better source of information than that required under the new clause.
          With his great experience, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West will recognise that the Department of Trade would find such information out of date for macro-economic purposes. After all, the company report is concluded at the end of the company's financial year.
          98
          It would not be as up to date as the statistical information collected by Customs and Excise officers at our ports on exit and entry.
          I hope that there is nothing much between the two sides of the House about the importance of having some information about exports and imports. However, the way suggested is probably not the right way. Even if it commended itself to some sections of the House, we must reflect on the burdens that we are placing on the corporate sector. We are not entitled to make unreasonable demands upon it merely because it has the privilege of incorporation.
          I return to the point so trenchantly and succinctly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth—what use would the information be, and to whom? I hope that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West will not press the new clause to a Division. If he does, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will reject it.
          Mr. Geoffrey RobinsonI appreciate the tones and terms in which the counter-arguments were put by the Minister. However, I regret that they were not convincing. Each time we discuss this subject we hear the parrot cry about the burdens we are putting on the private sector and manufacturing companies. I am sensitive to them and I try to simplify the system. If ever there were a Bill that was meant to complicate the private sector's life, it is this. That is the irony. We are trying to leave in the legislation the requirement for this one simple piece of information. We are operating against a tidal wave of complexity and cross-referencing, rendering necessary consolidation of company legislation at the earliest opportunity. But again we hear the parrot cry of the burdens imposed on private sector companies.
          The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) is a chartered accountant. He knows that if the information is recorded at source, at the point of entry, little extra administrative burden is imposed.
          At the heart of the argument is the secrecy that the Government wish to achieve for company legislation. We believe that secrecy is the worst enemy of Government and of management. That is what the new clause is about. The information is there. We are asked "Who needs it?". The Minister of State, with his narrow, tunnel vision, can get to creditors and shareholders and then suddenly remembers that employees are mentioned in some legislation.
          We believe that a further accountability is necessary—to the nation. The Minister admitted the relevance of the national importance when he referred to information in its consolidated form in the national expenditure accounts and trade accounts.
          The country must live from its net exports of manufactured goods when the oil runs dry. The Minister says that so long as the information is aggregated we need nothing else. However, we are now importing more manufactures than we are exporting and the information must be available readily. It must be available to the Government who must act in a spirit of co-operation, and effectively. For those reasons and in the light of the Minister's unsatisfactory reply I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby.
          Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
          The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 207.

          Division No. 302]

          [8.40 pm]

          AYES

          Allaun, Frank

          Lamborn, Harry

          Anderson, Donald

          Lamond, James

          Archer, Rt Hon Peter

          Lestor, Miss Joan

          Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

          Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

          Bidwell, Sydney

          Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

          Boothroyd, Miss Betty

          Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

          Lyon, Alexander (York)

          Bray, Dr Jeremy

          McCartney, Hugh

          Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

          McDonald, Dr Oonagh

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

          McElhone, Frank

          Buchan, Norman

          McGuire, Michael (Ince)

          Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

          McKay, Allen (Penistone)

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

          MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

          Campbell, Ian

          McNamara, Kevin

          Campbell-Savours, Dale

          McWilliam, John

          Carmichael, Neil

          Magee, Bryan

          Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

          Marks, Kenneth

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

          Mason, Rt Hon Roy

          Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

          Maynard, Miss Joan

          Conlan, Bernard

          Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

          Cook, Robin F.

          Mitchell, R. C. (Soton ltchen)

          Cowans, Harry

          Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

          Crowther, Stan

          Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

          Cryer, Bob

          Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

          Cunliffe, Lawrence

          Newens, Stanley

          Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

          Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

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

          Palmer, Arthur

          Dalyell, Tam

          Park, George

          Davidson, Arthur

          Parry, Robert

          Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

          Pavitt, Laurie

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

          Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

          Deakins, Eric

          Prescott, John

          Dewar, Donald

          Price, C. (Lewisham W)

          Dixon, Donald

          Race, Reg

          Dormand, Jack

          Radice, Giles

          Douglas, Dick

          Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

          Dubs, Alfred

          Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

          Duffy, A. E. P.

          Robertson, George

          Eadie, Alex

          Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

          Eastham, Ken

          Sandelson, Neville

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

          Sever, John

          Ennals, Rt Hon David

          Shore, Rt Hon Peter

          Evans, John (Newton)

          Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

          Ewing, Harry

          Skinner, Dennis

          Faulds, Andrew

          Snape, Peter

          Field, Frank

          Soley, Clive

          Fitch, Alan

          Spearing, Nigel

          Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

          Spriggs, Leslie

          Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

          Stoddart, David

          Ford, Ben

          Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

          Forrester, John

          Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

          Foster, Derek

          Tilley, John

          Foulkes, George

          Torney, Tom

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

          Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

          Garrett, John (Norwich S)

          Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

          Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

          Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

          George, Bruce

          Watkins, David

          Grant, George (Morpeth)

          Weetch, Ken

          Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

          Welsh, Michael

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

          White, Frank R.

          Hardy, Peter

          Whitlock, William

          Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

          Wigley, Dafydd

          Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

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

          Haynes, Frank

          Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

          Heffer, Eric S.

          Wilson, William (C'try SE)

          Holland, Philip (Carlton)

          Winnick, David

          Home Robertson, John

          Woolmer, Kenneth

          Hooley, Frank

          Wright, Sheila

          Hoyle, Douglas

          Young, David (Bolton E)

          Hughes, Mark (Durham)

          Hughes, Roy (Newport)

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

          Mr. George Morton and

          John, Brynmor

          Mr. Joseph Dean.

          Jones, Barry (East Flint)

          NOES

          Alexander, Richard

          Hawksley, Warren

          Ancram, Michael

          Hayhoe, Barney

          Aspinwall, Jack

          Heath, Rt Hon Edward

          Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

          Henderson, Barry

          Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

          Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

          Banks, Robert

          Hill, James

          Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

          Holland, Philip (Carlton)

          Beith, A. J.

          Hordern, Peter

          Bendall, Vivian

          Hunt, David (Wirral)

          Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

          Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

          Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

          Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

          Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

          Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

          Berry, Hon Anthony

          Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

          Biffen, Rt Hon John

          Kershaw, Sir Anthony

          Biggs-Davison, Sir John

          King, Rt Hon Tom

          Blackburn, John

          Kitson, Sir Timothy

          Blaker, Peter

          Knight, Mrs Jill

          Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

          Lamont, Norman

          Boscawen, Hon Robert

          Lee, John

          Boyson, Dr Rhodes

          Le Marchant, Spencer

          Braine, Sir Bernard

          Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

          Bright, Graham

          Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

          Brinton, Tim

          Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

          Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

          Loveridge, John

          Brooke, Hon Peter

          Lyell, Nicholas

          Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

          Macfarlane, Neil

          Bruce-Gardyne, John

          MacGregor, John

          Bryan, Sir Paul

          Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

          Budgen, Nick

          Major, John

          Bulmer, Esmond

          Marland, Paul

          Burden, Sir Frederick

          Marlow, Antony

          Cadbury, Jocelyn

          Mather, Carol

          Carlisle, John (Luton West)

          Mawby, Ray

          Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

          Mawhinney, Dr Brian

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

          Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

          Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

          Mellor, David

          Chapman, Sydney

          Miller, Hal (B'grove)

          Churchill, W. S.

          Mills, Iain (Meriden)

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

          Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

          Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

          Moate, Roger

          Clegg, Sir Walter

          Monro, Sir Hector

          Cope, John

          Montgomery, Fergus

          Corrie, John

          Morgan, Geraint

          Cranborne, Viscount

          Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

          Critchley, Julian

          Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

          Crouch, David

          Mudd, David

          Dorrell, Stephen

          Murphy, Christopher

          Dover, Denshore

          Myles, David

          Durant, Tony

          Neale, Gerrard

          Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

          Needham, Richard

          Elliott, Sir William

          Nelson, Anthony

          Eyre, Reginald

          Newton, Tony

          Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

          Osborn, John

          Faith, Mrs Sheila

          Page, John (Harrow, West)

          Fenner, Mrs Peggy

          Page, Richard (SW Herts)

          Finsberg, Geoffrey

          Patten, Christopher (Bath)

          Fisher, Sir Nigel

          Pattie, Geoffrey

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

          Pawsey, James

          Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

          Penhaligon, David

          Forman, Nigel

          Percival, Sir Ian

          Fox, Marcus

          Pink, R. Bonner

          Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

          Pollock, Alexander

          Gardiner, George (Reigate)

          Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

          Garel-Jones, Tristan

          Proctor, K. Harvey

          Goodhew, Victor

          Raison, Timothy

          Goodlad, Alastair

          Rathbone, Tim

          Gorst, John

          Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

          Gow, Ian

          Rees-Davies, W. R.

          Gower, Sir Raymond

          Rhodes James, Robert

          Gray, Hamish

          Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

          Greenway, Harry

          Rifkind, Malcolm

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

          Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

          Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

          Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

          Grimond, Rt Hon J.

          Rossi, Hugh

          Grist, Ian

          Royle, Sir Anthony

          Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

          Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

          Hampson, Dr Keith

          St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

          Haselhurst, Alan

          Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

          Hawkins, Paul

          Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

          Shelton, William (Streatham)

          Trippier, David

          Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

          Trotter, Neville

          Shersby, Michael

          Vaughan, Dr Gerard

          Silvester, Fred

          Viggers, Peter

          Skeet, T. H. H.

          Waddington, David

          Smith, Dudley

          Wakeham, John

          Speed, Keith

          Waldegrave, Hon William

          Speller, Tony

          Walker, B. (Perth)

          Spence, John

          Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

          Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

          Wall, Sir Patrick

          Squire, Robin

          Waller, Gary

          Stainton, Keith

          Warren, Kenneth

          Stanbrook, Ivor

          Watson, John

          Stanley, John

          Wells, John (Maidstone)

          Stevens, Martin

          Wells, Bowen

          Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

          Wheeler, John

          Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

          Whitney, Raymond

          Stokes, John

          Wickenden, Keith

          Tapsell, Peter

          Williams, D.(Montgomery)

          Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

          Winterton, Nicholas

          Temple-Morris, Peter

          Wolfson, Mark

          Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

          Young, Sir George (Acton)

          Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

          Thornton, Malcolm

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Townend, John (Bridlington)

          Mr. Selwyn Gummer and

          Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

          Mr. Donald Thompson.

          Question accordingly negatived.

        New Clause 3

          EMPLOYMENT STATEMENT
          '(1) In section 18(1) of the 1967 Act (Director's report etc.) there shall be added the following—
          "(c) Date for manual and non-manual men and women, full time, part time, casual and homeworkers, showing, in aggregate and separately for plants employing over 500 workers—

          Numbers employed in United Kingdom at year's end.

          Aggregate annual remuneration.

          Total annual employment cost and a breakdown of non-wage costs.

          Average weekly earnings for the last week in April and October each year.

          Days lost through sickness.

          Accidents and days lost.

          Total days spent in training and costs of training.

          Numbers employed outside the United Kingdom, by country.

          (d) Aggregate information and separate information for plants employing over 500 workers on—

          Periods of short time working, indicating reasons.

          Turnover of employment.

          Retirements and pre-retirement arrangements.

          Redundancies, total redundancy payments and arrangements made to assist those affected.

          Pension provisions, stating whether the company has contracted out of the State additional pension scheme."

          (2) In section 18(2) of the 1967 Act there shall be added the following—
          "(c) Date for manual and non-manual men and women, full time, part time, casual and homeworkers, showing in aggregate and separately for plants of the company and the subsidiaries employing over 500 workers—

          Numbers employed in United Kingdom at year's end.

          Aggregate annual remuneration.

          Total annual employment cost and a breakdown of non-wage costs.

          Average weekly earnings for the last week in April and October each year.

          Days lost through sickness.

          Accidents and days lost.

          Total days spent in training and costs of training.

          Numbers employed outside the United Kingdom, by country.

          (d) Aggregate information and separate information for plants of the company and subsidiaries employing over 500 workers on—

          Periods of short time working, indicating reasons.

          Turnover of employment.

          Retirement and pre-retirement arrangements.

          Redundancies, total redundancy payments and arrangements made to assist those affected.

          Pension provisions, stating whether the company and any subsidiaries have contracted out of the State additional pension scheme .".'—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]

          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Mr. Clinton DavisI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take the following:
          New clause 7—Pension reporting.
          New clause 8—Statement of source and application of funds.
          Mr. DavisWe have argued for an employment statement to be included in a directors' report. We did that in Committee, and we maintain that view. The drafting of the new clause is to some extent different from that which we argued in Committee, but the principle underlying it is the same. The philosophy that we adopt is that there should be more open government of companies, notably in the medium and large companies, while the Government take the opposite view.
          Shrouded in the misty argument about cutting down on bureaucracy, which we have heard incessantly from the Under-Secretary, is the real argument for enabling companies within the areas that I have described to hide important aspects of information about their affairs, or at least to make it more difficult for those seeking such information to procure it. Therefore, there remains a substantial area of conflict between the Government and ourselves on that matter. Our approach is healthier. It is interesting to observe that the United States takes much the same line.
          All too often the Government's approach is dominated by the traditional, somewhat antiquated concept that companies are almost exclusively responsible to their shareholders and creditors, whereas we say that that doctrine should be substantially qualified and extended to employees, customers and society at large.
          The Government find it difficult to argue against the substance of the case that we have put forward. they say that they have no opposition to the principle, but merely to encompassing the change that we seek in law. They say that they believe in the voluntary approach to these matters.
          The Green Paper issued by the Government said:
          "A number of companies prepare statements about employment for inclusion in a separate report to employees. The Government welcomes these moves towards producing employment reports and also the experiments in wider social reporting which is being undertaken by a number of companies, but does not consider that, for the present at least, legislation has a part to play in encouraging these developments."
          The Government use the phrase
          "for the present at least".
          Perhaps they have it in mind to adopt our proposals in future, but I doubt that.
          The information that we are seeking in the new clause is highly relevant to the work force and of considerable significance to the public. it is important for the public and the work force to know how a company's employment

          103
          resources are being managed. For example, should not the public know how large and medium-sized companies—and medium-sized companies, within the Government's definition, are very substantial indeed—are fulfilling their responsibilities for training and retraining, for registering the contribution that is made by them towards the social good of the community as a whole, how they are operating apprenticeship schemes—which are disappearing all too rapidly—and how they are dealing with accidents at work? All those matters, and many more, are dealt with specifically in the new clause, and we say that they ought to be known by the public and by the work force.
          In their previous Bill the Government made a concession. They said that there should be a form of employment statement for the disabled. We had been urging that and eventually the Government relented. If they are prepared to concede the principle for the disabled, why should they not concede it for the whole work force? What is the difference in principle between the two? The Government must convey their argument about it to the House tonight.
          Why do we say that the voluntary approach is inadequate? We say that it is based essentially on a false proposition—that companies are prepared all too readily to divulge the information. I do not believe that that is the evidence. But the the Government say "We ought not to impose too great a bureaucracy on the private sector with regard to employment statements, pension requirements, pension reporting, and so on, because it has far too much to do". Is it not strange that the Government employ the voluntary approach for companies but refuse to do it for trade unions? With trade unions there has to be the force of law, but with the private sector—even with modest provisions such as these—we have to rely on the voluntary approach.
          In this context it is not idle to consider the enormous concentration and power of industry in our society today. I quoted the statistics in Committee. In 1950, the top 100 companies in Britain produced 20 per cent. of our national output. In 1979 the figure was nearing 60 per cent. In 1980–81 it is close to 70 per cent. Many of these companies operate multinationally. Most exercise enormous power, and it is a power that is concentrated in relatively few hands, all too often closely linked, and barely accountable to the community, to employees and to consumers. We have to deal with that situation. These modest proposals are one way of getting beneath the shroud that is sometimes used by companies to hide important information that ought to be readily available. That is why we are putting forward the proposition.
          We are not acting in isolation. In France, even under the regime of Giscard d'Estaing, far more extensive reporting on employment statements was required than we have provided for in our modest amendment. In Belgium, Holland and West Germany disclosure is far more extensive than in this country, so we ask the Government to change their mind on this matter. We believe that it would be a great advance and that it would be appreciated by the work force. The Government ought to do it.

          Pension reporting is dealt with in new clause 7. The Government say that they are not opposed in principle to the concept of pension reporting. Their objections lie essentially on the following grounds. They say that they
          104
          do not want to increase the requirements for statutory reporting, that it is inconsistent with their general policy. They say that an accounting standard is being produced. Lastly, they say that the new provision in the Bill goes further than anything that has previously been prescribed.
          9 pm
          I have already dealt with the importance of including the employment statement in the directors' reports. We believe that pensions reporting is perhaps even more important. Some pension fund trustees have no obligation to produce any accounts at all, let alone have them audited, yet pension costs form a significant proportion of the total payroll cost.
          Paragraph 50(4) of schedule 1 requires particulars of pension commitments actually provided in the accounts to be disclosed, and some similar information is required of pension commitments for which no provision has been made, but no guidance is given of the kind of detail required. There is no framework.
          I believe that the voluntary approach is pretty useless. Very few companies give more than the barest possible details and no accounting standard has yet been provided, although the accountants' profession has been working on this since 1975. We have no assurance that an accounting standard will be available in the near future or will satisfy the standards that should apply, because I suspect that when a standard emerges it will be the result of considerable compromise.
          We therefore contend that there is a strong case for a framework of more informative reporting to be established, that it ought to be done now and that the best way of doing it is in the Bill. This would enable the actuarial and accounting professions to develop more detailed guidance to provide the framework for the new accounting standard. We have waited too long for this. It is important that we press this matter to a Division. We shall do so on the basis of the employment statement, but we put on record our strong views on pension reporting.
          I concede that I do not place so much reliance on the statement of source and application of funds. Indeed, although it has been selected for discussion in this debate, I do not think that I should press the matter to a Division.
          I therefore base my arguments primarily upon the need for more open government within private industry, or at least within the area of private industry comprising the large and medium-sized companies, and I hope—although I suspect that I shall be disappointed—that the Minister will come forward with a more positive reply than his colleague was able to give in Committee.
          Mr. Donald AndersonMy hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) has moved the new clause with his usual facility, clarity and brevity. I shall follow him, at least in the brevity.
          In view of the comparative position in EEC countries in terms of reporting obligations, I stand somewhat amazed at the moderation of the terms of the new clause. We know, particularly in relation to new clause 3, that the addition of a new obligation is proposed in respect of the statement. I concede that a balance must be struck between the argument that one is simply increasing bureaucracy by such new obligations, creating red tape and diverting the business man from his true function of producing and selling the goods, and the arguments relating to the company's social responsibilities.

          105
          Under new clause 3, the obligation is to be placed only upon medium and larger companies, so the Government cannot argue that it will be oppressive to smaller companies. I suspect that all the information sought in new clause 3 is already readily available to the companies in various forms. It is, therefore, not a substantial obligation upon them simply to collate information which is probably already available to them if only they put it together. Moreover, as my hon. Friend has said, it is a move away from the nineteenth century definition of a company and the rather narrow definition of its obligations in respect only of its shareholders to the more modern concept of a company having community and social responsibilities. Certainly, the information sought in the new clause is of public concern.
          My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central said that details of the training facilities undertaken by a company would be made available. However, people in areas such as my own think of the extent to which apprenticeships have halved or more in the recent past. Although the Government may say that they are wedded to the voluntary principle and self-regulation, in these Companies Bills they are forced to move some steps away from self-regulation—for example, with insider dealing, concert parties and so on. Self-regulation is gradually being eroded and it seems that the Government are unwillingly being dragged towards a wider and more modern definition of a company's responsibilities.
          If modest new clause 3 is now rejected, and on the precedent of the moves away from self-regulation and the voluntary principle, we can promise the Government that this will not be the end of the matter. Just as we have Company Bills year after year and Session after Session, we shall continue to raise this matter until the Government eventually succumb.
          Mr. Peter ReesI can reassure the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). It is certainly not the intention of this Administration that there should be Companies Bills year after year. We regret having troubled the House with Companies Bills in two successive years. However, neither the House nor the hon. Gentleman should regard that as establishing any kind of precedent. But as I said earlier, one's perception of company problems and their nature develops and, naturally, we must keep abreast of them.
          Mr. AndersonThat is not quite what I meant. I was thinking in terms of the pipeline of European directives which the Government are gradually having to accept.
          Mr. ReesThe hon. Gentleman is quite right in one sense. I do not say that we would not have had this Companies Bill had it not been for the fourth directive, but that was part of the justification for troubling the House yet again with a long and complicated Companies Bill.
          The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is an output at Brussels, which is both constructive and illuminating, of which we shall take account at appropriate moments. However, the hon. Gentleman should not feel that there is any comparability between Companies Bills and Finance Bills because that would be going a little too far.
          I hope that there is not too much between us on these issues. I assure Labour Members that we are not being dragged protesting into the late twentieth century. I do not
          106
          want to take the debate into acrimonious and partisan areas from which we have managed to escape so far, but I do not recall that in the nineteenth century the Tory Party was the party of mill owners. The mill-owners may have made their contribution to the country's economy, but the Tory Party can look back to Lord Shaftesbury and thereafter to a wide range of enlightened legislation in the whole area of industrial relations and so on.
          If Labour Members want some tangible evidence of our recognition of the debt that companies and their directors owe to their employees, I need only remind them that, for the first time, in the Companies Act 1980 directors were specifically permitted on winding-up to take account of the interests of employees.
          Mr. AndersonThat is not enforceable.
          Mr. ReesThe hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the legal profession, says "That is not enforceable." The whole point is that prior to that there was some question as to whether directors were entitled to apply the assets of a company in the course of a winding-up for the benefit of employees.
          However, I do not believe that we need stray too far into the technicalities. As the hon. Gentleman may guess, I am very ready to debate legal technicalities, but I do not believe that it would generate the debate that we need to illuminate the new clauses. Nor would it grip the minds of other hon. Members who do not have a legal background. However, perhaps on some other occasion we can engage in friendly battle.
          I recognise the more general points that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) makes, but I listened in vain to his speech for a recognition that there are certain obligations in the first schedule which states that a great range of information is to be included in a director's report on matters touched on, I admit, rather more comprehensively in his provisions.
          We have to ask ourselves whether employees are at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the company either under schedule 1 or, indeed, under other statutory provisions. The Employment Protection Act 1975—no doubt the hon. Gentleman will claim credit for it and perhaps correctly so, as it was introduced by the previous Administration—indicates a whole range of areas where information must be given. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 does so in another area of employment. Therefore, there is provision for relevant information to be available to employees and those who represent them in negotiation or otherwise in those and other Acts. It is not as though they are completely excluded from any knowledge of what is happening in the management of the companies that employ them. I suggest that there is sufficient information there and also in the matter of pensions.
          If the House refers again to schedule 1 and particularly paragraph 56 it will see that the directors have to return:
          "wages and salaries paid or payable in respect of that year to those persons"—
          that is, employees—
          "social security costs incurred by the company on their behalf; and other pension costs so incurred;"
          so it is not as though there is no information to be given.
          The practice in France and other countries has been referred to. In most of those countries the industrial structure is a little different.
          Mr. D. N. Campbell-SavoursMore successful.
          Mr. ReesThe hon. Gentleman may fairly make that point.
          Mr. Campbell-SavoursThat is the connection.
          9.15 pm
          Mr. ReesThe third new clause, as the hon. Member for Hackney, Central was disposed to agree, is perhaps not quite in the same class. It raises a very interesting and perhaps important accounting point—the source of funds point. I understand from my reading of Hansard that this was the subject of some slight debate upstairs in the Standing Committee. I recognise the general points that were made. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was right not to elaborate the debate, because those who pay attention to these matters know the various considerations. He will be the first to admit that this is covered by SSAP 10. It is a question whether that goes far enough or whether it should be given the force of law. I believe that in this area it is better to leave the accountancy profession to work out the rules, subject, of course, to the general oversight of Parliament. I believe that the accountancy profession is sufficiently adroit and sensitive—
          Mr. Clinton DavisI have not pressed the argument about new clause 8. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give some information, however, on the progress being made with regard to the accounting standard relating to pension reporting? Hon. Members were given some information by the Government in Committee, but progress seems terribly dilatory.
          Mr. ReesThe hon. Gentleman may level that criticism at a distinguished profession of which neither he nor I am a member. I do not believe that there is any need for Government intervention. I believe that the profession is aware of its responsibilities. The Government will watch, benevolently but carefully, developments in that field.
          The hon. Gentleman fairly put the case on new clause 8. I think that this is adequately covered by SSAP 10. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman agrees that this matter can perhaps be left to the accountancy profession, although the Government do not absolve themselves from all responsibility.
          I come back to the two questions that relate more nearly to employees and to pensions. I hope that I have deployed the considerations that have weighed with me and which lead me to ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his proposal to a Division. If he feels disposed so to do, I would ask the House to reject it. I do not say that I have any doubts about the position that I have deployed. One approaches these matters with a certain diffidence. I did not have the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee. I have read the debates but I have, perhaps, not got the full immediacy of them. I have not been subjected, day after day, to the relentless but charming force of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central and the arguments of his hon. Friends. If, however, I had any doubts, I would be fortified by what I have read in the Green Paper entitled "The Future of Company Reports" published in July 1977 by the previous Administration. The general principles to be applied in considering this kind of problem are fairly set out in paragraph 8 of that document. I hope that the House will forgive me if I read them:
          108
          "In considering any proposal for extra disclosure in company reports a number of criteria need to be applied. The most important criterion is whether publication will clearly assist those with a direct interest in the company to gain a better understanding of the affairs of the company as a whole or a significant part of it."
          I venture to put to the House that the existing requirements coupled with the requirements of other legislation provide adequate information in this field. The document goes on to state fairly:
          "But there are other considerations that tend to limit the amount of information to be disclosed: is the information already available,"—
          yes , I suggest that it is——
          "or would the cost of collecting and presenting it be prohibitive?"
          I think that, in many cases, this would be so.
          Mr. AndersonHas any consideration been given by the Government to how much additional work will be necessary within a company to collate this information? Is it not right that all, or virtually all, the information requested is readily available in companies and there is not, therefore, a substantial additional obligation?
          Mr. ReesNo one could give a confident answer to that question. If I were to attempt to quantify the cost I would not be believed, and rightly so. The cost must vary according to the circumstances of each company. Various factors are involved, including the spread of a company's operations, where workers are employed, how many are part-time and how many are full-time and so on. A whole range of factors are involved and they make it impossible to give a confident answer. We should err on the side of caution unless we are persuaded that information is crucial. I suggest that in some cases the cost of obtaining and supplying the information would indeed be prohibitive.
          The Green Paper also asks whether there is
          "a danger of revealing information of value to competitors"
          I suggest that in many cases that would also be a factor. Assisted considerably by the Green Paper, I suggest to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central, who must have had a hand in its preparation——
          Mr. Campbell-SavoursThe Minister referred to the Green Paper's statement that it would not be convenient for companies to produce information at reasonable expense. But what area of the new clause is not covered by information that is already available in any company with more than 500 employees? There is not one question in the new clause to which such a company would not have the answer. Can the Minister pick out one area where information would not be available?
          Mr. ReesI have no doubt that information could be collected.
          Mr. Campbell-SavoursIt is already collected.
          Mr. ReesI doubt that. Collecting, collating, analysing and distilling information in the terms of the new clause would be an unwarrantable burden on companies.
          Mr. Campbell-SavoursBe specific.
          Mr. ReesThe hon. Gentleman is asking me to look through a long clause. I could readily do so, but I suspect from the hon. Gentleman's agreeable contributions to Finance Bill debates that he has some slight knowledge of industry and he will know that, although information may be available, it may not be available centrally but only at various branches. The cost of collecting, distilling and

          109
          analysing information would in many cases—I do not say every case—be an unwarrantable burden on the company concerned.
          Bearing in mind the broad principles so elegantly set out in the Green Paper of 1977, which the hon. Member for Hackney, Central has no doubt been able to reflect on for many years—I did not notice any rush to translate those aspirations into legislation between 1977 and 1979—I ask the Opposition not to press the new clause to a Division. I think that, at heart, we approach the problems in the same way. If the hon. Gentleman presses the new clause to a Division, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will unhesitatingly reject it.
          Mr. Clinton DavisThe Minister for Trade constantly refers to agreeable contributions. His was no less agreeable than anyone else's, but perhaps he has to try to be more agreeable than anyone else because he is trying to hide an implausible case.
          The Minister quoted the 1977 Green Paper at me. I was, to some extent, part author of that document. I wish that he had read on from the part that he quoted, because on page 9 we argued strongly for an employment statement. We said that it was appropriate that that should be embodied in legislation dealing with the fourth directive. We committed ourselves to that, and I shall read one paragraph that may even commend itself to the Minister:
          "What is proposed is that companies should publish an employment statement which sets out information about its workforce and employment policies which are relevant not only to employees themselves but to shareholders and others concerned with the company. The aim is to provide sufficient information about the workforce and about the way in which the employment resources are managed to give an indication of the effectiveness of management in this crucial area of the company's activities, and the way in which the company is meeting its social obligations with respect, for example, to training of school-leavers or the employment of the disabled."
          Mr. WickendenThat is meaningless.
          Mr. DavisThe hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) says that it is meaningless. It was so meaningless that in the 1980 Bill the Government decided to enact a provision that there should be a statement in the directors' report on the employment of the disabled. The hon. Member for Dorking is willing himself to vote, in future, against his Government. In his case, it will take a great deal of will power. This is a reasonable step to take and it is not burdensome. The better companies can manage it. Those companies that are less efficient and less willing to practise open government and are not prepared to do so need a shove. That is what the employment statement is all about.
          Precious little has been said about pension reporting. I have made a reasonable case for establishing that the accountancy profession also needs a shove in this respect. Pension reporting is vital to the work force and to those who wish to know how a company is fulfilling its social obligations. It is also important as regards profitability. It is not good enough that the accountancy profession should take six years to play around with a draft accounting standard. If the profession is not prepared to do something, the Government should. Indeed, a Labour Government would do something. The information is important and should not be hidden in the way that many companies hide it. Disclosure obligations in this connection are not sufficiently expressed in our law, and the Government's proposals are wholly inadequate. Therefore, the disagree-
          110
          ment between the Government and the Opposition should be reflected in a Division. Accordingly, we shall divide the House on the clause dealing with the employment statement.
          Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
          The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 195.

          Division No. 303]

          [9.25 pm

          AYES

          Allaun, Frank

          Jones, Barry (East Flint)

          Anderson, DonaldM

          Kilroy-Silk, Robert

          Archer, Rt Hon Peter

          Lamborn, Harry

          Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

          Lamond, James

          Boothroyd, Miss Betty

          Lestor, Miss Joan

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

          Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

          Bray, Dr Jeremy

          Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

          Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

          Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

          Lyon, Alexander (York)

          Buchan, Norman

          McCartney, Hugh

          Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

          McDonald, Dr Oonagh

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

          McElhone, Frank

          Campbell, Ian

          McGuire, Michael (Ince)

          Campbell-Savours, Dale

          MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

          Carmichael, Neil

          McWilliam, John

          Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

          Magee, Bryan

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

          Marks, Kenneth

          Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

          Maynard, Miss Joan

          Conlan, Bernard

          Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

          Cook, Robin F.

          Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

          Cowans, Harry

          Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

          Crowther, Stan

          Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

          Cryer, Bob

          Morton, George

          Cunliffe, Lawrence

          Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

          Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

          Newens, Stanley

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

          Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

          Dalyell, Tam

          Palmer, Arthur

          Davidson, Arthur

          Parry, Robert

          Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

          Pavitt, Laurie

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

          Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

          Deakins, Eric

          Prescott, John

          Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

          Price, C. (Lewisham W)

          Dixon, Donald

          Race, Reg

          Dormand, Jack

          Radice, Giles

          Douglas, Dick

          Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

          Dubs, Alfred

          Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

          Duffy, A. E. P.

          Robertson, George

          Eadie, Alex

          Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

          Eastham, Ken

          Sandelson, Neville

          Evans, John (Newton)

          Sever, John

          Ewing, Harry

          Shore, Rt Hon Peter

          Field, Frank

          Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

          Fitch, Alan

          Skinner, Dennis

          Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

          Snape, Peter

          Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

          Soley, Clive

          Ford, Ben

          Spearing, Nigel

          Forrester, John

          Spriggs, Leslie

          Foster, Derek

          Stoddart, David

          Foulkes, George

          Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

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

          Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

          Garrett, John (Norwich S)

          Torney, Tom

          Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

          Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

          George, Bruce

          Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

          Grant, George (Morpeth)

          Watkins, David

          Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

          Weetch, Ken

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

          Welsh, Michael

          Hardy, Peter

          Whitlock, William

          Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

          Wigley, Dafydd

          Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

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

          Haynes, Frank

          Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

          Heffer, Eric S.

          Winnick, David

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

          Wright, Sheila

          Home Robertson, John

          Young, David (Bolton E)

          Hooley, Frank

          Hoyle, Douglas

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

          Mr. Frank R. White and

          John, Brynmor

          Mr. Allen McKay.

          NOES

          Alexander, Richard

          Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

          Alton, David

          Hill, James

          Ancram, Michael

          Holland, Philip (Carlton)

          Aspinwall, Jack

          Hordern, Peter

          Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

          Hunt, David (Wirral)

          Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

          Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

          Banks, Robert

          Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

          Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

          Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

          Beith, A. J.

          Kershaw, Sir Anthony

          Bendall, Vivian

          King, Rt Hon Tom

          Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

          Kitson, Sir Timothy

          Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

          Knight, Mrs Jill

          Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

          Lamont, Norman

          Berry, Hon Anthony

          Lee, John

          Biffen, Rt Hon John

          Le Marchant, Spencer

          Biggs-Davison, Sir John

          Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

          Blackburn, John

          Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

          Blaker, Peter

          Lyell, Nicholas

          Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

          Macfarlane, Neil

          Boscawen, Hon Robert

          MacGregor, John

          Boyson, Dr Rhodes

          Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

          Braine, Sir Bernard

          Major, John

          Bright, Graham

          Marland, Paul

          Brinton, Tim

          Marlow, Antony

          Britten, Rt. Hon. Leon

          Mather, Carol

          Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

          Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

          Bruce-Gardyne, John

          Mawhinney, Dr Brian

          Bryan, Sir Paul

          Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

          Budgen, Nick

          Mellor, David

          Bulmer, Esmond

          Miller, Hal (B'grove)

          Burden, Sir Frederick

          Mills, Iain (Meriden)

          Cadbury, Jocelyn

          Moate, Roger

          Carlisle, John (Luton West)

          Monro, Sir Hector

          Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

          Montgomery, Fergus

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

          Morgan, Geraint

          Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

          Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

          Chapman, Sydney

          Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

          Churchill, W. S.

          Mudd, David

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

          Murphy, Christopher

          Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

          Myles, David

          Clegg, Sir Walter

          Neale, Gerrard

          Cope, John

          Needham, Richard

          Cranborne, Viscount

          Nelson, Anthony

          Critchley, Julian

          Newton, Tony

          Crouch, David

          Osborn, John

          Dorrell, Stephen

          Page, John (Harrow, West)

          Dover, Denshore

          Page, Richard (SW Herts)

          Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

          Patten, Christopher (Bath)

          Elliott, Sir William

          Pattie, Geoffrey

          Eyre, Reginald

          Pawsey, James

          Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

          Penhaligon, David

          Faith, Mrs Sheila

          Percival, Sir Ian

          Fenner, Mrs Peggy

          Pollock, Alexander

          Finsberg, Geoffrey

          Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

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

          Proctor, K. Harvey

          Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

          Raison, Timothy

          Forman, Nigel

          Rathbone, Tim

          Fox, Marcus

          Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

          Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

          Rees-Davies, W. R.

          Gardiner, George (Reigate)

          Rhodes James, Robert

          Garel-Jones, Tristan

          Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

          Goodhew, Victor

          Rifkind, Malcolm

          Gorst, John

          Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

          Gow, Ian

          Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

          Gower, Sir Raymond

          Rossi, Hugh

          Gray, Hamish

          Royle, Sir Anthony

          Greenway, Harry

          Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

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

          St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

          Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

          Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

          Grimond, Rt Hon J.

          Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

          Grist, Ian

          Shelton, William (Streatham)

          Gummer, John Selwyn

          Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

          Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

          Shersby, Michael

          Hampson, Dr Keith

          Silvester, Fred

          Haselhurst, Alan

          Skeet, T. H. H.

          Hawkins, Paul

          Smith, Dudley

          Hawksley, Warren

          Speed, Keith

          Hayhoe, Barney

          Speller, Tony

          Henderson, Barry

          Spence, John

          112

          Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

          Wakeham, John

          Squire, Robin

          Waldegrave, Hon William

          Stainton, Keith

          Walker, B. (Perth)

          Stanbrook, Ivor

          Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

          Stanley, John

          Wall, Sir Patrick

          Stevens, Martin

          Waller, Gary

          Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

          Warren, Kenneth

          Stokes, John

          Watson, John

          Tapsell, Peter

          Wells, John (Maidstone)

          Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

          Wells, Bowen

          Temple-Morris, Peter

          Wheeler, John

          Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

          Wickenden, Keith

          Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

          Williams, D.(Montgomery)

          Thompson, Donald

          Winterton, Nicholas

          Thornton, Malcolm

          Wolfson, Mark

          Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

          Young, Sir George (Acton)

          Trippier, David

          Trotter, Neville

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Vaughan, Dr Gerard

          Mr. Peter Brooke and

          Viggers, Peter

          Mr. Alastair Goodlad.

          Waddington, David

          Question accordingly negatived.

        New clause 5

          MEETINGS OF CREDITORS AND centerBINDING
          '(1) In section 293 of the 1948 Act (meeting of creditors) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (5):—

          "(5)(A) No resolution passed by the company shall be valid unless endorsed by a meeting of the creditors held in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section."

          (2) In section 293(6) for the words from "the company, directors or director" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted:—

          the company shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine; and on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand pounds; and

          the director or directors, as the case may be, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine, or both; and on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding one thousand pounds, or both".'.—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]

          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Mr. Clinton DavisI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this we shall discuss new clause 32—Minimum notice of meeting for voluntary winding up.
          Mr. DavisNew clause 5 deals with the esoterically entitled centerbinds. We are seeking to deal with an abuse which has continued for a considerable time. I concede that it is the subject of detailed investigation by the committee led by Sir Kenneth Cork. I am sure that he will not take offence if we make some progress. I do not believe that we would be pre-empting his conclusions in any material way.
          Something must be done to remedy an abuse which has gained some attention, particularly in the "Checkpoint" programme in the last year.
          I wish to deal briefly with how the abuse developed. It originated with a case called Re centerbind Limited which came before the Chancery Division in 1966 and was dealt with by Mr. Justice Plowman. I read the headnote of the case in Committee. I think it important for the sake of completeness to read it again. It said:
          "The shareholders in a company, who were three in number, accepted short notice for an extraordinary general meeting of the company to be held on the following day, when an extraordinary resolution for winding-up was passed and the

          113
          applicant was appointed liquidator. No declaration of solvency had been made; and no meeting of creditors had been held, but a creditors' voluntary winding-up was contemplated. The applicant forthwith launched a motion for an order staying further proceedings on a distress levied by the respondents, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. On the question whether the applicant had locus standi to bring the motion or whether his purported appointment as liquidator was a nullity by reason of section 294 and section 293(1) of the Companies Act 1948, it was held that the applicant having been nominated or appointed liquidator by the members of the company became liquidator and, the creditors not having brought his appointment to an end, he had locus standi to bring the motion".
          The result of that case led to the development of the technique of centerbinding.
          There is a penalty to deal with the abuse set at a maximum of £1,000 on summary trial, but that has been the case only since 1980. Before that it was £100. The abuse is represented by the fact that, if 95 per cent. of the shareholders of a company call an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders, they can declare a creditors' voluntary liquidation—although, significantly, no creditors are present—but cannot call a members' voluntary winding-up as that would require them to make a declaration of solvency. That is why they do not do that. The shareholders can appoint a liquidator at once and ask him to liquidate the company.
          It is true that the 1948 Act requires a creditors' meeting to be called within 24 hours, and failure to do so carries a maximum fine of £1,000 on summary trial. As far as I know, there are no examples of any trials on indictment. The person appointed liquidator still remains in that position, even if a breach of the criminal law has been committed. The mischief is that he can dispose of whatever assets he wishes at whatever price he thinks appropriate, and that is that. That can include, and has done in past practice, the selling of the principal assets to associates of the shareholders. A new company is established in exactly the same premises, with the same directors and other personnel who were behind the original company. Although it is true that any subsequent creditors' meeting, if one is called, can overthrow the appointment of the liquidator, the damage has already been done. It is a sad state of affairs that large private banks have condoned such action in consideration of the settlement of a secured loan. It represents a means to advance ahead of Crown preference and other creditors. It does not reflect well on the banks that have been involved in such a practice.
          I understand that the Department of Trade has carried out some investigations into a well-known centerbinder, Mr. Maurice Sidney Caplan, who is known as Hissing Sid. His company, Chancery Lane Registrars Limited, proclaims to be a liquidation specialist. It is run by Mr. Caplan and two associates, Mr. Paul Davies—a solicitor—and a gentleman who purports to be something of an accountant, Mr. Stephen Willard Pepler. These gentlemen have some extraordinary qualifications to be involved in affairs of this sort.
          Mr. Caplan was involved in nine business ventures which ended in bankruptcy. He personally has been bankrupt. He has served two prison terms for handling stolen goods and for defrauding his creditors. I suppose that that qualifies him uniquely to carry on such a form of business.
          114
          9.45 pm
          Mr. Pepler was involved in the David Lion mortgage and finance group, which came to an ignominious end. He served 18 months' imprisonment for defrauding five banks.
          Mr. Davies does not emerge all that well. He has been fined £1,000 for uttering a forged document.
          I gather from some inquiries made by The Sunday Times that all three gentlemen assured a reporter of The Sunday Times that they were now going straight. There we have it. The interesting feature about Hissing Sid is that he claims that he has all the answers to these problems. He says that he knows his way round the Bankruptcy Act. His firm's speciality is the centerbind version of the creditors' voluntary liquidation.
          The clients that it acquires are usually provincial family businesses. It is fair to say that they have welcomed the attentions of Mr. Caplan—Hissing Sid and his associates. Once Chancery gets in, it checks the books. If it finds that the client is insolvent, it warns him that he is committing a criminal offence by continuing to trade and urges him to convene an immediate meeting to declare a creditors' voluntary liquidation and to appoint Chancery Lane Registrars Ltd. as the liquidators.
          Mr. Caplan says that everything is legal and above board. He is reported as saying that he knows the insolvency laws backwards and that they are so loose and flexible that his firm can drive a coach and horses through them.
          That sort of conduct must end. A great deal of damage is being done by those who have rejoiced in the abuse of company law and of the laws on insolvency. I know that the Government have some hesitation about new clause 5. I hoped that they would be prepared to be more ambitious. However, I have reason to believe that they will be prepared to support new clause 32. We must be thankful for small mercies.
          I hope that the Government will ensure that when the Cork report is published—I hope that will not be too long now—they will embark on legislation. There are many abuses beyond those which I have catalogued which need to be dealt with urgently. I hope that the Government will make a better shot at that legislation than they have in the Bill. However, I must not be churlish, because I believe that they are prepared to accept new clause 32.
          The clause overcomes some of the difficulties to which I have alluded. It would require a company to give at least seven days' notice of the meeting at which the winding-up resolution was to be proposed, and failure to comply would represent a criminal offence. The effect would be that the creditors would receive at least seven—possibly eight—days' notice of the meeting. That should give them time to consider whether they wish to nominate a liquidator or to attend the meeting.
          It is possible that some difficulties could arise from opting for that course, but we must look at where the greatest benefit lies. I am convinced that the new clause would provide greater benefit and protection to creditors. I hope that the Government will accept the clause and that the Minister will be able to give us the assurances about the broader aspects of insolvency law that I requested a moment ago.
          Mr. EyreThe hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) has set down two new clauses which propose alternative methods of strengthening the powers of

          115
          creditors in a creditors' voluntary winding-up. It is sensible to deal with both at the same time. In Committee I said that it would be preferable to await the outcome of public discussion of and consultation on the recommendations of the Insolvency Law Review Committee before considering changes in the voluntary liquidation practice.
          The hon. Member for Hackney, Central emphasised the complexity of these matters when he referred to the activities of Hissing Sid. That complexity makes effective change essential. Like the hon. Member, I look forward to the report of the Insolvency Law Review Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Kenneth Cork. An intensive period of consultation will follow because it is essential to get those matters right. We will then certainly wish to deal with those matters in a proper and comprehensive way. I said that in the meantime I would look favourably on any procedural improvements that were proposed.
          The principle of the Companies Act 1948 provisions is that creditors should have immediate notice of the company's intention to wind up and appoint a liquidator. Section 293 requires the company to advertise the convening of the creditors' meeting to take place on the day or the day next following the members' meeting. Section 294 provides for the creditors' nominee to be appointed as liquidator in the event of the creditors and the members appointing different people. I recognise that problems arise when the company resolves to wind up at short notice, and there is concern about possible abuses of this procedure.
          The difficulty with the new clause 5 approach is that if creditors fail to endorse the company's resolutions or nominate their own liquidator, the company would be left in a state of limbo, which would defeat the object of the exercise. New clause 32, however, solves the problem of short notice by requiring the company to give at least seven days' notice of the meeting at which the winding-up resolution is to be proposed. I am glad to accept it.
          I share the concern of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central about defaulting directors, but I cannot go so far as to recommend imprisonment as a penalty for directors who fail to comply with the provisions for calling meetings. However, I trust that the publicity generated by the discussions here and in another place will make creditors aware of their rights and company directors aware of the financial penalties which they may suffer if they fail to carry out their statutory obligations when holding those meetings.
          Mr. Clinton DavisI accept what the Minister says about imprisonment being an inappropriate sanction. In the overwhelming majority of cases it is simply a breach of duty in failing to call a meeting. Would not the Minister consider that all the circumstances must be taken into account and that where a fraudulent purpose has been demonstrated perhaps imprisonment would not be an inappropriate sanction?
          Mr. EyreI agree with that, but the hon. Gentleman knows that it would be necessary to establish the element of fraud and to incorporate it in the definition of the offence. These matters are complex and ought to be dealt with comprehensively. That is one of the major purposes of the Cork review and I look forward very much to dealing with this problem properly.
          Mr. Clinton DavisWhen?
          Mr. EyreI saw Sir Kenneth and he tells me that the committee will be reporting very shortly. I ask the hon. Gentleman, in the light of my remarks, to ask leave to withdraw new clause 5. He has made a very useful contribution by the argument that he has developed on new clause 32, and I recommmend the House to accept that clause. I assure the hon. Gentleman of my earnest desire properly to get to grips with the problem in an approach based on the Cork committee's report.
          Mr. TrotterDoes my hon. Friend appreciate that if the law is changed in this way, on a one-off basis, without waiting for the Cork report, there may be some cases where the creditors of the company will suffer? There are cases where it is very much in the interests of the general body of the creditors for the company to be put into immediate liquidation. The law at present does not provide for that, and the new clause would bring in, under clause 32, a delay of seven days rather than the present 14 days.
          There will be cases where the ability in future to bring a company into immediate liquidation will cause loss to the creditors, and I would have hoped that it could be considered in a more leisurely way in the light of the general findings of the Cork committee, because it is a very technical insolvency matter. I know that the House is seeking to avoid cases where shady business is carried out so speedily that the assets have disappeared from view before any proper hold on them can be obtained by the properly appointed liquidator. These cases are very rare, but there are at least as many cases where there is a need for immediate action if the assets of the company are to be saved. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind.
          Mr. EyreThe remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) illustrate the difficulties of these matters. As one sits at the center in the Department, receiving advice from people such as my hon. Friend, who are experts in the subject, one finds that there is a conflict of opinion and of evidence. I have noted what my hon. Friend said on behalf of those companies which need to take speedy action to allow them to go into voluntary liquidation quickly in order to preserve something for the creditiors. I am inclined to the view that cases where seven days' notice is too long will be so few that it would be wrong to reject these new proposals to protect creditors' interests in order to preserve a right that will need to be used only infrequently.
          I ask my hon. Friend to bear with me, because I have considered very carefully all aspects of this matter. I know that I cannot please everyone, but that is the balance that I propose to take. I think that it is fair and reasonable. I ask hon. Members to take account of these arguments, because we are in very deep waters here and I am trying to find the right balance.
          Mr. TrotterOne of the practical effects is that the Inland Revenue authorities rather than the ordinary creditors can get their hands on the assets. Whether that is what the Opposition are seeking I very much doubt, but that would be the practical effect of the new clause. I suggest that the cases in which assets disappear improperly through this sort of action are at least as infrequent as the cases in which speedy action is needed.
          Mr. EyreI hesitate to differ from my hon. Friend, because I know of his great practical experience in these

          117
          matters, but these cases have been carefully reviewed. I have to strike the best balance that I can in the public interest. I assure my hon. Friend that, difficult though it is, I have tried to do that. There is no perfect solution. We need a comprehensive review, but the balance of advantage, in the public interest, is the one that I have indicated, and I ask my hon. Friend to accept that I have given very careful consideration to the point that he made
          Mr. Clinton DavisUnlike his hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), I am prepared, although I could think of a better verb, to bear with the Minister on this. It is indeed a question of balance. The Minister, with his officials and others, has clearly looked at the nature of the abuse and has had to balance it against the possible harm that could flow to, I believe, a very small number of people. I believe that the Minister has made the correct judgment. Certainly, it is one that I support. Moreover, so far as I know, no strong representations have been made by the accountancy bodies against the proposal since it has been on the Amendment Paper.
          It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
          Ordered,
          That, at this day's sitting, the Companies (No. 2) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr Brooke.]
          Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
          Mr. Clinton DavisHaving said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
          Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

        New Clause 6

          COMMON OWNERSHIP COMPANIES
          'A new class of company shall be created to be known as a "Common Ownership Company".

          In such companies earnings shall accumulate on behalf of or be distributed to those contributing work instead of accumulating on behalf of and being distributed to those contributing the ordinary share capital.

          Voting in such Common Ownership Companies shall be equal or in some way other than in proportion to shares held.

          No bonus shares shall be issued to the members of such Common Ownership Companies in proportion to shareholdings except to such extent as may be necessary to offset inflation; but bonus shares may be issued to an unlimited extent in proportion to work.

          On a winding up any residual assets of any such Common Ownership Company shall not be distributed to shareholders in proportion to shareholdings but may be distributed to members in proportion to work or be transferred to some non-profit or public organisation or to a charity.'.—[Mr. Geoffrey Robinson.]

          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Mr. Geoffrey RobinsonI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take new clause 41—Job ownership companies.
          Mr. RobinsonIt will be to the immense relief, if not yet release, of the House to hear that we do not intend to press the new clause, in its present form, to a Division. I mentioned earlier that it was with the indulgence of my right hon. and hon. Friends that I was at the Dispatch Box. It can well be imagined that it is with their active encouragement that we air yet again an issue that we
          118
          believe needs to be ventilated in debate and, with regard to one particular incident in very recent times, needs attention drawn to it.
          I know well what the Under-Secretary of State will say in reply and I have considerable sympathy with the position of the officials. I believe that the very flexibility of the present legislation has as many advantages as disadvantages. I say that without disregarding the complex new clause that I am sure the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will introduce with his usual lucidity and originality of mind. I would not wish to follow him into every detail of that clause, which I am sure that he, too, will not wish to press to a Division today.
          I am not sure that at this point we can do more than illustrate and draw attention to the principles involved, even in the complexities into which the right hon. Gentleman may have to go—although I hope that he will not—in introducing new clause 41.
          We are saying that, given the growing importance of co-ownership and co-operation rather than confrontation in industry, there may at some future time be scope for wider legislation to facilitate that even more. At present, we have the Industrial Common Ownership Act, the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, the Scott-Bader arrangements, the John Lewis Partnership, and, if I dare mention it—I shall not be tempted to do more than that—the unique arrangements of the Meriden co-operative. There is much to be said for the flexibility that allows all those various arrangements under the present law to be maintained.
          In mentioning Meriden I repeat the tribute that I paid to the previous Minister of State, with whom we had the pleasure of dealing on these matters in Committee and outside, for his handling of the Meriden affair. I also congratulate him, in his absence, on his elevation to that central position on the platform as chairman of the Conservative Party, which he must have occupied with great pleasure, although I imagine that the proceedings on the Floor will have given him almost as much displeasure. I pay tribute to his realistic and sensitive handling of the Meriden affair, to the officials of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, with its outstanding staff of high commercial calibre, committed to the pursuit of the national interest—in which I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House can still share—and to the officials in various Government Departments.
          I belong to that dying breed of politician who happens to believe that officials are important in running the Government and that their co-operation is far better than their confrontation. Even when we had a Labour Government I sometimes found it easier to talk to the officials than to the Ministers concerned. Even though it may lead to a restriction on my parliamentary activities, I put that tribute on record. The Meriden co-operative, which exists under present legislation, intends to prove the Government wrong. I sincerely hope that it can.
          Having said that, I return to the question of co-ownership and the need for co-operation in industry that co-ownership can involve. Labour Members feel strongly about this because of the dramatic and possibly disastrous confrontation that is about to take place in British Leyland.
          It is not for me to advise the Government. Perhaps they have decided to pick on the beleaguered car workers as an example to everyone else. Nor is it for me to advise trade union leaders and their members about the crucial meeting that will probably take place in Coventry on Thursday. I

          119
          say that in the knowledge that I have my own reselection meeting on Wednesday night. I do not wish to advise those who are taking part in those discussions.
          If ever a case demonstrated that co-operation rather than confrontation was required, and if ever a case demonstrated the need for co-ownership—the Government seem intent on getting into disastrous straits—it is surely that of British Leyland.
          No doubt Sir Michael Edwardes sees this as yet another dramatic, headline-clinching confrontation and a subjugation of the opponents, but in the four years of his stewardship—even this year after the launch of the Mini Metro—the percentage market share of British Leyland vehicles has dropped. A total of £1.2 billion of public money has been committed to that company. Workers have not gone on strike for an unparalleled two years and have settled for 5 per cent. , 5 per cent. and 6.8 per cent. The result has been a record £500 million loss in 1980.
          I do not attribute that to Sir Michael Edwardes. I attribute it almost exclusively to Government policy and the exchange rate. That argument is not central to my point, but, if Conservative Members wish me to do so, I shall be only too happy to argue the case.
          We feel it appropriate to make this appeal because our new clause stresses the reality and the need to move towards co-ownership and co-operation in industry. On 16 October the Financial Times published the letter to the employees of BL, in which Sir Michael said:
          "The BL board will"—
          I can only quote from a newspaper because I am not privy to the letter and have not been shown it by anyone who works in the company—
          "terminate the contracts of all strikers without payment or redundancy payments or payments in lieu of notice. It will not present its corporate plan to the Government".
          The letter continues in terms of an ultimatum that is so absolute that it is an affront to those who have received it. No letter could have been better calculated in tone and content to get precisely the counter-productive response that it did.
          In large and small industries alike, we must move towards co-ownership and co-operation and away from confrontation. It is for that reason that we are debating the new clause. For reasons that are obvious to all hon. Members we shall not push it to a Division, but this is a serious issue and it will become more serious. I urge the Government and Sir Michael carefully to consider the position into which they are unnecessarily getting themselves.
          Mr. J. GrimondI support new clause 6. I do not wish it to be thought that new clause 41 is in any way hostile to it, although the former is rather narrow. New clause 41 would possibly enable more companies to benefit.
          I hope that the new clause in my name is not complicated. Its purpose is reasonably simple. It has been drafted by experts. There is a certain amount of urgency. First, industrial relations are not so good that we can afford to dismiss new forms of industrial organisation. Secondly, there is a favourable tide for co-operatives and management and work force takeovers and considerable interest in broadening the base of industry and giving workers a share in ownership and, therefore, to some extent in control.
          120
          New clause 41 stems from proposals in another place by Lord Seebohm, and supported by Lords Caldecote, Boyd-Carpenter, Lloyd QC, Oram, Diamond and others—a formidable list of people who between them have considerable experience and expertise not only in industry but in law and accountancy.
          The main object of the new clause is to establish a new form of company—a job ownership company. We hope that once established it would share in the tax advantages given to co-operatives and, as a type of co-operative, to common ownership enterprises as defined in the 1976 Act and in the recent Finance Bill. The concession allows co-operatives to share the tax relief granted to partnership and close companies. The cost of money borrowed by a worker to enable him to take up shares in his company can be set off against his income tax, which is a considerable concession. We hope that that will flow from the recognition of a job ownership company.
          The clause has subordinate purposes. Safeguards are written in against abuse and there is a power for job ownership companies to hold their own shares. The definition of a job ownership company is given in subsections (2)(a) and (b). It is a company limited by shares and one in which all those working in it are entitled to take shares and of which only those who take shares are entitled to be members. Those definitions distinguish it from a co-operative.
          Subsection (2)(c) excludes certain companies—those dealing with property, insurance and finance. That provision is inserted at the suggestion of the Treasury to avoid possible tax evasion. I regret the exclusion of banks. The Casa Laboral Popular is a key element in the successful group of Mondragon co-operatives, and I believe that the establishment of similar banks associated with local communities or groups of co-operative enterprises in this country is very much needed. However, we are aiming principally at facilitating the setting up of job ownership companies in productive industry and therefore accept the Treasury's fears that if property and finance companies are included there is a danger of the provision being used as a vehicle for tax evasion.
          Subsection (2)(d) is inserted for the same reason—to meet Treasury fears of tax evasion.
          Subsection (3) allows a job ownership company to hold its own shares in treasury. The significance of "in treasury" is that if the company buys in its own shares it will not be forced to cancel them. They will be available for reissue to new members.
          10.15 pm
          I shall be asked why it is necessary to create another form of company. The answer, according to my advisers, who are distinguished and experienced people, is that for the type of suggestion now put forward widely the existing forms of company are not wholly suitable. The tax concessions in the recent Finance Bill really apply only to co-operatives or to common ownership companies as defined in the 1976 Act under which they are co-operatives. There are, of course, difficulties about co-operatives. The shares of co-operatives cannot appreciate in value. The only way in which members of co-operatives can share in the increased value of assets is through bonus shares, which, I understand, are liable to tax at the income tax level.
          Another possibility is the close company. However, as a Treasury Minister has pointed out, a close company can

          121
          have only comparatively few members. It is unusual for it to have more than 20 members. We are considering a company in which all the work force would be members. Under existing legislation, a common ownership enterprise, as defined in the 1976 Act, requires not only registration by the registrar as a co-operative, but a certificate from a Minister, which can be withdrawn. It is evident from talking to people who contemplate changing their businesses into co-operatives or setting up new ones that these are unacceptable provisions.
          The Mondragon type of co-operative in Spain has proved extremely successful. It is widely recognised as a structure from which we can learn. The Government themselves have encouraged the Welsh Trades Union Council to examine it. One of the features of such a co-operative is that members share in asset growth. This is extremely important for those who are thinking of putting their money into some sort of co-operative. A proportion of shares is held in common—that is, in treasury. I understand that under existing legislation this would not be possible in Britain. The Mondragon type of co-operative has been tested and examined by many people who are competent to fulfil that task. There are lessons that we can learn.
          I confess at once that my new clause differs in one important respect from the Mondragon model. It does not insist that every member of the job ownership company should have one vote and one vote only. It does not insist that any profit should be distributed according to the work contributed by a particular member. I agree that this is a good principle. I believe that it is one of the main principles of new clause 6. I do not dissent from it. Hon. Members have been told, however, that in certain cases that are being actively pursued if this were rigorously applied it would be a bar to the companies making their work force into members of a job ownership company. Under subsection (2)(b) of my new clause it is possible for the job ownership company to lay down terms and conditions, among which might be the requirement of one vote per member and that profits should be shared according to the work put into the company.
          The clause has not been thought up by theoreticians. It stems from work done by Lord Seebohm. It is drafted largely by lawyers under his direction. It is aimed at the management takeovers and the work force takeovers that are being discussed at the moment. I believe that some such development in our industrial structure is necessary if we are to improve productivity, contain inflation and get the better relations in industry that are so obviously needed.
          One case that is being actively pursued is that of the National Freight Company, which is anxious to form a company in which the work force will control most, if not all, of the operation. The managing director, Mr. Thompson, has made it clear to us that if the only vehicle available is a co-operative it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to go forward with the idea. I see in tonight's newspaper that he is pushing on, and I am glad to see that. I do not deny that it could be done, but it would be difficult.
          Manchester Cold Rollers has already been formed into what might be called a joint ownership company, but it employs few people and the title of a closed company is much more readily available to it than to a larger company in which all the work force are members.
          122
          A conglomerate is anxious to hive off a company that it took over inadvisedly some years ago and is willing to sell it to its members for £1, but it is running into difficulties over the form of the takeover company.
          One of the main reasons why I hope to get the Government to accept a new form of joint ownership company is that from that we can go on to define its relationship with taxation and other matters.
          I know a man who employs 750 people and has made profits of between £3 million and £4 million a year for the past two years. He is anxious to involve his work force in the running of the company, but he finds that if he offers it to the work force at less than the market value, which he is willing to do and which is essential for the whole operation, he will have to pay an immense sum in capital transfer tax. Therefore, that operation is being held up and is before the Government. Once we have a definition of a company, it will be possible to legislate to get out of that sort of difficulty.
          I urge the Government to consider new forms of industrial organisation. They seem to be the solution to the conflict that can lead to bad relations in some industries. I do not pretend that this is the only way in which industry should organise or that it is not theoretically possible, if one has enough accountants and so on, to get round the difficulties. However, my associates and I have practical experience of four or five new or existing companies that have run into difficulties because of the lack of a definition of a joint ownership company and are therefore facing problems in dealing with their tax and other liabilities.
          New clause 6 is another way forward. It is rather more restrictive because it insists on one man, one vote and on distribution not according to the capital held by employees but to the work put in. Those are good principles, but they are more restrictive and in some cases would be thought to be an obstacle to the creation of such an industrial organisation.
          I know that the Co-operative Development Agency is doing extremely good work, but it concentrates on co-operatives. I am sure that the Government agree that pure co-operatives are not the solution to the management or work force takeovers about which I am concerned. I hope that the Minister will consider my new clause and if the drafting is inadequate will not make that his reason for rejecting the whole idea.
          Sir Brandon Rhys WilliamsThe right hon. and hon. Members who have tabled these new clauses have done us a service in raising a subject of growing importance. I have often sought to draw attention to the fact that the Companies Acts are based on practice in the creation of wealth which is rapidly becoming obsolete. It can be said to reflect the social division into Normans and Saxons of long ago. In our factories today there are still all too many managers playing the role of Normans and all too many members of the work force who think it appropriate to act as Saxons in an adversarial or at any rate an angry subordinate role.
          With the coming of universal suffrage, such games are simply not appropriate and do not help either the management or the work force to make the best of their opportunities. We need to think again, particularly in the economic straits in which we find ourselves, about the best way of conducting businesses, both large and small, so as to ensure that all concerned give of their best and attain the best of which they are capable.

          123
          It may be said that in this country, for reasons which I have been unable to analyse and do not wish to dwell on here, the development of the law in connection with partnership atrophied at about the end of the nineteenth century. It did not continue to develop in the immensely detailed and specific way that our company law did in relation to the operation of directors, shareholders and participants at all stages in companies of the kind that are publicly quoted on the Stock Exchange.
          I wish to draw attention to a completely different system which still exists in this country and which is extremely fruitful, and that is the relationship between landlord and tenant on the land. In that relationship the owner takes a fixed return and the tenant and his wife, who are in effect the workers, take the profit and loss. Everyone knows what a happy relationship normally exists between agricultural landlord and tenant and how successful an enterprise British agriculture is, by and large. In normal public companies the relationship is reversed. There is an echo of the concepts of money barons and wage slaves, where the workers take a fixed return, whether the business is profitable or unprofitable, and the owners take the profit or the loss. The House should note that contrast, and I am glad that we have the opportunity to do so tonight.
          I think that I am right in saying that before the war the finance of enterprise was largely derived from fixed interest securities such as debentures and preference shares, and that the equity branch of the capital structure of companies was, for the most part, much less important as a source of finance. However, with the developments of the past 10 years, particularly with the accelerating and uncertain rate of inflation, we have reached the stage where the cult of the equity has gone too far. Boards are under great pressure to find ways, legitimate or illegitimate, of meeting the expectations of investors, and at the same time the antagonism between the interests of workers and the interests of investors has become too painfully obvious. In my view, that antagonism is one which we all know is ruining our country, and yet we are not making sufficiently specific proposals to deal with the situation. In fact, it now appears that it is as bad as it has ever been.
          Many companies would welcome a change in the way that the economic environment of our country permits private companies to finance their work. There are many companies whose directors are worried stiff about the extent to which they have become dependent on bank debt—that is to say, on capital commitments for the most part at fixed interest. They wish that they could find a way to cut free from their commitment to the bank, but market circumstances are such that they cannot contemplate in good faith issuing a prospectus with a view to raising money through equity participation. A solution that is beginning to be found is the selling off of the firm to the management.
          That is an interesting development. This year, at the Report stage of the Finance Bill, I recommended that the Government should recognise a new class of stock, which I called the value added loan stock. The object would be to enable companies to sell forward not their equity but a fixed share of their value added as a source of finance. I hope that the Government will give this matter further consideration. Indeed, I have had an assurance that they
          124
          may do so in the forthcoming Green Paper on this subject. For tax purposes such shares should be ranked as debentures because, although they ride with inflation, they offer a fixed return to the investor. They should also be exempt from capital gains tax, because by their very nature they should increase in value year by year and should keep pace with changes in the value of money.
          10.30 pm
          I have brought up this subject again because if a company went over to value added loan stocks and diminished or even ended its dependence on equity shares, it would turn into the type of company envisaged by those hon. Members and outside experts who are trying to devise a new method of organising company finance in order to reproduce on a large scale the benefits that exist in the small partnership operations that are permitted under the rudimentary state of our partnership law.
          I envisage that companies will increasingly have to recognise that the uncertainties of inflation accounting, the effects of the recession trade union pressure and so on will mean that they will be unable to undertake to operate at a profit. However, they may know that intrinsically their businesses are sound and that they have a good market share. They may also know that their work forces are competent and that their capital is not necessarily obsolete. How can they continue unless we make it easy for them to develop into partnerships and to solve their social and financial problems at the same time?
          I hope that the Government will consider the merit behind the new clauses. Although the proposers do not intend to divide the House, I hope that it will not be thought that they could not enlist any support. We must move forward to what the Italians call the "historic compromise". In British terms, the investors will have to be ready to take a fair return and to refrain from insisting that they should have all the profits. In return, the employees must accept the responsibilities of partnership and renounce the right to strike.
          Mr. EyreI cannot take up the industrial wonderings offered by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), which seemed to be aimed at his reselection meeting on Wednesday. However, I regret to inform him that I do not depart from the general view put forward by the Government in Committee, namely, that we do not believe that the proposals further the cause of common ownership companies in the way that the Opposition intend.
          As some hon. Members will recall, in Committee the Government expressed support for the aims to which the hon. Gentleman referred, namely, of stimulating productive activity and enterprise in as wide a variety of forms as possible. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) that that is so, and that the Government have an open approach to such forms of activity and wish to see progress. We are doing what we can to create a framework in which such enterprise can be encouraged, and the Companies Bill will help by providing for accounting exemptions for small companies and by enabling a company to buy its own shares.
          I should like to underline, however, that the present code of company law in Britain affords great flexibility over the constitution of new companies and that, so long as certain conditions are met, matters such as the eligibility to hold shares, rights on voting, appointment of directors and distribution of dividends are deliberately left for the

          125
          members of the company to determine in their articles of association. There is, therefore, no need for a specific provision for common ownership companies. Indeed, the new clause might well restrict the freedom of common ownership companies to develop. If their constitutions were now to be determined by statute it might be found after a time that desirable innovations were frustrated and that it would have been wiser to leave the subject to the more flexible provision of the general body of company law.
          In Committee I tried to set out the case for that view in greater detail. We wish the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West well in the development of such organisations, but they are well able to develop under the existing company law structure.
          I turn to new clause 41. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on the way in which he advocated the merits of the job ownership company. I warmed to his argument when he explained that concept. Job ownership companies might encourage more people to participate in the process of creating wealth, whether by the establishment of new businesses owned and run by their employees or by the reconstruction of existing businesses. I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's argument in that connection.
          It appears that producer co-operatives play a smaller part in the British economy than in the economies of some of our neighbours. The job ownership idea is one way of helping to fill the gap. I believe that it has an important role to play because although, like other producer co-operative models, it does not permit outside equity, it has the advantage of allowing employees to take an equity stake in their company whilst maintaining the principle of equal voting rights.
          Our policy is to encourage such experiments in industrial co-ownership. I stress that because I know that it will please my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, who is also a disciple in this sphere.
          This particular model is scarcely well tried in the British environment, but we are happy to give it our encouragement. We therefore stand ready to help spread the good word about job opportunity companies. I shall describe later how we propose to do that.
          I am sure that the clause should not be included in the Bill. It would introduce a definition of a JOC into company law. It is claimed that there are two purposes for that, both of which are misconceived.
          I wish to dwell on the crucial point of seeking to insert into statute a definition of a JOC. It is argued that the adoption of the JOC form would be helped by statutory recognition. Faith in the evangelical effects of statute law is misplaced. A statutory definition could easily become a straitjacket by casting permanently the JOC in the mould in which it is described in new clause 41, while various adjustments to the definition would become desirable in the light of experience.
          I recall the words of Lord Mackay, the Lord Advocate, who, with his usual precise turn of phrase, said that such a definition would be "frozen into statute." Subsequent developments have shown how right he was. I ask the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to bear with me while I quote the evidence that I believe supports my view, but with great respect to the concept that he has in mind.
          The definition before the House—I shall call it mark III—differs substantially from that put before another place—mark I—and from that which was withdrawn from
          126
          the Order Paper only last week—mark II. The two earlier versions differ from each other. Mark III, before us now, would restrict membership to those working in a company. Mark I would have limited membership to individuals bona fide employed by, or whose income was substantially derived from working upon the business of, the company or its subsidiaries, and also to trustees of an employees' share scheme or charity. Mark II, however, omitted the reference to charity. Both earlier versions prohibited the alteration of the membership provisions.
          The right hon. Gentleman said that he was advised that existing forms of company were not suitable for his purpose, but he did not identify a single company law impediment to the formation and operation of such a company, with the exception of the prohibition on "in treasury" shares, which I shall deal with in a moment, as it is of specialised interest.
          Mr. GrimondI am grateful to the Minister. I am closely following his remarks. I agree that we have modified our proposals and tried to make them simpler. The difficulty is that the matter falls between company law and finance law. When I put forward proposals during the proceedings on the Finance Bill I was told that it was a matter for company law. When talking to people who want to form such an operation, we find that the great drawback is that they cannot gain the tax advantages. If they formed a co-operative they could settle the cost of borrowing the money for their shares against their tax. For obvious reasons, a co-operative is unsuitable to take over the National Freight Corporation. The drawback is the question not simply of Treasury shares but of tax.
          Mr. EyreThe right hon. Gentleman and his friends are striving to find a suitable definition for their purposes. With respect, more than one definition may be suitable for different purposes. The struggle to find the one perfect answer causes the solution to fall between different stools. There is no single company law impediment to the formation and operation of the sort of company to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, except for the Treasury share difficulty that I shall explain frankly.
          The right hon. Gentleman's claim for consideration is really addressed to the Treasury. I am not seeking to avoid his questions in any way. If he and his friends contrived a definition of precisely the form of activities, the qualities, the virtues and the advantages that they wish to encompass in their company, they would have a firm base on which to approach the Treasury. They could form that base in relation to existing company law.
          Mr. GrimondWhen we approach the Treasury it says that we must go away and talk to the Department of Trade, get a definition of a company, and then come back. We are going backwards and forwards between the Treasury and the Department of Trade.
          10.45 pm
          Mr. EyreI shall make what I hope the right hon. Gentleman will regard as a helpful approach on the part of the Department of Trade. I say that he is able to form the organisation that he has in mind within the existing provisions of company law. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would have to decide what virtues they wished to incorporate within that pattern. They would be able to form a company and they would then seek to ask for special consideration on the taxation side, which would

          127
          be a Treasury matter. I shall explain the positive steps that we shall take in the Department to assist the right hon. Gentleman in his concept where we agree with him. We wish to be helpful.
          I turn to the introduction in the present version of a qualification to the right that workers have to become members in subsection (2)(b)(ii) of new clause 41. This permits the board to lay down terms and conditions of membership, which I suggest would be a wide-sweeping power which would be capable of excluding persons other than those favoured by the board. This is the more interesting because, unlike its antecedents, mark III has no provision for allocating one vote to each member irrespective of the size of shareholding, which I understand is a most important co-operative principle. This alteration makes me wonder not so much whether the chameleon has changed colour but whether it is still a chameleon at all. I am reinforced in that reflection by the fact that, unlike its forebears, the latest version is silent on the question whether loans whose return is linked to profits should be permitted and on how directors should be appointed.
          Some of the changes appear to introduce greater flexibility of organisation and ability to attract outside finance, which may be sensible as they may enable companies to take advantage of such flexibility to withstand the vicissitudes of fortune better than if the situation were more restricted. That endorses our view that the JOC idea is still evolving. It is one which no doubt will be capable of further improvement. It would be a mistake to frustrate such development by introducing a statutory definition.
          I shall deal with the effect that a definition of a JOC would serve in terms of other provisions in the law. There have been a number of changes. Mark I, which was discussed in another place, would have enabled JOCs to purchase their own shares. I believe that it is accepted that the Bill's provisions will remove any obstacles to the establishment of JOCs on this account. Therefore, we improve the situation. It also permitted JOCs to hold any shares so purchased in treasury. Mark II would have permitted them to issue no par value shares. No evidence has been forwarded that JOCs cannot operate successfully, as do the generality of companies, with the use of shares of some nominal value.
          Mark III provides that a JOC shall be entitled to hold its shares in treasury—namely, to purchase shares without cancelling them. In our provisions in the Bill on the purchase by a company of its own shares, we require that shares so purchased shall be cancelled. If more are subsequently needed, they will come from a fresh issue. If treasury shares were permitted, accounting procedure would have to be devised so that the balance sheet of the company could reflect the capital available to creditors, taking account of the shares held in treasury but covered by reserve. This would necessitate inevitably complicated additions to the statute book. Our approach is simpler and perfectly well suited to the circumstances of JOCs.
          Further complex provisions would also be needed to cover problems arising on the reissue of treasury shares. Ought the rules in the Companies Acts on allotment at a discount, valuation of non-cash consideration received and share premium to apply to the reissue? Ought the rules on shareholders' pre-emption to apply as if the reissue were
          128
          an allotment? I will not trouble the House with all the ramifications of those difficult questions. They would all need to be dealt with, but the great beauty of our approach is that they do not need to be. The provisions of the Bill providing for cancellation, combined with the rule in clauses 43 and 44 that the authorised capital remains intact on purchase and redemption, ensure that all the advantages of treasury shares are already conferred by the Bill, with none of the novel and complex problems that this proposal would raise.
          Therefore, I appeal to the House to support our approach and the decisions which we have made about the non-eligibility of treasury shares on grounds of economy and efficiency, which should benefit all concerned—industry, commerce and the professions.
          At this stage I should like to thank again my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington for his interesting speech. I shall consider carefully all the aspects of the approach that he advocates. I understand his enthusiasm for his beliefs.
          I now turn to the help that the Government have offered to job ownership. I hope that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will accept that we want to help. We believe that effective publicity for the concept is important. We are ready to ensure that the JOC idea is brought to the attention of those Government Departments and their related organisations throughout the country which deal with the promotion of industrial and commercial development. They will therefore be able to bear its advantages in mind in the context of the variety of individual cases with which they deal. This is a serious offer of help, which we believe will do far more for the dissemination and implementation of the JOC concept than so-called recognition in company law.
          My officials understand that a set of model articles of a JOC will shortly be sent to the Department. They will then be able to get ahead with the job of publicity. I assure the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that I look forward to the arrival of the model articles. We will actively promote the concept that he champions.
          That offer of help, made by the Government after the initial debate on the matter in the other place, should satisfy the reasonable and praiseworthy ambitions of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. He has an imaginative idea. I recommend our response to the House as an appropriately constructive one. However, the incorporation of this clause into the Bill would, for the reasons that I have given, be a source of confusion to those wishing to form such companies and a disservice to the job ownership movement. I hope that the right hon. Member will find my remarks, and also my promise of co-operation, helpful.
          I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised. I have stated our attitude to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West. I hope that on examination they will find that I have developed reasonable arguments in answer to their points.
          Question put and negatived.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)We now come to new clause 14, with which it will be convenient to take new clause 15.
          Sir Brandon Rhys WilliamsOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is for the convenience of the House I shall be content not to move new clause 14 tonight, but that is a matter for the House to decide.
          Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman must indicate what he is doing.
          Sir Brandon Rhys WilliamsI was under the impression that earlier clauses had to be taken before new clause 14 and that the matter might be discussed through the usual channels for the convenience of all concerned. I thought that as a matter of courtesy I should mention this before opening the debate on my new clauses.
          Mr. Clinton DavisOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I know what might have misled the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). New clauses 9, 10 and 11 are on the selection list, but I had no intention tonight of moving them.
          While I am on my feet, I invite the Minister to say whether he would be prepared to move the adjournment of the proceedings at this stage, because the new clauses that the hon. Member for Kensington has tabled, dealing with audit committees, are of some substance. We are virtually at the end of the new clauses. It is not my intention to move new clause 39, and the debate on new clause 40 will be very short, so that we have almost completed the new clauses. I know that the Minister and I had agreed that we should finish the new clauses tonight, but I am wondering whether, in fairness to the hon. Member for Kensington, we might postpone the debate on new clauses 14 and 15 until tomorrow. We are at a fairly late hour and I am not sure that we can do justice to them at this stage.
          Mr. EyreI apologise to the House for my apparent uncertainty, but I was expecting that new clauses 9, 10 and 11 would be moved, although the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) had indicated to me that he might withdraw them. I am grateful to him for saying that he has decided not to pursue those new clauses and that he is also not pursuing new clause 39.
          I find myself in some difficulty, however. The Bill is a long and technical one. The hon. Member knows and understands that as well as anyone. I have an enormous number of amendments with which I have to deal tomorrow, and it would be extremely difficult for me if we did not get enough time to deal with them. It could be to the detriment of those essential parts of the Bill. I know that the hon. Member would not begin to reproach me tomorrow night if we had to plough on until the late hours, but that is the difficulty that I face. It might be necessary to sit very late tomorrow night in order to deal adequately with the business.
          I should be extremely interested to hear the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) as I was informed that he wished to speak today. A message arrived for me saying that my hon. Friend wished to speak today, and I have in part organised the business on that basis. I gathered that that was the wish of my hon. Friend, and I have tried to operate accordingly.
          Sir Brandon Rhys WilliamsI may have been the cause of misunderstanding, in that I said that I had no particular wish to raise these very technical questions in what might be regarded as the prime time of the House, when hon. Members come to the Report stage again after Question Time tomorrow. I am perfectly happy to be guided by consensus as to whether I move the new clauses now or whether we leave them until tomorrow.
          11 pm
          Mr. Clinton DavisFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I can be of assistance to the Minister. As I have indicated, I shall leave the matter in his hands. I do not think that the job tomorrow is as formidable as he thinks. We shall have some controversy on the first two amendments, but after that it will be fairly plain sailing. I doubt very much whether there will be much intervention on my part or on the part of other Labour Members. I hope that I am not being over-optimistic.
          Mr. EyreI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate the assurance about his performance tomorrow, but the view among my hon. Friends is that they are anxious to hear my hon. Friend's speech. As my hon. Friend knows, I am prepared to discuss this at any time, and we enjoy listening to his speeches on these matters.
          Sir Brandon Rhys WilliamsThe consensus seems to point in the direction of my moving new clause 14.

          New clause 14
          Appointment of an audit committee to be considered
          '(1) The agenda of every annual general meeting of a major public company as defined in subsection (2) of this section shall include as a separate item consideration of the appointment of an audit committee of the board.
          (2) For the purpose of this section a major public company shall be a company registered in Great Britain whose shares are listed on a recognised stock exchange, if within a period of five years ending on the last day of its last accounting reference period, being a day not more than twelve months after the appointed day,—

          the amount of the turnover of the company in any accounting reference period of the company exceeded £200 million, or

          the balance sheet total of the company (determined in accordance with the provisions of section 8 of this Act) at any time exceeded £400 million or

          the number of employees of the company (being full-time employees of the company or any subsidiary company thereof) exceeded 50,000'.—[Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.]

          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Sir Brandon Rhys WilliamsI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this we may discuss new clause 15—Constitution and function of an audit committee.
          Sir Brandon Rhys WilliamsMy points need not be too long drawn out. This is not the first time that I have had the opportunity to raise these proposals in the House. In fact, on more than one occasion I have had the leave of the House to introduce a Bill which included this series of recommendations.
          The style of management and the constitution of the board of public companies has moved on considerably since the great 1948 Companies Act which enshrined the wisdom of many experts on company law over the previous 100 years or even longer. But the character of society has changed so much since the 1948 Act was framed, and with it the nature of the board of directors, that we should take note of some of the pressures exerted on the boards, particularly in the largest companies, and on their professional advisers.
          It is more common now than it was 40 years ago for the dominant role on the board to be taken by the heads of

          131
          department who have risen through the business to the point where they are invited to become directors, rather than those other directors whose primary concern is to consider the efficiency of the company from the point of view of the investor or even the consumer, the work force or the public at large.
          The change that has been taking place has been called the managerial revolution. Whatever name we give it, I believe that most observers would agree that the supervisory role of the board has diminished and that the majority of directors of public companies are now primarily concerned with interests based on their functions as top executives within their departments.
          Another change has taken place, although the extent to which it has gone on is currently open to dispute. That concerns the nature of the owners of company shares. The institutional investors now control more than half the equity of our public quoted companies. The proportion is growing and is probably considerably more than 50 per cent. These investors are sophisticated professional people, and the board is often unable to provide the type of expertise in the analysis of its own affairs that professional investment studies require.
          That situation puts pressure on the auditors. It tends to take them further in their study of client companies than their strict responsibilities under the present state of the law, but it does not give them the formal status or the agreed guidelines that would assist their operations. The situation is often an unhappy one in very large companies, where the auditors may well feel that they have no formal line of communication to the board on matters that are of great and sometimes urgent significance for top management.
          There are also other problems of communication of data and advice which I shall not try to discuss further at this point, except to say that the non-executive directors of large companies are often in need of professional support, which they frequently do not receive.
          My proposals are not new. They are, of course, derived from Canadian and particularly from American practice. Clearly, they have been drawn up on the advice of experts in the field, but they also owe something to my own experience of some 20 years in industry and industrial consultancy before I came to the House.
          New clauses 14 and 15 are intended to be taken together and are largely a reprint of my Bill of 1977. At that time there was considerable discussion of the practice of the audit committee because it was decided, under pressure from the Securities and Exchange Commission, that the New York Stock Exchange should make it a requirement for any company seeking to be quoted there that it should appoint an audit committee.
          I believe that this is a timely opportunity to raise the matter again because such a high proportion of American companies now appoint audit committees to the board and the practice, although still new, is generally regarded in the United States as a useful innovation. It is not just companies on the New York Stock Exchange or other stock exchanges where it has been made a listing requirement to appoint such audit committees that have adopted the practice. Many other companies, particularly the large ones, but also the smaller and smallest companies in the United States, feel that this is a useful thing to do and have now adopted it.
          132
          In this country we cannot afford to be too smug about the performance of the private sector of industry. There are many reasons, of course, why that sector is going through difficulties just now. I am not saying that our managers are by nature second rate and that they fail to compare with the Germans or the Japanese or the Americans because of some personal characteristics—anything but. My own experience of industry and consultancy convinces me that there is noting intrinsically wrong with British management or with the type of people who rise to positions of responsibility on boards of directors. We are, however, plainly failing to organise those people in a way that enables them to function to their best capacity. If we sometimes do not operate as effectively as companies in the same line of business in other countries, we must be ready to ask ourselves why and to see whether we can learn something from the way in which other countries organise their affairs in the private sector of business.
          My proposals are devised to apply only to a small number of very large public companies. I have suggested that they should catch companies with a turnover of more than £200 million per year or with a balance sheet of more than £400 million or employing 50,000 or more employees. I suggest that in the first instance the proposals should be confined to that small number of very large companies because, since the etiquette of the performance of audit committee functions is not yet well understood, I think that large companies, which are most likely to do it well if they institute the practice—as, indeed, they are doing in some cases—should set an example from which smaller concerns may learn and, I hope, fruitfully copy.
          The proposal is that such companies as are caught by the Bill should consider the appointment of an audit committee at each annual general meeting. That is a modest recommendation. Some have considered it so modest as to be almost unsuitable to be included in legislation. However, although the requirement would not be obligatory except to perform the small function of including an item on the agenda at the annual general meeting—namely, the consideration of the appointment of an audit committee—it need not be merely a useless formality. Indeed, it ought not to be if the institutional investors are doing their bit.
          My particular recommendation for this formula is that it would ensure that any shareholder who sought to raise the matter at an annual general meeting would be in order in doing so. He could not be dismissed by the platform on the ground that his recommendation was out of order. Secondly, the members of the board would always have to be sure in preparing themselves for the annual general meeting—particularly the chairman—that they were ready to make a statement of their view about the possibility of appointing an audit committee. If I could achieve that, I would achieve my purpose for the immediate present.
          The aim of new clause 15, which is a highly detailed recommendation, is to provide a kind of table "A" that companies can refer to if it is decided to set up an audit committee and they are seeking guidelines as to what constitutes accepted good common practice. However, even there I am not suggesting that it should be obligatory for companies to do precisely what I recommend. In individual cases companies would adapt the procedure in ways perfectly suitable for the circumstances that they have to meet.
          The functions of the audit committee could well include all the items on a list that I have derived from the Staff

          133
          report on corporate accountability of 4 September 1980, which I was given by extremely courteous advisers in the Securities and Exchange Commission whom I visited two or three weeks ago in Washington in preparation for this debate. It listed as functions for the audit committee the selection of independent auditors, the review of the plan of the audit, of the results of the audit, of the internal controls of the company and of interim financial information, press releases, special investigations, internal audit functions, codes of conduct, providing information to the board—which I would myself wish most to emphasise—and proposed legislation. The report is a detailed one and if my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department have not studied it they should do so. I should be happy to lend them my copy.
          I quote only one paragraph at this stage which makes an excellent point:
          "The existence of audit committees in a significant majority of publicly held companies has caused several commentators to speculate that companies without such committees will have some explaining to do to shareholders, investors (especially institutional investors), fellow executives and directors, as well as to the courts."
          One comment on the audit committee quoted in the report is also apposite:
          "directors of public companies should ask themselves the question, 'If you can establish an audit committee and you don't what are you going to use for an excuse?' It is easy to foresee the problem of a board that has not established an audit committee (or exercised such functions) in defending itself if the company suffers a loss because of inadequate internal accounting controls."
          Unfortunately, in this country there are all too many cases of companies suffering losses. One suspects that part of the reason is inadequate internal accounting controls. I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider seriously the advantages of encouraging the adoption of the practice of appointing audit committees at a much faster pace than at present.
          11.15 pm
          The Government may not agree that this is a matter for legislation and would prefer a suitable term to be included in the Stock Exchange listing agreement. But this matter has been under discussion now for several years, and not enough, in my opinion, is being done. I hope that I have served a useful purpose by drawing attention to it once again and getting my specific proposals back into print.
          Mr. EyreAll hon. Members will, I am sure, agree when I say that we are indebted to the tireless efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), who has tabled a number of suggestions, some of them new, designed to promote the wider spread of non-executive directors and of audit committees. I shall outline why I do not think that the business community needs or is now ready to accept his proposals on audit committees and why I cannot recommend their acceptance to the House. I wish to make it clear, however, that I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for ensuring that these important issues are kept before the House and therefore brought to the attention of business leaders and the wider investing public and, indeed, for playing a crucial part in the public debate that has taken place on them in recent years.
          The increasing acceptance of the view that the boards of public companies should contain a substantial proportion of independent non-executive directors is in no small measure due to the persistence and influential advocacy of my hon. Friend. I should like first to deal with
          134
          the proposals on audit committees. My hon. Friend expressed deep concern that our performance in large industrial and commercial companies should match that of German and other foreign competitors. I agree with his philosophy and aims in that respect. Similar proposals on audit committees were discussed in detail during the Committee stage of the Bill that became the Companies Act 1980. I do not, therefore, propose to go into the technical details inherent in them.
          I would, however, stress that although my hon. Friend suggested an interesting constitution and set of functions for an audit committee, the evolution of the audit committee is in its early stages in the United Kingdom. There is no agreement among business men or professional bodies on the purpose of such a committee and on the way in which a statutory provision would detract from the responsibility of the board of directors as a whole with regard to the management of the company.
          Many companies have sub-committees of the board which, in effect, carry out the functions that my hon. Friend suggests should be executed by audit committees. The Government's general view is that it is right to leave companies to develop the organisational forms that they find best suited to achieve commercial success, but I remember the point made by my hon. Friend about comparative success. He referred to his visit to the United States and to the document that he received setting out the functions of the audit committee as seen there. I ask my hon. Friend whether he will be kind enough to lend my Department a copy of the document. We would like to study it. I should like to see it myself.
          I understand the emphasis that my hon. Friend places on the need for a quicker pace in advancing the development of audit committees. I shall be interested to examine the document that he will kindly make available.
          I welcome experimentation in companies. I have referred to the development of sub-committees with a similar purpose and I see no reason to place difficulties in the path of such useful and valuable experimentation, which is what I fear would happen if there were a requirement that companies should consider adopting an audit committee on the lines specified in the new clause.
          I ask my hon. Friend to consider withdrawing his proposals, but I should like to say a few words about the consultation with a wide range of interested parties that the Department conducted during the summer on my hon. Friend's proposals on the circulation of a statement on the eligibility of candidates for a directorship and on the requirement that a general meeting should give consideration to the appointment of non-executive directors at any general meeting at which the election of a director is to take place.
          I hope that my hon.. Friend found the results of the consultation illuminating and encouraging, because there was some degree of support for the ideas underlying these proposals. But, quite apart from the considerable technical problems, there was little support for recourse to legislation because there was little evidence of any abuse that required to be put right and that, if further stimulus were required, voluntary codes of practice would be more appropriate.
          I should, however, add that recent surveys have shown that most large companies have non-executive directors and that the proportion has been growing in recent years—a fact not unassociated with the praiseworthy pertinacity with which my hon. Friend has pursued this

          135
          cause. Although I cannot stray too far from the clauses before the House, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that discussions have taken place among a group of leading institutions, including the Bank of England, in order to establish an agency to promote and facilitate the election of non-executive directors by companies that have not hitherto appointed non-executive directors to their boards. An announcement about the details will be made later this autumn.
          My hon. Friend probably has a long way to go on audit committees in his missionary zeal to develop a better acceptance of his view of their importance, but there is no doubt that there has been considerable progress on non-executive directors. His efforts have played a considerable part in that, and the process is continuing in a way that I think he will welcome.
          I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend for putting the proposals forward and giving the House a further opportunity to consider these important issues.
          Mr. Clinton DavisI think that the Minister has been to the supermarket to buy a vast quantity of soft soap. I do not believe that he can have satisfied his hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) with his bland reply to the important points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
          We had from the Under-Secretary a regurgitation of the same reply as we have received every time that the argument has been raised by the hon. Member for Kensington, with some support from me. It is extremely disappointing.
          We were told in our previous debate on the subject that most companies behaved benignly, that legislation was to be opposed, and that if we relied on the voluntary approach everything would come right. Now we have the new consultation that has taken place—with precisely the same results as were announced before. We were told that there were technical problems. We were told before that there was little support for recourse to legislation. All that the hon. Member for Kensington is seeking is a perfectly reasonable proposal, to be advanced at every annual general meeting of a major public company as defined in his new clause. Whether the exact definition is right is by the way. We are now discussing the principle.
          What can possibly be wrong with leaving the matter for determination by the annual general meeting? The Minister conceded the whole case. He said that the general view was that it was best to leave companies to develop the organisational forms that they deem best suited to delivering commercial success. Well, here is the opportunity. It is best left to the annual general meeting to determine the matter. If the matter does not appear on the agenda, it is never likely to get off the ground. In my view, the hon. Member for Kensington is right in arguing the case again and again, but it is a pity that he does not derive rather more positive support than has been evinced by the Minister tonight.
          That was not quite the response that I gave the hon. Gentleman when I dealt with these matters. I took the view that his arguments were extremely persuasive. Of course one must consult, and of course one must try to arrive at a consensus on these matters, but I am not satisfied with the Minister's bland assertion that spectacular progress has been made over the past few years because of the hon.
          136
          Gentleman's diligent efforts, speaking occasionally at half-past eleven at night or at some other unpleasant hour, and that it is this that has caused a dramatic change in our corporate affairs. Life is not like that. I am second to none in my admiration of the hon. Gentleman's dedication to this cause and the way in which he has put it before successive Committees dealing with company legislation, but I do not believe that even he would claim that this superhuman effort could be achieved by him alone, or by managing to electrify company directors all over the country into the belief that, reading his words in Hansard—which I am sure all of them do—or in some other esoteric magazine, somehow the situation will be changed. As I said, life is not like that. However, that does not mean that I am urging the hon. Gentleman to give up. One day he may persuade a Minister at the Department of Trade to do something about it.
          In my view, this is a modest but desirable new clause, at least in principle. I am not in a position to determine whether the exact wording of new clause 15 is wholly appropriate. However, I wish that the Minister had said "There is a case for this. I shall do it, perhaps not in this Bill—we are not having a Bill next year—but in the next Bill. I really want to do something along these lines." Instead, the Minister has said the same old thing—"Leave it to companies to determine the matter voluntarily, and everything will turn out all right." I regret that that is not so.
          When the Minister says that a growing proportion of companies are applying the principles of the audit committees, it is just an assertion. It is not backed up by fact. I only wish that it were true, and that most companies were dealing with matters along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Kensington. I give him my support, for what it is worth at 11.30 at night, but I am saddened by the fact that the Department of Trade does not seem to be advancing along that route nearly quickly enough.
          11.30 pm
          Sir Brandon Rhys WilliamsWith the leave of the House, may I say that naturally I proposed the clauses in the hope that the Government would accept them? I think that the formula that I have adopted is so moderate that even the people who are instinctively against further legislation on board practice and the functions of the auditors, and so on, would say that this was a useful innovation which might do good in many cases and would do harm in none.
          I am reminded of a famous quotation from Bryce:
          "But while they talked the heavens darkened, and the flood came and destroyed them all."
          I am afraid that while we are talking about the possibility of introducing audit committees in many of our large companies they will go bankrupt, or the whole social scene will change so much that the issue will die on its feet. Although I have had the assurances of Ministers and experts—Establishment figures particularly—that everything is going along quite all right and that there is no need for legislation, I do not think that there is any evidence that we are making significant progress in this area.
          So, although I shall not press the House to divide on these clauses now, in view of what my hon. Friend said—and I appreciate the approach that he has adopted, because he intends to commend what I am recommending to management and would like to see progress on these lines—I am not satisfied that we are making sufficient

          137
          progress simply by voluntary effort. Some stronger form of encouragement, if not compulsion, is needed, and I shall return to the matter again.
          Question put and negatived.

        New Clause 32

          MINIMUM NOTICE OF MEETING FOR VOLUNTARY WINDING UP
          (1) 'For section 293(1) of the 1948 Act (obligation of company to call meeting of creditors for the day, or the day next following the day, of the company's meeting for voluntary winding up), there shall be substituted the following subsection—
          (1) "Notwithstanding any power of the members, or of any particular majority of the members, to exclude or waive any other requirement of this Act or the company's articles with respect to the period of notice to be given of any meeting of the company, the company shall give at least seven days' notice of the meeting of the company at which the resolution for voluntary winding up is to be proposed; and the company shall in addition—

          cause a meeting of the creditors of the company to be summoned for the day, or the day next following the day, on which the said meeting of the company is to be held; and

          cause the notices of the said meeting of the creditors to be sent by post to the creditors simultaneously with the sending of the notices of the said meeting of the company."

          (2) The following subsection shall be added at the end of that section—

          (7) "Failure to give notice of the meeting of the company mentioned in subsection (1) above as required by that subsection shall not affect the validity of any resolution passed or other thing done at that meeting which would be valid apart from that subsection".'.—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]

          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

        New Clause 33

          PROHIBITION ON DIRECTORS OF INSOLVENT COMPANIES FROM ACTING AS LIQUIDATORS, ETC.
          '(1) In subsection (1) of section 9 of the Insolvency Act 1976 (power of court to disqualify persons from acting as directors, etc.) for the words from "the court may" to the end there shall be substituted the words—
          "the court may make an order that that person shall not, without the leave of the court—

          be a director of or in any way, whether directly of indirectly, be concerned or take part in the promotion, formation or management of a company;orote>

          be a liquidator of a company; or

          be a receiver or manager of the property of a company;

          for such period as may, subject to subsection (1A) below, be specified in the order.

          (1A) The period which may be specified in any order under subsection (1) above shall begin with the date of the order and may not exceed five years if none of the conduct to which the court has regard under subsection (1) (b) occurred after the day appointed or the coming into force of section (Prohibition on directors of insolvent companies from acting as liquidators, etc.) of the Companies Act 1981, or fifteen years in any other case.".

          (2) In subsection (7) of that section, for the definition of "company" there shall be substituted the following definition—

          "'company' includes any company which may be wound up under Part IX of the Companies Act 1948;".

          (3) The following subsection shall be inserted in that section after subsection (7)—
          "(7A) An order under subsection (1) may be made on grounds which are or include matters other than criminal convictions notwithstanding that the person in respect of whom the order is to be made may be criminally liable in respect of those matters.".'.—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]
          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

        New Clause 40

          DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION CONCERNING CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT OF DIRECTORS
          'The following provisions shall cease to have effect:

          section 56(6)(b) of the 1980 Act (Substantial contracts etc. with directors and others to be disclosed in accounts):

          Section 26(3A) of the 1967 Act (directiors' service contracts or memorandum thereof to be open to inspection by company's members); and

          (c) Section 61(3) of the 1980 Act (extension of section 26 of the 1967 Act) insofar as it relates to subsection (3A) of section 26 of the 1967 Act.'.—[Mr. Geoffrey Robinson.]

          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Mr. Geoffrey RobinsonI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          The House will want me to be brief on this clause, and I shall be. I do not expect any change of attitude from the Under-Secretary who, I imagine, will reply to the debate. We feel as strongly about the matter now as we did in Committee, but we shall not want to press it to a Division.
          I am disappointed that both the Minister and the officials at the Department have not seen fit to change their minds or even to modify their views on this matter. It has been raised in the other place. It is an issue about which many of us, on both sides of the House, in differing ways, have been greatly concerned over a period of time.
          We have put to the Government three points that are specific, restricted and clearly defined. It seems to me in logic that if we are in favour of openness as opposed to secrecy, and we keep returning to these two irreconcilable and incompatible concepts that thave permeated our debates, the Under-Secretary has no argument to put to us.
          Let me take the first point yet again. It has been put to the Government in the other place on two separate occasions. It was put by my hon. Friends and myself to the Government in Committee upstairs.
          The Government can resist paragraph (a) only if they explain why a contract involving six years' service as opposed to six years of services is so much less significant that it does not have to be included in the company's accounts. I do not see any problem of limitation in the sense that there is an arbitrary limit. We are talking about services as opposed to service and a duration of time.
          There was no argument from the Minister in Committee and none from the Government in another place. We are left with an unsatisfactory situation which no doubt will go through on the nod at this late hour.
          I said in Committee that there was no one to equal the Minister for recitation. On Report we have had regurgitation. There is no one to beat him for playing a straight bat—except, perhaps, we have to remember that Boycott is still there to give him some competition. All of that, mixed measures and all, does not make up for bad briefs and bad decisions.
          Let us consider yet again the question of a director who is to be reappointed and whose main functions are abroad.

          139
          Why should not his remuneration be published? What is there to hide? The fact that we refuse to make the information available will give rise to the sort of suspicion that will prompt investigative and other journalists to make inquiries. Paragraphs (b) and (c) are closely interrelated.
          The only argument that the Minister has given is the one that he falls back on time and again—that it might be prejudicial. Have the Government ever thought that it might be beneficial to take a risk and to say that people have to declare? I said that at one time I had been a financial controller when such matters had been declared to people with direct executive responsibility but when those people were not directors of the company.
          It is futile to continue to press this point tonight. We shall not press the matter to a Division, but I hope that on this occasion at least the Minister, if he does not have something new to say, will refrain from any further recitation or regurgitation. We do not want a repetition of that. Unless he has something new and positive to say, I hope that he will be brief. These are serious matters, though we may treat them with a certain degree of levity at this time of night.
          Directors' contracts are things that should be public, and they are things that rightly belong to shareholders. This is of direct interest to shareholders, not just employees and the nation generally. Shareholders have a direct financial involvement that is of crucial importance. We look for something other than the repetition of threadbare arguments.
          Mr. EyreI shall try to be brief, because I have such a disappointing reply to give to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). I recognise that the subject matter of this new clause must be one to which Labour Members attach considerable importance, since an amendment on identical lines was tabled in Committee. I clearly recall the debate on 9 July with the hon. Member. A similar clause was also tabled in another place.
          Leaving out a great deal of the next part of my brief, I say that in our view there are good reasons for retaining the two types of disclosure. It is quite normal to expect an executive director to have a contract of service, for example, to determine his emoluments, while it is also reasonable to preserve the details of a director's remuneration from the unjustified inquisitiveness of others. The scrutiny provided for in section 26 of the 1967 Act and the availability for inspection by shareholders of copies of the relevant contracts in our view successfully reconcile these two inevitably somewhat conflicting objectives.
          A contract for services with the company in which the director has a material interest, for example, to provide consultancy services, is, however, more uncommon, and such a contract could point to a conflict of interest in a way that a contract of service would not. Such contracts for services should therefore be disclosed in as open a manner as possible—for example, in the accounts, as section 54 of the 1980 Act provided—so that all those dealing with the company can be aware of any possible irregularities.
          New clause 40 would, on the other hand, involve widespread duplication of disclosures. Contracts of service would be disclosed in the accounts, while copies would have to be kept for the inspection of shareholders. This would involve companies in an unnecessary
          140
          duplication of effort and therefore useless expenditure, and would expand the notes to the accounts with a large amount of information concerning directors' conditions of employment, etcetera, which the shareholders can already find out by inspection at the registered office.
          We conclude that to impose this extra burden on companies would serve no useful purpose. The exemption from disclosures, under section 26 of the 1967 Act, of overseas contracts of service has also been criticised on the ground that shareholders should have the right to examine such contracts in the same way as they can examine contracts of service for work in this country. After careful study, and taking into account the difficulties that might be created by full disclosure of overseas contracts, we consider that political or commercial embarrasment, not only for the companies concerned but for the Government—this balance was hallowed in the 1967 Act—could arise if such full disclosures were required for entirely conventional means of providing for a director's employment.
          I apologise to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West for having bored him stiff. However, I have had to repeat the reasons for the decision. They are sound, although I realise that they are unacceptable to the hon. Gentleman.
          Question put and negatived.
          Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Budgen.]
          Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

          Property Services Agency
          Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Budgen.]
          11.42 pm
          Mr. Kenneth MarksMy main purpose in raising this debate is to obtain information about the Government's intentions with regard to the Property Services Agency and to call attention to some of the bad decisions already made, without adequate costing of the options.
          In the last Labour Government I had some responsibility for the PSA and I am aware of the difficulties involved in the post to which the Minister has recently been appointed. I realise that he may not be in a position to reply to every point that I raise tonight, but I trust that he will write to me on the more detailed matters. I hope, too, that both he and the Secretary of State will keep the House informed of major changes and of the likely costs or savings. The House is entitled to know—indeed, its Select Committees will demand to know—whether changes are justified.
          The Property Services Agency was set up by the Conservative Government in 1972 and replaced the former Ministry, which was best known to the public as the Ministry of Works, and the defence departments for building and maintenance. Its task is to provide, furnish and maintain accommodation required for Government purposes—defence establishments such as airfields, barracks and factories, Home Office requirements in prisons, courts and some special hospitals and the requirements of all Government Departments, except the health services—research laboratories, factories, training centers and innumerable offices in the Government service.

          141
          The PSA also does work for the Post Office and Telecom, and it is responsible for the diplomatic estate overseas. It has provided technical co-operation to foreign Governments and it is responsible for constructional work and some maintenance at United States bases in this country. One of its present undertakings is the construction of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation building near Lambeth bridge.
          The PSA does not itself carry out new building work. Most new buildings are planned and designed by it and put out to contract. About one-third of design work is put out to consultants. I remind the House, however, that the ministerial head and the accounting officer are responsible to Parliament, and in the words of a former PSA chief executive
          "It is necessary to exercise a greater measure of control over consultants than it is in the private sector."
          The PSA is also responsible for a vast amount of rented office accommodation and for the purchase and disposal of land and property, particularly that which is no longer required by the Ministry of Defence.
          The PSA also has an advisory role in relation to the Department of the Environment and other Government Departments, and to the construction industry generally. It had a chief executive—and a board—until the death of Sir Robert Cox several months ago. Why is it taking so long to appoint a new chief executive? I know of no other Government Department where that has happened. Are the Government seeking to appoint an industrialist at two or three times the salary of Sir Robert Cox?
          In addition to the PSA board, I understand that the Secretary of State has appointed an advisory board consisting entirely of people from industry. What has that board said about privatisation and the service in general?
          Are the various other reports that are available to the Secretary of State available to the House? New decisions on the privatisation of the PSA are being taken without adequate consideration of costings and public accountability. I shall give an example. The Government propose to reverse the present proportions of design work carried out by the PSA and that put out to consultants. In 1979 the proportion of part 1 projects—that is, projects over £100,000—was PSA 63 per cent. and consultants 37 per cent. I understand that the proportion is now to be the other way round. Does the research justify that, or is it an act of political dogma?
          The Prime Minister, speaking about privatisation, said that decisions
          "should be commensurate with sound management and good value for money for the taxpayer."—[Official Report, 13 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 1052–53.]
          Does the Minister believe that to be so in the decisions made so far? Do the surveys bear that out? Does the evidence from the professional and technical office cost accounting package bear that out? Does the controlled experiment in the Midland region in the 1970s bear it out?
          I understand that a joint Treasury, Civil Service and industry group is examining the matter. Has it given its opinions?
          There is evidence that private consultants often choose standards of finishes and quality of materials unnecessarily higher than would have been chosen by PSA design teams. Project cost targets are often exceeded when consultants are used. Will the Minister look again at this major change and ask himself whether the Prime Minister's criteria are being observed? Since the advent of this Government the
          142
          whole construction industry has suffered badly. But is it necessary to destroy the public design sector in order to bolster the consultants in the private sector?
          I deal next with the question of manpower. The so-called planned reduction of the Civil Service is for the PSA unplanned, precipitate and unfair. The strength of the non-industrial staff is already below the April 1982 target. One must question whether it is adequate to carry out the planning and supervisory duties—supervision of consultants and contractors. Despite the rundown that has taken place, professional and technical staff have had their agreements broken in respect of retirement ages. Forced retirements will probably take place in April 1982. If that happens there will be a shortage of well-qualified staff that may hinder the efficient operation of the agency and the necessary checks to ensure that money is being spent wisely.
          The Minister may argue that if the 60-year-olds do not take early retirement there will not be room for youngsters to join the agency for training and subsequent employment. The Minister has no intention of maintaining the intake of youngsters. I reserve my strongest criticism of the Secretary of State for that area. In Liverpool, Blackpool and, no doubt, Croydon, he has spoken of the need for proper training for youngsters. He poses as one of the progressives in the Conservative Party, but the cuts that he has made in his Department and those that he has forced on local authorities give the lie to that.
          Four months ago the Manpower Services Commission published "A New Training Initiative". It was sponsored by four Cabinet Ministers and urged an improvement in vocational education. The appeal from the Cabinet Ministers argued that progress depended on positive steps being taken by individual employers. Their appeal has fallen on the deaf ears of the Secretary of State. New craft apprenticeships in PSA were more than 200 in 1979. That figure was reduced to 179 in 1980 and to 58 in 1981. O-level technical apprenticeship recruitment in 1979–80 was 249, in 1980–81 it was 50, and this year it will be 21. Presumably, next year it will disappear altogether.
          When I was at the Department I took a particular interest in the training schemes. The PSA has a high reputation in that area. Not all its trained people stay with it, but in an industry that is far from perfect in its training system the Department showed that it recognised that there was a Government function for all Government Departments and that the Government had a responsibility for education and training. I understand that the Secretary of State feels that education and training are not his job but belong to private enterprise or the MSC. What guarantee is there that private enterprise will provide the alternative training? I suggest that the record of industry does not lend itself to the belief that it will do so. Youth opportunities programme schemes are no alternative to the adequate training given by the PSA.
          On 11 September the then Under-Secretary wrote to me about the reduction in training and apprenticeships. He said that the lower intakes reflected the agency's reduced requirements for design staff and the need to look in future primarily for management and maintenance of the estate. Will the Minister privatise the estate management and maintenance areas also? Have there been any experiments in that area? If so, what are the results? What monitoring is being carried out by the Department?
          The PSA professional and technical staff especially fear that what has happened to apprentice and student

          143
          recruitment is a foretaste of what may happen to the PSA generally and that the Government eventually intend to destroy the professional and technical disciplines within the PSA. Certainly, if it is to be given the job of only passing on contracts to consultants, the Department will not keep good, qualified people. I urge the Minister to think again. The PSA and its predecessor Ministries were not established by Left-wing Socialist Governments. Previous Governments have recognised the need for a strong public body for Government and defence works. I urge the Minister to fight the unwarranted cutback in the PSA, especially the destruction of its training programmes.
          11.55 pm
          Mr. Doug HoyleI cannot add much to the case that has been so ably presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks). However, I support my hon. Friend's contention that the Government's case cannot be justified by a lack of efficiency on the part of the agency. Indeed, it is highly efficient. The Minister should not follow a doctrine of cuts purely to satisfy the supporters of his party. There should be more reasoning than that. The Minister should not follow mere dogma. Of course, the Government have promised their supporters that they will make cuts in the Civil Service.
          I have a special interest in the cuts that are being made in Warrington, which have been recommended in the United Kingdom territorial organisation report. The report called for a 10 per cent. cut in the Property Services Agency. That cut has already been achieved. Why are the cuts taking place twice over? They are not necessary.
          The other day I received a letter of 9 October from the Secretary of State for the Environment. He referred to his special interest in the problems of Merseyside. He said that he would be setting up a task force in Liverpool to help him in his work. As he made clear in his letter, it will cover a wider geographical area than the Merseyside metropolitan county. It will cover the whole of the Merseyside special development area. Even more important from my point of view is the fact that it will cover Warrington, Runcorn and Skelmersdale new town.
          Why add to the problems of the area, including those of Warrington, by going ahead with the cuts? The clients in the area are well satisfied with the services that are provided. My hon. Friend referred to that in some detail. The agency is efficient and effective. Why go ahead and damage the structure of the service? The only reason for doing so is to satisfy the claims of the backwoodsmen that the Government must carry out their policy. There can be no justification for taking such a course. I hope that the Minister will announce that after considering all the facts and the strong case presented by my hon. Friend the Government have decided that they will not go ahead with their plan.
          11.58 pm
          The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young)I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the future of the Property Services Agency. I had hoped that my transfer from the DHSS would mean that I should not spend quite
          144
          so much time on Adjournment debates. If the way in which I have started after the Summer Recess is any guidance, my hopes will be cruelly disappointed.
          The hon. Member for Gorton was the Minister responsible for the PSA during the last years of the previous Labour Administration. I remember seeing him on a constituency case. He greeted me with patience and courtesy. He took a close interest in the welfare of the agency and its staff. But it is clear from his remarks that there is a misunderstanding towards the PSA. I hope that in the time available to me I shall be able to give him and his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Hoyle) some reassurance.
          A year ago my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made his views about the PSA clear in an address that he gave to senior staff. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall quote from my right hon. Friend's address. It will help to clear up some of the doubts and misunderstandings that he has expressed.
          My right hon. Friend said:
          "The PSA has an important role in the management of the Government estate—indeed, a vital role in support of the Armed Forces and serving the operational needs of Government.
          The question is not whether the work needs to be done but how it is done and by whom.
          I want to see PSA enlisting the resources of the private sector across the whole range of its work—and working with the private sector so as to stimulate it and improve its performance. There is immense scope here for a positive and constructive approach.
          I want to see PSA as a thoroughly professional and efficient organisation, managing the Government's vast portfolio, managing the Government's building programme and acting as a strong influence for good on the quality of the environment and on the construction industry. This does mean change—in attitudes, responsibilities and working methods. But it also means that I see a strong positive role for PSA.
          Undoubtedly, far more of the work will actually be carried out in the private sector but the tasks of managing the Government estate and supporting our defence capability will remain huge and essential."
          In the light of those undertakings, what the hon. Member for Gorton said about destroying professional and technical expertise does not stand up. That is not our intention for the PSA. The assurances given by the Secretary of State are proof of that.
          The Government are the largest property owners in the country and have the largest building programme. We currently have about 700 major new projects in construction and a further 1,360 in planning. The district works offices place nearly 2 million job orders for maintenance and minor works each year, and there are about 17,000 land transactions annually, including acquisitions, leases, rent reviews and disposals. The PSA provides these services to civil departments throughout the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, to British forces at home and abroad and to the Diplomatic Service worldwide.
          The hon. Member asked me about the chief executive. I agree that it is now urgent to find a successor to Sir Robert Cox. I have had discussions with senior officials in the short time that I have been at the Department, and I am satisfied that measures are now being taken to secure a replacement in the near future.
          The hon. Member also asked about the advisory board. Last December, my right hon. Friend invited Mr. Nigel Mobbs, chairman of the Charterhouse Group and Slough Estates, to chair the PSA advisory board. The board provides a range of advice to Ministers and to the agency

          145
          on PSA operations. Among the aims that we hope the advisory board will help us achieve is to ensure that the PSA deserves and receives due credit for what it does.
          The hon. Member devoted much of his speech to privatisation or contracting out. As he knows from his time in office, the PSA has traditionally looked to the private sector to carry out much of its work. All major new construction and the bulk of its maintenance work is undertaken by private sector contractors. A proportion of its varying load of design work has always been put to private sector consultants and currently stands at 37 per cent. Some of the PSA's work is particularly suitable for contracting out and it is our policy that the agency should put an increasing proportion of its design work to consultants and its maintenance work to contractors. But this is not simply an exercise in reducing the number of civil servants.
          We see the agency using its patronage positively to support the construction industry, improve its performance, and equip it to compete more effectively in world markets.
          The speed at which this transfer to the private sector can take place is naturally limited by the rate of wastage in the PSA staff numbers and by the size of client Departments' future programmes.
          The policy of contracting out design work is, as I have explained, based primarily on the broad benefits to be achieved by greater interchange between the public and private sectors. We are, of course, concerned to ensure that the transfer of work to consultants gives value for money and achieves good results.
          The hon. Member mentioned staff reductions. One of the main purposes of the mergers that led to the creation of the agency in 1972 was to maximise efficiency and produce economies of scale. Nine years ago the PSA had about 47,000 staff. When this Government took office that figure had been reduced to 39,000, and it now stands at about 33,000. So the policy of staff reduction or cuts, as the hon. Member for Warrington phrased it, was carried out by the previous Administration, and the figure fell from April 1974, when it stood at 42,916, to 38,575 in April 1979. By 1984 we expect staff numbers to have been reduced still further, to just over 28,000. These reductions have been achieved almost entirely by natural wastage and have been facilitated by the contracting out to the private sector of work formerly done by civil servants.
          These are undoubtedly major savings, and I pay tribute to the way in which the agency has contributed to the reduction in civil servants' numbers to which the Government are committed. The range of clients served by the PSA and the services they demand are unchanged. The fact that the PSA continues to provide an effective service to its clients in this period of rapid readjustment reflects great credit on the staff. I am also encouraged by the readiness of the PSA to accept new responsibilities and to adapt to the new working methods that these changes have entailed.
          With regard to student intake, the PSA's student recruitment policy has over a number of years been geared to securing a supply of trained professional and technical staff to meet its projected needs for staff in the design and maintenance fields. The student intakes have provided the prime source of the PSA's recruits in several design disciplines and have ensured that the agency has made a very full contribution to training effort related to its requirements for staff.
          146
          At present there are about 450 full-time students employed by the PSA in the architectural, engineering, surveying and technical disciplines who are undergoing training of up to three years prior to becoming qualified. The PSA also provides a number of opportunities for sandwich course and vacation students to gain practical experience while undertaking a college course. In addition, the PSA sponsors some of its best technicians for courses leading to professional qualifications.
          The demand for professional and technical staff has declined over the past two years because of the need for the PSA to contribute to the reductions in the size of the Civil Service, and in particular because of the decision to place a much larger proportion of new design work with consultants. This latter development has particularly affected requirements for design staffs, and the PSA's intake of students in the design disciplines has been reduced to fit the future pattern of demand for staff and to avoid training people who cannot subsequently be employed in the public sector in a permanent job.
          This year the agency recruited 15 graduates in the surveying and engineering disciplines and 21 O-level student draughtsmen. The hon. Member produced other figures for student intake. Perhaps I may be allowed to write to him about them, as they do not tally exactly with the figures that the Department has given me.
          The requirements for future years are under consideration in the light of a detailed analysis of our staffing requirements, and representations from the trade union side will be fully considered before we take any final decisions, as will the remarks of the two hon. Members this evening.
          The PSA has been carrying out a review of its future need for craft appprentices and for aprentice training, but the results of that review are not yet available.
          I am aware of the concern about the measures that we are taking to lower the retirement age for certain members of staff over 60. These measures are necessary to deal with surplus numbers in certain disciplines and to correct the serious imbalances that have arisen recently, but the measures are being applied flexibly to avoid hardship.
          We are now considering the report of a study of the PSA regional organisation. That report recommends a number of changes in the structure and the staffing of the PSA's regional and area offices. Some of the more modest changes have already taken place. This is naturally of great concern to the staff, and we have given the trade unions the fullest opportunity to consult their members on the results of the study. The consultation process has now been completed and my right hon. Friend will have the benefit of the considered views of the trade unions before he reaches any decisions.
          I hope that I have been able to assure the hon. Members on the broad role of the PSA, although I understand their reservations about the reductions in the numbers directly employed by the PSA.
          Both hon. Members raised a number of more detailed points, and perhaps I could generously accept the offer to deal with them in correspondence.
          I conclude by saying how very impressed I have been, in the short time that I have been at the Department, by the quality of work of the PSA and the very high standard of staff that I have come across. I look forward eagerly to working with them over the next few years and bringing

          147
          to fruition some of the very important projects that the PSA is now undertaking on behalf of the Government and other public bodies.
          Question put and agreed to.
          Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Retired Civil Servants (Pensions)
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  asked the Minister for the Civil Service by what percentage the pensions paid to retired civil servants have increased since May 1978.

  Mr. Hayhoe:
  About 45 per cent, the same as for all other public service pensioners.

  Ethnic Groups
  Mr. Arthur Lewis
  asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether she will take whatever action may be open to her to ensure that within Government Departments and the Civil Service generally and the higher ranks in particular there is a percentage of persons from the various ethnic groups employed on the same percentage basis as the relevant national figure.

  Mr. Hayhoe:
  Recruitment to and advancement in the Civil Service are on the basis of merit alone and the Government are determined that the established equal opportunity policies of the Civil Service with regard to race are rigorously applied. It is unlawful to discriminate in favour of ethnic minority groups in recruitment or promotion under the terms of the Race Relations Act 1976.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Departmental Expenditure
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his latest estimate of his Department's expenditure for 1981–82 in support of employment and in support of public sector industry and private sector industry, respectively.

  Mr. John Patten:
  The latest estimate of the expenditure in 1981–82 by Northern Ireland Departments in support of employment is £23 million, and in support of public sector and private sector industry is £205 million and £195 million respectively.

  Down's Syndrome
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide an estimate of the number of those in Northern Ireland with Down's syndrome; and if he will express the figure per 100,000 of population.

  Mr. John Patten:
  It is estimated that 2,250 people in Northern Ireland, or 146 per 100,000 total population, suffer from Down's syndrome.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the incidence of epilepsy in Northern Ireland.
  2
  Mr. John Patten:
  Epilepsy is not a notifiable condition. The information requested is not held centrally, and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funds his Department is granting to sponsor research into epilepsy; and if he intends to increase them.

  Mr. John Patten:
  No specifically Northern Ireland research projects on epilepsy are being funded at present. The health and social services in Northern Ireland benefit from national research.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cruelty to Animals (Ritual Slaughter)
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received in connection with cruelty to animals in ritual slaughtering for meat; if he will list these representations in the Official Report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Fenner:
  In recent months my Department has received a substantial number of representations regarding religious slaughter from members of the public and from organisations with an interest in animal welfare. A number of Members of this House have also made inquiries on behalf of their constituents. The representations cannot conveniently be detailed in the Official Report, but they have mostly been concerned with the welfare aspects of religious slaughter methods.

  Parliamentary debates have always been inconclusive on the question of the possible suffering which may arise from different slaughter methods. Parliament has accordingly taken the view that, in the interests of religious tolerance, the Jewish and Muslim methods of slaughter should be permitted subject to the avoidance of unnecessary suffering. The Farm Animal Welfare Council is now considering the welfare of animals at the place of slaughter, and the Government will give full consideration to any recommendations which the council may make.

  Mr. Gwilym Roberts
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to amend section 36 of the Slaughter Houses Act 1974 to enable local authorities to have licensing powers over ritual slaughtering and thus, if they wish, to ban it within their area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Fenner:
  We have no plans to seek to amend the law in the manner suggested. Parliament has decided to permit certain religious slaughter methods in the circumstances described in the Act, and I am not aware of any reason for subjecting this national policy to local variation.

  Minced Meat
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the variation which exists in the fat content of minced meat he will take steps to regulate that fat content and to introduce minimum standards of quality: and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Fenner:
  We have no plans to introduce legislation to control the composition of fresh mince. A

  3
  statutory limit on the fat content would restrict consumer choice, in terms of price as well as quality, and might in some cases lead to price increases.

  European Community Sheep Scheme
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total sum paid to the United Kingdom farming industry under the European Economic Community sheep scheme (variable premium) between its inception and April 1981; and how much has been paid in the current year up to the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Buchanan–Smith:
  Payments made from the inception of the scheme on 20 October 1980 to 31 March 1981 totalled £45,295,448. Payments made since 1 April 1981 amounted to £33,992,715 at 6 October 1981. There is a backlog of claims following industrial action by computer operating staff earlier this year and the most recent claims paid are for the week starting 3 August 1981.

  Unfit Meat
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to increase the minimum penalties for the sale to the public of unfit meat.

  Mrs. Fenner:
  It is the Government's intention that the maximum penalties permitted under a large number of Acts, including the Food and Drugs Act 1955, should be updated as soon as a legislative opportunity arises.

  Aspartame
  Mr. Durant
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration is being given by the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee to the introduction of aspartame into the United Kingdom for use in food and soft drinks; when the committee is expected to report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Fenner:
  Aspartame is one of the substances currently being evaluated by the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee in its review of sweeteners in food. I expect its report to be available for publication early in 1982.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Sir David Price
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of his Department's expenditure for 1981–82 in support of public sector industry and private sector industry, respectively.

  Mr. Peter Walker:
  The latest forecasts of expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in support of industry are contained in the main Supply Estimates 1981–82 for Class III, Votes 2, 3 and 5 (HC 190-III) and the Supplimentary Estimates 1981–82 for Class III, Votes 3 and 5 (HC 382). Leaving aside expenditure on land drainage and flood protection—£136·3 million—which includes transfers to the public sector, and civil defence—£8·4 million—the remaining expenditure in these Votes—£286·4 million—is almost entirely for the benefit of private sector industry.

  Forecasts of expenditure by the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce on market regulation and production support are contained in the main Supply Estimates
  4
  1981–82 for Class III, Vote I (HC 190-III) and the Supplementary Estimates 1981–82 for Class III, Vote I (HC 382). This expenditure mainly benefits private sector industry.

  The Forestry Commission's latest forecasts of Expenditure are contained in the main Supply Estimates 1981–82 for Class III, Vote 6 (HC 190–III). Of the total voted grant-in-aid of £59·2 million, £5·1 million is spent directly for the benefit of private sector industry; the remainder is for the management of the commission's own estate and for research and development work.

  Dutch Horticulture (Fuel Prices)
  Sir Patrick Wall
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Dutch Government are expected to bring their fuel prices for horticulture into line with those charged to industry; if this will now be achieved before the end of this year; and if he will consider the imposition of countervailing duties.

  Mr. Peter Walker:
  This is on the agenda for today's meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers. My right hon. Friend is continuing to press for an early end to the Dutch preferential gas tariff.

  The setting of countervailing duties is a matter for the Commission, but there is no legal basis for imposing them in present circumstances.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Public Disturbances
  Mr. Arthur Lewis
  asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will give the reasons why he will not move to appoint a Select Committee to investigate all matters connected with the recent series of riots and to ascertain what action Parliament should take to prevent recurrence of such incidents.

  Mr. Pym:
  I am satisfied that the House already has adequate means of considering these matters without the establishment of a further Select Committee.

  Members (Allowances)
  Mr. Arthur Lewis
  asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will propose that hon. Members should receive allowances on the same scales as Members of the European Assembly.

  Mr. Pym:
  No. As the hon. Member has been advised in the past, it would not be appropriate to recompense Members of Parliament for their expenses on a basis determined by, and appropriate for, service in another parliamentary body.

PRIME MINISTER

  Data Protection
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister if she will consider transferring responsibility for the implementation of the recommendations of Sir Norman Lindop's committee on data protection from the Home Office to the Department of Industry; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister:
  Our proposals for legislation on data protection affect a wide range of interests including

  5
  Government Departments, the National Health Service, local government, industrial and non-industrial organisations in the private sector and the public at large. I am satisfied that responsibility for co-ordinating action should continue to be exercised by the Home Secretary.

  Legal Services
  Mr. Hooley
  asked the Prime Minister when Her Majesty's Government expect to respond to the report of the Royal Commission on legal services, Cmnd. 7648 of October 1979, particularly with regard to the solicitors' conveyancing monopoly.

  The Prime Minister:
  The Royal Commission on legal services' recommendations, many of which are recommendations for action by the legal profession, represent a long-term programme. They must be considered in the light of prevailing circumstances, including the availability of resources: decisions are being taken whenever these permit. In particular, responsibility for criminal legal aid has been transferred to the Lord Chancellor. The recommendations relating to conveyancing are being studied, but no decisions have yet been taken.

  No. 10 Downing Street Notepaper
  Mr. Skinner
  asked the Prime Minister whether she will institute an inquiry into the use of official No. 10 Downing Street notepaper by Mr. Denis Thatcher in writing to the Secretary of State for Wales; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister:
  I have nothing to add to the letter I sent to the hon. Member on 24 September.

  Mr. Victor Lazine
  Mr. Bidwell
  asked the Prime Minister if she authorised the expulsion of Victor Lazine, second secretary in the embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for involvement with people concerned with riots in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister:
  The Government declared Mr. V. N. Lazine persona non grata because he had engaged in activities incompatible with his diplomatic status. Press reports of a connection between him and disturbances in the United Kingdom were without foundation. The interests of our security would not be served by disclosing further details of the case.

  Nationalised Industries (Chairmen's Salaries)
  Mr. Arthur Lewis
  asked the Prime Minister (1) in view of the application by the organisation representing the chairmen of the boards of the nationalised industries for substantial salary increases, whether she will take whatever action may prove necessary to ensure that any increases will not exceed the Government's policy of 4 percent. as laid down for public servants;

  (2) why the recently announced increase in the salary of the chairman of British Rail was not subject to Her Majesty's Government's announcement of a 4 per cent. maximum increase in salaries in the public sector; and whether the maximum increase will apply to the chairmen and members of other nationalised industries.

  The Prime Minister:
  I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the statement of 15 September which is available
  6
  in the Library of the House, from which he will see that the pay factor is neither a limit on individual increases—some may be less and some more than 4 percent.—nor is it applicable to the present financial year.

  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Prime Minister what is the value at current prices of the £23·50 as originally paid to youth opportunities programme trainees weekly; and if she will ensure that the rate of pay is increased.

  The Prime Minister:
  The current YOP allowance was set at £23·50 in November 1979. Since that time the Retail Price Index has risen by 25·9 per cent. and the allowance would have to be increased to £29·50 in order to restore its real value to the November 1979 level. The Government believe the current allowance still provides young people with an incentive to join YOP, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is reviewing its level following the request for an increase by the Manpower Services Commission.

  Third World (Aid)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  asked the Prime Minister what new proposals she intends to put to the Mexico summit meeting on aid for the Third world.

  The Prime Minister:
  The Cancun summit is not intended to negotiate precise measures. The ideas which I will advocate on the key issues are foreshadowed in the Government's reply to the Foreign Affairs Committee (Cmnd. 8369).

  Belize
  Mr. Healey
  asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed that a gift should be presented to the Government of Belize to mark the attainment of independence on 21 September.

  The Prime Minister:
  The House will, I feel sure, wish to send congratulations to Belize on its independence, along with best wishes for the happiness and prosperity of the people of that country. Her Majesty's Government propose to offer a suitable gift to mark the occasion.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Overseas Students (Bursaries and Scholarships)
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Lord Privy Seal what has been the total annual value of bursaries and scholarships awarded by his Department to overseas students coming to the United Kingdom from the financial year 1970–71 until the present; and if he will give estimates where actual figures are not available.

  Mr. Luce:
  British aid statistics are prepared and published on a calendar year basis. The costs of training in Britain under the programme of the Overseas Development Administration and its predecessors are:

  Year

  £million

  1970

  7.094

  1971

  6.827

  1972

  7.776

  7

  Year

  million

  1973

  9.466

  1974

  10.421

  1975

  14.614

  1976

  16.794

  1977

  18.115

  1978

  19.916

  1979

  30.317

  1980

  43.602

  1981 (Est.)

  43.000

  In addition, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has provided grants to the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission for the provision of university scholarships tenable in the United Kingdom by American graduates as follows:

  Year

  £

  1970–71

  72,943

  1971–72

  84,849

  1972–73

  103,142

  1973–74

  112,197

  1974–75

  134,126

  1975–76

  177,479

  1976–77

  200,974

  1977–78

  252,117

  1978–79

  288,736

  1979–80

  340,889

  1980–81

  445,633

  International Population Programmes
  Mr. Roper
  asked the Lord Privy Seal when he now expects to have completed the review of the Overseas Development Administration's population activities; and whether, in view of Her Majesty's Government's commitment to contribute more to international population programmes, he will expedite decisions on the consequential appointments.

  Mr. Neil Marten:
  The review, of which I informed hon. Members on 21 July 1981—[Vol. 9, c. 781]—has been completed. As a result I have decided that the technical and professional staff at present employed in the population bureau and the administrative staff working on population matters should be drawn more closely together by integrating the bureau into my Department's health and population division. In addition, the division is to be strengthened by the appointment of a population programme officer to widen our advisory capacity. Recruitment of this officer is now in hand.

  We will not now be appointing a new director of the population bureau. My original intention had been to appoint a director on a part-time basis. However, the programme officer will be a full-time appointment and will therefore slightly increase our advisory capacity.

  These changes will come into effect immediately and I am satisfied that they will strengthen my Department's capacity in this important field.

WALES

  Waste Disposal Strategy
  Mr. Anderson
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he proposes to take to launch a regional waste disposal strategy in Wales.

  Mr. Michael Roberts:
  In its recent report on hazardous waste disposal the House of Lords Select
  8
  Committee on Science and Technology included as one of its recommendations a proposal to group waste disposal authorities into waste disposal regions. The report is receiving consideration and the Government's response will be made in due course.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Anderson
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales to what extent work on the house condition survey will be taken away from local authority employees and performed by private personnel.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts:
  One half of the surveyors who are needed, other than Departmental staff, have been recruited from the private sector.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Anderson:
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what figures he has for the degree of homelessness at the latest available date; and how this compares with equivalent dates in the three previous years.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts:
  The number of cases accepted as homeless by Welsh local authorities in 1980 was 5,446. The comparable figure for 1979 was 4,676. Information on this subject was not collected before April 1978.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of his Department's expenditure for 1981–82 in support of employment and in support of public sector industry and private sector industry, respectively.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards:
  Relevant figures are contained in the Supply Estimates 1981–82, class XVI, Wales, adjusted by the Supply Estimates 1981–82, Supplementary Estimates (classes 11–XVII civil). These amount to:

  £million

  (a) Employment

  1.745

  (b) Public Sector Industry

  Nil

  (c) Private Sector Industry

  133.521

  Some expenditure in Wales is undertaken by other Departments as a part of United Kingdom expenditure.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Morgan
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether any properties owned by the Welsh Office, or for which the Welsh Office has responsibility, in Colwyn Bay, are occupied by squatters; and, if so, how many properties are thus occupied and what action the Welsh Office is taking to recover possession of them.

  Mr. Michael Roberts:
  None. One property was recently occupied but the Department has now taken possession.

  Clwyd (Speed Limits)
  Mr. Morgan
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will consider the institution of a permanent 30 mph speed limit for vehicles through the village of Pentre, Llanrhaedr YC, Denbigh, Clwyd.
  9
  Mr. Michael Roberts:
  The A525 at Pentre Llanrhaedr YC. Denbigh, Clwyd is a principal road. It is for Clwyd county council as highway authority to consider whether the existing 40 mph speed limit should be lowered.

  Down's Syndrome
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number in Wales with Down's syndrome; and if he will express the figure per 100,000 of population.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts:
  This information is not available.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the incidence of epilepsy in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts:
  Epilepsy is not a notifiable condition and consequently no reliable information is readily available on its incidence.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what funds his Department is granting to research work into epilepsy; and if he intends to increase them.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts:
  The Welsh Office does not at present fund any research into epilepsy. All applications for such financial support are considered on their merits.

EMPLOYMENT

  Closures (West Midlands and Black Country)
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number, names and numbers of employees involved in firms which have closed since May 1979 in (a) the West Midlands, (b) the Black Country areas and the West Midlands and (c) the Walsall travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  There are no comprehensive statistics of closures. The available information on closures, involving redundancies of 10 or more employees, reported to the Manpower Services Commission as due to occur in the requested areas between May 1979 and September 1981 is shown in the table below.

  Since the information is often provided in confidence, the identity of the firms cannot be disclosed.

  Closures: May 1979 to September 1981*

  Number of firms

  Number of employees involved

  West Midlands

  479

  28,953

  Black Country†

  134

  9,528

  Walsall travel-to-work area

  40

  2,400

  * Prior to January 1980 figures relate to redundancies notified within the month concerned rather than redundancies taking place in the month.Including provisional figures for August and September 1981.† Wolverhampton, Dudley and Sandwell, and Walsall travel-to-work areas.

  Registered Vacancies
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, by trade and occupation, the registered vacancies in (a) the West Midlands, (b) the Black Country areas of the West Midlands and (c)the Walsall travel-to-work area.
  10
  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  The following table gives the number of vacancies remaining unfilled in the West Midlands region on 4 September analysed by major occupational groups. Corresponding information for the local areas specified could be given only at disproportionate cost. The statistics relate only to vacancies notified to employment offices and do not include those notified to careers offices. Vacancies notified to employment offices are estimated to be about one-third of all vacancies in the economy as a whole. The number of vacancies unfilled at a particular date takes no account of the flow of vacancies being notified, filled or withdrawn during the preceding month, which would reflect activity more closely. For example, during the past 12 months 79,333 people were placed in jobs by the employment offices in the West Midlands region. It is estimated that the public employment service accounts for about one in four of all placings.

  Unfilled vacancies

  Managerial occupations (general management)

  8

  Professional and related occupations supporting management and administration

  140

  Professional and related occupations in education, welfare and health

  301

  Literary, artistic and sports

  39

  Professional and related occupations in science, engineering, technology and similar fields

  225

  Managerial (excluding general management)

  291

  Clerical and related occupations

  1,202

  Selling

  1,305

  Security and protective service

  80

  Catering, cleaning, hairdressing and other personal service

  1,106

  Farming, fishing and related occupations

  109

  Materials processing (excluding metal)

  92

  Making and repairing (excluding metal and electrical

  439

  Processing, making, repairing and related occupations (metal and electrical)

  606

  Painting, repetitive assembling, product inspecting, packaging and related occupations

  231

  Construction, mining and related occupations not elsewhere classified

  153

  Transport operating, materials moving and storing and related occupations

  218

  Miscellaneous (including general labourers)

  328

  TOTAL, ALL OCCUPATIONS

  6,873

  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment, what is the total number of registered vacancies in (a) the West Midlands, (b) the Black Country areas of the West Midlands and (c) the Walsall travel-to-work area; and if he will give the figures for June 1979.

  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  The following table gives the numbers of notified vacancies remaining unfilled of employment offices and careers offices in the areas specified.

  June 1979

  September 1981

  At employment offices

  At careers offices

  At employment offices

  At careers offices

  West Midlands Region

  16,191

  4,603

  6,873

  690

  Dudley and Sandwell travel-to-work area

  1,915

  414

  600

  26

  Wolverhampton travel-to-work area

  634

  128

  236

  34

  11

  June 1979

  September 1981

  At employment offices

  At careers offices

  At employment offices

  At careers offices

  Walsall travel-to-work area

  1,172

  204

  310

  16

  The statistics relate only to vacancies notified to employment offices and careers offices; vacancies notified to employment offices are estimated to be about one-third of all vacancies in the country as a whole. Because of possible duplication the figures for employment offices and careers offices should not be added together.

  The number of vacancies unfilled at a particular date takes no account of the flow of vacancies being notified, filled or withdrawn during the preceding month, which would reflect activity more closely. For example, during the past 12 months 79,333 people were placed in jobs by employment offices and 9,489 by careers offices in the West Midlands region. It is estimated that the public employment service accounts for about one in four of all placings.

  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what percentage of school leavers during 1980 and so far in 1981 has been given places on the youth opportunities programme; what was the average period of time involved with the youth oppportunities programme; and if his Department has any information of the numbers who have left the youth opportunities programme and found ordinary employment;

  (2) what percentage of school leavers during 1980 and so far in 1981 was placed in schemes of work experience; what was the average period of time involved in such schemes; and if his Department has any details of the number who afterwards found ordinary employment.

  Mr. Alison:
  In 1980, one in three school leavers took part in the youth opportunities programme. Of these four out of five entered work experience schemes. In 1981 the proportion of school leavers entering the programme is expected to rise to one in two. Of these four out of five are again expected to go into the work experience schemes.

  It is not possible to give the average length of stay on the programme for school leavers only, but for all young people who take part in the programme, the average length of stay is about 23 weeks. Currently some four out of 10 young people who leave the youth opportunities programme go into permanent employment.

  The aim of YOP is to provide a good quality work experience and training to unemployed young people, and this year it is expected that 550,000 young people will enter the programme.

  Industrial Sites (Hazards)
  Sir Bernard Braine
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many industrial sites are listed by the Health and Safety Executive as major hazards in England, Wales and Scotland, respectively.

  Mr. Waddington:
  497 industrial sites in Great Britain are currently listed by the Health and Safety Executive as
  12
  major hazards. It is not the practice to publish any geographical breakdown of the list, for reasons of confidentiality.

  Sir Bernard Braine
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many enforcement notices were served by the Health and Safety Executive on industrial sites listed as major hazards in each of the years 1978, 1979, 1980 and up to the latest convenient date in 1981, in (a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland.

  Mr. Waddington:
  The numbers of enforcement notices served by the Health and Safety Executive on listed major hazard sites in the years in question are set out in the table below:

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Total

  1978

  55

  1

  4

  60

  1979

  34

  —

  3

  37

  1980

  54

  2

  7

  63

  1981 (to 30 September)

  21

  —

  4

  25

  Total

  164

  3

  18

  185

  Sandwell and Dudley
  Miss Boothroyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of unemployment in the Sandwell and Dudley travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  At 10 September, the rate of unemployment in the Dudley and Sandwell travel-to-work area was 15.4 per cent.

  Merseyside
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for (a) Merseyside, (b Kirkby and (c) Ormskirk; and if he will give the average period of unemployment and the age breakdown in each case.

  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  At 10 September the number of people registered as unemployed in the Merseyside special development area was 130,466. The comparable figures for the Kirkby and Ormskirk employment office areas were 7,319 and 1,887, respectively.

  The latest date for which figures are available for the duration of unemployment and the age of those registered as unemployed is 9 July. At that date, the median length of time for which those in the Merseyside special development area had been unemployed is estimated at 33 weeks. The comparable figures for the Kirkby and Ormskirk employment ofice areas are 40 and 20 weeks, respectively. The following table gives an age breakdown of the total unemployed in the areas at 9 July.

  Numbers registered as unemployed

  Age

  Merseyside Special Development Area

  Kirkby employment office area

  Ormskirk employment office area

  Under 18 years

  13,777

  432

  169

  18 years

  6,562

  427

  73

  19 years

  7,823

  569

  88

  20–24 years

  25,430

  1,729

  292

  25–29 years

  15,656

  1,230

  167

  30–34 years

  11,784

  841

  154

  35–44 years

  15,605

  814

  243

  13

  Age

  Merseyside Special Development Area

  Kirkby employment office area

  Ormskirk employment office area

  45–49 years

  7,366

  378

  92

  50–54 years

  7,237

  426

  136

  55–59 years

  7,524

  415

  153

  14

  Age

  Merseyside Special Development Area

  Kirkby employment office area

  Ormskirk employment office area

  60 years and over

  6,887

  224

  166

  Total, all ages

  125,651

  7,485

  1,733

  15

  High Risk Installations (Canvey and Thurrock)
  Sir Bernard Braine
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many enforcement notices have been served by the Health and Safety Executive on each of the individual high risk installations in Canvey and Thurrock since the publication of its 1978 report; and how many prosecutions have been initiated.

  Mr. Waddington:
  From the publication of the report on 20 June 1978 to 15 October 1981 three enforcement notices have been served on one of the high risk installations in Canvey and Thurrock. One prosecution has been initiated.

  Thames Estuary (Vessel Enforcement Notices)
  Sir Bernard Braine
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many enforcement notices were served by the Health and Safety Executive on ships entering the Thames Estuary, giving prohibition notices separately and indicating whether hazardous cargoes were being carried, in each of the years from 1976 to the latest convenient date in 1981.

  Mr. Waddington:
  From 1 January 1976 to 13 October 1981, 25 enforcement notices were served on ships entering the Thames Estuary. All were carrying hazardous cargoes. The numbers of notices served each year were:

  1976–78

  1979

  1980

  1981

  Prohibition Notices

  Nil

  3

  3

  Nil

  Improvement Notices

  Nil

  17

  2

  Nil

  Departmental Expenditure
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of his Department's expenditure for 1981–82 on job maintenance, job creation and job training, respectively.

  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  It is not possible to categorise the relevant programmes of the Department of Employment group under job maintenance, job creation and job training, but the following items of expenditure all contain elements relating to one or more of these three headings. The figures refer to the main estimates provision. supplemented by additional allocations for special measures agreed in July 1981.

  £M

  Community Industry Scheme

  22.0

  Trade Union Education and Training

  1.0

  Grants for the Training of Careers Officers

  0.4

  Grants to Local Authorities for the strengthening of the Careers Service

  7.0

  Community Enterprise Programme

  99.4

  Grants and Loans to Remploy

  46.4

  Grants towards the provision of other sheltered employment

  13.4

  Temporary Short Time Working Compensation Scheme

  388.5

  Job Release Scheme

  166.7

  Grants to Industrial Training Boards and other bodies for training services

  65.8

  Training Opportunities Programme

  244.5

  Unified Vocational Preparation

  4.7

  Youth Opportunities Programme

  413.6

  Staff Training in the Department of Employment Group

  3.8

  16

  Unemployment Costs
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will bring up to date the figure quoted by the Manpower Services Commission in its report entitled "Review of Services for the Unemployed", that each additional 100,000 registered unemployed costs about £300 million per annum at 1979–80 prices in transfer payments and revenues forgone.

  Mr. Alison:
  I will reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Unemployed Persons (Birmingham)
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many men aged 60 years and over are registered with each unemployment benefit office in Birmingham; and how many of these are in receipt of supplementary benefit.

  Mr. Alison:
  This information is not available for individual unemployment benefit offices and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. But it is estimated that for the Birmingham travel-to-work-area as a whole about 7,990 men aged 60 or over are claiming benefit, of whom about 2,220 are receiving supplementary benefit.

  Benefits (Fraud Investigators)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total cost of the special fraud teams operating in the Crewe area in 1981; and how much was saved by disallowing benefit to the claimants concerned.

  Mr. Waddington
  [pursuant to his reply, 31 July 1981, c. 714]The total cost of the special fraud team operating in the Crewe area in February and March 1981 was £7,585. The benefit disallowed totalled £602·63 per week.

  It is impossible to estimate what further savings have been achieved as a result of the deterrent effect of the operation on those who might be minded to cheat.

  Apprentice Training center, Devonport
  Miss Fookes
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the possibility of utilising Manpower Services Commission funds to increase the number of apprenticeships at the Apprentice training center at Her Majesty's dockyard, Devonport.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  [pursuant to his reply, 31 July 1981, c. 714]: The Government are considering urgently whether there is any way in which spare Ministry of Defence apprentice training capacity generally might be put to good use.

  Textile and Clothing Industries
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were working in (a) the textile industry and (b) the clothing industry in each European Economic Community country in 1980.

  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  Following is the available information. The figures are approximate only and are not fully comparable owing to some differences between countries in statistical definitions and methods of compilation.
  17

  Employees in Employment 1980 Thousands

  Textiles†

  Clothing and Footwear

  Belgium†

  68

  55

  Denmark

  13

  18

  France

  293

  314

  Germany (FR)

  333

  352

  Greece

  —*

  —*

  Irish Republic**

  17

  17

  Italy

  437

  —*

  Luxembourg

  —*

  —*

  Netherlands**

  31

  30

  United Kingdom

  420

  353

  * not available† not including manufacture of man-made fibres‡ 1st Quarter** 3rd Quarter Sources: Eurostat—'Employment and Unemployment'Eurostatistics'

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the reduction in employment in manufacturing industry in the principal industrial countries since (a) 1950, (b) 1960 and (c) 1970 in terms of numbers and as percentages.

  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  Following is the available information. Estimates of changes between 1950 and 1980 on a consistent basis are not readily available, and for two main countries only are they available between 1960 and 1980. Because of differences between countries in coverage and definitions the statistics are not fully comparable.

  Disabled Persons
  Dr. Roger Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the numbers of persons in sheltered employment and the numbers of registered disabled people under section 2 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 for the latest available date and for each of the past five years, together with the projected number of places available in sheltered employment schemes for the next three years in each case for each of the eight counties of the Principality.

  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  Given below, in table 1, are the numbers of severely disabled people working in sheltered employment in each of the Welsh counties on 31 March 1980 (latest available figure) and on the same date in each of the four preceding years.

  The Manpower Services Commission, which is responsible for the administration of the sheltered employment programme, does not maintain records of the numbers of unemployed registered severely disabled people on a county basis but is able to provide this figure for Wales as a whole. The latest figure and those for each of the preceding five years are given below in table 2.

  It is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty the number of places that will be offered in sheltered employment over the next three years, although there is provision for a modest increase in real terms in Government funding of sheltered employment over that period.

  Table 1

  County

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  Mid Glamorgan

  757

  771

  724

  740

  749

  Gwent

  272

  277

  259

  266

  264

  West Glamorgan

  275

  280

  258

  332

  342

  East Clwyd

  112

  148

  131

  112

  145

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  11

  25

  24

  26

  28

  Dyfed

  58

  66

  28

  61

  62

  South Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1485

  1567

  1424

  1537

  1590

  Table 2

  Numbers of registered severely disabled people in Wales who were unemployed in March in the following years.

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  Registered Severely Disabled Peopled

  1,501

  1,250

  1,110

  973

  871

  837

  Rates
  Mr. Skinner
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what was the figure for rates as a percentage of average earnings in 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979;

  (2) what was the figure for rates as a percentage of average earnings in 1950, 1960, 1970 and 1980.

  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  Average expenditure on rates, which relates to households over the course of a year, is not comparable with average earnings, which relate to individual employees in a specific pay period. However, rates can be expressed as a percentage of total household expenditure as in the following table, which also shows average household expenditure on rates and average gross weekly earnings.
  19

  Average household
  expenditure on rates*

  Average gross
  earnings of full-time employees in April (£/week)舤

  £/week

  As percentage of total expenditure

  Men‡

  Women**

  1970

  0.84

  3.0

  29.7

  16.2

  1974

  1.46

  3.2

  47.7

  26.9

  1975

  1.77

  3.3

  60.8

  37.4

  1976

  2.05

  3.3

  71.8

  46.2

  1977

  2.40

  3.3

  78.6

  51.0

  1978

  2.61

  3.3

  89.1

  56.4

  1979

  3.12

  3.3

  101.4

  63.0

  1980

  4.01

  3.6

  124.5

  78.8

  *Domestic and water rates, net of rate rebates where applicable. The 1980 figures are provisional.Source: Family Expenditure Survey.†Excluding those whose pay was not affected by absence.Source: New Earnings Survey.†Aged 21 and over.** Aged 18 and over.
  Comparable figures for earlier years are not available. However, between April 1950 and April 1960, and between April 1960 and April 1970 the increases in rates (as incorporated in the retail prices index were 56 per cent. and 69 per cent. respectively. Average wages and salaries per head (covering both full-time and part-time employees, and relating to calendar years) increased by 82 per cent. between 1950 and 1960, and by 93 per cent. between 1960 and 1970.

  June 1979 Number unemployed

  Percentage rate of unemployment

  September 1981 Number unemployed

  Percentage rate of unemployment

  United Kingdom

  1,343,865

  5.5

  2,998,789

  12.4

  West Midlands Region

  121,521

  5.2

  349,780

  15.1

  Wolverhampton travel-to-work area

  9,296

  6.4

  24,564

  16.8

  Dudley and Sandwell travel-to-work area

  13,240

  4.3

  46,912

  15.4

  Walsall travel-to-work area

  9,710

  5.9

  29,083

  17.2

  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest number of those registered unemployed for longer than three months, six months, nine months and over 12 months in (a) the west Midlands, (b) the Black Country areas of the west Midlands and (b) the walsall travel-to-work areas; and if he will give comparable figures for June 1979.

  West Midlands

  Dudley and Sandwell travel-to-work area

  Wolverhampton travel-to-work area

  Walsall travel-to-work area

  Duration

  July 1979

  July 1981

  July 1979

  July 1981

  July 1979

  July 1981

  July 1979

  July 1981

  Over 13 and up to 26 weeks

  19,707

  63,108

  2,088

  9,021

  1,428

  4,533

  1,385

  5,523

  Over26 and up to 39 weeks

  11,608

  49,999

  1,194

  7,338

  747

  3,364

  798

  4,377

  Over 39 and up to 52 weeks

  9,127

  39,079

  1,007

  5,567

  654

  2,642

  640

  3,277

  Over 52 weeks

  33,753

  74,554

  3,254

  9,877

  2,539

  5,816

  2,394

  6,291

  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what is the latest number of those registered as unemployed who are 45 years of age and over in (a) the west Midlands,(b) the Black Country areas of the west Midlands and (c) the walsall travel-to-work areas; and if he will give the figures for June 1979;

  Short-time Working
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of state for Employment what is the number on short-time working in (a) the West Midlands, (b) the Black Country areas of the West Midlands and (c) the Walsall travel-to-work areas; and what the figures were for June 1979.

  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  Statistics of short-time working are available only for operatives in manufacturing industries. Figures are produced for Great Britain and the regions, but not for local areas.

  During the week ended 13 June 1981 the provisional number of operatives in manufacturing industries who were stood off for the whole or part of the week in the West Midlands region was 70,000. The corresponding number during the week ended 9 June 1979 was 12,000.

  Unemployment Statistics
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest number of registered unemployed (a) nationally, (b) in the West Midlands, (c) in the Black Country areas of the West Midlands, and (d) in the Walsall travel-to-work area; what percentages these figures represent; and what was the position in June 1979.

  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  The following is the information. The figures include school leavers and are not seasonally adjusted; figures for September are normally higher in any one year than those for June.

  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  The numbers registered as unemployed are analysed by age in January, April, July and October.

  The following is the information for July 1979 and July 1981 for the areas specified.

  (2) what is the latest number of those who are registered as unemployed who are under 18 years of age in (a) the West Midlands, (b) the Black Country areas of the West Midlands and (c) the Walsall travel-to-work area; and if he will give the figures for June 1979.
  21
  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  The numbers registered as unemployed are analysed by duration of unemployment in January, April, July and October.

  The following is the information for July 1979 and July 1981 for the areas specified.

  Unemployed aged 45 years and over

  Unemployed aged under 18 years of age

  July 1979

  July 1981

  July 1979

  July 1981

  West Midlands Regions

  36,585

  89,118

  31,553

  39,607

  Dudley and Sandwell travel-to-work area

  4,033

  13,261

  3,608

  5,290

  Wolverhampton travel-to-work area

  2,449

  6,464

  2,825

  2,906

  Walsall travel-to-work area

  2,749

  7,102

  3,055

  3,750

  West Midlands (Redundancies)
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundancies in total have occurred in the West Midlands since May 1979.

  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  There are no comprehensive statistics of redundancies. The number of redundancies, involving 10 or more employees, reported to the Manpower Services Commission as due to occur in the West Midlands between May 1979 and September 1981 inclusive is 126,300 including provisional figures for August and September 1981.

  HOME DEPARTMENT
  Self-employed Commercial Agents (European Community Directive)
  Mr. Arthur Lewis
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will agree to meet a deputation from the UCTA section of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs to discuss matters connected with the European Economic Community Directive on self-employed commercial agents.

  Mr. Eyre:
  My right hon. Friend, the Minister for Consumer Affairs, has agreed to meet a deputation from
  36
  the UCTA section of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs to discuss developments on the commercial agents draft directive.

  Parole Board (Chairman)
  Mr. Arthur Lewis
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 July to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, if he will give the reasons why he will not dismiss the chairman of the Parole Board.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  I know of no reason to justify such an action.

  Channel Islands
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will refuse to submit for approval any legislation from the Channel Islands which incorporates discrimination in housing or any other area against employees working in the islands on a temporary job or on a contract of a fixed term; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  All legislation submitted by the islands authorities is carefully considered before a decision is reached whether Royal Assent should be recommended. We see no reason to vary this procedure for particular areas of legislation.

  Prisons (Heating)
  Mr. John Grant
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of his instruction to prison governors about reducing prison
  22
  heating; on what basis he calculates that heating in prison establishments should be reduced by 14 per cent.; and what representations he has received from the Prison Officers Association and others about his instructions in respect of prison heating.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  A copy of the instruction—circular instruction 27/1980—was placed in the Library. That instruction referred to a 15 per cent. reduction on the previous year's total energy consumption being required in 1980–81 to contain energy costs within the cash limit. We have received no representations.

  Prison Medical Officers
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress that he has made in enabling prison medical officers to serve short-term attachments in the special hospitals.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  Discussions with the Department of Health and Social Security have commenced, but it is not yet possible to predict when the arrangements will be completed.

  Forensic Psychiatry
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the arrangements for senior registrars in forensic psychiatry to receive training in prison establishments have yet been finalised; and, if not, when he expects them to be completed.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  Arrangements for National Health Service senior registrars in forensic psychiatry to receive training in prison department establishments are made locally. All full-time prison medical officers have recently been asked to assist with the provision of training facilities and have been given guidance on the content of the training which might be provided.

  Foreign Government Employees (Registration)
  Mr. Greville Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation requiring the registration with his Department of people who work in the United Kingdom on behalf of foreign Governments and agencies, and who do not have diplomatic status.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Prisons (Medical Records)
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the card index system of medical documentation has now been introduced in all prisons; what has been the reason for the delay in these prisons where it has not been introduced; and in those cases, when it is expected to be introduced.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  A few prison department establishments use a card index system of treatment records. We are examining the possibility of introducing the system in all establishments, but work on this has been delayed by restricted access to some papers as a result of the Civil Service dispute. It is not yet possible to say when this examination will be completed.
  23

  "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1980"
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1980"has not yet been published: and when it is to be published.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1980"—Cmnd. 8372—was published on 30 September 1981. Publication was about two months later than usual mainly because of the additional statistical analyses made to assess the effects of the industrial action by prison officers in the last quarter of 1980.

  Treatment of Prisoners
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he will not place the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners on the syllabus of prison staff training courses.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  The Council of Europe standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners seek to set out what is generally accepted as being good principle and practice in the treatment of prisoners. The training of prison staff for the English prison service is specifically based on the prison rules and standing orders which embody the good principle and practice inherent in the Council of Europe minimum rules. Copies of the standard minimum rules are available for reference purposes in prison department establishments.

  Prison Officers (Pay and Allowances)
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether prison officers who are suspended from duty because of allegations against them are paid their basic or their average pay and allowances.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  When a prison officer is suspended from duty his pay and allowances may be withheld wholly or in part so long as the suspension continues. In practice, prison officers suspended following allegations against them usually receive their full basic pay including any responsibility allowances; London weighting or inconvenience of locality allowance, if appropriate; shift disturbance allowance, subject to the general Civil Service rule that this allowance ceases after 30 days continuous absence or a total of 60 days absense in any period of 12 months; and a continued entitlement to rent-free accommodation or a housing allowance in lieu. They are not eligible to receive any extra payments for overtime and weekend duties since, under Civil Service rules, these payments are made only for duties actually worked.

  Mr. Kilroy-Silk
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange for prison staff while attending courses to receive their average pay and allowances.
  24
  Mr. Mayhew:
  Prison staff who attend in-service training courses continue to receive their full basic pay and allowances including any shift pay. They do not qualify for extra payments for overtime or weekend duties during the period of a course since, under general Civil Service rules, these payments are made only for duties actually worked. Staff who attend training courses away from home are provided with free board and accommodation, and receive an allowance to cover any additional expenses.

  Prison Officers (Promotion)
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a prescribed amount of attendance at in-service training courses is, or will be made, a prerequisite for promotion for prison staff.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  A prescribed amount of attendance at in-service training courses is not a prerequisite for promotion for prison staff. A review of training is to be undertaken in the near future which will examine among other matters the desirability and feasibility of establishing some kind of training criterion for promotion.

  Prisons(Violence)
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research or other investigation is being undertaken into the causes and prevention of violence by inmates or staff in penal institutions.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  Research into violent incidents involving inmates is currently being undertaken by prison psychologists in two separate projects at Birmingham and Holloway prisons: both seek to identify precipitating factors and to assist staff in evolving preventive measures. In category 'B' dispersal prisons there is routine monitoring of selected aspects of institutional life to anticipate breakdown in control. Governors have standing responsibility to investigate incidents involving violence by inmates or staff as and when they occur.

  "Walkie Talkie"Radios
  Miss Joan Lestor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to prevent the illegal selling in the United Kingdom of "walkie talkie"radios which operate on a frequency of 49 MHz.

  Mr. Raison:
  There is no power under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts to prohibit the sale of such equipment, although it may not lawfully be used. We hope that it will be possible to strengthen the existing legislation in this regard when parliamentary time permits.
  25

  Wormwood Scrubs (Inquiry)
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the police inquiry into the incident at Wormwood Scrubs prison on 31 August 1979 is likely to be completed; why it has not yet been completed; and if he will make a statement on the nature of the inquiry and the progress so far made.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  The Metropolitan Police have submitted a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is considering it. It would be inappropriate to make any further comment.

  Prisons (Suicides)
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suicides have occurred so far in 1981 in each prison department establishment.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  There have been five deaths in prison department establishments so far in 1981 where the inquest has recorded a verdict of suicide. These occurred in Brixton—one—Long Lartin—one—Manchester—one—and Wakefield—two. There have been some deaths on which an inquest has not yet been held.

  Boundaries Commission (Manpower)
  Mr. John Grant
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed by the Boundaries Commission on 1 September, or at the nearest appropriate date, in (a)1978, (b)1979, (c)1980 and (d)1981; how many of these were full-time, part-time or temporary; what at each date was the authorised complement; and if he will estimate the figures for 31 December 1981.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  The information requested about the staff common to the Boundary Commissions for England and Wales is as follows:

  Date

  Authorised Complement

  Full-time

  In Post Part-time

  Temporary

  1 September 78

  11

  8

  1

  Nil.

  1 September 79

  11

  9

  1

  Nil.

  1 September 80

  16

  14

  1

  Nil.

  1 September 81*

  18

  17

  1

  Nil.

  31 December 81

  18

  17

  1

  Nil.

  * Estimated figures.
  Mr. John Grant
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when authority was last given for an increase in the staff of the Boundaries Commission; and with what effect.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  On 15 July 1981 the permitted complement of staff common to the Boundary Commissions for England and Wales was raised from 16 to 18. This increase has since been achieved.

  Public Houses (Amusement Machines)
  Mr. Arthur Lewis
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date in February 1980 he received a letter from the National Union of Licensed

  26
  Victuallers; on what date he sent a formal acknowledgement note of receipt; when a substantive reply was sent; whether this was before or after the hon. Member for Newham, North-West wrote to him about this subject on 7 September 1981; and how soon he anticipates that the question of jackpot prizes on amusement machines in public houses will be dealt with.

  Mr. Whitelaw:
  A letter from the Brewers Society enclosing a joint memorandum on behalf of the brewers and the licensed trade was received on 19 February 1980, and a reply was sent on 28 February 1980. I have since made clear in replies to parliamentary questions that the joint document would be taken into account in considering the recommendations of the Royal Commission on gambling on amusement with prizes machines. A change of the kind proposed would require legislation of a controversial nature and I cannot say when parliamentary time would be available for it.

  Police (Complaints)
  Mr. Arthur Lewis
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give for the longest and most convenient stated period of time (a) the number of complaints made against the police, (b) the number of those investigated by the police, (c) the number that were found to be justified and unjustified, respectively; and, in the former case, what action was taken against those concerned.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  Information about complaints made against the police and their outcome is contained in the annual reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The reports are available in the Library of the House.

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the times at which each meal is served, and the menu for each, on a typical day at Wandsworth prison.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  The service of meals at Wandsworth prison begins at the following times:

  Breakfast

  7.30 am

  Dinner

  11.30 am

  Tea (Monday to Friday)

  4.45 pm

  (Saturday-Sunday)

  3.45 pm

  Supper

  7.30 pm

  The menu for each meal on a typical day is:

  Breakfast

  Porridge

  Boiled Egg or

  Fried Bacon and Fried Bread

  Tea, Bread and margarine

  Dinner

  Soup and Bread Roll

  —

  Baked Fish or

  Chicken Pie or

  Beefburgers and Yorkshire Pudding Chipped Potatoes

  Peas, Cabbage

  —

  Bread Pudding or

  Fruit Sponge

  Custard Sauce

  Tea

  27

  Meat and onion rissole or

  Sausage Roll

  Curried Beans

  Tea, Bread and margarine Rock Cake

  Supper

  Tea

  Paris Bun—type of scone

  Birmingham Prison
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, during the last convenient period of one week or more, how many hours of prison staff time were devoted to the censorship of prisoners' correspondence at Birmingham prison.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  In a normal week, provision is made at Birmingham prison for approximately 300 man-hours to be spent on censorship duties and on the recording and processing of prisoners' incoming property and valuables.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many payments were made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in the most recent year for which figures are available; and of what total value.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  The latest available figures are as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Number of awards made

  Total value

  1980

  17,460

  £15,737,363

  1981

  20,138*

  £21,462,464*

  * Provisional figures.
  Overnight Shelter

  Mr. Kilroy-Silk
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, following his decision not to proceed with a proposal for an overnight shelter at the Bondway, where the additional overnight shelter is to be located.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  We are still engaged in discussions to find a suitable location for a second shelter where there is need, local support and availability of back-up resources.

  Use of Force Reports
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet issued instructions to prison hospital officers to submit use of force reports.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  A circular instruction has been issued. A copy has been sent to the Library of the House.

  Taxi Trade
  Mr. Bidwell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is in a position to make a statement further to his answer, Official Report, c. 133, to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall, on 7 May, that he would be issuing a consultative document on the taxi trade shortly.

  Mr. Raison:
  I regret that we are not yet in a position to say when the paper will be published.
  28

  European Convention on Laboratory Animals
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the delay in negotiations on the European convention on laboratory animals, he will introduce legislation without a definitive Strasbourg text during the next Session of Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Raison:
  It is the Government's intention to update the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 when parliamentary time permits. The ad hoc committee of experts for the protection of animals, which is drafting the Council of Europe convention, is to meet again early in 1982. It will then consider the further observations of delegations on the latest text and the advice of two workings groups on two ancillary documents. We remain of the view that it would be preferable to await the outcome of the negotiations on the convention.

  Royal Wedding
  Mr. Arthur Lewis
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost to public funds within the responsibility of his Department arising from the wedding of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  Additional policing costs of the order of £700,000 were incurred by the Metropolitan and City police forces.

  Drinking Water (Radioactive Contamination)
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department has made any assessment of the extent to which radioactive products from nuclear fallout may convert water molecules into molecular water carrying tritium isotopes of hydrogen and of the degree to which this may affect the safe consumption of drinking water.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  I am advised that the radioctive products from nuclear fallout do not emit radiation of the type or energy required to convert hydrogen in water molecules into tritium. Accordingly, fallout radiation will not affect water by producing tritium.

  Juveniles

  Miss Boothroyd
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list in the Official Report the number of cases in the last 12 months which have occurred in the West Midlands when juveniles who have been charged jointly with an adult have (a) appeared separately in a juvenile court and (b) appeared jointly in an adult court; and if he will provide comparable information for the United Kingdom as a whole;

  (2) how many court cases there have been (a) in the West Midlands and (b) in the United Kingdom where (i) juveniles who have been jointly charged with adults have appeared jointly in an adult court and (ii) juveniles who have been jointly charged with adults have appeared separately in a juvenile court.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  The information available relates to the number of juveniles charged with indictable offences who appeared in magistrates' courts which are not juvenile panels. In 1980 there was a total of 7,722 such juveniles in England and Wales, of whom 502 were dealt with in the

  29
  West Midlands police force area. The other information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  London Borough of Hillingdon (Flying of Model Aircraft)
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to approve the draft byelaw submitted to him by the London borough of Hillingdon concerning the flying of model aircraft in the borough.

  Mr. Raison:
  The London borough of Hillingdon wrote to this Department on 28 July submitting the latest draft of its proposed byelaws to control the flying of model aircraft in parks and pleasure grounds in the borough. These raised two issues of substance, one of which has now been resolved, and we wrote to the council on 5 October asking for its views on the other. Meanwhile, in advance of these byelaws being made and confirmed, the Society of Model Aeronautical Engineers issued a strong recommendation on 11 August that radio-controlled and freeflight models should no longer be flown at Hillingdon House Farm.

  Citizens Band Radio
  Sir Patrick Wall
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of illegal 27 MHz AM citizens band sets operating in the United Kingdom at the time of the introduction of the legal citizens band system.

  Mr. Raison:
  The information available is insufficient to enable us to form a reliable estimate. The indications are that, while the number of users of illicit citizens band radio has continued to increase, the rate of increase is now slower than hitherto in most parts of the country.

  Sir Patrick Wall
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are being made for the conversion of illegal citizens band sets to the new legal system; and if he can estimate the approximate average cost of such a conversion.

  Mr. Raison:
  We have made it clear that we welcome the conversion of illegal CB sets, provided they are made to conform in all respects to the standards set for the legal service, and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has made arrangements to accept a single payment on conversion to discharge outstanding liabilities for import duty and VAT. Arrangements for conversion and the costs involved are not matters for the Government.

  Sir Patrick Wall
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report the salient details of the citizens band system that has now been legalised.

  Mr. Raison:
  The technical requirements for equipment are set out in performance specifications MPT 1320 and MPT 1321, and conditions of use are contained in the CB licence application form. Copies of these documents are being placed in the Library. An annual licence fee of £10 will be payable for each group of up to three sets, and licences will be available at post offices from 2 November.
  30
  Sir Patrick Wall
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long he estimates it will take to adjust citizens band frequencies to a common European system.

  Mr. Raison:
  While we know of no move as yet to establish an effective common European CB system, it remains our intention in the longer term to adopt the relevant specification recommended by CEPT. It is not at present possible to estimate when this objective might be achieved.

  Operation Countryman
  Mr. Arthur Lewis
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the actual or estimated costs of the investigations known as Operation Countryman.

  Mr. Whitelaw:
  Up to 30 June 1981 the cost was £2.54 million.

  "Hit Lists"
  Mr. John Grant
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he has now completed consideration of the matters relating to the publication of a "hit list"of 16 premises in the "Islington Press" referred to in his letter to the hon. Member for Islington, Central on 10 August; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects to receive the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's report of his investigations into matters arising from the publication of "hit lists"in general.

  Mr. Whitelaw:
  I hope to receive a full report on these matters soon, and I shall then write to the hon. Member.

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England
  Dr. Edmund Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes there have been since 22 July 1980 in the list of assistant commissioners appointed to assist the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  At the request of the commission my right hon. Friend recently appointed a further eight assistant commissioners to hold local inquiries into the commission's provisional recommendations:
  John Anthony Dyson
  Gary Denis Flather
  Stephen Gratwick Q. C.
  Michael Guy Vicat Harrison
  George Stuart Lawson Rogers
  Nigel Ronald Buchanan Macleod Q.C.
  Michael Mann Q. C.
  Arthur Leonard Mildon Q. C.

  Lord Lucan
  Mr. Arthur Lewis
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner about progress of the inquiries into the whereabouts of Lord Lucan.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  I understand from the commissioner that inquiries into this case are continuing. There are no significant developments at present.

  Toxteth (Use of CS Gas)
  Mr. Montgomery
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now received a report from the chief constable of Merseyside on the use of CS

  31
  gas in Toxteth, Liverpool on 6 July; whether he has issued guidelines governing any future use by the police in England and Wales of CS gas and baton rounds for dealing with serious public disorder; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Whitelaw:
  I have received from the chief constable of Merseyside a full report of the inquiry he has conducted into the use of CS against rioters in Toxteth in the early hours of 6 July this year. A summary of that report, which the chief constable has given to the Merseyside police authority, is being placed in the Library of the House. This statement also sets out the guidelines which will govern any future use by the police in England and Wales of CS and baton rounds for dealing with serious public disorder.

  As to the use of CS in Toxteth on 6 July, I am in no doubt that in the circumstances which faced the police, the chief constable's decision to use CS—as a last resort—was necessary and justified. The police officers who had the responsibility of firing the CS did so in such a manner as to minimise the risk of injury occurring to members of the public as a result. All the known injuries were caused by "Ferret" CS cartridges fired from 12-bore shotguns, but in no instance were any such weapons aimed directly at individuals. These "Ferret" CS cartridges and the 12-bore shotguns were issued and used because at that time it was not known whether the other CS equipment available would be sufficient for all the officers deployed. The chief constable fully acknowledges that "Ferret" CS cartridges should not be used again to deal with public disorder.

  The guidelines on the use of CS and baton rounds, which have been issued to chief officers of police, after consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales, take particular account of the lessons to be learned from the use of CS in Toxteth. The guidelines cover the following points.

  CS or baton rounds are to be used only with the express authority of the chief officer of police (or, in his absence, his deputy), under the direction and control of a senior officer whom

  Assaults etc. by ethnic appearance of victim and attacker: 1977舑80

  Metropolitan Police District

  Number of offences

  Ethnic appearance of victim

  Ethnic appearance of attacker

  White Skinned European

  Dark Skinned European

  Black Skinned*

  Indian Pakistani

  Chinese/Japanese

  Arabian/Egyptian

  Not Known

  Conspiraciest舤

  Total

  1977

  White

  4,543

  117

  238

  231

  29

  19

  1

  56

  5,234

  Coloured

  1,391

  93

  484

  198

  20

  19

  0

  7

  2,212

  Mixed gang

  166

  8

  44

  21

  0

  1

  0

  2

  242

  Not known

  4,492

  208

  437

  450

  40

  53

  5

  5

  5,690

  Total

  10,592

  426

  1,203

  900

  89

  92

  6

  70

  13,378

  1978

  White

  5,129

  159

  248

  274

  23

  26

  28

  106

  5,993

  Coloured

  1,419

  115

  508

  172

  23

  28

  17

  19

  2,301

  Mixed gang

  238

  15

  83

  21

  2

  1

  5

  3

  368

  Not known

  4,724

  215

  529

  488

  37

  47

  22

  3

  6,065

  Total

  11,510

  504

  1,368

  955

  85

  102

  72

  131

  14,727

  1979

  White

  5,736

  180

  320

  327

  24

  28

  59

  157

  6,830

  Coloured

  1,523

  111

  496

  205

  17

  35

  29

  26

  2,442

  Mixed gang

  254

  8

  60

  32

  2

  8

  5

  2

  371

  Not known

  5,358

  218

  506

  556

  42

  40

  56

  6

  6,782

  Total

  12,871

  517

  1,382

  1,120

  85

  111

  149

  191

  16,425

  1980

  White

  5,829

  162

  312

  305

  34

  38

  96

  81

  6,857

  Coloured

  1,509

  102

  481

  216

  27

  31

  28

  12

  2,406

  32
  he has designated as officer in charge, and by police officers who have been trained in the use of the equipment and know its characteristics.

  CS or baton rounds are to be used only as a last resort where conventional methods of policing have been tried and failed, or must from the nature of the circumstances obtaining be unlikely to succeed if tried, and where the chief officer judges such action to be necessary because of the risk of loss of life or serious injury or widespread destruction of property. Wherever practicable, a public warning of their use is to be given.

  Only CS equipment and baton rounds and riot guns of a type authorised by the Home Office may be used for these purposes. Nothing in the guidelines will affect the principle, to which section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 gives effect, that only the minimum force necessary in the circumstances must be used. The degree of force justified will vary according to the circumstances of each case.

  Criminal Statistics
  Mr. Leighton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence exists of trends since 1975 in (a) offences of violence generally, (b) offences of violence perpetrated by black people against white people and (c) offences of violence perpetrated by white people against black people in the Metropolitan police district; and whether separate figures are available for the Newham area.

  Mr. Mayhew
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 July 1981, c. 392] gave the following information:

  Recorded offences
  of assault, robbery and other viloent theft Metropolitan Police
  District and London Borough of Newham 1975舑1980

  MPD

  Newam

  1975

  19,278

  672

  1976

  22,742

  889

  1977

  25,793

  911

  1978

  26,907

  978

  1979

  28,061

  981

  1980

  30,123

  1,025

  33

  Ethnic appearance
  of victim

  Ethnic appearance of attacker

  White Skinned
  European

  Dark Skinned
  European

  Black Skinned*

  Indian/Pakistani

  Chinese/Japanese

  Arabian/Egyptian

  Not Known

  Conspiracies舤

  Total

  Mixed gang

  337

  18

  76

  35

  1

  8

  8

  8

  491

  Not known

  4,940

  230

  496

  589

  30

  54

  36

  10

  6,385

  Total

  12,615

  512

  1,365

  1,145

  92

  131

  168

  111

  16,139

  * including West Indian/African.† Victim details not recorded.Table 3

  Offences of robbery and other
  violent theft by ethnic appearance of victim and attacker: 1997舑80

  Metropolitan Police District

  Number of offences

  Ethnic appearance of victim**

  Ethnic appearance of attacker

  White Skinned European

  Dark Skinned European

  Black Skinned*

  Indian/Pakistani

  Chinese/Japanese

  Arabian/Egyptian

  Not Known

  Conspiracies舤

  Total

  1977

  White

  2,437

  106

  85

  286

  20

  28

  0

  64

  3,026

  Coloured

  5,289

  289

  193

  463

  26

  44

  1

  16

  6,321

  Mixed gang

  401

  24

  16

  66

  8

  6

  0

  6

  527

  Not known

  2,180

  102

  67

  150

  16

  21

  0

  5

  2,541

  Total

  10,307

  521

  361

  965

  70

  99

  1

  91

  12,415

  1978

  White

  2,317

  109

  91

  280

  19

  50

  16

  87

  2,969

  Coloured

  4,936

  259

  185

  485

  40

  70

  21

  31

  6,027

  Mixed gang

  707

  55

  35

  83

  7

  14

  1

  8

  910

  Not known

  1,906

  95

  53

  153

  24

  35

  5

  3

  2,274

  Total

  9,866

  518

  354

  1,001

  90

  169

  43

  129

  12,180

  1979

  White

  2,376

  75

  79

  284

  18

  34

  3

  119

  2,988

  Coloured

  4,819

  267

  214

  462

  48

  36

  10

  17

  5,873

  Mixed gang

  567

  32

  20

  53

  4

  13

  4

  9

  702

  Not known

  1,724

  70

  57

  156

  21

  30

  10

  5

  2,073

  Total

  9,486

  444

  370

  955

  91

  113

  27

  150

  11,636

  1980

  White

  2,971

  140

  118

  401

  27

  16

  12

  145

  3,830

  Coloured

  5,672

  363

  231

  598

  74

  48

  19

  62

  7,067

  Mixed gang

  627

  35

  31

  100

  6

  4

  4

  11

  818

  Not known

  1,869

  79

  65

  182

  30

  28

  5

  11

  2,269

  Total

  11,169

  617

  445

  1,281

  137

  96

  40

  229

  13,984

  * including West Indian/African.† Victim details not recorded.** For offences involving two or more victims only the first victim is included.Table 4

  Assaults etc. by ethnic appearance of victim and
  attacker: 1977舑80

  London Borough of Newham

  Number of offences

  Ethnic appearance of attacker

  Ethnic appearance of victim

  White Skinned
  European

  Black Skinned(inct. W/Indian/African)

  Indian/Pakistani

  Others*

  Not Known

  Total舤

  1977 White

  156

  18

  26

  7

  舒

  207

  Coloured

  51

  15

  13

  1

  舒

  80

  Mixed gang

  14

  4

  3

  1

  舒

  22

  Not known

  146

  26

  36

  4

  舒

  212

  Total

  367

  63

  78

  13

  舒

  521

  1978 White

  177

  19

  15

  1

  3

  215

  Coloured

  53

  14

  16

  5

  舒

  88

  Mixed gang

  8

  4

  3

  舒

  1

  16

  Not known

  176

  34

  60

  15

  舒

  285

  Total

  414

  71

  94

  21

  4

  604

  1979 White

  206

  15

  24

  3

  舒

  248

  Coloured

  63

  25

  17

  3

  舒

  108

  Mixed gang

  6

  2

  1

  舒

  1

  10

  Not known

  165

  22

  63

  7

  1

  258

  Total

  440

  64

  105

  13

  2

  624

  1980 White

  207

  15

  18

  4

  舒

  244

  Coloured

  72

  28

  29

  3

  舒

  132

  34 35

  Ethnic appearance of attacker

  Ethnic appearance of victim

  White Skinned European

  Black Skinned (incl.
  W/Indian/Aftrican)

  Indian/Pakistani

  Others*

  Not Known

  Total舤

  Mixed gang

  5

  2

  3

  4

  舒

  14

  Not known

  160

  17

  57

  2

  1

  237

  Total

  444

  62

  107

  13

  1

  627

  * Includes dark skinned European, Chinese/Japanese and Arab/Egyptian.† Excludes conspiracies and victim details not recorded.

  Criminal Statistics (London)
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report the number of assualts on persons over the age of 60 reported to the police in the Metropolitan area; and the number of robberies and burglaries reported by such persons to the police in the years 1977–80 respectively.

  Mr. Mayhew
  [pursuant to his reply, 31 July 1981, c. 661–62]: I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the available information is given in the following table. Information is not collected centrally by the Metropolitan Police on the age of victims of offences of burglary. In many cases the age of the victim of assault or robbery was not recorded. In 1977, but not in subsequent years, the Metropolitan Police made an estimate of the age. For assault in particular there was a large number of cases in 1978–80 where the age was unknown, and so trends based only on figures where the age of the victim is shown could be misleading. For robbery, the 1980 figures are not directly comparable with those for earlier years because of a change in the basis of counting victims of robbery.

  Certain serious offences recorded by the police
  by age of victim Metropolitan Police District

  Offence

  Year

  Total

  Victim's age 0舑60

  61 and over

  Unknown

  Assaults, etc.

  1977*

  13,307

  12,851

  456

  舒

  1978

  14,596

  13,125

  426

  1,045

  1979

  16,233

  14,383

  468

  1,382

  1980

  16,029

  14,038

  522

  1,469

  Robbery

  1977*

  7,832

  6,946

  886

  舒

  1978

  7,401

  6,404

  823

  174

  1979

  6,824

  6,060

  730

  34

  1980舤

  7,391

  6,525

  813

  53

  *In 1977 only, figures by age group include estimates
  of the age of victims with unreported ages.† Figures for 1980 are not directly comparable with those for
  previous years because the counting basis was changed.

  Severnside Airport Proposal
  Mr. Abse
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade on what dates the Advisory Committee on Airports Policy visited Gwent to study the Severnside international gateway airport proposals; and how many members of the advisory committee participated on each date.

  Mr. Sproat:
  The Advisory Committee on Airports Policy did not visit any airport sites.

  Mr. Abse
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will commission a feasibility study by independent consultants of the offshore Severnside United Kingdom international gateway airport proposal; and if he will ensure that no major developments at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports are approved prior to the completion of such a study.

  Mr. Sproat:
  No. Gwent county council has recently made a submission to the Stansted inspector proposing the development of an airport on Severnside as an alternative to the expansion of Stansted airport. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and for the Environment will take careful note of the inspector's conclusions and recommendations on this and any other relevant matters before reaching a decision on the Stansted proposals, but they do not intend to hold back any developments at Heathrow or Gatwick which have already been approved.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he is taking during the period in and around 5 November to inform the public generally of the dangers associated with the use of fireworks; if he will give details in the Official Report of any publicity campaign; what steps he is taking to involve education authorities in such a campaign; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim:
  On 7 October I launched, for the third year, an extensive firework safety campaign to publicise the hazards of fireworks if used carelessly or misused.

  Publicity material available from my Department includes a revised leaflet containing guidance to firework display organisers and a leaflet for registered retailers of fireworks. This year a poster for display in shops has been re-introduced. Television filler films and new radio tapes have been distributed.

  I have also had particularly in mind the importance of getting young people to understand the dangers. For this purpose we have for the third year been able to enlist the

  37
  services of a well-known personality who knows how to put the message over to them, a young comedian who is also featured in one of our posters.

  Earlier this year a poster competition based on the firework code was organised by a national newspaper. The publicity material has been sent to all schools, local authorities, youth organisations, fire brigades, police and national and local press.

  The Firework Makers Guild and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents have worked closely with my Department in this campaign and their material is also receiving a wide distribution.

  Mr. Gwilym Roberts
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will take steps to obtain and publish in the Official Report the number of large public firework displays for each of the years 1976 to 1980 and the ratios, number of displays to number of accidents and the total number attending displays to number of accidents for each of these years.

  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim:
  So far as I am aware no records are available that would provide the information that the hon. Member has asked for.

  Furniture Industry
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he proposes to take to support a viable furniture manufacturing industry in Great Britain following his meeting on 27 July with the deputation representing the British furniture manufacturers and the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union; and if he will publish in the Official Report the statistics provided at the meeting which indicate the extent of penetration of imported furniture and allied products into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Rees:
  The viability and prosperity of the furniture industry depend ultimately on its success in meeting market requirements both at home and abroad. At their meeting with my predecessor on 27 July the representatives of the industry were, however, assured that they could count on the support and assistance of this Department if they had evidence that imports of furniture were being dumped and that this was causing injury to the Community industry. The figures for import penetration provided at that meeting were estimates made by the industry itself rather than official figures. In my view they do not necessarily offer a reliable guide and I do not think it appropriate that I should publish them.

  Steel (Imports)
  Mr. Chris Patten
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the percentage of the total sale of steel represented by imports in each year since 1945.

  Mr. Peter Rees:
  The available information is as follows:

  United Kingdom Imports of Finished Steel* as a Percentage of Home Demand舤

  per cent

  1945

  n.a.

  1946

  0.3

  1947

  1.3

  1948

  2.1

  38

  per cent

  1949

  4.8

  1950

  2.5

  1951

  2.6

  1952

  5.9

  1953

  ‡3.0

  1954

  1.8

  1955

  6.2

  1956

  6.4

  1957

  3.1

  1958

  2.2

  1959

  2.5

  1960

  5.3

  1961

  1.8

  1962

  2.7

  1963

  4.8

  1964

  5.3

  1965

  3.0

  1966

  4.8

  1967

  8.5

  1968

  9.2

  1969

  6.4

  1970

  5.6

  1971

  8.9

  1972

  12.8

  1973

  13.0

  1974

  18.1

  1975

  21.1

  1976

  21.0

  1977

  20.6

  1978

  21.4

  1979

  21.4

  **1980

  34.1

  * i.e. excluding material for conversion (see note‡舤home demand is defined as producers' deliveries minus exports
  plus imports.‡Prior to 1954, material for conversion cannot readily be
  excluded from the import data. The proportion for 1954 consistent with
  those given in the Table for earlier years is 3.0 per cent.** The 1980 figure has been increased by the effect
  of the steel strike. n. a. not available.
  Source:

  Based on information, in terms of tonnes, from the Iron and Steel
  Statistics Bureau.

  Motor Cars (Imports)
  Mr. Chris Patten
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade what
  was the percentage of the total sale of cars represented by imports in
  each year since 1945.

  Mr. Peter Rees:
  Information, based on registrations, is
  available only from 1965, and is as follows:

  New Registrations
  of Imported Cars as a Percentage of Total New Car Registrations in the
  United Kingdom

  per cent.

  1965

  5.1

  1966

  6.4

  1967

  8.3

  1968

  8.3

  1969

  10.4

  1970

  14.3

  1971

  19.3

  1972

  23.5

  1973

  27.4

  1974

  27.9

  1975

  33.2

  1976

  37.9

  1977

  45.4

  1978

  49.3

  1979

  56.3

  1980

  56.7

  Source Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.
  39

  World Trade
  Mr. Chris Patten
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade what
  was the United Kingdom share in world trade in each year since 1945.

  Mr. Peter Rees:
  Comprehensive information is available for
  the year 1948 and for 1951 onwards, but there are some relatively small
  discontinuities in this information. The following percentage shares
  are therefore approximate.

  United Kingdom Share of the Value of World
  Trade

  per cent

  1948

  11.6

  1951

  9.3

  1952

  9.7

  1953

  9.1

  1954

  9.1

  1955

  9.2

  1956

  9.1

  1957

  8.8

  1958

  8.8

  1959

  8.5

  1960

  8.2

  1961

  8.2

  1962

  7.9

  1963

  7.8

  1964

  7.4

  1965

  7.4

  1966

  7.2

  1967

  6.7

  1968

  6.4

  1969

  6.4

  1970

  6.3

  1971

  6.3

  1972

  5.7

  1973

  5.1

  1974

  4.6

  1975

  4.9

  1976

  4.6

  1977

  4.9

  1978

  5.2

  1979

  5.3

  1980

  5.5

  News Publications (Source of Income)
  Mr. Greville Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will introduce legislation to require the declaring, in respect of any news publication published in the United Kingdom, any overseas sources of that publication's income.

  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim:
  No.

  Gas Appliances (Unfair Trading)
  Mr. Greville Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many cases of alleged unfair trading in the supply and installation of gas appliances have been raised with his Department in the last six and three months respectively.

  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim:
  In the past six months five cases of alleged unfair trading by the British Gas Corporation in the supply and installation of gas appliances have been raised with my Department, of which 2 were in the last three months.

  "Melpus Lemos"(Grounding)
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade what are the principal conclusions of his Department's
  40
  preliminary inquiry into the groundings of the super-tanker "Melpus Lemos"off Lepe beach in the Solent on 4 August; and if his surveyor's report is to be published.

  Mr. Sproat:
  It is not the practice to publish preliminary inquiry reports on marine casualties which are prepared for consideration within my Department. The report on the grounding of the "Melpus Lemos"has been considered and appropriate further action in the interests of safety will be taken.

  Trade Promotion (Expenditure)
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his latest estimate of his Department's expenditure for 1981-82 in respect of trade promotion and in support of public sector industry and private industry, respectively.

  Mr. Biffen:
  I shall reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  River Thames (Shipping Accidents)
  Sir Bernard Braine
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade, if he will state the number of ships involved in accidents on the River Thames and Estuary reported to the Port of London Authority in each of the years 1979 and 1980 and for the first six months in 1981, showing separately the number of cases where it was thought necessary to investigate, to call for a report, or to conduct an inquiry under the Merchant Shipping Act; and in how many such cases the ships involved were carrying cargoes of a hazardous or pollutant nature.

  Mr. Sproat:
  I shall reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

INDUSTRY

  British Leyland
  Mr. Chris Patten
  asked the Secretary of State for Industry what was the average output per man in British Leyland's major car plants in each of the last five years and at the latest date for which figures are available; and what are the comparable figures for major car plants in Japan, the United States of America, West Germany, France and Italy.

  Mr. Norman Lamont:
  Figures on BL's output per man are not available on a plant by plant basis. Such information, even if available, would be commercially confidential. The only available productivity figures for BL are those in the review of BL's 1980 performance, which was laid before Parliament in January 1981. Productivity figures for car plants in other countries are similarly unobtainable.

  There are, in any case, a number of difficulties involved in comparing productivity between car plants, even in the same country.

  Post Office
  Mr. Chris Patten
  asked the Secretary of State for Industry what was the increase in productivity achieved in the postal division of the Post Office in each of the last five years; and what increase in that division has been achieved since the corporation was split at the latest date for which figures are available.
  41
  Mr. Wakeham:
  The change in productivity of the mails services, measured in ordinary letters and—weighted—parcels handled per man hour, was as follows:

  Percentage

  1976–77

  –1.3

  1977–78

  +0.6

  1978–79

  +2.2

  1979–80

  –2.5

  1980–81

  +1.0

  This series includes the man hours worked but not the new business volume arising from introduction, development and/or expansion of premium and circular delivery services over the period. Nor does it take account of the commitment to give delivery to an additional 1.2 million points.

  Since the split of the corporation did not take place until 1 October 1981, figures on productivity for the post split period are not yet available.

  British Steel Corporation
  Mr. Chris Patten
  asked the Secretary of State for Industry what was the average output per man in the major steel plants of the British Steel Corporation in each year since nationalisation; and what are the comparable figures for major steel plants in the United States of America, Japan, West Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg.

  Mr. Wakeham:
  The information requested on output per man in individual major steel plants, whether in BSC or overseas, is not available. Some broad indicators of productivity in the steel industry are available on a country by country basis, though they have to be interpreted with caution.

  I shall write to my hon. Friend to let him know what information is available.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much financial assistance has been provided to the British Steel Corporation since its incorporation; and how much assistance is expected to be provided in the current financial year.

  Mr. Wakeham:
  Since July 1967 BSC received £5,387 million of Government finance in the period to 31 March 1981, in the form of advances of capital, loans from the National Loans Fund—NLF—and regional development grants—RDG. £150 million of NLF loans were written off in 1972, and a further £3,509 million of capital and loans in the Iron and Steel Act 1981. In the current financial year payments to BSC are expected to be £830 million—including an estimated £21 million in RDG's—of which £79 million is required for the repayment of foreign loans falling due during the year.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Industry what consideration he gives to the overmanning in the corporation in his decisions on the level of Government aid to the British Steel Corporation.

  Mr. Wakeham:
  An essential element in the current BSC plan is the need to improve productivity by improving working practices and eliminating overmanning. This was taken fully into account in deciding on the level of Government finance for BSC in 1981–82. Since this
  42
  Government came into office, numbers employed in BSC have fallen from 186,000 at end March 1979 to about 110,000 now.

  Motor Car Industry
  Mr. Chris Patten
  asked the Secretary of State for Industry what was the United Kingdom's share of the world car production in each year since 1945.

  Mr. Norman Lamont:
  The available information is as follows:

  United Kingdom share of Car Production

  Percentage of World Production

  Percentage of Major Manufacturing Countries' Production*

  1945

  na

  18.2

  1946

  na

  8.7

  1947

  na

  7.0

  1948

  na

  7.3

  1949

  na

  6.8

  1950

  na

  6.5

  1951

  na

  7.0

  1952

  na

  7.6

  1953

  na

  7.4

  1954

  na

  8.6

  1955

  na

  8.3

  1956

  na

  8.0

  1957

  na

  9.1

  1958

  na

  12.5

  1959

  na

  11.6

  1960

  na

  11.1

  1961

  na

  9.2

  1962

  na

  9.4

  1963

  na

  10.5

  1964

  10.9

  11.7

  1965

  9.0

  9.6

  1966

  8.3

  9.0

  1967

  8.6

  9.2

  1968

  8.4

  9.0

  1969

  7.6

  8.3

  1970

  7.3

  8.1

  1971

  6.6

  7.4

  1972

  7.0

  7.9

  1973

  6.0

  6.8

  1974

  6.0

  7.2

  1975

  5.1

  6.1

  1976

  4.6

  5.5

  1977

  4.3

  5.2

  1978

  3.9

  4.7

  1979>

  3.5

  4.2

  1980

  3.2

  4.0

  na: not available.* France, West Germany, Italy, Sweden, Japan, Canada, United States of America and the United Kingdom.Source: Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

  Steel Production
  Mr. Chris Patten
  asked the Secretary of State for Industry what was the United Kingdom's share of world crude steel production in each year since 1945.

  Mr. Wakeham:
  The information is as follows:

  United Kingdom's percentage share of World Crude Steel Production

  Year

  Percentage

  1945

  10.5

  1946

  11.6

  1947

  9.5

  1948

  9.7

  43

  Year

  Percentage

  1949

  9.9

  1950

  8.7

  1951

  7.5

  1952

  7.9

  1953

  7.6

  1954

  8.4

  1955

  7.4

  1956

  7.4

  1957

  7.5

  1958

  7.3

  1959

  6.7

  1960

  7.2

  1961

  6.3

  1962

  5.8

  1963

  6.0

  1964

  6.2

  1965

  6.0

  1966

  5.2

  1967

  4.9

  1968

  5.0

  1969

  4.7

  1970

  4.8

  1971

  4.1

  1972

  4.0

  1973

  3.8

  1974

  3.2

  1975

  3.1

  1976

  3.3

  1977

  3.0

  1978

  2.8

  1979

  2.9

  1980

  1.6

  Source: Based on information, in terms of tonnes, from the Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau and the International Iron and Steel Institute.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Chris Patten
  asked the Secretary of State for Industry what was the United Kingdom's share of world shipbuilding production in each year since 1945.

  Mr. Wakeham:
  The available information is as follows:

  United Kingdom's Percentage share of World Completions*: Merchant Ships (100 Gross Tons and Over)

  Year

  Per cent.

  1945

  N/A

  1946

  N/A

  1947

  50.2

  1948

  48.9

  1949

  43.4

  1950

  42.7

  1951

  37.7

  1952

  30.0

  1953

  25.3

  1954

  27.4

  1955

  26.6

  1956

  23.2

  1957

  17.5

  1958

  16.2

  1959

  15.9

  1960

  15.5

  1961

  17.2

  1962

  12.4

  1963

  12.1

  1964

  8.3

  1965

  10.9

  1966

  7.6

  1967

  7.8

  1968

  6.2

  1969

  4.4

  1970

  6.3

  1971

  5.1

  44

  Year

  Per cent.

  1972

  4.5

  1973

  3.5

  1974

  3.6

  1975

  3.4

  1976

  4.4

  1977

  3.7

  1978

  6.2

  1979

  4.8

  1980

  3.4

  * Based on gross registered tons Source: Lloyd's Register of Shipping

  Motor Cycles
  Mr. Chris Patten
  asked the Secretary of State for Industry what was the United Kingdom's share of world motor cycle production in each year since 1945.

  Mr. Norman Lamont:
  The information asked for is not available. Information is available for United Kingdom motor cycle production since 1945, but not for world production. The Motor Cycle Association has published figures of production by the major producers in 1976 and 1977, but these countries represent only one-third of the countries in which motor cycles are produced—although the proportion of total production is probably much higher. Even so, the United Kingdom's share in the total production by these countries in these two years was less than 0.5 per cent.

  Some information relating to all two-wheeled road motor vehicles—including mopeds, scooters, and so on—is published in "The United Nations Year Book of Industrial Statistics", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Companies (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Chris Patten
  asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much assistance has been provided to companies under the provisions of the Industry Act 1972 in each year since it became law; and how much is expected to be provided in the current financial year.

  Mr. MacGregor:
  The following assistance has been made available under parts I and II of the Industry Act 1972 to companies in Great Britain as follows:

  Part 1

  Payments of Regional Developments Grant

  £M at current prices

  1972–73

  8.1

  1973–74

  107.2

  1974–75

  212.8

  1975–76

  324.9

  1976–77

  407.7

  1977–78

  393.4

  1978–79

  417.0

  1979–80

  330.8

  1980–81

  490.5

  April-Sept 1981

  308.1

  Part II

  Section 7: Offers of Regional Selective Assistance

  £M at current prices

  1972–73

  9.5

  1973–74

  56.3

  1974–75

  70.8

  1975–76

  79.1

  45

  Section 7: Offers of Regional Selective Assistance

  £M at current prices

  1976舑77

  82.4

  1977舑78

  162.2

  1978舑79

  113.5

  1979舑80

  152.2

  1980舑81

  119.6

  April-Aug 1981

  57.3

  Part III

  Section 8: Offers of Selective
  Assistance

  £M at current prices

  1972舑73

  舒

  1973舑74

  0.1

  1974舑75

  7.7

  1975舑76

  36.9

  1976舑77

  99.3

  1977舑78

  106.4

  1978舑79

  162.8

  1979舑80

  71.2

  1980舑81

  36.7

  April-Aug 1981

  10.4

  Estimated gross expenditure for 1981舑82

  Part I

  £M at current prices

  Regional Developments Grants

  483.0

  Part II

  Section 7

  61.2

  Section 8

  89.1

  Space Projects (Exhibition)
  Mr. Warren
  asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will arrange for an exhibition relating to United Kingdom and European space projects to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker:
  Yes. Arrangements have been made for such an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall to take place from Monday 19 October to Friday 23 October 1981.

  Business Opportunities Programme (Exhibition)
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will arrange for an exhibition relating to the business opportunities programme to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. MacGregor:
  Yes. Arrangements have been made for such an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall to take place from Monday 30 November to Friday 4 December 1981.

  Information Technology center
  Mr. Golding
  asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will establish an information technology center in Newcastle-under-Lyme.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker:
  The response to the Department of Industry-Manpower Services Commission initiative to set up information technology centers has been enthusiastic from local authorities, industry and local groups. It will not be possible to satisfy all potential sponsor towns and cities in the first phase of the initiative and I can make no commitment to Newcastle-under-Lyme. I shall announce locations for the first centers within a few weeks.
  46

  Businesses (Manpower)
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the number and percentage of workers employed in businesses with (a) fewer than 200 employees and (b) more than 2,000 employees.

  Mr. MacGregor:
  The total of all private sector manufacturing employment in the United Kingdom in 1979 was 6.5 million, of which 1.5 million or 23 per cent. were employed in enterprises with fewer than 200 employees and 3.6 million or 56 per cent. in enterprises with more than 2,000 employees.

  Similar information for non-manufacturing enterprises is not available.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many guarantees have been given by Government under the loan guarantee scheme; and what is their total value broken down into (a) new businesses and (b) existing businesses.

  Mr. MacGregor:
  By the end of September, 838 guarantees had been issued under the loan guarantee scheme in respect of £28.5 million of bank lending. Of this, 483 guarantees, covering lending of £15.5 million, went to new businesses and 355 guarantees, covering lending of £13 million, went to existing businesses.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is his latest estimate of his Department's expenditure for 1981-82 in support of public sector industry and private sector industry, respectively.

  Mr. MacGregor:
  Support provided in the 1981-82 Supply Estimates for the British Steel Corporation, British Shipbuilders, BL and Rolls-Royce totals £2,000 million and for other industry totals £880 million.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Education Courses
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances adult education courses are treated as entertainment and subject to value added tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne:
  The value added tax treatment of adult education courses, except where provided by schools and universities supplying exempt education, depends on the level of the charge made to the participants and the nature and content of the courses.

  When provided free of charge or below cost, such courses are not subject to tax. When provided for profit, they are taxable.

  If the fees are charged at cost, certain of these courses would be exempt from VAT, but sporting and recreational activities are excluded from this exemption unless provided as part of a general educational curriculum.

  This has been the position since the beginning of the tax.

  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the practice of Her Majesty's Customs

  47
  and Excise in the treatment of educational courses for the purposes of charging value added tax; whether any guidelines exist with regard to adult or other educational courses; and, if so, if he will publish them.

  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne:
  I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to her other question today.

  The exemption from VAT follows the provisions of group 6 of schedule 5 to the Finance Act 1972. The law is quoted in Customs and Excise Notice No. 701 which contains explanatory notes giving guidance on the effects of the legal provision. Notice No. 701 is issued to persons registered for the tax and is also available at all local VAT offices.

  Coin Machines
  Mr. Hooley
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study his Department has made of the growth of use of coin machines, including those which give change, requiring a 50p piece and the impact of this on the need for the production of much larger quantities of this coin.

  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne:
  The Royal Mint maintains contact with major coin users, including operators of coin machines. There is no evidence that the growth in demand for 50p pieces is mainly due to the introduction of new coin machines. The Banks have not reported a shortage of 50p coins.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Thornton
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will give, for each of the last 10 years, for England and Wales, figures of public expenditure in terms of (a) total capital expenditure, (b) central Government capital expenditure and (c) local government capital expenditure showing in each case, on a comparable price basis, the target figure as set in the public expenditure White Paper published before the beginning of the year and the outturn of expenditure for the year;

  (2) if he will give, for each of the last 10 years, for England and Wales, figures of public expenditure in terms of (a) total current expenditure; (b) central Government current expenditure and (c) local government current

  Income Tax due
  for 1978舑79

  Mid-1978 Home
  Popultion Estimates

  Income Tax per
  head of population

  £million

  thousands

  £

  England

  *17,400

  46,349

  375

  Metropolitan counties and GLC

  7,051

  21,076

  335

  Non-metropolitan counties

  9,960

  25,374

  394

  Northern

  989

  3,099

  319

  Metropolitan counties (Tyne &Wear)

  323

  1,165

  277

  Non-metropolitan counties

  666

  1,934

  345

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  1,680

  4,878

  344

  Metropolitan counties (S. Yorks, W. Yorks)

  1,180

  3,372

  349

  Non-metropolitan counties

  502

  1,506

  334

  North West

  1,990

  6,498

  306

  Metropolitan counties (Gt.Manchester Merseyside)

  1,230

  4,209

  292

  Non-metropolitan counties

  762

  2,289

  333

  East Midlands (Non-metropolitan)

  1,180

  3,750

  313

  West Midlands

  1,860

  5,154

  361

  Metropolitan counties (West Midlands)

  977

  2,712

  360

  48
  expenditure showing in each case, on a comparable price basis, the target figure as set out in the public expenditure White Paper published before the beginning of the year and the outturn of expenditure for the year.

  Mr. Brittan:
  An analysis of outturn compared with planned public expenditure in 1979-80 was published as treasury working paper (TWP) number 16. Similar analyses for 1977–78 and 1978–79 were published as TWP 11 and TWP 13 respectively. Copies of these papers have been placed in the Library of the House. I refer my hon. Friend to table 3 on page 18 of TWP 16 which shows percentage excess or shortfall on plans in volume terms by economic category and spending authority for each year 1972–73 to 1979–80. A similar table was included in both TWP 11 and TWP 13 but the starting date for each is only 1972–73 because it would have been both technically difficult and rather expensive to cover earlier years. Separate analyses for England and for Wales are not available because many services are planned for the United Kingdom as a whole. However, a new functional programme for all expenditure under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales was introduced in the last Public Expenditure White Paper (Cmnd. 8175). A comparison of plan and outturn for this programme is shown on page 13 of TWP number 16. Such an analysis is not available for earlier years because of the expense of its production. Figures for 1980–1981 are not available.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Thornton
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a division of income tax raised between different regions of the country, on any available regional split but preferably showing the difference between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, and the amount per head which this represents for population of these regions for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Ridley:
  The amount of income tax, in total and per head, from the regions, metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of the United Kingdom for 1978–79 is a follows:
  49

  Income Tax due
  for 1978–79

  Mid-1978
  Population Estimates

  Home Income
  Tax per head of
  population

  £million

  thousands

  £

  Non-metropolitan counties

  881

  2,443

  361

  East Anglia (Non-metropolitan)

  568

  1,843

  308

  South East

  7,400

  16,832

  439

  GLC

  3,340

  9,618

  348

  Non-metropolitan counties

  4,050

  7,214

  562

  South West (Non-metropolitan)

  1,350

  4,296

  315

  Wales (Non-metropolitan)

  754

  2,768

  272

  Scotland

  1,680

  5,179

  325

  Central Clydeside Conurbation

  527

  1,767

  298

  Remainder

  1,160

  3,413

  339

  Northern Ireland (Non-metropolitan)

  388

  1,539

  252

  United Kingdom

  *20,200

  55,836

  362

  Metropolitan (including GLC and
  Central Clydeside Conurbation)

  7,580

  22,842

  332

  Non-metropolitan counties

  12,300

  32,993

  372

  *includes £347 million from Armed Forces and Merchant Navy and from civil servants serving overseas. This sum cannot be allocated among the regions or counties.
  The amount of income tax is derived from the Inland Revenue survey of personal incomes 1978–79. In the survey, incomes, and income tax due, are allocated to counties and regions according to the residence of the recipient, except where his main source of income is chargeable under Schedule D when the allocation is by place of assessment which for the self-employed generally corresponds to place of business. The mid-1978 population figures have been provided by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and are the numbers resident in the areas shown.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Thornton
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a division of value added tax raised between different regions of the country, on any available regional split but preferably showing the difference between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, and the amount per head which this represents for population of these regions for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne:
  The amounts of VAT raised in the regions of the United Kingdom are not directly known. However, using estimates of the regional pattern of household expenditure and the latest population estimates, the amounts of tax that can be attributed to each standard region and the amounts that this represents per head of the population in 1980–81 are set out below:

  Region

  VAT borne by residents £m

  Amounts per head of population
  £

  North

  590

  190

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  05

  185

  North West

  1,280

  200

  East Midlands

  730

  195

  West Midlands

  1,050

  205

  East Anglia

  370

  200

  South East

  3,795

  225

  South West

  790

  185

  50

  Region

  VAT borne by residents £m

  Amounts per head of population£

  Wales

  545

  195

  Scotland

  975

  190

  Northern Ireland

  270

  175

  The estimates cannot be further sub-divided.

  Public Sector Assets
  Mr. Grylls
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, further
  to his reply to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 30
  July 1981, Official Report, c. 1153, he will show how the
  totals of special sales of public sector assets for 1979舑80 and 1980舑81
  are made-up.

  Mr. Ridley:
  The information is set out in the two tables
  below.

  Special Sales of Assets 1979舑80

  Transaction

  £million

  Net reductions in expenditure

  Sale of shares in the British
  Petroleum Co. Ltd.

  276

  National Enterprise Board舒sale of
  certain shares

  37

  Sale of shares in Drake &
  Scull Holding Ltd.

  1

  New Town Development Corporations
  and the Commission for the
  New Towns舒sale of land and buildings

  26

  Regional Water Authority舒sale of
  land

  3

  Sale of shares in Suez Finance
  Company

  22

  Property Services Agency舒sale of
  land and buildings

  5

  Total

  370

  Revenue offsets to planned
  expenditure

  British National Oil
  Corporation舒receipts of advanced payments for oil

  622

  51

  Transaction

  £ million

  Stamp duty and VAT

  7

  Grand Total

  999

  This table was first published in the 1981 Public Expenditure White
  Paper, Cmnd. 8175 as table 4.11.

  Special Sales of Assets 1980舑81

  Transaction

  £million

  Receipt of premiums levied on the
  seventh round of North Sea
  oil licences

  210

  Change in level of receipts of
  advance payments for oil

  舒49

  Sale of leases of certain motorway
  service areas舒sales of
  land and buildings

  28

  Property Services Agency舑sale of
  land and buildings

  4

  Sale of shares in British Aerospace
  Ltd.

  43

  Payment of premiums levied on the
  seventh round of North Sea
  oil licences grants to British National Oil Corporation

  舑15

  New Town Development Corporations
  and the Commission for New
  Towns舒sales of land and buildings

  52

  National Enterprise Board舒sales of
  certain shares

  83

  Total

  356

  Vehicle Excise Duty (Vintage Cars)
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a reduced vehicle licence rate for vintage cars used on the public highway for less than a specified number of miles each year.

  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne:
  The existing motoring taxation system substantially recognises variations in annual vehicle usage. Fuel tax paid is proportional to mileage run. And for vehicle excise duty, refunds may be obtained on complete, unexpired months remaining on a licence to meet circumstances when a vehicle is to be taken out of use. Further "use–based"adjustments to vehicle excise duty are not practicable.

  Public Servants (Fees and Salaries)
  Mr. Arthur Lewis
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps, if necessary by introducing legislation, to give members of the public the right to know the fees and salaries paid to any public servant where public money is used to pay the fees, salaries and incomes of these public servants, on a basis similar to that whereby directors of public companies must disclose in their annual reports to their shareholders their annual fees and income from the companies of which they are directors.

  Mr. Brittan:
  No. Information about the pay and conditions of most grades of public servant is already available.

  Taxation and Rates (Limitation)
  Mr. Arthur Lewis
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the Government's declared policy of limiting salary increases in the public sector to
  52
  4 per cent., he will take whatever action may prove necessary to limit increases in any public activity such as taxation and rates, to a maximum of 4 per cent.

  Mr. Brittan:
  No.

  Peers (Daily Allowance)
  Mr. Arthur Lewis
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the upper limit of the daily allowance paid for attendance to Members of the House of Lords as at 1 September 1981; and, on the assumption that the peers are married with normal married and other tax allowances, what this tax-free daily allowance is worth on a taxed basis to peers with other incomes of £5,000, £6,000, £7,000, £8,000, £9,000, £10,000, £20,000 and above per annum, respectively.

  Mr. Ridley:
  Since 1 July 1981 the maximum daily allowance for reimbursement of the expenses of attendance payable to Members of the House of Lords has been £46.65. For a married man the gross amounts that at different income levels would leave £46.65 per day after tax are as follows:

  Annual Income

  Value before
  tax of £46.65 per day tax free allowances to a married man

  £

  £ per
  day

  5,000

  66.64

  6,000

  7,000

  8,000

  9,000

  10,000

  20,000

  93.30

  30,000

  and above

  116.62

  Companies (Liquidations)
  Mr. John H. Osborn
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the number of companies which have gone into liquidation or receivership because of tax arrears; what has been the total value of these arrears; and how much has been recovered.

  Mr. Ridley:
  In the year to March 1981, 348 companies were wound up on petitions presented by the Board of Inland Revenue and 879 on petitions presented by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. Statistics distinguishing between the claims and recoveries made in these cases and those made in cases where winding-up was initiated by other creditors or on a company's own petition are not kept.

SCOTLAND

  Crofter Housing
  Mr. Donald Stewart
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for grant and loan for the building of crofter housing have been approved in each of the last five years and in 1981 to date.

  Mr. Younger:
  The information is given in the following table:
  53

  Number of approved applications for grant and loan assistance under the crofters building grants and loans scheme

  1976

  1977

  1979

  1980

  1981*

  New housing

  193

  165

  241

  151

  153

  97

  Housing improvement

  157

  140

  149

  130

  164

  183

  Total

  350

  305

  390

  281

  317

  280

  *To end of September.

  Railway Viaducts
  Mr. David Steel
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what considerations he has given to listing as structures of historical and architectural importance the railway viaducts at Leaderfoot, Shankend and Slitrig.

  Mr. Younger:
  These structures are already statutorily listed as buildings of special architectural or historic interest.

  Home Helps
  Mr. Gordon Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many households per home help there are (a) in the Tayside health board area and (b) in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  At 31 March 1981, there were 7.2 clients per home help (whole-time equivalent) in Tayside Region and 6.9 clients per home help in Scotland.

  Health Education Unit (Tayside)
  Mr. Gordon Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make extra funds available to Tayside health board in order to enable it to move towards the target figures for staffing of the health education unit as specified by his Department.

  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  No. My Department in 1974 drew the attention of health boards to suggestions about levels of staffing in health education made by a consultative committee of medical officers of health, but have not themselves specified staffing levels. It is for health boards, in the light of local requirements and such central guidance as may be available, to decide how the funds available to them should be allocated to all the various services for which they are responsible.

  Anaesthetists
  Mr. Gordon
  Wilson asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the availability of anaesthetists in (a) Scotland and (b) Tayside health Area.

  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  The responsibility for staffing in any particular specialty rests with health boards, and at the present time I have no evidence of difficulties being encountered in the availability of anaesthetists either in Scotland as a whole or in the Tayside health area.

  Royal Dundee Liff Hospital
  Mr. Gordon
  Wilson asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to take steps to upgrade the facilities for psychiatric and psychogeriatric patients at Royal Dundee Liff hospital.

  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  Two 30-bed units are presently being built at Royal Dundee Liff hospital and funded centrally under the major capital programme. Tayside
  54
  health board who are responsible for the management of the hospital have submitted proposals for further upgrading of facilities and expansion of provision for psycho-geriatric patients. Decisions have yet to be taken on which projects should receive central funding in future; and Tayside health board's proposals will be considered along with those from other boards.

  Blood-Lead Levels (Glasgow)
  Mr. Craigen
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, following completion of surveys for the European Economic Community directive on biological screening of the population for lead in the United Kingdom, his Department will be making efforts to reduce blood-lead levels in the Glasgow area.

  Mr. Rifkind:
  Strathclyde regional council began treating Glasgow's water supply for plumbosolvency in 1978 and has since twice enhanced the treatment; and, following the statement in the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services on 11 May, I am discussing with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities arrangements for the payment of house improvement grant, in certain circumstances, in respect of lead-lined tanks and lead piping. The surveys to which the hon. Member refers are not yet fully complete but, when they are, I shall write to the hon. Member and his colleagues in the Glasgow area.

  School Teachers (Age)
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average age of (a) primary school teachers and (b) secondary school teachers in Scotland in (i) 1970, (ii) 1975 and (iii) at the latest available date.

  Mr. Alexander Fletcher:
  Detailed information about the ages of teachers in education authority primary and secondary schools, including average age, from 1974–79 is contained in Scottish Education Department statistical bulletin no. 9/B3/1981, a copy of which has already been sent to the hon. Member. Comparable information for 1970 is not available centrally.

  Myoelectric Hand
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the availability of the myoelectric hand for children in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  The report on the trial of the Swedish myoelectric hand for young children was published recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. Part of the evaluation of the trial was carried out at Princess Margaret Rose orthopaedic hospital in Edinburgh; and in line with the recommendations of the report, it has been decided that the children in Scotland supplied with hands during the trial should

  55
  continue to be fitted with this type of prosthesis—being supplied with larger-sized devices as they grow older. Following the same assessment as was carried out during the trial, other young children who seem likely to benefit from this form of prosthesis will also be considered for supply.

  Housing
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage and number of houses currently inhabited in Scotland were built prior to (a) 1918 and (b)

  Mr. Rifkind:
  Information on the percentage and number of inhabited houses in Scotland is not available in the form requested. Estimates of the age distribution of the total stock of dwellings in Scotland, as at December 1980, have been published on page 17 of the Scottish housing statistics, number 12.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on the basis of his allocation to district councils for housing capital spending in the current year and the average cost of building a new house in the public sector in Scotland, what is his estimate of the number of public sector new houses that can be built.

  Mr. Rifkind:
  It is entirely for local authorities to determine the proportions of their capital expenditure which they wish to devote to new building and to modernisation and rehabilitation. In view of this, and of the decreasing priority which local authorities themselves have chosen to give to new building within capital spending on housing since the mid-1970s, it would be inappropriate to equate capital allocations directly with new building activity.

  Area Health Boards (Finances)
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the allocation in both revenue and capital terms to each area health board in the latest year; and what was the expenditure in both cases.

  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  The latest year for which both allocation and expenditure figures are available is 1980–81. These are as follows—

  Health Board

  1980–81 £ million Allocation

  1980–81 £ million Outturn Expenditure (Provisional)

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenues

  Capital

  Argyll and Clyde

  67.898

  1.861

  68.044

  1.302

  Ayrshire and Arran

  43.121

  1.455

  43.393

  1.301

  Borders

  13.154

  0.452

  13505

  0.295

  Dumfries and Galloway

  24.888

  0.741

  24.595

  0.828

  Fife

  43.159

  1.312

  43.115

  1.011

  Forth Valley

  44.269

  1.331

  43.625

  1.293

  Rents percentage

  Rate Fund contribution percentage

  Government Subsidies percentage

  Other income percentage

  Dundee

  52

  25

  21

  2

  Scotland

  56

  18

  23

  3

  Source Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Rating Review.
  56

  Health Board

  1980–81 £ million Allocation

  1980–81 £ million Outturn Expenditure (Provisional)

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenues

  Capital

  Grampian

  82.911

  2.385

  83.406

  1.592

  Greater Glasgow

  262.057

  5.713

  263.113

  3.759

  Highland

  35.835

  0.937

  35.753

  1.082

  Lanarkshire

  77.473

  2.160

  77.693

  1.988

  Lothian

  154.910

  3.952

  157.615

  2.253

  Orkney

  2.336

  0.078

  2.356

  0.035

  Shetland

  2.987

  0.087

  2.993

  0.058

  Tayside

  96.854

  2.280

  95.971

  2.219

  Western Isles

  4386

  0.187

  4.398

  0.257

  Totals

  956.238

  24.931

  959.575

  19.273

  Total (Revenue and Capital)

  981,169

  978,848

  Boards receive a single allocation of funds to meet their revenue and capital expenditure commitments (apart from major capital projects which are funded centrally) and are free to move resources between the two programmes.

  Allocations to health boards are to meet the cost of providing hospital and community health services.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the level of the air pollutants smoke and sulphur dioxide in Dundee; and how these compare with (a) Glasgow and (b) Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind:
  The following table, based on measurements at 5 sampling stations in Dundee, 24 in Glasgow and 101 in Scotland, gives estimates of the winter monthly average concentrations of smoke and sulphur dioxide in Dundee, Glasgow and Scotland for the winter period October 1979-March 1980, the latest dates for which data is available.

  Winter Monthly Average 1979–80

  Area

  Smoke(micrograms per cubic metre)

  Sulphur dioxide (micrograms
  percubic metre)

  Dundee

  9

  45

  Glasgow

  50

  80

  Scotland

  35

  53

  Housing Revenue Account
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the latest figures for (a) Dundee and (b) Scotland, showing the breakdown of the housing revenue account in percentage terms as follows, into (i) rents, (ii) rate fund contribution and (iii) Government subsidies.

  Mr. Rifkind:
  Estimated information for 1981–82 is as follows:
  57

  Jay and Peters Reports
  Mr. Gordon Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his response to the Jay report and the Peters report on mental deficiency, with particular reference to the Tayside area; and if he will allocate more funds to ensure that the recommendations of the reports are implemented.

  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  On the Government's response to the Jay report and the Peters report I refer the hon. Member to my predecessor's reply to his question on 25 February 1981—[Vol. 999, c. 378.] It is for Tayside health board, in consultation with the regional council, to decide, within the resources allocated to them, on the priority to be given to services for mentally handicapped persons living in the area.

  Howie Report
  Mr. Gordon Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his response, with particular reference to the Tayside area, to the Howie report on safety in laboratories; and if he will provide increased funds to ensure that the recommendations in the report are implemented.

  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  The Howie code of practice was issued to health boards in June 1979 with a request that its recommendations should be implemented over a three year period, the costs being met from the board's general allocations. Many of the recommendations can be implemented as part of the general programme of health boards for improving and replacing laboratory facilities. It is not the practice to make additional allocations of funds for particular purposes and I see no need for doing so in this case.

  Psychogeriatric Care (Staffing)
  Mr. Gordon Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline the working of the Aberdeen formula of patient dependency used to define staffing levels in hospitals; and whether, using this formula, there is a shortage of trained nursing staff for psychogeriatric care in the Dundee district of the Tayside health board.

  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  The Aberdeen formula is a system for calculating the nurse staffing establishments required in hospitals. It is based on the dependency levels of patients but takes into account other factors related to patient care in different specialities. The details of the method of using the system are rather complex, and I shall write to the hon. Member giving a fuller outline. It is recognised that the formula is of limited practical value in its application to psychogeriatric wards. The Department does not collect information on the use of the formula in individual health boards.

  Young Chronic Sick (Tayside)
  Mr. Gordon Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans for the improvement of facilities for the hospital care of the young chronic sick in the Tayside region, including rehabilitation and resettlement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  The responsibility for preparing any such plans rests with Tayside health board.
  58

  Tayside Health Board (Revenue Allocation)
  Mr. Gordon Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the effect on the financial resources available to Tayside health board following the decision to accept the Scottish health authorities revenue equalisation formula as the basis for revenue allocation.

  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  The allocation of funds made to Tayside health board for revenue expenditure purposes in 1981–82 is £104.5 million. Since the Scottish health authorities revenue equalisation formula was adopted in 1978 the revenue allocations to the board have increased by 0.5 per cent. in real terms.

  Living Standards
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the change in real terms in the standard of living of a married man with a family of two children earning average wages in Scotland since May 1979.

  Mr. Alexander Fletcher:
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Visually Handicapped and Disabled (Employment)
  Mr. Craigen
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to representations from the National League of the Blind and Disabled, Scottish committee, to improve careers office assistance towards the employment of visually handicapped and disabled persons.

  Mr. Alexander Fletcher:
  Mr. Thomas Watson, Scottish area secretary of the National League of the Blind and Disabled, wrote to my right hon. Friend on 12 August to suggest that careers officers and disablement resettlement officers might co-operate in setting up special day centers to provide further education and training for young disabled people who are unable to find a job.

  I consulted the Manpower Services Commission, which is responsible for the disablement resettlement service, about this suggestion and, after careful consideration, the following reply was sent by my private secretary to Mr. Watson on 25 September:
  "The Government are of course very much aware of the problems which disabled young people encounter when they are seeking employment, but believe that the needs and aspirations of such young people can best be met through the Youth Opportunities Programme (YOP) rather than by the establishment of special centers. YOP provides a range of work experience and training courses—many of which are similar to the activities which you suggest—suited to the abilities of all young people, including those who are disabled but fit for employment. Careers Officers and Disablement Resettlement Officers work closely with the Manpower Services Commission's Special Programmes Division to ensure that suitable opportunities are provided for disabled young people. A number of YOP schemes have been designed to cater for their particular needs but many more disabled young people are taking part in ordinary schemes. In recognition of their special needs, however, they are exempt from the 6–week "waiting period"which applies to other young people, and they may if necessary stay on the Programme for longer than the usual 12 months. The Government have given a commitment to find a suitable place on the Programme for all unemployed school leavers by Christmas and, to ensure that this commitment is met not only for this year but also for next, they have recently announced that additional resources will be made available.
  The Day centers to which you refer provide facilities for the more severely handicapped who are unable to work even under

  59
  sheltered conditions. The provision of Day center places is the responsibility of individual local authorities; the number of places in local authority Day centers for the physically handicapped has been increasing steadily in recent years."

  Departmental Expenditure
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of his Department's expenditure for 1981–82 in support of employment and in support of public sector industry and private sector industry, respectively.

  Mr. Younger:
  The details of the latest estimate of my Department's expenditure for 1981–82 in support of employment and in support of public sector industry and private sector industry are contained in the Supply Estimates 1981–82, Class XV, Scotland (HC 190–XV) published on 10 March 1981. The relevant Votes and subheads are Class XV,1: Class XV,2: Class XV,3 (excluding expenditure by the Scottish Development Agency on environmental and derelict land clearance schemes): Class XV,4: Class XV,5: and A1, A2, E1, F1, F2, G1, H1,I1, J1 and L1 in Class XV,6. The amounts involved are £98 million, £13 million and £254 million, respectively.

  In addition, other Departments have expenditure in Scotland in support of employment.

  Operations (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Gordon Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are now the waiting times for cardiac operations for patients (a) within Tayside, (b) within the Lothians and (c) within Scotland as a whole.

  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  Patients from Tayside requiring cardiac surgery are operated on in Edinburgh. The average waiting time for cardiac surgery in Lothian is at present 17 weeks, and for Scotland as a whole 15 weeks.

  Mr. Gordon Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will implement measures to ensure a reduction in the length of waiting-time for urological operations in the Tayside region.

  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  No. It is for health boards, in the light of local requirements, to determine the relative priorities of the various services for which they are responsible, and to ensure that resources allocated to particular services are used effectively.

  Health Visitors
  Mr. Gordon Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's recommendation for the frequency with which old persons of 80 years of age and over should be visited by health visitors.

  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  My Department has made no recommendation on this subject, which is entirely a matter for local discretion.

  Down's Syndrome
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of those in Scotland with Down's syndrome; and if he will express the figure per 100,000 of population.

  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  No firm figures are available; but data from a recent general practice survey combined with
  60
  hospital statistics suggest that there are about 2,100 persons with Down's syndrome in Scotland, giving a rate of about 41 per 100,000.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the incidence of epilesy in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  As epilepsy is not a notifiable disorder no information is held centrally about the number of persons in Scotland suffering from it and it is not possible to make a reliable estimate.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what funds his Department is giving to sponsor research work into the causes and treatment of epilepsy; and if he intends to increase them.

  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  No research into epilepsy is currently being supported by my Department or by the Scottish Hospitals Endowment Research Trust. However, funds for research in this field are available from the Department for applications of adequate scientific merit.

  Departmental Posts
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many (a) permanent secretary, (b) second permanent secretary, (c) deputy secretary, (d) under secretary posts within each Scottish Office Department are held by those educated at independent, grant-aided or direct-grant schools.

  Mr. Younger:
  The following table gives the numbers by grade and Department within the Scottish Office who were educated at independent grant-aided or direct-grant schools. There are no second permanent secretary posts in the Scottish Office.

  Permanent Secretary

  Deputy Secretary

  Under Secretary

  Department of Agriculture and
  Fisheries for Scotland

  N.A.

  ‐

  1

  Scottish Development Department

  N.A.

  ‐

  3

  Scottish Education Department

  N.A.

  1

  3

  Scottish Economic Planning
  Department

  N.A.

  1

  1

  Scottish Home and Health Department

  N.A.

  ‐

  2

  Central Services

  ‐

  1

  5

  Total for Scottish Office

  ‐

  3

  15

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Mortality
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the mortality rate by age and sex in England and Wales in 1980 for each of the following categories of disease: (a) infectious diseases, (b) digestive

  61
  diseases, (c) genito-urinary diseases, (d) circulatory diseases, (e) respiratory diseases, (f) accidents and violence, (g) neoplasms, (h) maternal causes and (i) other diseases.

  Death rates per million population by cause, sex and age England and Wales 1980

  Age

  Cause

  Sex

  0舑4

  5舑9

  10舑14

  15舑19

  20舑24

  25舑29

  30舑34

  35舑39

  40舑44

  Infectious diseases

  M

  67.1

  7.95

  5.49

  13.2

  8.69

  8.24

  15.3

  18.3

  22.3

  (ICD 001舑139)

  F

  69.4

  6.61

  8.42

  7.63

  8.50

  6.08

  3.29

  11.3

  14.3

  Digestive diseases

  M

  58.5

  9.65

  3.99

  6.33

  14.1

  14.1

  28.9

  64.8

  100.9

  (ICD 520舑579)

  F

  42.3

  3.61

  2. 10

  7.12

  8.50

  14.6

  28.0

  42.0

  63.0

  Genito-urinary diseases

  M

  11.8

  3.41

  2.00

  1.95

  3.26

  5.30

  5.46

  9.82

  23.7

  (ICD 580舑629)

  F

  10.4

  1.20

  1.05

  763

  3.97

  8.51

  11.0

  12.7

  13.6

  Circulatory diseases

  M

  38.1

  7.95

  15.5

  34.6

  47.3

  85.3

  171.5

  432.2

  1,045.5

  (ICD 390舑459)

  F

  37.5

  7.82

  10.5

  20.9

  38.5

  60.8

  80.1

  164.1

  342.2

  Respiratory diseases

  M

  3571

  23.3

  25.5

  36.0

  31.0

  40.6

  45.3

  62.9

  105.0

  (ICD 460舑519)

  F

  299.2

  17.4

  18.4

  19.3

  28.3

  28.0

  32.4

  52.0

  78.7

  Accidents and Violence

  M

  194.6

  105.6

  110.8

  597.7

  576.9

  487.9

  4281

  424.3

  464.7

  (ICD 800舑999)

  F

  138.1

  52.3

  54.7

  158.3

  171.1

  149.5

  132.2

  166.8

  195.4

  Neoplasms

  M

  59.8

  70.4

  44.4

  68.2

  103.2

  117.1

  182.9

  305.1

  555.8

  (ICD 140舑239)

  F

  64.6

  50.5

  44.2

  52.4

  71.4

  109.4

  243.0

  466.9

  802.4

  Maternal causes (ICD 630舑676)

  F

  舒

  舒

  舒

  2.04

  6.80

  10.3

  9.87

  8.67

  4.29

  Other diseases*

  M

  2,5922

  65.3

  64.9

  92.1

  91.8

  86.5

  87.4

  121.1

  125.9

  F

  2,077.8

  70.3

  56.8

  64.1

  57.2

  70.5

  68.0

  79.4

  108.1

  Age

  Cause

  Sex

  45舑49

  50舑54

  55舑59

  60舑64

  65舑69

  70舑74

  75舑79

  80舑84

  85+

  All Ages

  Infectious diseases

  M

  33.4

  58.8

  75.1

  98.7

  136.8

  174.7

  264.0

  320.3

  622.4

  51.2

  (ICD 001舑139)

  F

  31.7

  30.2

  42.2

  60.5

  66.7

  75.9

  1568

  179.6

  343.0

  40.0

  Digestive diseases

  M

  160.5

  218.1

  400.8

  570.8

  896.7

  1,351舑9

  2,279.2

  3,445.6

  5,397.2

  2992

  (ICD 520舑579)

  F

  123.0

  164.1

  245.8

  408.2

  588.6

  933.4

  1,750.2

  2,906.3

  5.257.3

  354.9

  Genito-urinary diseases

  M

  29.8

  48.8

  92.3

  178.6

  330.1

  669.1

  1,511.4

  2,718.7

  6,060.6

  155.7

  (ICD 580舑629)

  F

  38.3

  54.0

  94.7

  131.5

  219.6

  411.6

  794.6

  1,363.3

  2,832.6

  158.4

  Circulatory diseases

  M

  2,219.3

  4,382.7

  7,494.1

  11,886.7

  19,034.4

  30,776.4

  48,354.7

  71,794.7

  115,986.9

  5,965.4

  (ICD 390舑459)

  F

  679.7

  1,331.1

  2,534.1

  4,821.2

  8,823.5

  16,508.8

  30,046.9

  52,730.1

  108,261.4

  5,8321

  Respiratory diseases

  M

  215.7

  465.6

  997.1

  2,062.8

  4,039.7

  8,394.6

  16,928.8

  31,429.2

  62,751.8

  1,765.0

  (ICD 460舑519)

  F

  153.2

  307.2

  531.2

  932.8

  1,671.6

  3,274.8

  6,886.7

  14,806.7

  41,754.2

  1,626.0

  Accidents and Violence

  M

  448.1

  492.9

  560.5

  619.3

  610.8

  813.0

  1,188.0

  2,000.0

  3,759.2

  490.2

  (ICD 802舑999)

  F

  242.3

  274.9

  315.9

  333.4

  456.7

  669.7

  1,064.4

  1,715.7

  1,810.8

  338.1

  Neoplasms

  M

  1,150.3

  2,366.7

  4,322.4

  7,210.8

  11,048.5

  15,921.4

  21,243.7

  25,351.1

  27,813.3

  2,898.8

  (ICD 140舑239)

  F

  1,441舑8

  2,411.8

  3,626.9

  4,805.4

  6,216.7

  7,785.2

  9,928.5

  12,254.5

  16,049.9

  2,416.4

  Maternal causes(ICD 630舑676)

  F

  舑

  舑

  舑

  舑

  舑

  舑

  舑

  舑

  舑

  2.77

  Other diseases*

  M

  196.8

  259.7

  388.4

  545.3

  877.3

  1,6111

  2,786.8

  4,369.6

  8,255.5

  543.3

  F

  156.1

  241.3

  368.4

  521.6

  856.8

  1,385.1

  2,665.3

  4,293.5

  10,007.8

  693.1

  *Other diseases includes: Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases (ICD 240–279)Diseases of blood and blood-forming organs (ICD 280–289)Mental disorders (ICD 290–319)Diseases of the nervous system and sense organs (ICD 320–389)Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue (ICD 680–709)Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue (ICD 710–739)62
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg:
  The information requested is as follows:
  63 Congenital anomalies (ICD 740–759)Certain causes of perinatal morbidity and mortality (ICD 760–779)Symptoms and ill-defined conditions (ICD 780–799)

  Lobar Pneumonia
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the death rate per million in England and Wales from lobar pneumonia in 1980.

  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg:
  The death rate per million population from lobar pneumonia in England and Wales in 1980 was 49.3.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the death rates from tuberculosis in England and Wales in 1980, and so far in 1981, for age groups (a) nil to 14 years, (b) 15 to 29 years, (c) 30 to 44 years, (d) 45 to 59 years and (e) over 60 years.

  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg:
  The information requested is as follows:

  Death rates per million population for tuberculosis (ICD 010–018), including late effects (ICD 137), England and Wales, 1980.

  Age

  All

  0–14

  15–29

  30–44

  45–59

  60+

  All ages

  0.39

  1.28

  4.41

  25.7

  62.8

  18.3

  Data for 1981 are not yet available.

  Employment Transfer Scheme
  Mr. Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the income gained by claimants from the employment transfer scheme to pay for lodgings is treated by his Department as income for computing family income supplement eligibility; and if so, whether he will consider changing the regulations.

  Mrs. Chalker:
  I understand that the supplement officer, the independent adjudicating authority responsible for awards of family income supplement—FIS—in the first instance, would not take account of either (a) the temporary separation allowance which helped with the cost of lodgings under the employment transfer scheme prior to April 1981; or (b) the transfer grant which has subsumed it under the current scheme in considering the gross income of a family claiming FIS.

  Patients' Medical Records
  Mr. Greville Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what provision is made for the disposal of the confidential records of National Health Service patients when such records are no longer required;

  (2) whether additional steps have been taken to ensure the protection of patients' records following the discovery of records on a local authority waste tip in Leicestershire.

  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg:
  The destruction of confidential records no longer required must be in a manner which safeguards their confidentiality and is the responsibility of the individual health authorities and general practitioners who hold them. Following recent discoveries on public land of patients' records intended for destruction, the Department has written to all health authorities asking them to review urgently their procedures for the
  64
  destruction of all confidential material, and reminding them of the need to use methods which ensure that confidentiality is fully maintained. The Department has also drawn the matter to the attention of representatives of the medical profession.

  Blind Persons (Postal Concessions)
  Miss Joan Lestor
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether his Department has recently given publicity to the postal concessions available to blind persons; and in what form.

  Mr. Rossi:
  Information about the postal concessions available to blind people is included in the Department's booklet "Help for Handicapped People", a revised edition of which was issued in January 1981 for the International Year of Disabled People.

  Brent District Health Authority
  Mr. Pavitt
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the qualifications and experience in health service matters of the chairman designate of the Brent district health authority.

  Dr. Vaughan:
  Whilst it is useful for chairmen of district health authorities to have had previous health service experience, they are appointed primarily for their personal qualities. I have full confidence in the chairman designate of the Brent health authority.

  Departmental Office, Guildford
  Mr. Onslow
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take action to improve the efficiency of his Department's Guildford office.

  Mr. Rossi:
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 12 October describing the background to the situation at this office and the changes made and in prospect. The position will be closely monitored, and I shall expect to see a considerable improvement in the service offered to claimants.

  Chiropody School, Southampton
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be able to give his permission for the establishment of a school of chiropody at Southampton to serve the Wessex health region.

  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg:
  Decisions on whether or not to approve schools of chiropody are a matter for the Privy Council acting on recommendations from the Chiropodists Board and the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine. Provided the requirements of these bodies are met, we welcome Wessex regional health authority's proposal, in collaboration with La Sainte Union College, to establish a Wessex school of chiropody in Southampton.

  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Mr. Golding
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to include young people engaged on the youth opportunities programme within the scope of the 1973 industrial injuries legislation.
  65
  Mr. Rossi:
  Young persons participating in the youth opportunities programme are not entitled to industrial injuries benefit under the Social Security Act 1975 because they are not employed earners. But the Employment and Training Act enables the Manpower Services Commission to make analogous payments to trainees who sustain accidents or contract diseases in circumstances which would have attracted benefit under the industrial injuries scheme had they been employed earners.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide comparisons of the weekly rates of retirement pensions in the United Kingdom and those of other European Economic Community countries (a) in money terms and (b) in percentage terms, taking the United Kingdom rate as 100.

  Mr. Rossi:
  In most member States of the European Community retirement pensions are calculated wholly or in part as a proportion of past earnings over widely differing reference periods—for example, whole working life, last 10 years. Consequently there is not normally a national rate of retirement pension on which to base comparisons of the kind requested by the hon. Member.

  Information on the provision of retirement pensions is contained in the Department's publication "Social Benefit Tables for Member States of the European Community: Position at 1 January 1980", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services by what percentage State retirement pensions have increased since May 1978.

  Mr. Rossi:
  The basic rate of the State retirement pension increased by 55 per cent. between May 1978 and October 1981. The increase due in November this year will bring this up to 69 per cent.

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the number of married women who reached the age of 60 years before 6 April 1979 whose husbands have not reached the age of 65 years and retired, and who were not entitled to a reduced rate retirement pension on their own contributions before marriage because of the "half-test" rule; what would be the cost of waiving the "half-test"rule in these circumstances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rossi:
  On the information which is available, it is estimated that some 150,000 women may be in the situation described. The cost of waiving the "half-test"for these women is estimated to be about £90 million a year. My right hon. Friend has no plans to change existing provisions.

  Dr. Edmund Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women, who have remarried after reaching the age of 60 years, continue to receive retirement pensions as if they were single persons on the strength of their first husband's insurance contributions.

  Mr. Rossi:
  I regret that the information is not available. In any event, a widow who reaches the age of 60 becomes entitled to a personal retirement pension based upon her own or her late husband's contributions, or a mixture of the two, dependent upon which produces the best rate. This retirement pension is not affected by subsequent remarriage.
  66

  Perinatal Mortality (St. Helens and Knowsley)
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Ormskirk, 10 July, Official Report, c. 244, he will specify the active steps the regional and area health authorities have taken to identify changes in services likely to lead to reduction in perinatal mortality in St. Helens and Knowsley; and if he will detail the appropriate improvements that have been made in the service.

  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg:
  I regret that the information given in the earlier reply to the hon. Member contained some confusion of terminology between infant and perinatal mortality. The accurate information on both rates is as follows:

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  *1980

  Perinatal Mortality

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  20.5

  22.0

  15.8

  20.4

  13.3

  England

  17.6

  16.9

  15.4

  14.6

  13.3

  Infant Mortality

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  13.7

  20.1

  12.4

  15.7

  12.9

  England

  142

  13.7

  13.1

  12.8

  12.0

  * Provisional.
  To improve the situation, St. Helens and Knowsley AHA have intensified their campaign to encourage expectant women to make full use of antenatal services and to stop smoking during pregnancy; additional highly specialised equipment has been purchased for the special care baby unit at Whiston hospital; a further consultant paediatrician post has been established and they have increased the numbers of junior medical staff. Mersey regional health authority has also allocated extra funds totalling £78,000 to schemes which, although not located within the St. Helens and Knowsley area, will benefit St. Helens and Knowsley residents. It has increased the numbers of nursing staff at the Fazakerley maternity unit, which many Knowsley residents attend, and established a central unit at the Liverpool maternity hospital, serving the whole region, to provide longer-term specialised intensive care to babies than is available in more local units.

  Benefits
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of his Department's expenditure for 1981–82 on unemployment benefit and on supplementary benefit in support of those unemployed and their families; and on what average level of unemployment it is based.

  Mrs. Chalker:
  The latest estimates for 1981–82 are

  £million

  Unemployment benefit

  2,004

  Supplementary benefit to the unemployed

  2,000

  based on an average unemployment level of 2,840,000 used in the report by the Government Actuary on the Benefit Uprating Order 1981—Cmnd. 8296.
  67

  National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
  Dr. Edmund Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what reply he has given to the request from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children for more financial aid from public funds.

  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg:
  The Department is considering proposals submitted by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and we shall inform the society of our decision as soon as it is possible to do so.

  Self-employed Persons
  Mr. Gordon Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to improve the arrangement by which self-employed persons who become unemployed can claim supplementary benefit.

  Mrs. Chalker:
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 23 June 1981—Official Report, Vol. 7, c.70–71 . The rules for self-employed people who have become unemployed who whish to claim supplementary benefit are analogous to those for unemployed people who formerly worked for an employer, but, before paying benfit, the benefit officer may need to see accounting evidence of the state of the business. If this causes delay, an urgent cases payment may be appropriate. These are matters for the independent adjudicating authorities, but, if the hon. Member has any suggestions for changes in the regulations, I shall be glad to consider them.

  Mr. R. Woodward
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when Mr. R. Woodward of 104 Harrowby Road, Grantham, can expect to receive the pension that was due to him on 11 July 1981.

  Mr. Rossi:
  I am advised that no claim for retirement pension can be traced for a Mr. R. Woodward of that address who would have been due to receive a pension from 11 July 1981. If my hon. Friend will care to write to me giving his constituent's full name, date of birth and, if possible, national insurance number, then I will look into the matter further.

  Down's Syndrome
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the number of those in England with Down's syndrome; and if he will express the figure per 100,000 of population.

  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg:
  This information is not available centrally.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the incidence of epilepsy in England.

  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg:
  Epilepsy is not a notifiable condition and the Department has no record of either the incidence of new cases or the prevalence of epilepsy throughout the population in this country. There have been various estimates of prevalence, all suggesting a rate of between four and six per thousand population. The report
  68
  "People with Epilepsy", which was published by the Department in 1969, estimated that some 190,000 adults and 100,000 children aged 16 and under in England and Wales suffered from epilepsy.

  Nurses
  Mr. Frank Allaun
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the average percentage cut in real wages for nurses if their pay rise is limited to 4 per cent. as proposed, in the light of the most recent estimate of cost of living rises for the current and the coming year.

  Dr. Vaughan:
  In announcing the pay factor of 4 per cent. for the public sector the Government accepted that this would not fully compensate for price increases during the year. The extent of the shortfall for any particular group, such as nurses, will depend on the detail of their settlement and the precise period over which one calculates changes in the cost of living.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table similar to Table 10 of the Supplementary Benefits Commission's annual report for 1975, but for the years 1948, 1956, 1964, 1972 and 1980, showing supplementary benefit levels, including the appropriate rent addition, as percentages of net incomes at two-thirds average male manual earnings, with net incomes defined as gross earnings plus family allowance or child benefit, family income supplement and housing rebates, less income tax, national insurance contribution and the same rent and rates as those paid by the supplementary benefit recipients.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [pursuant to her reply, 7 July 1981, c. 105–6 ]: The corrected information is as follows:

  Date

  (1) Supplementary Benefit level (£)

  (2) Net income from ⅔
  average earning*

  (3) Col. 1 as a percentage of Col. (2)

  Single Householder

  October 1972

  9.28

  18.54

  50 †(53)

  November 1980

  30.86

  56.03

  55 (66)

  Married Couple

  October 1972

  13.97

  19.58

  71 (74)

  November 1980

  45.22

  63.45

  71 (85)

  Married Couple with 2 Children under 5

  October 1972

  17.86

  23.49

  76 (79)

  November 1980

  63.52

  76.56

  83 (95)

  Married Couple with 4 Children (2 under 5, 2 aged 5–10)

  October 1972

  22.36

  27.87

  80 (82)

  November 1980

  84.38

  89.87

  94 (104)

  Notes*Based on estimates of gross earnings determined as follows: October 1972—by interpolation of the Department of Employment's October enquiry (older series) seasonally adjusted.November 1980—by extrapolation of Department of Employment's October enquiry using the average earnings index (new series) of production industries, seasonally adjusted.†Figures in brackets show the effect of applying the long-term rate.

  Social Security Statistics
  Miss Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will update Tables 1.40 and 1.42 of the social security statistics for 1980.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [pursuant to her reply, 23 July 1981, c.219–20 ]: The additional information is as follows:
  69

  Table 1.40

  May

  November

  Average number of children for
  males with child dependents

  2.0

  2.0

  With supplementary allowance

  2.3

  2.2

  Without supplementary allowance

  1.9

  1.9

  Miss Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will update Tables 34.95 and 34.99 of the social security statistics for 1980.

  Mr. Rossi
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 July 1981, c.333–36 ]: The corrected information is as follows:

  The proportion of sickness and invalidity beneficiaries receiving supplementary benefit on a given day in 1980 is 4.8 per cent., not 5.5 per cent. as stated in my reply.

  Regional Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Mr. Mike Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) Official Report, 24 May 1979, what were the amounts of revenue spending at constant November 1978 prices for each regional health authority area in England for 1978-79 and 1979-80; and what are the estimates for 1980-81.

  Dr. Vaughan
  [pursuant to his reply, 31 July 1981, c. 674]: The following is the information:

  Revenue Expenditure at constant
  price levels on: Hospital Community and Family Practitioner Services

  £million at
  November 1978 prices

  Region

  1978舑79

  1979舑80

  1980舑81(estimated)

  1. Northern

  375

  379

  382

  2. Yorkshire

  424

  427

  430

  3. Trent

  502

  506

  509

  4. East Anglia

  212

  214

  213

  Unit

  Beds available

  Average nightly oddupancy

  Residents leaving for local
  authority tenancies

  Residents leaving for housing
  association accommodation

  Residents leaving for local
  authority part III accommodation

  Camberwell, London, SE15

  550

  425

  5

  2

  舒

  Camden, London, WCI

  35

  30

  5

  13

  2

  Cedars Lodge, London, SW4

  100

  68

  13

  舒

  舒

  Bridge House, London, W10

  120

  92

  18

  舒

  2

  Pound Lodge, London, NWIO

  80

  76

  2

  舒

  2

  Lancelot Andrewes House, London, SE1

  60

  49

  5

  1

  舒

  West End House, London, W1

  80

  60

  舒

  舒

  舒

  Spur House, London, SE13

  150

  132

  78

  4

  舒

  Alvaston, Derby

  104

  54

  舒

  舒

  舒

  Brighton, Sussex

  38

  20

  舒

  舒

  舒

  Sittingbourne, Kent

  76

  64

  舒

  7

  舒

  Fazakerley, Liverpool

  61

  48

  48

  1

  舒

  Bishopbriggs, Glasgow

  81

  63

  18

  舒

  2

  Leeds

  96

  53

  1

  舒

  1

  Glen Parva, Leicester

  100

  75

  5

  5

  6

  Newbury, Berks

  80

  73

  2

  舒

  舒

  Plawsworth, Co. Durham

  112

  77

  7

  2

  2

  Southampton

  80

  77

  舒

  2

  舒

  Stormy Down, Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan

  64

  54

  1

  舒

  舒

  Walkden, Manchester

  84

  81

  2

  舒

  舒

  Lye, Stourbridge

  123

  85

  9

  2

  舒

  Winterboume, Bristol

  112

  70

  1

  舒

  2

  Woodhouse, Sheffield

  96

  72

  舒

  舒

  舒

  Unit

  Beds available

  Average nightly oddupancy

  Residents leaving for local
  authority tenancies

  Residents leaving for housing
  association accommodation

  Residents leaving for local
  authority part III accommodation

  Camberwell, London, SE15

  550

  425

  5

  2

  舒

  Camden, London, WC1

  35

  30

  5

  13

  2

  Cedars Lodge, London, SW4

  100

  68

  13

  舒

  舒

  Bridge House, London, W10

  120

  92

  18

  舒

  2

  Pound Lodge, London, NW10

  80

  76

  2

  舒

  2

  Lancelot Andrewes House, London, SE1

  60

  49

  5

  1

  舒

  West End House, London, W1

  80

  60

  舒

  舒

  舒

  Spur House, London, SE13

  150

  132

  78

  4

  舒

  Alvaston, Derby

  104

  54

  舒

  舒

  舒

  Brighton, Sussex

  38

  20

  舒

  舒

  舒

  Sittingbourne, Kent

  76

  64

  舒

  7

  舒

  Fazakerley, Liverpool

  61

  48

  48

  1

  舒

  Bishopbriggs, Glasgow

  81

  63

  18

  舒

  2

  Leeds

  96

  53

  1

  舒

  1

  Glen Parva, Leicester

  100

  75

  5

  5

  6

  Newbury, Berks

  80

  73

  2

  舒

  舒

  Plawsworth, Co. Durham

  112

  77

  7

  2

  2

  Southampton

  80

  77

  舒

  2

  舒

  Stormy Down, Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan

  64

  54

  1

  舒

  舒

  Walkden, Manchester

  84

  81

  2

  舒

  舒

  Lye, Stourbridge

  123

  85

  9

  2

  舒

  Winterboume, Bristol

  112

  70

  1

  舒

  2

  Woodhouse, Sheffield

  96

  72

  舒

  舒

  舒

  70

  £million at
  November 1978 prices

  Region

  1978舑79

  1979舑80

  1980舑81(estimated)

  5. North舑West Thames

  504

  492

  496

  6. North舑East Thames

  510

  508

  511

  7. South舑East Thames

  508

  503

  498

  8. South舑West Thames

  394

  391

  393

  9. Wessex

  308

  310

  310

  10. Oxford

  252

  253

  250

  11. South舑Western

  377

  381

  382

  12. West舑Midlands

  586

  595

  594

  13. Mersey

  314

  314

  315

  14. North舑Western

  511

  512

  517

  TOTAL

  5,777

  5,785

  5,800

  Resettlement Units
  Mr. Stallard
  asked the Secreatary of State for Social Services (1) how many beds were provided in each of the 23 resettlement units in England, Scotland and Wales by his Department during the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and what was the average rate of occupancy for each unit during the same period;

  (2) how many individuals were provided with accommodation on leaving resettlement units provided directly or indirectly by his Department for persons without a settled way of living, for each of the 23 resettlement units, under the following categories of accommodation (a) local authority tenancies, (b) housing association tenancies and (c) local authority part III accommodation, during the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [pursuant to her replies, 31 July 1981, c.679–80 ]: The information for the 12 months July 1980 to June 1981 inclusive is as follows:
  71

  DEFENCE
  Cardiff and Bristol Airports
  Mr. Abse
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions, if any, are placed on the operations of any military airfield or range as a result of civil aviation operations at (a) Cardiff airport and (b) Bristol airport.

  Mr. Wiggin:
  No significant restrictions have been placed on any military airfields or ranges as a result of the current civil aviation activity at Cardiff and Bristol airports.

  Foreign Nationals
  Mr. Chris Patten
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many foreign nationals were employed in total by his Department abroad on 1 July in each of the years 1975 to 1981.

  Mr. Pattie:
  Records are not maintained in the form requested, but my best assessment of the number of foreign nationals employed at 1 July for the years in question is as follows:

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  42,700

  37,100

  34,800

  32,700

  30,600

  28,800

  28,000

  Mr. Chris Patten
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many foreign nationals were employed in the dockyards in Gibraltar on 1 July in each of the years 1975 to 1981.

  Mr. Blaker:
  The number for foreign nationals managed by the general manager, Gibraltar dockyard on 1 July in each of the years in question is:

  Number

  1 July 1975

  341

  1 July 1976

  332

  1 July 1977

  304

  1 July 1978

  295

  1 July 1979

  292

  1 July 1980

  295

  1 July 1981

  294

  There are in addition a number of foreign nationals employed by the
  principal supply and transport officer (Navy) in the Navy base. The
  total PSTO(N) figures are as follows:

  Number

  1 July 1975

  85

  1 July 1976

  85

  1 July 1977

  105

  1 July 1978

  103

  1 July 1979

  101

  1 July 1980

  97

  1 July 1981

  98

  Some of these employees are employed on duties in support of dockyard activities. Employment of foreign nationals in the remainder of the Naval base is very small—under 30.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many German civilians were employed by the British Army of the Rhine on 1 July in each of the years 1975 to 1981.
  72
  Mr. Blaker:
  The numbers of German civilians employed by the British Army of the Rhine on 1 July in each of the years 1975–1981 are set out in the following table:

  Strength at 1st July in

  Number

  1975

  22,365

  1976

  21,854

  1977

  21,510

  1978

  20,416

  1979

  20,014

  1980

  18,590

  1981

  18,058

  Manpower (Bath)
  Mr. Chris Patten
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many civil servants were employed in each grade in each of his Department's establishments in the Bath constituency on 1 July 1975, 1 July 1979 and 1 July 1981;

  (2) how many civil servants were employed in each of his Department's establishments in the Bath constituency on 1 July in each of the years 1975 to 1981.

  Mr. Pattie:
  Since the information sought in these related questions is very detailed and not in every case available, I have written to the hon. Member and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Trident Missile
  Mr. Hooley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence

  (1) what will be the hull diameter of the new British submarine designed to carry the Trident missile;

  (2) when a decision will be made as to whether to purchase the C–4, extended C–4 or D–5 Trident missile;

  (3) when a decision will be made about the number of Trident missiles which the new British nuclear submarine will carry;

  (4) whether the new nuclear steam raising plant (PWR2) designed by Rolls-Royce will be used in the new nuclear submarines to carry the Trident missile; and if so, what will be the extra cost over the existing plant used in the Trafalgar class submarine;

  (5) what is his latest estimate of the additional cost of refurbishing the Cammell Laird shipyard for building nuclear submarines;

  (6) what is his latest estimate of the cost of improving building facilities at Vickers shipyard to cope with the Trident submarine programme.

  (7) what will be the displacement of the new British submarine to carry the Trident nuclear missiles;

  (8) what extra expenditure will be required at Coulport to provide secure storage of Trident C-4 or D-5 missiles;

  (9) what will be the extra cost of a new warhead assembly building at the Royal ordnance factory, Burghfield, needed for the Trident missile programme.

  Mr. Nott:
  As I made clear to the Defence Committee of the House on 4 March, we are still studying the final configuration of the United Kingdom Trident force and the details of the programme which will bring it into operation. The recent announcement by the United States that it is entering full development of the Trident II (D5) missile with a view to deploying it in its ballistic missile-carrying submarines is an important factor which we shall

  73
  clearly have to take into account in our continuing studies. I shall make an announcement of our final decisions in due course.

  Mr. Hooley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the extra cost for a new building at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston for plutonium processing in connection with the Trident missile programme.

  Mr. Pattie:
  As my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for the Army informed the House on 13 January 1981—[Vol. 996, c.562 ]—a new building will be constructed at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston to replace existing facilities for processing nuclear material as part of our policy of improving the existing capital facilities there, and in order to maintain the effectiveness of the British nuclear deterrent. The project is in its preliminary planning stage and firm costs estimates are not yet available. However, it has been the practice of successive Governments not to disclose detailed costs related to the defence nuclear programme.

  Prince of Wales (Wedding)
  Mr. Arthur Lewis
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost to public funds within the responsibility of his Department arising from the wedding of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.

  Mr. Blaker:
  The total additional cost to the Defence budget amounted to some £17,000.

  RAF Lakenheath Depot (Crash)
  Mr. Arthur Lewis
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence on what date he received the communication dated 10 August from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West concerning the air crash at the RAF Lakenheath depot; when he replied; and whether he will publish in the Official Report the hon. Member's communication and his reply thereto.

  Mr. Pattie:
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter to him dated 29 September 1981, which set out clearly the reasons for the delay in answering his letter of 10 August. If, in the light of my letter of 29 September, the hon. Member still wishes I will arrange for all of the correspondence to be published in the Official Report.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of his Department's expenditure for 1981–1982 in civilian industry; and how that expenditure divides between British and foreign industry.

  Mr. Pattie:
  Our latest estimate of expenditure on Defence equipment (including materials and services) to be purchased from British industry in 1981–82 is that it is likely to be around £5 billion. As showm in the statement on the Defence Estimates 1981 (Cmnd No. 8212), over 75 per cent. of our expenditure on equipment is with British industry, while about 15 per cent. relates to collaborative projects in which British industry has a substantial share of the work. The remaining 10 per cent. is in respect of contracts placed overseas.
  74

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Full–time Education (Statistics)
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of children left full–time education at 16 years in each of the past 10 years.

  Dr. Boyson:
  Estimates for each year since the school leaving age was raised are as follows:

  Percentage of Pupils
  Leaving Full-time Education in the Academic Year they Reached 16.

  Year

  Percentage

  1973舑74

  65.5

  1974舑75

  62.7

  1975舑76

  61.7

  1976舑77

  62.3

  1977舑78

  62.2

  1978舑79

  62.0

  1979舑80

  60.3

  Further Education
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to allocate extra resources to encourage more children to remain at school after 16 years.

  Dr. Boyson:
  As announced by the Prime Minister on 27 July 1981, the Government are planning an additional £60 million—£50 million for England—in 1982–83 to allow for increased numbers of 16 to 19-year-olds to stay on in full-time education in school or college, particularly in areas of high unemployment.

  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art (Report)
  Mr. Faulds
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will arrange for the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art to submit the text of its report covering the year ended 30 June 1981 to him by the end of the present calendar year, with a view to its publication early in 1982.

  Mr. Channon:
  Work on the twenty-seventh annual report is under way. It will be published as soon as possible, but I cannot as yet specify a date. As the hon. Member knows from the reply he had in August 1980, we hope to continue the recent trend towards earlier publication.

  Local Museums (Purchases)
  Mr. Faulds
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the balance remaining on 19 October in the fund administered by the Victoria and albert Museum for purchases by local museums; whether he will specify the grants made to date for this purpose during the present financial year; and whether he will list in each case the percentage represented by these grants of the total amounts paid for the individual items.

  Mr. Channon:
  The balance is £890,588.

  In the financial year 1981–82, the fund has so far dealt with 610 grant applications and has paid a total of £897,326 in respect of 360 applications including 81 started in 1980–81. Another 93 grants totalling over

  75
  £400,000 have been offered to date but have not yet been claimed. Of the remaining cases, some are still under consideration while others have lapsed because, for example, a purchase was not completed.

  In almost all instances the grant from the fund is for 50 per cent. of the cost of purchase. Details of individual cases are not readily available.

  Capital Transfer Tax
  Mr. Faulds
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he anticipates that, in pursuance of section 9(6) of the National Heritage Act 1980, a statement will be laid before the House giving particulars of acceptances of property in satisfaction of capital transfer tax which occurred during the financial year ended 31 March 1981.

  Mr. Channon:
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I intend to lay the statement before the House shortly.

  Computer Studies and Microelectronics
  Mr. Hooley
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps are being taken to develop teaching aids and techniques in computer studies and the use of microelectronics within teacher training colleges and the education departments of universities and polytechnics; and what special funding, if any, is being provided by his Department for those purposes.

  Mr. William Shelton:
  The microelectronics education programme announced by my hon. Friend on 4 March 1980 will be developing teacher training materials and methods of in-service training in this field. It is likely that up to one-third of the total resources available for the programme will be used for this purpose, and I hope that training institutions of all kinds will be able to participate. Computer studies will be one of the topics covered, but the programme is also concerned with the applications of microelectronics and the use of micor-computers in a number of other subjects.

  Student Maintenance
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total cost to public funds of student maintenance for the educational years 1974-75 to 1980-81.

  Mr. Waldegrave:
  Expenditure by the local education authorities in England and Wales, the Department of Education and Science and the research councils on student maintenance since the academic year 1974–75 has been as follows:

  Academic Year

  Expenditure
  million

  1974舑75

  £166

  1975舑76

  £210

  1976舑77

  £251

  1977舑78

  £309

  1978舑79

  £360

  1979舑80

  £437

  Information for the academic year 1980–81 is not yet available.
  76

  Women's Art Work (Exhibition)
  Mr. St. John-Stevas
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will arrange for an exhibition by Mrs. Yvonne Craig of women's art work to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Channon:
  Yes. I understand that arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 9 November to Friday 13 November.

  Bradford University
  Mr. Torney
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how much revenue will be lost by Bradford university because of the increase in fees for overseas students;

  (2) what reduction in student numbers will be caused by the increase in fees for overseas students at Bradford university.

  Mr. Waldegrave:
  My right hon. Friend has no estimate of the likely future effect of the withdrawal of the subsidy for overseas students on student numbers or fee income at individual universities. The number of overseas students entering the university of Bradford was 312 in 1979–80 and 201 in 1980–81.

  Mr. Torney
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many staff at Bradford university are expected to be made redundant because of the cuts imposed upon the university.

  Mr. Waldegrave:
  My right hon. Friend has no estimate of the number of staff who may be made redundant at any individual university.

  Mr. Torney
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science for what reasons the cuts imposed on Bradford university have been disproportionately larger than those imposed on other universities.

  Mr. Waldegrave:
  By long standing convention the allocation of recurrent grant to individual universities is a matter for the judgment of the University Grants Committee.

  University Places
  Mr. Torney
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he anticipates that the cuts in university grants will reduce the number of university places available to potential students from lower income group homes.

  Mr. Waldegrave:
  There is no reason to suppose that reductions in university admissions will affect disproportionately applicants from any income group.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  El Salvador (Refugees)
  Mr. Gourlay
  asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards resolution 751 of 1981 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe concerning the refugees from El Salvador

  Mr. Luce:
  Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly made clear their wish to see an early end to the violence in El Salvador and the attainment of a just political settlement through the holding of elections.
  77
  Her Majesty's Government share the concern expressed in the resolution for the plight of Salvadorean refugees, have donated £100,000 to the International Committee for the Red Cross and will shortly be seeking parliamentary approval to provide £100,000 to a similar programme for Salvadorean refugees organised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

  Indonesia (Military Supplies)
  Mr. Newens
  asked the Lord Privy Seal if Her Majesty's Government will cease to supply military equipment to Indonesia in the light of the armed invasion of East Timor and the refusal to allow any effective exercise of self-determination.

  Mr. Humphrey Atkins:
  No, but all relevant factors, including political considerations, are taken into account in reaching decisions on defence sales issues.

  Foreign Diplomats (Expulsions)
  Mr. Greville Janner
  asked the Lord Privy Seal how many diplomats have been expelled from the United Kingdom during each of the years from 1970 to 1981; what were their names, ranks and the missions to which they were accredited; in each case whether the fact of such expulsion was announced by Her Majesty's Government and, if so, whether the reason for expulsion was given; and if either the fact or the reason was not announced, on what basis it was withheld.

  Mr. Humphrey Atkins:
  The information is as follows:

  1971

  105 Soviet officials were expelled of whom 71 were members of the staff of the Soviet Embassy.

  Mr. S. H. A. Aulaqi, Second Secretary, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen Embassy.

  1972

  Mr. A. Amer, First Secretary, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen Embassy.

  1973

  Mr. A. Diaz Rovirosa, First Secretary, Cuban Embassy.

  1978

  Mr. A. H. Ali, Counsellor.

  Lt. Col. F. A. S. Al–Shakir, Assistant Military Attaché.

  Mr. F. H. Al-Kaisi, Third Secretary.

  Major T. M. S. Al-Obaidi, Assistant Military Attaché.

  Mr. F. M. Mahmoud, Counsellor.

  Mr. H. A. R. Hajo, Second Secretary.

  Mr. H. Al-Yousif, Assistant Cultural Counsellor.

  All from the Iraq Embassy.

  1980

  Mr. M. Kusa, Secretary of People's Committee, The People's Bureau of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

  1981

  Mr. V. N. Lazine, Second Secretary, USSR Embassy.

  Announcements were made concerning the departure of all the above, with the exceptions of Mr. Aulaqi in 1971, Mr. Amer in 1972 and Mr. Diaz Rovirosa in 1973, when it was considered that it was not in the public interest to make any statement. It is still considered that it is not in the public interest to release details of the Soviet officials expelled in 1971.

  Geneva Convention (Ratification)
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell
  asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will seek parliamentary approval before ratifying protocol II to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949.

  Mr. Hurd:
  Legislation would be required before the protocols could be ratified.

  Continental Shelf (Delimitation)
  Dr. Edmund Marshall
  asked the Lord Privy Seal what was the outcome of the meeting due to be held during
  78
  September with officials of the Government of the Republic of Ireland concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf between the United Kingdom and the Republic.

  Mr. Hurd:
  The meeting between officials which took place in London on 24 September carried further the discussions on the modalities of the proposed arbitration. A further meeting has been scheduled for November.

  Hong Kong (Vietnamese Refugees)
  Dr. Edmund Marshall
  asked the Lord Privy Seal how many Vietnamese refugees are now in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Humphrey Atkins:
  On 16 October there were 16,885 Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong.

  Angola
  Sir Patrick Wall
  asked the Lord Privy Seal why the United Kingdom cast its vote in the way it did in the United Nations vote on the resolution on Angola.

  Mr. Luce:
  The United Kingdom abstention was consistent with our votes on previous resolutions relating to South African incursions into Angola. We made it clear in our explanation of vote that we supported the paragraphs deploring the incursion and demanding the immediate withdrawal of South African forces but that we were unable to accept the inclusion of language that could only detract from the efforts of the contact group to achieve an internationally recognised settlement on Namibia.

  Turkey
  Mr. Frank Allaun
  asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will refuse to grant the Turkish Government £15 million aid so long as it is torturing political opponents.

  Mr. Humphrey Atkins:
  The Government continue to co-operate with Turkey on the basis of the statement issued by the Foreign Ministers of the then Nine on 15 September 1980, the full text of which was given in a written reply to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) on 18 May—[Vol. 5, c. 29]. The Turkish Government are aware of our concern about allegations of torture. They maintain that such allegations are fully investigated and, where appropriate, the culprits punished. Details of the loan agreement were given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) on 21 July—[Vol. 9, c. 78.]

ENERGY

  Energy Conservation
  5. Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy how much his Department is spending in the current year on energy conservation.

  Mr. Mellor:
  The Department of Energy is planning to spend £9.5 million in 1981–82 on energy conservation. This is part of a total planned expenditure by all Government Departments of £149 million.
  79

  Energy Conservation

    European Community (Departmental Responsibility)
    Mr. Charles Morrison
    asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will state what progress he has been able to make within his area of responsibility during the United Kingdom's presidency of the Council of Ministers.

    Mr. Lawson:
    Useful progress has been made at official level on a range of issues in preparation for the meeting of the Council of Energy Ministers on 27 October. I shall inform the House of the outcome of that meeting when I return.

    International Atomic Energy Authority
    Mr. Hooley
    asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total staff of the International Atomic Energy Authority concerned with inspection and control of nuclear installations around the world to enforce the provisions of the non-proliferation treaty; how many countries have accepted inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency; and what is the total number of installations subject to inspection.

    Mr. John Moore:
    The International Atomic Energy Agency has 133 inspectors to carry out inspection duties in countries with nuclear facilities. Safeguards agreements have been concluded and are in force between the Agency and 87 countries. Of this number, 36 do not yet have any nuclear facilities which require safeguarding. Inspections are made at 789 installations.

    Electricity Council
    Mr. Chris Patten
    asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the number of units per employee sold by the Electricity Council in each of the last five years and at the latest date for which figures are available.

    Mr. Mellor:
    The information is:

    Years ending March

    Units sold per supply industry employee million kilowatt hours

    1976–77

    1.17

    1977–78

    1.23

    1978–79

    1.28

    1979–80

    1.28

    1980–81

    1.25

    These figures are based on the average number of employees each year in the Electricity Council, Central Electricity Generating Board and the Area Electricity Boards in England and Wales.

    British Gas Corporation
    Mr. Chris Patten
    asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the numbers of units per employee sold by the British Gas Corporation in each of the last five years and at the latest date for which figures are available.

    Mr. John Moore:
    The number of therms sold per direct employee and per employee (direct and contractor) by the British Gas Corporation in each of the last five years were as follows:
    80

    Therms sold per direct employee thousand therms

    Therms sold per employee (direct and contractor) thousand therms

    1976–77

    137.4

    117.2

    1977–78

    152.0

    129.1

    1978–79

    156.5

    132.5

    1979–80

    160.8

    137.9

    1980–81

    154.7

    136.4

    Electricity Supply
    Mr. Hooley
    asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list in the Official Report the number of occasions in each of the years from 1971 to 1980 in which demand for electricity exceeded supply resulting in interruption of supply or significant voltage reduction, excluding the effect of industrial action, and the number of hours on each occasion that the break in supply or voltage reduction lasted.

    Mr. Mellor:
    I am advised by the CEGB that between April 1971 and March 1980 there were four occasions when voltage reductions were required—these reductions occured when demand for electricity exceeded the output of plant under normal operating conditions. There was no occasion when disconnection of demand was necessary. Voltage reductions and demand disconnections resulting from industrial action have been excluded. Details of voltage reductions are as follows:

    Date

    Duration

    Voltage reduction per cent.

    9 November 71

    54 mins

    3

    22 November 71

    19 mins

    3

    20 October 72

    1 hour 53 mins

    3

    13 November 79

    27 mins

    11/2

    Plutonium
    Mr. Hooley
    asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the economic cost of stockpiling plutonium for civil power generation.

    Mr. John Moore:
    The cost of storing plutonium for civil power generation is a negligible component (less than 1 per cent.) of the total cost of reprocessing irradiated fuel.

    Mr. Mudd
    asked the Secretary of State for Energy what exports of plutonium to the United States have recently been authorised, and for what purpose; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. John Moore:
    Approval in principle has been given to the export of United Kingdom civil plutonium to the United States for civil use in its fast reactor programme. Preliminary discussions only have been held with United States Government officials on this subject. It has been made clear in these discussions that any civil plutonium exported would have to remain subject to IAEA safeguards when exported to the United States. The export would be subject to satisfactory commercial negotiations on price, quantities and time scales. These negotiations have not yet commenced.
    81

    United Nations Conference on Renewable Energy Resources
    Mr. Hooley
    asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the findings of the United Nations conference on renewable energy resources held in August in Nairobi which his predecessor attended.

    Mr. Mellor:
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today to the question from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson).

    Departmental Expenditure
    Sir David Price
    asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of his Department's expenditure for 1981–82 in support of public sector industry and private sector industry, respectively.

    Mr. Lawson:
    The latest estimate of my Department's expenditure for 1981–82 in support of public and private sector industry in the United Kingdom is £616 million and £76 million respectively. All but £9 million of the £616 million goes to the coal industry: It includes £236 million arising from the announcement by my predecessor in the House of Commons on 16 June 1981 of an increase in the National Coal Board's external financing limit from £886 million to £1,117 million and in the level of grants to be paid to the NCB. The increase in grants is within this revised external financing limit, and is subject to the necessary legislation and approval of Supplementary Estimates.

    Horticultural Industry (Fuel Costs)
    Sir Patrick Wall
    asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the price per gallon of fuel for the horticultural industry in Holland as compared to the cost for Dutch industry and the equivalent costs in the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Gray:
    The main fuel used by the United Kingdom horticulture industry is heavy fuel oil, whereas in the Netherlands gas is the predominant fuel. Figures are therefore not directly comparable.

    I have no specific information on the price paid for heavy fuel oil by United Kingdom horticulturists, but based on the latest EEC Commission weekly Oil Bulletin for small industrial consumers of 5 October, the price to United Kingdom horticulturists after allowance for the rebate on heavy fuel oil duty and the current adoption aid of 5 pence per gallon would be around 46 pence per gallon, equivalent to 26 pence per therm.

    At 5 October exchange rates, I understand Dutch horticulturists are paying 16.4 pence per therm for gas, compared to 28.4 pence per therm for small Dutch industrial consumers.

    Cannock Chase Drift Mine
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts
    asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has now been made in developing the Cannock Chase drift mine; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. John Moore:
    The development of the Cannock Chase drift mine is a matter for the National Coal Board. I understand however that consideration of the development is still at an early stage.
    82

    Windscale
    Dr. John Cunningham
    asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he was informed about the incident that occurred at Windscale on 4 October; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. John Moore:
    At about 10.45 am on Sunday 4 October 1981 the radioactivity monitor on the exhaust stack from the magnox fuel separation plant at British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) site at Sellafield, Cumbria gave a warning of an abnormally high release of radioactivity. The monitor is set at low levels. The plant, in which irradiated magnox fuel is dissolved, was promptly shut down in accordance with the Company's safety procedures. Analysis of the stack samples confirmed that a release of the radioactive isotope iodine 131 had occurred. The plant was therefore kept shut down until Company personnel were satisfied that it was safe to restart operations. They concluded that some fuel which had been stored for too short a period in cooling ponds had been inadvertently fed to the dissolver. Pond storage is provided at nuclear power stations and reactor sites mainly to allow the iodine 131 in irradiated fuel to decay to an acceptably low level.

    The BNFL management decided, after assessing the potential environmental effects, to restart the plant. The removeable iodine was flushed out of the dissolver and safely discharged to the sea. The plant was restarted at about 10 am on 5 October using fuel of proven long storage. Careful surveillance, including monitoring of further releases of iodine still within the plant, continued. The release from the stack of iodine 131, which had been measured at about 1.9 curies in the first 24 hours after the abnormal level was identified, had declined to about 0.4 curies per day by the morning of 8 October and has continued to decline. To date about 7 curies have been discharged. The Company are required by the authorising Departments, Department of the Environment and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to use the best practicable means to minimise discharges. Over the past four years the annual discharge has been less than one curie.

    On Tuesday 6 October BNFL informed DOE and MAFF under arrangements for the reporting of abnormal releases to those Departments. At about 4 pm on that day, BNFL also informed the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate that further investigations had revealed a breach of a technical plant operating limit on 4 October in that irradiated fuel containing an excessive quantity of iodine 131 had been fed to the dissolver. On the late afternoon of 7 October BNFL advised the NIL DOE and MAFF that iodine 131 had been detected, by monitoring, in samples of milk gathered at two farms within a 2-mile radius of the Sellafield site. The highest value measured from the samples collected then and later was 5,000 picocuries (i.e. millionths of a curie) of iodine 131 per litre. On this basis it is estimated that radiation doses to the critical group most liable to be affected, i.e. young children drinking this milk would be no more than a small fraction of the International Commission on Radiological Protection's recommended annual limit to members of the public. On the basis of the daily information obtained, the MAFF, which is responsible for environmental monitoring of foodstuffs, considers that the measured levels of iodine in

    83
    milk confirm this. Milk sampling is continuing at 20 farms of which 12 are close to the site. MAFF has not considered it necessary at any stage to ban the sale of affected milk.

    I am satisfied that this incident, although resulting in a release of iodine 131 has caused no hazard to public health. The amount released to the atmosphere was very small because safety precautions came into play. The NII is investigating the full circumstances of the incident. The inspectorate advise me that, in the light of its investigations, steps are being taken to ensure that no irradiated fuel will be moved from nuclear power stations to Windscale for reprocessing until it has been stored for at least 90 days, to allow the radio-iodine to decay.

    My Department was informed on 7 October by the NII and BNFL of the incident. On 8 October the NII submitted a formal report to the Secretary of State on the basis of the information then supplied to it by BNFL. On 9 October, following the receipt of further detailed information from BNFL, the NII submitted a further report to the Secretary of State which amplified the initial report.

    I have asked that the reporting procedures at all stages for such incidents be urgently examined by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. I intend to satisfy myself that such procedures are adequate, and that procedures for informing the local community in the event of such incidents are satisfactory.

  TRANSPORT

    Road Programmes (Bypasses)
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton
    asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many communities he considers need bypasses.

    Mr. Kenneth Clarke:
    There is no simple answer, for the reasons set out by Sir Arthur Armitage in paragraph 202 of his report on "Lorries People and the Environment". On trunk roads in England, for which my right hon. Friend is responsible, our programme includes bypasses for those places where we already accept the need for them. I have no doubt that we will continue to identify more worthwhile schemes to add to the programme in future years. Schemes started this year will take through-traffic out of more than 20 individual communities, while progress with the M25 will relieve large areas of outer London and towns beyond it.

    A18 (Dunsville)
    Dr. Edmund Marshall
    asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many road accidents have been reported as having occurred on the A18 trunk road at High Street, Dunsville, near Doncaster, during the last period of 12 months for which figures are available, and what were the effects in terms of personal injury and loss of life.

    Mr. Kenneth Clarke:
    During the 12 month period to 31 July 1981, eight accidents occurred along the Al8 trunk road at High Street, Dunsville, resulting in 21 casualties. Of these, two received fatal injuries, eight had serious injuries and 11 slight.

    Channel Crossing (Costs)
    Mr. Nigel Spearing
    asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will tabulate in the Official Report the cost-ratio of present cross-Channel modes of transport for
    84
    personal and general wheeled cargo together with (a) the comparable land transport cost for 25 miles in the United Kingdom and (b) the expected cost-ratio for each of the Channel crossing proposals.

    Mr. Kenneth Clarke:
    I regret that the information requested is not readily available.

    Hanger Lane Junction
    Mr. Pavitt
    asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now undertake further work at the Hanger Lane junction to assist morning peak traffic from Ealing Road needing to cross the east-bound flow from Western Avenue and the north-bound flow from the North Circular Road, since traffic patterns can now be assessed consequent to the completion of the original construction work.

    Mr. Kenneth Clarke:
    Now that conditions have had a chance to settle down, information is being gathered about present traffic flows on all arms of the junction. When I get this I shall consider if any further minor works such as lane markings would help.

    Associated British Ports
    Mr. Hill
    asked the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he expects shares in Associated British Ports to be offered to the public.

    Mr. David Howell:
    I propose to offer shares in the holding company which will own Associated British Ports to the public as soon as possible.

    Seat Belts (Exemptions)
    Mr. Arthur Lewis
    asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether, in his preparation for exemptions from wearing seat belts he will consider, in addition to milk, bread and other roundsmen, commercial travellers, doctors, midwives, fire and ambulancemen, police, post delivery van drivers and drivers of all commercial vehicles which make multiple deliveries, and those suffering from asthma, heart complaints, claustrophobia and breathing difficulties; and whether he will consider making the exemption certificates free of charge; and to what extent he estimates the introduction of the compulsory use of seat belts will add to public expenditure.

    Mr. Kenneth Clarke:
    My right hon. Friend will announce his proposals on exemptions as soon as possible and will consult fully before laying regulations. He will be consulting the British Medical Association about fees for medical certificates. Compulsory seat belt wearing should not result in any net increase in public expenditure.

    European Community Driving Licence
    Mr. David Steel
    asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the introduction of a European Community model driving licence by 1 January 1983; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. David Howell:
    The Government supported the first Council directive on the introduction of a European Community driving licence, which was approved by the House of Commons on 4 November 1980 and adopted on 4 December 1980. Under the Directive, driving licences

    85
    issued by Community States can be exchanged by new residents after 1 January 1983. After 1 January 1986 all licences issued by Community States will be in a Community format.

    Mr. David Steel
    asked the Secretary of State for Transport if Her Majesty's Government intend that recognition of driving licences in existing national form should be superseded by the European Community driving licence when the relevant directive comes into force.

    Mr. Daivd Howell:
    No. Licences issued from 1 January 1986 will conform to the model prescribed in the directive on the European Community driving licence, adapted as necessary to meet this country's needs. The United Kingdom is not required to recall and reissue existing licences in the new form, and this would not be practicable.

    Driving Licences (Photographs)
    Mr. David Steel
    asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek to introduce the requirement that a photograph of the driver must be displayed on all United Kingdom driving licences.

    Mr. David Howell:
    No. Inclusion of a photograph on all driving licences would be very costly.

    Departmental Expenditure
    Sir David Price
    asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of his Department's expenditure for 1981-82 in support of public sector industry and private sector industry, respectively.

    Mr. David Howell:
    My Department's expenditure for 1981–82 in support of public sector industry and private sector industry is expected to be about £900 million and £15 million respectively. Almost the whole of this expenditure is on a Great Britain basis.

    Alcoholmeters
    Mr. Arthur Lewis
    asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that all new road vehicles are fitted with alcoholmeters, as at present being operated by the police in certain districts, including Cambridgeshire.

    Mr. Kenneth Clarke:
    No. Drivers should know the provisions of the law on drinking and driving and it is up to them to decide how best to ensure that they do not commit an offence.

    Dutch Lorries (Overloading)
    Sir Patrick Wall
    asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many Dutch lorries have been stopped and prosecuted, respectively for overloading in Humberside.

    Mr. Kenneth Clarke:
    I regret that figures are not available for the whole of Humberside, but of 442 Dutch vehicles checked by my Department in and around Hull since January 1980, 60 were found to be seriously overloaded, and were prohibited from travelling further until the excess load had been removed. This practice of immediate prohibition imposes a substantial cost on the operator and has proved a more effective deterrent than prosecution, since summonses cannot be enforced once the
    86
    driver has left the country. Drivers are prosecuted where this is practicable. Drivers of 2 of the 60 vehicles were in fact prosecuted.

    National Freight Company
    Mr. Knox
    asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on negotiations for the sale of the National Freight Company.

    Mr. David Howell:
    Agreement has now been reached about the terms on which the Government's shares in the National Freight Company Limited are to be sold to a consortium of managers and employees. This follows detailed negotiations since when it was announced that the Government were considering an offer on behalf of such a consortium. The Government have been represented throughout these negotiations by an independent merchant bank, Schroder Wagg, and has accepted its recommendations to agree to the sale now at the price of £53.5 million.

    The consortium will now go ahead with its plans for raising this sum with a view to completion in January.

    The agreement provides for the deficiencies in the Company's pension schemes to be funded from the proceeds of sale, as provided for under Section 49 of the Transport Act 1980. After allowing for this the net payment to the Government will be around £6.5 million.

    With this sale, a major road haulage company is transferred in good running order to the private sector where it belongs. The managers and employees acquire a business which they are confident they can run successfully and competitively, entirely free from Government control and no longer dependent in any way on public finance.

  Members' Tea Room (Working Conditions)
  Mr. Thomas Cox
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the conditions in which the staff work in the Members' Tea Room during warm weather.

  Sir George Young:
  I believe that conditions are as satisfactory as is practicable in an area where hot food has to be prepared.

  Reservoirs, Bridges, Tunnels and Waterways
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent in each of the last five years on bringing reservoirs, bridges and tunnels up to standard and on maintaining waterways; and what are the figures for the current financial year and the projections for 1982–83.

  Mr. Giles Shaw:
  Figures for the last five years, supplied by the British Waterways Board, are as follows:

  £million

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  Maintenance of the waterways

  9.672

  12.075

  14.172

  20.193

  23.510

  Reservoirs, bridges and tunnels

  3.135

  4.321

  2.326

  5.151

  4.522

  The board's estimates for expenditure in 1981 are £24.108 million and £3.29 million respectively. The programme of expenditure for 1982–83 is still under consideration.
  87
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimate available to him of the amount needed to be spent (a) on essential maintenance of waterways and (b) to bring reservoirs, bridges and tunnels up to standard.

  Mr. Giles Shaw:
  British Waterways Board currently estimates that it requires an additional £90 million to clear its present backlog of waterways maintenance and a further £25 million or more for expenditure on reservoirs, bridges and tunnels.

  Somerset House (Princes Gate Collection)
  Mr. Faulds
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made with the project for providing public access on a long-term basis in Somerset House for the Princes Gate collection which was bequeathed to the Courtauld Institute of Art, and which is now temporarily accessible to the public in its Woburn Square galleries.

  Mr. Macfarlane:
  Discussions on this proposal are continuing between this Department, the university of London and the Courtauld Institute.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of council tenants has applied to purchase their dwellings in the areas of the country where disturbances have recently occurred.

  Mr. Stanley:
  The most serious disturbances took place in Brixton, Southall, Moss Side, and Toxteth, which lie within the London boroughs of Lambeth and Ealing, and the cities of Manchester and Liverpool respectively. The information requested is available only for the whole of each local authority. On this basis, the percentages, based on right to buy applications under the Housing Act 1980 received by the end of June and the stock of occupied dwellings held by each local authority under Part V of the Housing Act 1957, were as follows:

  Local Authority

  Per cent.

  Lambeth London Borough Council

  2.8

  Ealing London Borough Council

  6.7

  Manchester City Council

  5.9

  Liverpool City Council

  7.1

  Housing Subsidies
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the latest figures for the total subsidy given for local authority housing and for all tax relief-related schemes concerning owner-occupation and other payments which go to some owner-occupiers.

  Mr. Stanley:
  Total subsidy for local authority housing in England in 1980–81 was £2,314.7 million. Details are given in a separate written answer today to the hon. Member.

  The cost of mortgage tax relief and option mortgage subsidy in England in 1980–81 was £1,990 million.

  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the latest figures for the total subsidy given for local authority housing, excluding supplementary benefit payments.
  88
  Mr. Stanley:
  The latest available figures are that in 1980–81 local authorities in England received £1,400.6 million in Exchequer subsidies for local authority dwellings and £349.9 million from the Exchequer in rent rebate subsidy at outturn prices. In addition, rate fund contributions to housing revenue accounts totalled £441.2 million and to rent rebates £123 million.

  New Substances (Hazards to Man and the Environment)
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is proposing to take in connection with the implementation of the sixth amendment to EEC directive 64/548/EEC dealing with the protection of the customer and the environment against potential risks which can arise from the placing of new substances on the market.

  Mr. Giles Shaw:
  The directive requires that, before a new substance is placed in significant quantities on the market within the European Community, the manufacturer or importer should investigate possible hazards to man and to the environment. The results of the tests carried out by the manufacturer or importer should be notified to the competent authority of the member State where a substance is first manufactured or first imported at least 45 days before the substance is marketed. In the United Kingdom, the competent authority is the Department of the Environment and the Health and Safety Executive, acting jointly. The Department has set up a unit—the chemicals notification unit—to examine and assess the information relating to the possible environmental effects of new substances. A corresponding unit has been established within the HSE, both to receive notifications and to consider the information on worker-user safety. The two units are working closely together.

  Regulations to implement the directive are being drawn up under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the European Communities Act. These will be laid before the House as soon as possible. In the meantime, administrative arrangements have been introduced to allow manufacturers and importers to notify substances in accordance with the directive and thereby facilitate the movement of their goods within the Community.

  Direct Labour Organisations
  Mr. Thornton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has made any estimate, and, if so, if he will give figures for such past years as are available or could be estimated, of the estimated rate of return by direct labour organisations of local authorities compared with the rate of return achieved by private industry; and if he will give comparable figures for the rate of return which he is now requiring local authority direct labour organisations to achieve and the rate of return which he estimates as currently being achieved by the private sector in comparable work.

  Sir George Young:
  Until the coming into operation, on 1 April 1981, of part III of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, local authorities were not required to make any rate of return on their direct labour operations nor to account for these in any way which would make estimates possible. The directions my right hon. Friend has made under the provisions of the Act now require local authorities to make a 5 per cent. rate of

  89

  return, on a current cost accounting basis, on the capital employed by their direct labour organisations. This requirement is intended to help authorities to identify the true economic cost of their direct labour organisations in the interests of improved financial management and better use of resources. As such, the rate prescribed in the directions is not intended to represent the current rate of return being obtained by private industry at any time, but rather the opportunity cost of capital over a period of time. Rates of return achieved in the private sector were published by the Department of Industry in "British Business"on 18 September 1981.

  Archaeological Areas Act (Gloucester and Lincoln)
  Mr. Faulds
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, since Gloucester and Lincoln have declined nomination as designated areas under part II of the Archaeological Areas Act, whether he will consider using his specific powers in these cases.

  Mr. Macfarlane:
  The order bringing part II of the Act into force will not be made until the end of this year. Meanwhile, there will be further discussions with both authorities and I will let the hon. Member know the outcome.

  Inner Cities Policies
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations have taken place with hon. Members who represent statutory partnership areas, in respect of new policies for inner city areas subsequent to his visit to Liverpool.

  Mr. Heseltine:
  Whilst in Liverpool, I had two meetings with hon. Members whose constituencies are covered by the partnership area. My noble Friend Lord Bellwin also discussed inner city matters with the hon. Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), as representatives of the London group of Labour Members of Parliament, on 31 July.

  Welsh Office (Cost of Flat)
  Mr. Skinner
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated total installation cost of the flat constructed in the Welsh Office for the use of the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Sir George Young:
  £12,069.

  Control of Pollution Act 1974
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had in respect of implementing part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974; and when he expects to be implementing that part of the Act.

  Mr. King:
  I am currently reviewing the question of implementing part II. Any necessary consultation will be part of that process.

  Office Furniture (Purchases)
  Mr. Skinner
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what purchases of office furniture have been
  90
  made by or on behalf of his Department from Harrods since the present Government assumed office; what items were purchased; and what was the total cost of such purchases.

  Sir George Young:
  No purchases of office furniture have been made from Harrods by, or on behalf of, the Department of the Environment since the present Government assumed office.

  Royal Wedding
  Mr. Arthur Lewis
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total cost to public funds within the responsibility of his Department arising from the wedding of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.

  Mr. Heseltine:
  Present indications are that the final cost will not be significantly different from the earlier estimate of £50,000.

  Sheffield (Housing)
  Mr. John H. Osborn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses in the Sheffield area fall within the housing society or housing association category; if he will list the main associations, the number of houses within each and the manager, indicating in each case whether public body, or private agent.

  Sir George Young:
  The city of Sheffield's own estimate of housing association dwellings at April 1981 is included in its housing strategy and investment programme, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Details of the main registered housing associations within the Sheffield metropolitan district, their respective holdings, and their management arrangements, supplied by the Housing Corporation, are as follows:

  Housing Associations

  Dwellings

  South Yorkshire

  436

  North Counties

  1,093

  Yorkshire Metropolitan

  126

  North Sheffield

  171

  North Cheshire

  116

  Hallam

  311

  Sheffield Broomhall Abbeyfield Society

  1

  Total

  2,254

  There are, in addition, 396 dwellings owned by co-ownership housing societies.
  The dwellings owned by the Hallam housing association and the co-ownership societies are managed by firms of estate agents. The other associations use their own staff to manage their stock.

  Mr. John H. Osborn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the housing stock in the Sheffield area; and, of this, how much is public council housing, how much private sector housing, and how much housing association or housing society.

  Sir George Young:
  the city of Sheffield's own estimates of dwellings in each sector at April 1981 are included in its housing strategy and investment programme, a copy of which is available in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

The Business Start-up Scheme
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the progress of the start-up scheme for small businesses.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, considerable interest has been shown in the scheme and the Government are confident that it will be of great benefit in encouraging investment in new trading ventures. It is not possible at this stage to give particulars of investment by individuals as claims will not be made until next year. But two funds have already been launched which are seeking to raise £16.5 million for investment in this field.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which is extremely encouraging for this very enterprising start-up scheme. Will he please say whether he considers the amount of capital that will be invested in these companies to be sufficient for their needs—risk capital?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we keep this matter under continual review. In the last two Budgets a whole series of measures have been introduced, designed to encourage the flow of new capital into small enterprises. This is an entirely new departure and one without parallel anywhere else in the industrial world. We wish it well and will watch its progress with great interest.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether the considerable interest he has referred to is really unparalleled? Can he also perhaps put some flesh on the bones of a rather bare statement?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it is the scheme itself which is without parallel elsewhere in the industrial world. So far as putting flesh on the bare bones is concerned, the simple truth of the matter is that the scheme has only just been embodied in legislation but the first claims by individuals investing under this scheme can be made only after April of next year. It is only then that we shall be able to gauge how successful the scheme has been; but it has made a good start.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while welcoming the general thrust of the entire scheme, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government have given
556
consideration to significantly increasing the loan limits that are at present in force? May I also ask whether the noble Lord has fully taken into account the extra interest burden that seems so far to be inevitable?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven if I say, with respect, that I believe that possibly the noble Lord may have in mind the loans guarantee scheme rather than the business start-up scheme. The business start-up scheme is designed to encourage raising new equity capital, and indeed there is a strong argument for saying that it is in the lack of equity capital that the weakness lies. But the loans guarantee scheme has already made a very good start, with more than 800 loans having been already agreed, amounting to approximately £30 million.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while all parties are, or should be, in agreement with the general purpose of this scheme, most of us who are actually trying to operate it are finding the drafting extremely cloudy and are in some doubt as to whether we are doing the right thing?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given by the noble Lord. If I may, I would make two comments on the specific points he raises. First of all, a large number of amendments were made on Committee stage in another place which were designed to meet many of the criticisms which had been made, with the result that the scheme as it finally emerged represented a noticeable improvement on the scheme as originally introduced. Secondly, as my honourable friend Mr. John MacGregor, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry, announced on 22nd September, a series of 14 regional conferences and 50 smaller conferences have been set up in order to explain the terms of the scheme to people who are interested.

EEC: Exports Customs Tariff and Job Loss
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their estimate of the number who would become unemployed if all our exports to the EEC were subject to the common customs tariff.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, it is not possible to predict exactly by how much United Kingdom exports to the Community would fall if they were subject to the commons customs tariff, nor precisely to quantify that fall in terms of job loss. However, last year the United Kingdom exported some £20,000 million of products to our Community partners, and clearly many jobs depend on these exports.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his illuminating reply, may I ask him what alternative markets are there and whether we are fully exploiting those that may exist?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have no doubt there are a number of alternative markets, but if we were to withdraw from the Community it is a matter of speculation whether those markets would be taken up. What I would tell my noble friend is that since we joined the Community the percentage of our exports which go to Community states rose from 30·6 per cent. in 1972 to 43 per cent. in 1980 and now West Germany takes the largest percentage of our exports, 10·7 per cent. of the total, and has superseded the United States of America which only takes 9·6 per cent.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the assumption made in this Question, that our exports would be subject to a unilaterally imposed common customs tariff, is a very fanciful one indeed? Is the noble Earl aware that any examination of the figures will show that, in effect, the boot is on the other leg; that we take from the Community over £1,000 million more in manufactured goods than we export to the Community, and that a customs tariff against fuel supplies to the Continent would be extremely unlikely? Will the noble Earl please bear in mind that it would, perhaps, be better if these very important EEC matters which involve us all, and concerning which the facts are fully known, were discussed in a completely dispassionate atmosphere, as distinct from being on the basis of an emotional spasm?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not quite sure who was having the spasm. I rather thought that it was the noble Lord opposite. But my noble friend is entirely entitled to ask this Question. She is entirely entitled to ask what would be the position if we were subject to a common customs tariff on all our exports. The noble Lord ought to bear in mind that the current export/import ratio in manufacturing with the European Community is far more favourable than with alternative trading partners which we have, such as North America and Japan.
Lord O'Hagan: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that even the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, in their latest document about the consequences of withdrawal in the agricultural sector, recognise that considerable unemployment would arise in agriculture, and that our own exports of agricultural commodities, which are now a great success within the Community, would be diminished? Would my noble friend therefore consider lending a copy of this document to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to assist in a more calm discussion of this subject?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I realise that the party opposite are entirely at sixes and sevens over our membership of the Community. All I would tell the noble Lord is that we believe that we should remain members of the Community and that we have a great trading future with it.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, since withdrawal would disrupt not only our own economy but also the economies of our partners, can we rely on them renegotiating with us in a thoroughly dispassionate spirit?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think that the position will arise.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, has my noble friend seen two estimates from very responsible political leaders, which show that the consequential effects on unemployment might add between 2 million and 2¼ million to the total now existing?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, indeed, my Lords, I have. But, of course, the net amount of jobs lost would depend on the quantity of trade which might, or might not, continue despite our withdrawal, and what new trade links could be negotiated as a result of our withdrawal. My noble friend is entirely right about the effect on the number of our jobs. If I may, I should like to quote what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, which was:
"Over 2 million jobs depend on our trade with Europe. 2 million jobs which will be put at risk by Britain's withdrawal",
She then went on to say:
"And even if we kept two-thirds of our trade with the Common Market after we had flounced out—and that is pretty optimistic—there would be a million more to join the dole queue. That is only the beginning".
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, may we say how much we have enjoyed this exchange between the various members of Her Majesty's Government?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Baroness was a member of Her Majesty's Government, and I am entirely delighted to carry on any such conversation if she so wishes.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, is it not a fact that exports to the European Community, which stood at £11,848 million in 1977, have now reached £20,541 million in 1980, and if we left would it not be catastrophic?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right; it would be catastrophic. If he cares to take himself back to when we joined the Community, our exports to the Community when we joined in 1972 were only £2·9 billion and they are now, as he said, £20·4 billion. That is a very substantial increase and a very substantial amount of exports.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, since the noble Earl has given the figures about exports to the Community, would he care to give similar figures about our imports from the Community?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should be delighted to do so if the noble Lord would care to put down a Question.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister, if we are doing so well from the Community, why is it that we have 3 million unemployed? It is a very simple question.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is such a thing as a world recession. I will tell the noble Baroness, if I may, that the United Kingdom has a higher percentage of its population in employment than any other member state of the Community, with the exception of Denmark.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the noble Earl's reiteration of the prophecies of unemployment, with which he has been kind enough to regale us, will he bear in mind that the Government have no credible record in the whole business of forecasting and that it would be wise for them to be extremely cautious?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is precisely what I was trying to be. In furtherance of the noble Baroness's question, I would remind the noble Lord that we are not the only country which is suffering problems of increasing unemployment, and that between August 1980 and August 1981, while the United Kingdom's unemployment increased by 46·9 per cent., West Germany's increased by 49·1 per cent. and that of the Netherlands by 55.6 per cent. So we are not alone in the difficulties.

Land's End
2.49 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take all necessary steps to prevent the sale of Land's End to non-British individuals or organisations; and whether they will consider providing financial aid to the National Trust to purchase Land's End on behalf of the British people.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Secretary of State for the Environment will consider any proposals which he may receive from the Countryside Commission or from the local authorities concerned, but there is little reason to regard a possible change of ownership as a threat in itself to the character or appearance of Land's End which I understand has been a matter of concern for some while. The land will, of course, remain subject to normal planning controls and I believe the local authorities, the commission and the National Trust will continue to direct their attention towards means of encouraging better environmental management so as to improve unsightly features and to avoid erosion of paths.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his very informative reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that the grave concern felt by people all over the country is now reaching the point of consternation? May I further ask him whether he would be prepared at some time to make a statement that rather than lose Land's End to any overseas interest the Government will be prepared to help the National Trust and the Countryside Commission financially, so that in the national interest Land's End can be saved?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord is jumping the gun because at the moment we do not know how much acreage there is for sale, or what is actually up for sale. It is an issue that we would expect in the first instance to be considered by the Countryside Commission, the National Trust and the Cornwall County Council, and I understand that discussions are now taking place between those bodies. May I add that there is no prerequisite for a prospective purchaser in this country of land or property to state his nationality and that many properties owned by people from various foreign countries all over the world are extremely well maintained.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will the noble Earl scotch a rumour which seems to have got about, somehow, that if Land's End is purchased by a foreign purchaser they intend to cut it off and tow it away?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, that would indeed be very difficult. Might I add—of course I like to get a "plug" in whenever I can—that there will be a power under the Wildlife and Countryside Bill when it becomes law for local planning authorities to make a management agreement for the conservation of just this kind of landscape.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is not Land's End our country's most famous headland? Would not its sale to a non-British national be regarded as yet another mark of our national decline? What would Shakespeare say about it?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, of course, with my family name, I should like to quote Shakespeare back at the noble and learned Lord. To go back to his original question, with so many Scotsmen in the House I am not quite sure that one can say that Land's End is the most important.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, is not John o' Groat's being forgotten?
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Earl for his informative reply, I find it a little disturbing that Her Majesty's Government do not know precisely what is at stake. The noble Earl has just admitted it. Would it be possible for the noble Earl to obtain a few back copies of the Guardian and perhaps The Times newspapers which spell it out in detail so that Her Majesty's Government can be well informed and realise what a serious issue is at stake? We are not joking about towing this entire island away, or part of it. Ordinary people up and down the country recognise that something which they regard as part of their heritage is at risk. It is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to do something about it and to prevent it.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the information which we have at the moment does not show that it is at risk but that this land may be up for sale. Just to inform the noble Lord that we are in touch, I have in front of me The Times extracts about the sale and we are trying to follow it up, but nothing in this country has so far been published.
Lord Somers: My Lords, would not the sale of Land's End be the beginning of Britain's end?

Kenwood: Ownership of Paintings
2.54 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give details of the legal ownership of the important paintings housed at Kenwood in the care of the Greater London Council.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the paintings are held in trust by custodian trustees, in this case the Greater London Council, under a trust deed confirmed by Act of Parliament, the Iveagh Bequest (Kenwood) Act 1929. Any proposal to sell the pictures held under trusteeship arrangements would involve considerable legal complications.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. May I ask the Government to confirm that the important paintings housed at Kenwood, such as the Gainsborough, the Vermeer and the Rembrandt could not be sold without an Act of Parliament?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I would not like to go quite so far as that, but the noble Lord is right that there are complications and that it is an Act of Parliament which is in question.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it might help to clarify the matter if I were to read to him what I hold in my hand—
Several Noble Lords: No!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Then I will paraphrase it. It would be better if I were allowed to quote, because what I want to do—
A noble Lord: The noble Lord must ask a question.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that what I should like to do, if I may, is to quote to him a statement made in County Hall—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness Young): My Lords, I think it would be very helpful to the House if the noble Lord would put his remarks in the interrogative form.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I stand corrected. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that in another place—in fact, the County Hall—the chairman of the arts and recreation committee, Mr. Tony Banks, said that he was fully aware that Kenwood was not in his own legal possession and that the GLC
562
had no intention whatsoever of disposing of any property there.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I myself had got that same quotation down as an answer.

Dinner
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available tonight at the usual time. The House will adjourn at approximately seven o'clock for a short period.

Education Bill
2.58 p.m.
Read 3a.
Clause 1 [Meaning of "special education needs"and" special educational provision"]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("suffers from") and insert ("has").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. This is a drafting amendment which the Government are glad to make in the interests of avoiding any misunderstanding over the wording of Clause 1(2)(b) and of avoiding any possible offence to disabled persons. The amendment arises directly from an approach made to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) who is unfortunately unable to be here today. I have put down the amendment in her place. Lady Darcy has pointed out that the use of the term "suffers from" is rather antiquated and possibly offensive to disabled persons who do not regard themselves as suffering in that sense. The substitution of the word "has" meets this understandable objection and at the same time removes the slight risk that the clause as originally drafted will allow someone trying to oppose a local authority's plans for a disabled child to argue that it was necessary to establish that the child was actually suffering in some way from his disability. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Statement of child's special educational needs]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 22, leave out ("they consider to be") and insert ("is").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2 and I suggest that Amendment No. 3 be taken with it. I realise that within the terms laid down by the Procedure Committee earlier this year at Third Reading we are allowed only to move amendments. I have of course studied the recommendations of the Procedure Committee and I suggest

563
that this amendment, and others which I have tabled, are in order so as to clarify any remaining uncertainties.
Before I go any further, may I say how welcome is the presence upon the Front Bench this afternoon of my noble friend Lady Young who has revealed her continued interest in this very important Bill by her presence here, in addition to her new responsibilities, upon which we congratulate her, as our Leader.
The amendment which I have just moved is to Clause 7. The uncertainty in my mind arises as follows. At the Report stage on Friday 30th July my noble friend moved a rather long and fairly complicated amendment, the purpose of which we all welcomed as far as it went. It was to give to parents of handicapped children the right, when a local education authority had issued a statement of their child's special educational needs, to meet an officer of the authority with whom the matter could be discussed. At the Report stage my noble friend said, at the foot of column 888:
"Parents will have the right to be present at all examinations on which reports to the LEA are based. It would be unusual if parents did not know the professional recommendations made and the grounds for them".—[Official Report,31/7/81.]
May I say, in passing, that I agree with that as a general statement but I think there may well be cases where the parents did not get to know either about the people advising or about the recommendations they had made or the information on which it was based, until a slightly later stage.
My noble friend went on to say:
"Therefore the amendment will allow parents to clear up any misunderstanding about the statement face to face with those contributing to it".
She concluded by saying:
"I hope that your Lordships will agree that the amendment will have the effect of strengthening good practice in sharing information between parents and professionals at an early stage in assessment".
When one looks closely at that part of subsection (6) of Clause 7 to which her amendment at Report stage related, it seems to me that there is a bit of a snag and a hindrance from fulfilling the Government's intention and that of Parliament, arising from the definition of "relevant advice"—and that comes in subsection (6). Relevant advice is the only advice which parents will be allowed to discuss. Fair enough, but alas! we find that "relevant advice" means only such advice given to the authority as they consider to be relevant. That is a purely subjective test and parents would be bound by it. The authority are to have the only say on that point as to what is relevant advice and they could prevent relevant advice from being considered. I agree that this will happen in only a minority of cases—one must concede that—but in those cases, if anything went wrong because of this wording in the clause which makes the authority able to take the decision as to what is "relevant advice", the matter could not be challenged in the courts or in Parliament.
The same applies—and here I refer to my next Amendment, No. 3—to the definition in subsection (6) of "appropriate person". Again, it is for the authority only to decide who the appropriate person shall be and in the worst of cases—and they do happen and it is right that we should legislate sometimes for
564
the worst cases. In the worst cases the local authority could shield somebody who had given wrong advice. One hopes that it would be very rare, but it could happen. We have known it to happen in different circumstances. Therefore, I cannot believe that that is quite what my noble friend intended when she spoke as she did at columns 888 and 889, and when she said at column 895:
"I think it is very important for parents to understand that one of the underlying principles of this Bill is parental involvement at every stage".
We do not, through oversight on our part, want to allow anything to slip into the drafting which could prevent that parental involvement. That is why I am moving this amendment and the following one, and I trust that my noble friend will ensure that the wording of the clause is made to be consistent with her expressed intention, which she can do by accepting these two amendments. I fear that unless we do that we may be enacting a dead letter in the application of the Bill to a small minority of bad cases. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Renton has said and I hope that I can give him the assurances that he requires about both these amendments. I will speak to both of them now, which I think will be for the convenience of the House. We have sought in Clause 7 to reflect the reality of the circumstances which will arise when parents apply to their local education authority for meetings in connection with any part of the assessment as set out in their child's draft statement. In the majority of cases, I have no doubt that parents will be able to specify exactly in what respect they disagree with the assessment and the LEAs will have little difficulty in deciding what the relevant advice is which the parent should be discussing with the provider of that advice or another appropriate person. That is a point which I think the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has accepted.
However, in other cases it may not necessarily always be clear to the LEA what the parent's real concerns are. Where a number of professionals have contributed advice in one aspect of the assessment in the case of a child with complex special educational needs, it may not be immediately clear which is the appropriate advice upon which to draw. In those circumstances the LEA's role will be, I believe, an interpretative one.
As I indicated during the Report stage, in the arrangement of meetings the exercise of judgment by the LEA cannot be interpreted as giving the LEA the discretion to ignore parents' wishes. I think that that is the fear of my noble friend. It applies equally that in deciding what is the relevant advice which will determine the nature of the meeting or meetings the LEA will not be able arbitrarily to dismiss a concern expressed by the parent. I should like to give that assurance. The flexibility afforded in the present wording of the clause is simply to enable LEAs to judge the parents' needs with a view to serving their best interests as quickly as possible. Let us also remember that if the judgment of the LEA is wrong the parent still has the right to request a meeting with the other professionals concerned with the assess-

565
ment, so there is no danger that the parent can be prevented from seeing the right person; and I hope that will meet the concern expressed by my noble friend.
To turn to the second amendment tabled by my noble friend, the definition of "appropriate person" in Clause 7(6) simply takes account of the reality of the situation with which local education authorities may be faced and I think it is only right that the legislation should reflect this. I hope the noble Lord will recognise the fact that LEAs will have to exercise their judgment again in deciding who is the appropriate person able to help the parents further to understand the nature of their child's special educational needs, and that the question of the "appropriate person" in these difficult cases will inevitably be a matter of judgment.
What is important is that the parent should have the opportunity to see the professionals involved and if these subsections are read in the context of the whole of Clause 7 it will be seen that the undertakings which I gave at Report stage are being fulfilled, that parents will have the right to meet all the professionals involved, and one has to remember that we shall not even have got to this stage before the parents will have been involved at all the earlier stages. At this stage we are talking about a draft statement. The parents will have been involved with the assessment, in seeing the draft statement, and then we are looking at professional advice. This is really a very long way along all the stages of the Bill. Then if, sadly, they are still dissatisfied with the result of this they still have the opportunity to go to an appeal committee, with the final resort of taking their case to the Secretary of State.
I do believe that we have gone as far as we can to meet the quite natural and justifiable concern of parents. At some stage a local authority has to make a judgment, and that is what this definition does. With the assurances I have given, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because I do know personally some parents who are highly professional themselves; they are perhaps consultants in medicine or professors at universities who themselves have children who have severe disabilities. Local authorities can be very authoritarian and therefore relationships break down. I think the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has a very valid point and I support his amendments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Baroness on the Front Bench was, as always, most reassuring in her assurances. But I did note that she did not specifically answer a point which my noble friend Lord Renton made which certainly weighs with me. My noble friend Lord Renton said that if the Bill stood in its present form it would be impossible for an aggrieved parent to challenge the decision of the local authority either in the courts or in Parliament. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she accepts that. She did not specifically challenge it, but it may be that she overlooked the point. If she does accept it, I would ask her why that is thought to be necessary.
566
There will be, I hope, as my noble friend said, very few such cases, but, given the potential number of cases of this kind—it is inevitable that there should be some—where the parents may feel passionately, may wish to face the expense and chances of litigation, or may wish to approach the Member of the House of Commons who represents them or indeed a noble Lord or noble Baroness in this House, is it really necessary, if my noble friend is right, to exclude those two avenues of approach? If the noble Baroness is prepared to argue that it is necessary I should really like to hear from her a little justification for it.
My second question really goes on from that. Can the noble Baroness explain to the House to what extent the procedures which she outlined so clearly and admirably a moment ago would be interfered with or handicapped or inhibited if the words of my noble friend's two amendments were put in instead of the existing words?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I reply with the leave of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has asked two questions. I am sorry if I did not answer the first one as fully as I perhaps should have done. I must emphasise that this is at the end of a very long process from the time when the child is first identified as a child having special educational needs, the parent being brought in at the first stages and taking part in the multi-disciplinary assessment, the parent being involved with the assessment that is made, the parent being involved with the draft statement.
If the parent is dissatisfied with the draft statement, the opportunity exists to consult with those professionals who are responsible for drawing it up, and to do so over a period of time. Then at the end of that, if the parents are still dissatisfied, there is the opportunity to go to an appeal committee and finally to the Secretary of State. If at the end of all that they still believe that the local education authority is acting in an arbitrary way they are entitled to appeal under Section 68 of the 1944 Act, as any parent is entitled to do.
I do believe that we have gone as far as we can to meet what I recognise are very real concerns. If we get to this kind of situation, then I think it will be due to a failure which would be very difficult to put right by putting it into law, because it will be a breakdown in human relationships. I think that would be a sad fact, but I believe we cannot meet it further.
Turning to the reason why I am not prepared to accept these amendments, it is not just an arbitrary decision on my part but because I think that, in the interests of the local authority, there will be cases where the local authority will have to make a decision about who should be the person the parents should see at some stage. Therefore, there has to be some mechanism to make quite sure, where there could be uncertainty or difficulty, that someone has the final right to say so. To take that out I think would make for more confusion and probably bad law than leaving it in. That is the reason why technically I cannot accept the amendments. In saying that, I do want to give the assurance that I am not in any way trying to go back on undertakings I have given. I recognise the feeling of the House in this, and the Government want to meet the natural concern of parents as far as they possibly can.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if I may briefly exercise my right of reply—
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I think the noble Lord should preface his remarks with, "by leave of the House".
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend. May I, with the leave of the House, reply to the short debate which has taken place? I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for their support. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Young for her fairly full explanation, although I regret to say I cannot accept it. In the first place, in her concluding remarks she said that this would be bad law. If this would be bad law, what are we to say about what the Government have so wisely done on the British Nationality Bill, from which they have deleted nearly every reference to the original proposition that the Secretary of State was satisfied, thereby removing the objective test and enabling the matter to be challenged in the courts or Parliament in a way that could not so easily have been taken had those words remained in? I really cannot accept that this would be bad law. It might be slightly embarrassing to some of the local authorities if they could not always have the last word.
In addition to that point, I see no difficulty technically about accepting these amendments, for the reason I have given just now. But surely my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was right when he emphasised, as I had tried to make clear and he made more clear, that if we do not accept these two amendments there will be that minority of bad cases in which things will go wrong. It is awfully tempting, because one has such great faith in the zeal and interest of my noble friend Lady Young in this matter, to say "Well, she is full of hope that everything will go right". But with great respect I do not think that is a sure enough foundation for our work as a revising Chamber. Therefore, with great reluctance and some regret, I do feel that I cannot withdraw my amendment. The only question is whether I let it be negatived or ask your Lordships to divide. Having thought about that, I feel that it is necessary to ask your Lordships to divide.
3.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 82.

DIVISION No 1

CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Blyton, L.

Amherst, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brain, L.

Amulree, L.

Brockway, L.

Ardwick, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Avebury, L.

Clancarty, E.

Aylestone, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Bacon, B.

Collison, L.

Banks, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Bernstein, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Bishopston, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

568

DeL'Isle, V.

Peart, L.

Derwent, L.

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Plant, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Porritt, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Renton,L.—[Teller.]

Gaitskell, B.

Robbins, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

SaintBrides, L.

Gosford, E.

Seebohm, L.

Greenway, L.

Segal, L.

Gridley, L.

Somers, L.

Halsbury, E.

Spens, L.

Hampton, L.

Stamp, L.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stone, L.

Kennet, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Swinfen, L.—[Teller.]

Leatherland, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Underhill, L.

Listowel, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Wigg, L.

Loudoun, C.

Wigoder, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Willis, L.

Melchett, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Oram, L.

Yarborough, E.

Pargiter, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Avon, E.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lothian, M.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Bessborough, E.

McFadzean, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Margadale, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Marley, L.

Cockfield, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Daventry, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V.

Northchurch, B.

De Freyne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Digby, L.

Onslow, E

Dilhorne, V.

Orkney, E.

Effingham, E.

Portland, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Reigate, L.

Energlyn, L.

St.Davids, V.

Faithfull, B.

Sandys,L.—[Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

Savile, L.

Gainford, L.

Sharples, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gormanston, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Haig, E.

Swinton, E.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hawke, L.

Trefgarne, L

Henley, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ilchester, E.

Vivian, L.

Kemsley, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Killearn, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Duty of health authority to notify parents etc.]:
3.29 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 9, line 11, leave out ("the authority are of opinion that").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, encouraged as I am by the result of that Division, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. I must confess to your Lordships that a very similar situation now arises on Clause 10. The position is that Clause 10(2) was added to the Bill at the Committee stage by a welcome amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Young. It did not go as far as some of us wanted, but, as chairman of what was then the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, I was very grateful for it. I am proud and happy to tell your Lordships that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to command that we should become the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults.
However, I must come to the point of my amendment, which is to leave out the words:
"the authority are of the opinion that".
Again, I must confess to your Lordships that the same point arises, that by making the authority the sole judge of the question whether a particular voluntary organisation is likely to be able to help the parents, a subjective test has again been applied. So yet again we find that the authority could not be challenged in the courts or in Parliament if it refuses or fails to inform the parents of an obviously suitable voluntary organisation.
At the Report stage on 31st July, 1981 at column 911 my noble friend Lady Young said that we should avoid being bureaucratic. We all agree with that. She went on to say that we need to be flexible. We also agree with that. Then she said that subsection (2) of Clause 10:
"… does meet the needs, which we recognise as important ones, of parents with handicapped babies".
In view of the uncertainty as to whether to make the authority the sole judge will frustrate the purpose of the clause, I have moved this amendment and will move the next one, which is merely consequential. I shall listen with interest and, indeed, eagerly to what my noble friend has to say. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, as this amendment is concerned with voluntary bodies, I should like to offer my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Renton and to the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults. I was delighted to hear that the society had received the gracious permission of Her Majesty to add "Royal" to its full title. I am sure that this recognition of the work of the society will be greatly acclaimed, and that all parts of the House will be pleased to endorse it.
On this Bill I find myself continually in a great difficulty. As my noble friend Lord Renton said in moving this amendment, as he did on the former ones, this clause of the Bill was, in fact, brought forward by the Government to meet the concerns which were expressed in another place and in your Lordships' House about voluntary organisations, just as earlier the parts of Clause 7 were brought forward to meet
570
concerns about parental knowledge as regards statements for children with special educational needs. No matter what it is that we do, clearly, in the eyes of many people we have never done enough, though we hoped that we had met a concern which I and my colleagues recognised. The concern was that when parents first discovered, very tragically, that they had a handicapped child—and the first person to know of this would almost certainly be the doctor, the health visitor or, indeed, the hospital—the hospital authorities would put the parents in touch with a voluntary organization—a view by which we stand. Indeed, that is the object of Clause 10 of the Bill.
My noble friend dislikes the thought that there should be any circumstance in which the health authorities might use their discretion about putting parents in touch with a voluntary organisation. Of course, when we are talking about voluntary organisations, such as the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, it is quite clear what the circumstances are and with which organisation one should put the parents in touch. But I am quite certain that if my noble friend Lord Renton considers the matter carefully, he will recognise that we must be quite realistic about the circumstances. Very tragically, when some children are born they will suffer from more than one handicap and it will be a matter for professional judgment in which direction to encourage the parents to look for additional help and support outside the health and social services; in other words, with which voluntary organisation or organisations they should be put in touch.
In other individual circumstances there may well be occasions when a particular local organisation will be inexperienced. It very much depends on the individuals locally who are able to give their services to the organisation. A good voluntary organisation can be of enormous help to parents. But let us suppose that there is some doubt about it. Is it not right to give some discretion to the health authorities to use their judgment as to whether or not it would be helpful to the parents? After all, it is always open to the voluntary organisation to get in touch with the parents or to the parents to get directly in touch with the voluntary organisation itself if they think that there is any doubt about the matter.
Although I recognise that my noble friend Lord Renton will say that it is ultimately just a matter of trust, I believe, again, that when this clause is read in the context of the whole Bill, the health authorities will see—as the clause says—that they must inform the parents, that they are under a duty to inform the parents, of a suitable voluntary organisation. However, if there is not a suitable one, it must be at their discretion whether they do not, either because the child is suffering from a multiplicity of handicaps—perhaps a handicap for which there is no appropriate voluntary organisation—or possibly because the local voluntary organisation is not as good as they would wish.
I do not think that this detracts from the principle of the case and, as in the other cases, I think there will be times when someone has to exercise a discretion in the matter. That is why the clause is drafted as it is. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will not be carried away by the sunshine of our support for his previous amendment, because on this occasion I cannot advise my noble friends to support this amendment. It seems to me that we are putting the local education authorities in a very difficult position. Any group of people can band together and call themselves a voluntary organisation. They might be some of the less desirable or more desirable people connected with fringe medicines or various cults. To use the words "voluntary organisation" leaves the whole thing far too wide open. If it is the local authority that has advised the parents to contact a particular organisation and the organisation does not, in fact, help the child—it might even (and I have known such sad cases) have had a deleterious effect on the health of the child—that is no one's fault. People working in voluntary organisations very often give up their spare time and do not always become fully associated or acquainted with the complications of those whom they are trying to help.
I think that it would be most unfair for a parent to have to go back to a local authority and say: "You put us in touch with this organisation. Our child has become worse than ever since we contacted them; they have given us nothing but bad advice". I think that that would be unfair to the local authority. Although I pay tribute to all the very good work which voluntary organisations do—and certainly in this field we would be lost without them—I believe that the responsibility must be between the organisation and the parent. I appreciate for once—and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will not be too surprised—that at least it is suggested that the voluntary organisation should be put in touch. But I believe that discretion must be reserved for the local authority, otherwise the amendment would mean that the local authority could never refuse to tell a parent about any organisation however small, kinky, way-out or difficult.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I say at once and ease your Lordship's minds that I am persuaded by the gracious way in which both noble Baronesses have argued against my amendment. But may I just correct the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, because Clause 10 does not refer to local authorities; it refers to area and district health authorities. Nevertheless, I am sure that what the noble Baroness said would in her mind apply with equal force to them as she argued in relation to local authorities. It was Clause 7 that applied to local authorities, local education authorities in particular.
Since I moved the last amendment I have been advised that I have the right of reply and do not need the leave of your Lordships—but if some of your Lordships consider that in view of my loquacity I need your leave, I will gladly ask for it. My noble friend Lady Young may perhaps have thought me ungrateful for not taking exactly as they stood the amendments which she moved at earlier stages of the Bill. I would like to assure her that we are deeply grateful, but our attitude could be easily impaired if for some reason her efforts were frustrated by something being inserted which prevented her intentions from being fulfilled. That is the only reason why I am
572
moving these amendments, but we are none the less grateful to the noble Baroness.
I realise that I do not have such a strong case with this amendment to Clause 10 as I did with the amendment to Clause 7. In view of the considerations which have been expressed by both noble Baronesses, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Interpretation and commencement]:
3.42 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 14, line 14, leave out ("and is registered as a pupil at a school").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting matter and I do not wish to press it, but I believe it is worth asking for a brief explanation. On page 14, line 14, we find the words:
"and is registered as a pupil at a school;".
This is in relation to the definition of the word "child", which of course occurs a great deal throughout the Bill. It is especially important in the earlier clauses of the Bill. For the sake of clarity and emphasis it might be just as well to leave in the words,
"and is registered as a pupil at a school;"
but we need see always that unnecessary words are not introduced in statutes. If my noble friend Lady Young assures me that these words are really necessary and in fact perhaps highly desirable, then I will not press the matter further. In any event, I would not dream of dividing your Lordships over this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Young, replies may I say that I had hoped that this was much more than a drafting amendment because it seemed to me that if we widen the definition of the word "child" to include people in need up to the age of 19, whether or not they were registered at a school, we should be fulfilling one of the main objectives of the Warnock Committee. One of the committee's priorities was 16 to 19 year-olds whom that committee found to be very neglected, unemployed, lacking in facilities for special training and lacking enjoyment of life in many ways. It seemed to me that insisting that a child comes within the definition of this Bill only if registered at a school is going to exclude thousands and thousands of children who most need help.
I am here speaking of the school drop-outs—the children who drifted off at 16 and who have not been found a place in any training establishment. Unfortunately, they do exist. I had a case of such a child only recently. The only advice his mother was given was that he was only fit to go to a sheltered workshop. When she asked where a sheltered workshop was she was told the nearest was 40 miles away and that there was a two-year wait for admission. It is important that we should pay much more attention to this age group. I know we discussed this matter on a previous occasion, on 17th July, but none of the answers was satisfactory;

573
and we know that this is a sphere of great sadness in many families, especially at a time when there is so much youth unemployment. It is bad enough to be a young unemployed person, but to be a young unemployed disabled person is to be in a very sad situation indeed.
I had hoped that what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, intended by suggesting taking out the requirement for the child to be registered as a pupil at a school, was to enable these very children to come within the ambit of this Bill and to give a bit of a tonic to local authorities. It was certainly not the intention of the Warnock Committee that these children should be excluded; in fact I should like to repeat that this group of children was one of the committee's priorities. I very much wish that the noble Lord will reciprocate our earlier kindness by agreeing that his amendment means what I think it means.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I believe her whole speech may have been based on the assumption that the word "includes" means in this definition "means". In fact it merely reads:
"includes any person who has not attained the age of 19 years and is registered as a pupil at a school;".
All other children, of course, are obviously children.
Baroness Jeger: I am sorry, my Lords, but that does not bear out our earlier debate of the 17th July, when the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said quite clearly at column 1495:
"Those who have left school are not covered by this Bill".
I believe that is the flat answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, I am in some little doubt about the wisdom of this whole phrase, which states that:
"'child' includes any person who has not attained the age of 19 years and is registered as a pupil at a school;".
That means to say that anyone who is 18 years and 364 days old is to be regarded as a child. That is ridiculous in this day and age. Generations ago it was probably proper to regard such people as children, but I remember that back in the 1914 war at the age of 18 I was a company sergeant major, and nobody ever dared to refer to me as a child. I consider that the whole of that sentence wants looking at, whether or not the noble Lord's amendment is accepted.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is not the matter somewhat complicated in the case of the ages of disabled school children because so many of them have lost time through operations and illness that they may have missed out on years of schooling? In Germany, where I visited educational facilities for disabled children, such children sometimes still go to school long after the age of 20 if need be.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the debate we have had on 16 to 19 year-olds. I believe that what the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has said is true; that my noble friend's
574
amendment is in fact more than a drafting amendment. The definition of a child for the purposes of this Bill would be extended by this amendment to include 16 to 19 year-olds who are not at school; that is to say, pupils at further education colleges, who are in work, or who are unemployed. The Bill as a whole—in particular, Clause I—has been so drafted that we are concerned only with those 16 to 19 year-olds who are at school. Were this definition of the word, "child", to be altered, we would do much more than insert a drafting amendment; we would be very much affecting the definition as given in Clause 1.
If, for example, one looks in Clause 1(2)(b) in building up the determining factors as to whether a child has special educational needs, they refer to the educational facilities of a kind generally provided in schools for children of the age of the "child" in question. The reference to educational facilities in schools does not make sense in relation to 16s to 19s generally but only in relation to those of them who are at school, and for this reason the word "child" must bear the meaning given to it which it has in Clause 20.
We had, both in Committee and on Report, long debates on the whole question of 16 to 19 year-olds who are not in schools. I understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and my noble friend Lord Renton that it would be much nicer and better if we could extend the definition to include all of those who are in further education, but I do not want to repeat all the arguments as we have been over this ground very fully before. The truth of the matter is that the Department of Education and Science has now a consultation document out on the whole question of further education, and included in this must be, and is, the further education of children with special educational needs. It has been made necessary because some of the legal basis of further education has been questioned—and it is therefore important to put all these matters right at the same time.
It is important that those interested particularly in children with special educational needs should of course make their view known to the department on this consultation document. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will not press this amendment to a Division. As she will understand, it is not one that I could accept. I am very glad to hear that my noble friend Lord Renton definitely does not intend to do so. I think at this stage it would be very damaging to the Bill. We recognise the problem and we are trying to do something about it, but this really is not the way to deal with the problem of 16 to 19 year-olds.
Lord Renton: My Lords, again I am grateful to the two noble Baronesses. I had indeed missed the point of this definition of "child" until I heard both their speeches. I accept that my amendment was potentially more than a drafting amendment. However, having heard them both, and having learned a great deal from what they said, I now am a wiser man, I trust, and I certainly do not intend to press this to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.54 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 7:

575
Page 14, line 18, after ("date") insert ("not later than 1st September 1984").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7, which inserts the date "not later than 1st September 1984". I make no apology for moving this amendment. We had an earlier discussion about the possibility of fixing a date. In fact, on 17th July during the Committee stage we suggested a date for implementation of 1st September 1982. The amendment was withdrawn, but in column 1543 I assured the noble Baroness that we should be keeping a very close watch on developments and it was in that situation that I withdrew that amendment.
Every development since July has strengthened the case for a starting date to be written into the Bill. With increasing cuts in public expenditure it is clear that education is in the firing line. It will be impossible for authorities to maintain existing services, leave alone to develop new ones. We are asking authorities to act in a climate of recession and contraction which, even with the best will in the world, is bound to lead to postponements.
We are asking for a date to be put into this Bill for the sake of the children and the families we are working for. A date will compel action to be taken, and I am sure that if the Government wills the action it will have to will the means. According to the Warnock Report we are talking about 20 per cent. of the nation's children. We are letting the years of their childhood slip by with lost opportunities because of delay in implementing this Bill.
Today's amendment suggests a date of 1st September 1984—much more generous than our previous suggestion. This gives the Government nearly three years, which is a long time in the life of a child; years that can never be given back. The noble Baroness said, in column 1543 on 17th July, that she did not want to be tied to a date on the face of the Bill, and that she was exploring the possibility of bringing some provisions into force earlier than September 1982. Today's amendment does not prevent her from doing that; it asks only that the Bill should be in force not later than 1st September 1984.
The House should be encouraged to support this amendment through experience of the Education Act 1976. I refer to that Act to illustrate how fair-minded I am between one side of the House and the other. In the Education Act 1976 Section 10 laid down that priority was to be given to educating handicapped children in ordinary schools rather than in special schools. No date was laid down in that Bill, and after five years that section has still not been implemented. It is because that Bill has not been implemented that we need this Bill today. But I do not want it to meet the same fate. That would be a cruel deception for children, for parents, for the voluntary organisations who have worked so hard in helping on this Bill, and for the members of the Warnock Committee themselves.
I must ask: what is the objection to putting a date in the Bill? It is quite the usual procedure. I have been a Member of one House or another for a long time, and to find a date at the end of a Bill is more usual than unusual. If the reasons for leaving a date completely unmentioned are financial, then I have to wonder whether it is better not to have the Bill at all
576
than to raise hopes before a false dawn. If there is an objection to giving local authorities a timetable, I am sure the best authorities will welcome this. It is not unusual in many spheres of activity, especially when long-term planning and budgeting are essential. Of course, the department often asks authorities to make long-term plans. I see from a press notice from the department on 16th June of this year that education authorities were asked to rationalise their school stock and to inform the DES by the end of this year what action they propose to take up to 1986. The department is in fact asking for a five-year plan. I know that is how the education authorities look at it. Surely the implications of this Bill could be made part of that plan.
Of course, the best local authorities will endeavour to go ahead. Several of them, in spite of resource difficulties, are already working closely on Warnock principles. ILEA, for instance, has already announced its response to Warnock; that it is to appoint 29 special needs support teachers; that there is to be a special education inspector in each of the 10 divisions; and that other plans are going ahead. I shall not take the time of the House by reading out all the details, but I am glad to see that there is a special paragraph given to the in-service training of teachers. There are to be extra child care staff in the ILEA's 32 special boarding schools and hostels, and that is what Warnock meant by advisory and support services.
I am sure the Minister personally welcomes such initiative; one can only hope she will prevent some of her fiscal colleagues from bullying London authorities for rate increases which will be all the heavier because of cuts in Government expenditure on education, leaving the burden of the implementation of the Warnock proposals to be largely a matter for local authorities. We have reached the point in education now, it seems, when the Government are not just slicing off the fat but sawing through the bones. I was reminded of the situation by an article in the Sunday Times on 11th October last, which was headed:
"Council chiefs draw up chopping list for schools".
That gave several examples of drastic and damaging economies. In particular, the Chief Education Officer for Gloucestershire warned in his report, the article said, that:
"Child guidance, psychological and remedial advisory services would have to go. The county would, therefore, be unable to diagnose children's learning and behaviour difficulties. There would be no expert opinion available, for example, on whether a child should be sent to a school for the maladjusted".
I am not being uncomplimentary to Gloucestershire, who I know are doing the very best they can, but, if that is how one county spells out the difficulties, what are the prospects for the implementation of this Bill? In those circumstances, who will do the assessments, prepare the statements and deal with the appeals under the Bill? It is because of fear that the Government will use their fiscal powers to prevent the Bill fulfilling its essential purposes that we ask for a date to be inserted which would be the law of the land, so that we hope not even the present Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Government would be able to ignore it.
I spent part of the Recess in the United States and I spent far too much of my holiday looking at the

577
work being done there among handicapped children. I have with me Public Law 94–142, cited as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act 1975. That measure, passed in November 1975, required implementation by education authorities for all handicapped children between three and 18 not later than 1st September 1978. That gave the states three years. For handicapped children up to the age of 21, however, a more generous upper limit was chosen and the Act had to be implemented by 1st September 1980, which allowed the authorities five years. It also provided that individualised education programmes had to be revised for every handicapped child periodically but not less than annually. I was impressed by that because, in view of the much looser form of government which exists in the United States, in many spheres it is more difficult for Federal laws to be applied in local detail. However, on that occasion the Federal law insisted on those dates being taken on board locally. That is an example of what is not only possible but necessary.
I spent a great deal of time there speaking to doctors, teachers, psychologists and people on local councils, all of whom said that the legislation had been given terrific acceleration because of the knowledge that once the Bill had been passed, something had to be done about it. Nobody could say, "There will be a statutory instrument in a few years' time", or, "The country cannot afford it yet". All sorts of local endeavours were started and all concerned have found it a tonic to have a date to which to work. All the parents and teachers I spoke to welcome that arrangement very much.
The Warnock Report suggested that we should have extra qualifications for teachers working in this sphere. Indeed, Mrs. Warnock hoped that we should be able to get that teaching programme off the ground in three years' time. Thus, I do not feel I am being eccentric, impatient or unfair; it is essential, if we mean what we say, to insert the date as proposed into the Bill. Then local authorities will be able to do the necessary budgeting and planning. As I said, many of the best of them are doing it already, but I am concerned for those children who live in areas where the authorities are not among the best, or where the authorities which will be so poor, as the result of the present Government's policies, that it will be difficult for them to implement the Bill as quickly as they themselves would wish.
I hope, therefore, that we can agree that, in common with many other education provisions which we in this House pass, we shall show parents, voluntary organisations and the members of the Warnock Committee that in this matter we mean what we say—that we want the Bill to happen and that there is no good reason for delaying it. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I wish briefly to express sympathy with the amendment, for I feel it would be unsatisfactory to leave the commencement date unspecified. There is the danger, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, made clear, that if we did that we should be opening the door to delay. The Government envisage, as she said, the possibility of different parts of the Bill being implemented at different times. But as she pointed out, that would still be possible if the
578
amendment were passed. The only thing necessary would be that the full implementation should be complete by 1st September 1984. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness, Lady Young, could give a greater picture of what is envisaged in the way of stage-by-stage introduction, and would indicate whether she feels that must inevitably last longer than from now until 1st September 1984.
Baroness Bacon: My Lords, there is little I need add after the important arguments advanced by my noble friend Lady Jeger. I suggest that it is dangerous for any Act of Parliament to leave the Minister absolute discretion. If the clause is left as drafted, it will mean that the measure will,
"come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint".
That means that local authorities will have no target date whatever. Unless they have a target date there will be a tendency to postpone the preparation for the coming into operation of the Bill.
It is no use the Minister saying there is not time for that. After all, it is not long since we debated a Bill one of whose provisions was to spend millions of pounds giving special places to more able children from state schools to go to private shools. That was put into operation almost immediately and is now being acted upon in many parts of the country. Just as the Minister would argue on behalf of able children to have that opportunity—I opposed it from the beginning—surely it is more important to give this opportunity as quickly as possible to the less fortunate children in our schools.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although I am sure that all of your Lordships on both sides of the House are united in agreeing with the noble Baronesses on the Labour Benches that we do not wish to see the implementation of the Bill delayed, I must confess that I should be very disappointed if we were to make 1984 the target date. There are some local authorities that I would expect to be ready to implement the Bill on 1st September 1982—
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to give way for a moment? My amendment asks that the Bill should come into force "not later than 1st September 1984".
Lord Renton: My Lords, there, if I may respectfully say so, I see the danger. If we say that the date should not be later than 1st September 1984, that will cause many local authorities to sit back and say, "We have plenty of time to deal with this. We have lots of problems as it is. We can let this one wait a bit". No, if there is to be a target date, I should much rather see an earlier date. I think that many local authorities could implement the Bill by 1st September 1982, and it would be very sad indeed if they were not all made to go ahead and get on with it, so that it was implemented by 1st September 1983 at the latest.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I do not recall, when I previously put down an amendment proposing

579
September 1982, having had the pleasure of the noble Lord's support.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, it is all very interesting, but let us read what the subsection states:
"This Act shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint and"—
this is so nebulous—
"different dates may be appointed"—
this is a little more nebulous—
"for different provisions or different purposes".
The drafting is so cloudy that far from local authorities knowing where they were, one local authority could have regulations and a date different from that of another. In other words, it does not mean that the Bill could be implemented for all parts of Britain at the same time, but rather that a diktat would come from above. Those of us who have worked in education and who have seen the work devoted to it in the country by education authorities of all parties—I stress all parties—should not underestimate the degree of knowledge and experience of many people on local education authorities throughout Britain.
We talk of the principal Act of 1944. To me that was Butler's great Act. It was a great move on the part of the then Conservative Government. But that Act has been shredded, absolutely shredded, and parts of it are withering away. We cannot afford to neglect the children with whom the Bill is concerned. I do not want to spread the debate much further, but I should like your Lordships to consider classes of 30 or 35 pupils. If such classes include, say, half a dozen children who are handicapped in different ways, they are far too big for those children to receive the attention they need. If handicapped children are to be moved into ordinary schools, there should be provision to limit the size of classes to 25, or at least under 30 pupils. There is nothing in the Bill to state what should be the size of classes when handicapped children are introduced
Those of us who have worked in education think, at least I think, whatever the rest of the House might think, that this is a bad Bill; and the redundancy that is now being created at all levels in the teaching profession is a disgrace to a great country. Consequently, I want to enhance the excellent arguments put forward by both noble Baronesses about the latest date for implementation, and I think that we should adopt the logical words of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger: "Not later than 1st September 1984". The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is a brilliant advocate and logician, but there is more than logic involved in teaching and dealing with children. We owe something to the handicapped children, and the proposals should be harnessed right away so that the nation can at last get down to giving a square deal to the handicapped children of Britain.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I, too, wish to support the observations of my noble friends, especially those of my noble friend Lady Jeger. I was particularly upset by what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said about certain things happening earlier than other things. Some comments have been made this afternoon on education of children up to 19 years of age, and I feel sure that at present no local education
580
authority could in one year fulfil the requirement concerning the continuing education of those in the 16 to 19 years age group. One of the most important aspects of the Bill is that it is written into it that children up to 19 years of age are to be given the right to further education. It is for that reason that I support the date that my noble friend puts forward. It would make it quite clear to local education authorities that they must work towards providing further education by 1984 at the very latest, and some of them would have to pull out a lot of stops to accomplish that.
Good local education authorities are already providing many of the things that are included in the Bill, but what is most important is the provision of further facilities, and we must recognise that fixing the date would be a considerable help to the large numbers of parents of children approaching the age of 16. Throughout the country pressure is building up that something must be done for children at 16 years of age. There is no need for me to remind the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that one of the first groups of parents to challenge the Education Act 1944 regarding the continuation of education came from Oxfordshire. Those parents had the support of the Education Department at that time, but perhaps the Education Department is not now so willing to support other pressure groups of parents up and down the country in regard to continuing education.
We must recognise—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, brought this out quite clearly—that education Acts have to apply to able children as well as to those who are handicapped. In our education set-up in this country we have at all levels great facilities for able children, and we are trying to include a date in the Bill and ensure that the facilities will also be given to less able children who suffer handicaps. My sole purpose in rising this afternoon is to ensure that the proposed date is included so that the part of the Bill dealing with the 16 to 19 year-olds is seriously considered. Before sitting down, I should like to add that exactly the same words are included in the document. The Legal Basis of Further Education. I have read it very thoroughly and I am not at all happy with the recommendations for further education that are being considered. I hope that all people who are interested in education for the 16 to 19 year-olds will make their observations on the recommendations, since the department is showing all the different kinds of loopholes that every local authority could find to get out of implementing the provisions. But what worries me in particular is what is stated at the end of the recommendations about implementation:
"It is envisaged that different provisions in new legislation might for operational reasons need to come into force at different times".
Are those times to be different from those that we have here? It is in this respect that I would support the noble Lord on the Liberal Front Bench and ask the noble Baroness: Can she not give some guidance to us this afternoon on when the different parts of the Bill will come into operation?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope that I can set at rest the fears that have been expressed this afternoon; and I should very much like to thank my noble friend

581
Lord Renton for his most helpful remarks and for his interpretation of the effects of this amendment. I have always made it clear to the House that it is my wish that this Bill will be implemented as soon as possible, and I reiterate that today. I should like to place on record that the Government share this view, and that it is our intention that the implementation of the major provisions of the Bill will be well before September 1984. I should like to make that absolutely clear.
Indeed, we hope that all the provisions of the Bill, or nearly all of them, will be in force in time for the early part of the academic year 1982–83; that is, In a year's time. That is the date to which we are working, and that is the date by which I hope we shall see the provisions of this Bill implemented. I think it is important, and it is a matter which has been debated for a very long time. The Bill is in itself creating a new legal framework which will set local authorities on a new course, and I think it is important that it should be started as soon as possible.
There will be no delay on financial grounds because the Bill is based on the best practice at present, and I believe that that is something that is very important. The public expenditure proposals make it clear that it is the Government's wish that the same amount of money will be devoted to special education throughout the period of review, and as indeed we expect that there will be about 10,000 fewer children with special educational needs in the school population because of falling rolls, there will in fact be some extra money for redistribution.
I therefore hope very much that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, will not press her amendment. I should perhaps repeat the point that my noble friend made, that were the amendment to go into the Bill, then, if in fact any part of the Bill was not implemented by 1984, it would fall, and I cannot believe that that would be her intention. So I hope that she will believe that in this matter the intentions of the Government are quite clear.
I should just like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, who raised a quite separate point about 16–19year-olds, that we discussed this matter on an earlier amendment today, and indeed we discussed it both in Committee and on Report. The whole area of 16–19-year-olds in further education is not covered by the Bill, of course, and is the subject of the document to which she referred, The Legal Basis of Further Education, which has been the subject of discussion; and the proposals under that document will be, and must be, subject to other legislation. But I should like to reiterate the legal position in regard to 16–19-year-olds, and it is that local authorities have the same duty towards handicapped young people as towards all others over compulsory school age and under 19.
This duty derives from the LEAs' general duty under Section 8(1)(b) of the 1944 Act to secure the availability of sufficient schools to provide secondary education. The effect of this section is that LEAs have a duty to see that suitable provision is available for those pupils between 16 and 19 who require it; and the general view of the DES and others is that this duty may be discharged if the LEA offers facilities either in a school or in further education, and that no individual young person has an unqualified right to be provided with school education rather than further education, or vice versa.
582
But the duty remains where it is, and it applies just as much to children with special educational needs as to any other children.
I hope that with these assurances the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, will feel able to withdraw her amendment. I think it is very important that this Bill is implemented as soon as possible, and I hope very much that we shall see it implemented in time for the next academic year, 1982.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that I do not think we have made any progress in this connection this afternoon. The noble Baroness seems to be living in a totally different world from the world of the people on the education authorities and on the school staffs, and of the anxious parents of handicapped children, who are seeing day nurseries shut, nursery schools closed down and all sorts of facilities contracting, whereas the Warnock Report urged priority for the under-fives and for the over-16s; and when we talk to education officers and teachers about these things they are in despair about the reductions in services which are being forced upon them. So when the noble Baroness says that she looks forward hopefully to the implementation of some aspects of this Bill by 1982, and that certainly she hopes for fulfilment before 1984, I think that, with great respect, that would get a horse laugh from any director of education or any chairman of an education committee who I know at the present time.
The idea that because there are going to be fewer children that will somehow set free some money so that we shall not need to ask for more is quite unreal. We are not talking only about teachers: we are talking about training and we are talking about the extra support services that will be needed as these disabled children are brought into the schools. Let me bring your Lordships down to earth. What do you think happens in a classroom of 30 children or more where there is one child with spina bifida and that child wants to go to the lavatory? Is the teacher to take her? Of course not. There must be available in our schools, if we mean what we say about implementing Warnock, the sort of assistance that will give support and aid and will make the life of that child as normal as possible. It really is unfair to the House, to Mrs. Warnock and her committee, to the parents and to these children themselves to pretend that this Bill can be implemented without any money.
I know the noble Baroness wishes Godspeed to this Bill, and perhaps I may say to her that I think the whole House is indebted to her in that, with all the added duties that she has assumed, she has kept this Bill under her wing. We do appreciate the fact that she has given this time to it this afternoon. I could sometimes wish that her wing were a little cosier, but at least we are glad that she is here. In fact, we are terrified that she is not going to be in this department any longer, because we fear that without her championship we might do even less well than we have done so far.
Of course, these things depend on Government policy. They will depend a lot on announcements which I understand are likely to be made tomorrow—or, if not made tomorrow, leaked tonight or leaked tomorrow. Therefore, I think we cannot just brush

583
this aside by merely hoping in the present atmosphere that it will work out all right and the money will come from somewhere. I am sorry, but on this occasion I must ask my noble friends to vote for the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I wonder whether I might make one small comment. Residential care for handicapped children is very expensive. It costs something like £4,000 or £5,000 a year. If a number of those children are going to be educated at home there will be a considerable amount of saving to local authorities. I just make that small point.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 117.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Leatherland, L.

Amulree, L.

Listowel, E.

Ardwick, L.

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

Avebury, L.

Bacon, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Banks, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bernstein, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

McCluskey, L.

Blyton, L.

Mais, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Melchett, L.

Brockway, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pargiter, L.

Collison, L.

Peart, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Phillips, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Segal, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B

Stone, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gosford, E.

Underhill, L.

Hale, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hampton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wigoder, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Willis, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jacques, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Jeger, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Chitnis, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cockfield, L.

Ampthill, L.

Colwyn, L.

Arbuthnott, V.

Cork of Orrery, E.

Avon, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Bathurst, E.

Craigavon, V.

Beloff, L.

Craigton, L.

Belstead, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Bessborough, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Boardman, L.

Daventry, V.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Davidson, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

de Clifford, L.

Chelwood, L.

De Freyne, L.

584

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Digby, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elton, L.

Exeter, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Northchurch, B.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Gainford, L.

Onslow, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orkney, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Porritt, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Portland, D.

Gore-Booth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gormanston, V.

Reigate, L.

Greenway, L.

Renton, L.

Gridley, L.

Renwick, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Haig, E.

St. Davids, V.

Halsbury, E.

Sandford, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Savile, L.

Hawke, L.

Seebohm, L.

Henley, L.

Sharples, B.

Hives, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Holderness, L.

Soames, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Somers, L.

Ilchester, E.

Spens, L.

Kemsley, V.

Stamp, L.

Killearn, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Kilmany, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Swinfen, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Swinton, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Terrington, L.

Long, V.

Teviot, L.

Loudoun, C.

Trefgarne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trenchard, V.

Lyell, L.

Trumpington, B.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

McFadzean, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Westbury, L.

Mancroft, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Margadale, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 14, line 19, after ("order") insert ("made by statutory instrument").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. It has always been the Government's intention that commencement orders would be made by statutory instrument as they were for the 1980 Education Act. This enables commencement orders to have the widest possible circulation and for the world at large to have a reference point as to when a particular provision becomes operative. I am sure that Parliament as a whole would welcome this and I commend the amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. At this stage it would be wrong of me not to acknowledge the care and concern that has been shown on all sides of your Lordships' House during our debates on this important measure. Our debates have taken place against a non-political background and across party lines, and I should like to thank your Lordships for the co-operative way in which

585
you have approached the problems relating to the education of handicapped children. I should like also to take this opportunity on an Education Bill to pay tribute to Lord Boyle of Handsworth, whose recent death will have saddened many Members of your Lordhips' House. The House will recall that he was, apart from holding many other ministerial appointments, first, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education from 1957 to 1959, and later, as a Cabinet member, Minister for Education from 1962 to 1964. The House will also recall, and has reason to be grateful for, his work as chairman of the Top Salaries Review Body which made recommendations for a number of years about allowances in this House.
As many of your Lordships will know, if it had been possible to arrange Government business differently I should have liked to see this Bill introduced first into your Lordships' House, particularly as your Lordships have wide knowledge and experience of problems associated with the handicapped. In the event, however, the debates in the other place served to heighten those areas of proposed legislation where improvements might be made, and your Lordships have taken full advantage of the Government's willingness to consider afresh some difficult areas.
At this stage in the afternoon, I should like to touch on only two particular points of the Bill. The first, which I know has been of great concern to your Lordships, is the integration of handicapped children into ordinary schools. The Bill makes it clear that, in reaching decisions about where a child's special educational needs can best be met, the local education authority must first look at the possibility of meeting those needs in an ordinary school. Even more important, in my opinion, when a child with a statement is educated in an ordinary school, education must take place so far as is reasonably practicable in association with other children in the school. We have thus ensured, I hope, that children with statements are not unnecessarily isolated within ordinary schools.
I have made it clear that the Government do not expect a wholesale movement of children from special school settings into ordinary schools as a result of this legislation. The pace of change will be gradual because we do not have the resources that would be required to integrate all handicapped children overnight. Nevertheless, the Bill makes it clear to LEAs that, wherever possible, integration should be the goal, providing it represents the appropriate way of meeting an individual child's special educational needs.
The second area of the Bill is parental access to professional reports, which has been the subject of much debate. I do not wish to reiterate the Government's views on this issue, but I recognise the concern of parents who, having received a copy of their child's statement feel that there is something more that might have been said about their child's special educational needs. I believe I can offer some comfort here. Your Lordships will appreciate that preparation of post-legislative action in the way of drafting regulations and circulars of guidance is often started by officials in the expectation that Bills will reach the statute book. This is particularly so in cases such as this Bill where the Government wish there to be the shortest possible time between enactment and implementation. Prep-
586
aratory work is already being undertaken in the Department of Education and Science, in consultation with the DHSS, on drafting the statement, the form and content of which are to be prescribed by regulation. I can assure your Lordships that it is the intention of the Government that the statement shall contain sufficient information about the child's needs, and about the medical, psychological, educational and other advice on which the authority's assessment is based, to enable the parents to decide whether to exercise their rights to make representations, to ask for interviews, or to go to an appeal committee.
I believe that the procedures in the Bill will inevitably encourage a system of open advice to LEAs and that the procedures will in practice allay fears about confidential reports. Moreover, the Government amendment which your Lordships accepted will allow the worried parent to go back to source and discuss professional findings with the person concerned. I am sure that this is the right approach, as it allows anxious parents to pose questions and have them answered by those responsible for the advice on a child's special educational needs which has been given to the local education authority.
This Education Bill sets out a framework for the development of special education in the years ahead. I sincerely hope that the co-operative spirit which has pervaded our discussions on this Bill will be mirrored in the discussions locally on how best to meet individual special educational needs. If this can be the case then this Bill will be a far greater contribution to the International Year of Disabled People than the Government anticipated when the legislation was introduced.
My Lords, finally, I should like to thank noble Lords who have so kindly thanked me for taking part in the Third Reading and the last stages of this Bill. I should like to place on record that I believe this to be a very important Bill, and I have been very pleased to do all that I can to further its passage in this House. I hope that we shall see it implemented in the next academic year. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Young.)
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I should like to begin by echoing what the noble Baroness said about the late Lord Boyle. I had the privilege of being contemporary with him for many years in the House of Commons. We were all impressed by his ability, understanding and his deeply civilised approach to the problems of our difficult society. Also, combined with that there was a personal kindliness which many of us knew at first hand and deeply appreciated. His early death is a great tragedy for many people who have benefited from his wisdom and friendship.
This is a Bill which we all wish well; but I must be slightly discordant and say once more that wishing is not enough. It seems to me that the Warnock Report was like a good seed that has fallen on rather stony ground. I should like to express our thanks to all those people who have not only worked on the Warnock Committee but to the number of voluntary organisations and concerned people—such as parents—who gave evidence, have been to see us during the

587
passage of this Bill, have given evidence to committees and who have tried to make this a Bill that would fulfil its objectives.
I must remind your Lordships that The Times Educational Supplement— and that is not a roaring rag of a publication—on 31st July said of this Bill:
"Well thought out advice has been disregarded or watered down beyond recognition".
That may be a harsh judgment, but I know it is how some people feel. Added to this there is a fear also that it will be crippled at birth by lack of resources. I very much hope that we shall be proved wrong about that.
The Bill leaves us with several omissions: we shall pursue the question of the over-16s. We have no national advisory council, which many people wanted. My friends and I especially regret this: the Bill leaves us still allowing corporal punishment in special schools. Clause 2 gives an alibi to reluctant authorities by making the provision of special education compatible with "the efficient use of resources". There is confusion and disappointment about the appeals system. I know that the Minister knows this because there has been correspondence with the Advisory Centre for Education—people who know what they are talking about—and if they feel confused, goodness knows how confused many parents must be.
I was glad to notice that the noble Baroness said at an international conference on 9th September:
"We must not forget that a child with special needs can be just as isolated from ordinary children within an ordinary school as he would be if he attended a special school".
I am sure that we can all echo that. We know that without additional resources integration could disadvantage a child.
I can find no extra provision for the under-twos who are supposed to be brought into the education system for the first time. I can find no evidence that the nursery school provision is going to be extended as the Warnock Committee recommended, and there needs to be a seeking out in many cases of these children. We have talked about anxious parents, but I hope that we shall not forget about parents who sometimes are not as anxious as they ought to be or as anxious as they know how to be.
When I was in America I found that the highest proportion of children getting special education were in the most affluent areas, for the simple reason that these were the articulate, knowledgeable parents—sometimes the demanding, rather pushing parents—whereas in some of the run-down and miserable slum areas people are so crushed by poverty, anxiety and ignorance that they would not think of lifting up their heads and demanding what was due to their child. This will be expensive. I found in a typical area 15 per cent. of the children were getting special education and they were using up 20 per cent. of the budget. This was a matter of some comment among people who were not in receipt of special education.
I appreciate what the noble Baroness has said about the anxiety of parents over access to records. I hope she will not mind my saying that I think we ought to put something right that the noble Minister said at column 795 on 30th July. When talking about the practice in America, she suggested that parents have a
588
right of access to educational records only and a medical report is not a required part of the assessment in the United States. I looked up that Bill while I was over there and it is a fact that health data are part of the required input into a child's file.
I shall not reopen that subject today but I found varying views. Some doctors told me that because of this provision for open access to files for parents they "laundered" their reports. That is the word which at least one doctor used and it was done partly because of fear of litigation—and of course they are a litigious lot over there. Then there was the doctor who said: "I did better reports because I knew that lay people would be reading them and I really had to stop doing this professional shorthand and really write something out carefully that I knew could be understood and discussed".
I do not think myself that the anxieties about this matter have yet reached the end of the road, but I am not sure either that the parental right of discussion with an official is the answer. It seems to me that either the official will tell the parents what is in the report, which is the obvious reason for seeking the interview in the first place—certainly it would be my reason for seeking the interview—or, if he will not, then the original dissatisfaction will persist. I will not go further into that point at this stage, but I think it ought to be on the record that there is still anxiety about it. Of course, we wish the Bill well. My only fear is that there is a great chasm yawning between the concept of this Bill and the reality of its implementation; but I shall be delighted to be proved wrong.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to associate my noble friends and myself with the tribute paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to Lord Boyle of Handsworth. We fully endorse all that was said by the two noble Baronesses. We on these Benches are glad that as a result of this Bill steps will be taken to implement many of the recommendations of the Warnock Report. We are glad that the integration of education of handicapped children with all other children is now accepted as a consequence of the acceptance of this Bill.
Although we share many of the reservations that have been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, our fears that lack of resources may prove a stumbling block remain. The amendments which we proposed and supported at earlier stages, designed to prevent that from happening and designed to ensure that plans were made at local level for the implementation of the provisions of this Bill, were not accepted and we wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, had been able to be more flexible in that respect. Nevertheless, we recognise fully her personal commitment to the aims of the Bill and we recognise the considerable contribution which she has made during the passage of the Bill to improving it, particularly in relation to the assessment of educational need. We hope that this Bill will be very carefully monitored in practice, to make sure that a practical application is given to its excellently good intentions.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, owing to the school holidays of our two children, I was not able to

589
become involved in the Bill as much as I would have liked. I am very sorry to have to tell your Lordships that my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth), who worked so hard on this Bill, is not in your Lordships' House today: my noble friend is in hospital. Both my noble friend and I feel that more emphasis should have been put on integration into normal schools of children who can cope. It seems that we have not yet caught up with the United States of America and Canada over the educational policies for handicapped children. I think the Bill integrates in the wrong way by muddling up all children who come under this Bill by saying "special educational needs" rather than that "they are children with special educational needs". A bright, physically handicapped child's only need may be an accessible school and someone to help them on to the lavatory. If they go to special schools they may in time have a special educational need, as they will have been starved of educational opportunities. Very many special schools for physically handicapped and disabled children have deplorably inadequate libraries, with few reference books, and only achieve CSE standard.
Last Friday I met the father of two boys who have muscular dystrophy. He told me that with the help of the then Secretary of State at the DHSS, who happened to be Sir Keith Joseph, he managed to get allocated electric wheelchairs. These important aids enabled his children to go to normal schools and both boys went through university. One of them graduated with first-class honours degrees. Both are now working. I hope now, as Secretary of State for Education, that Sir Keith Joseph will help other handicapped children successfully to achieve their full potential.
It seems to be the philosophy of Warnock to do away with categories. I have seen how the generic social worker failed to help disabled people through lack of expertise on specific handicaps. I am sure one has to know and assess what the problem is before one can treat it. For example, the deaf, the blind and the dyslectic all have to have specially trained teachers. Far more training on disabilities needs to be given to teachers in training colleges. The International Year of Disabled People has highlighted many of the needs up and down the country, and one of them is more integrated training in colleges. There are genuine fears of disabilities if people have never come into contact with them and do not understand the results.
I welcome Clause 10(2), when health authorities notify the parents of children under five that there is a special educational need and that, if they think it appropriate, they are to inform the parents of a particular voluntary organisation. I have seen so often how putting parents in touch with a specialising voluntary body can encourage and bring them much-needed information and support. Many of these organisations run counselling services, preventing the families from becoming isolated and the parents frustrated by guilt. If there is to be a happy relationship between parents and professionals, barriers ought to be broken down and not built up. There should be confidence between the two: not a "them and us" situation.
It is a pity that educational records are not more open. I should like to read a letter sent by some
590
professionals after they had attended a debate on this subject in your Lordships, House. They say:
"We are professionals in the field of deafness and since the United States' education laws concerning the confidentiality of records were referred to we would like to share our perception of the experience of our country on this matter.
"The benefits of open records have outweighed the possible hindrances and many of the concerns expressed have not proved to be problems. Our experience has been that open records have been in the best interest of the child for the following reasons:

1. Parents have become more involved in the education of their child. They have become more responsible for the total development of their child and participate more fully in this outside the classroom;

2. A relationship of trust has developed between parents and professionals; and

3. Information in files is substantiated by facts. Care is taken to express clearly the meaning and implications of technical data so that it is understandable and useful to both parents and professionals".

Today I have received a letter from the Minister of State at the Scottish Office, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, telling me that the circular which is to be sent to local authorities about the scope for taking account of the needs of disabled people in deciding applications for planning has been issued. This is connected with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. This includes granting planning permission when building a school and providing parking and sanitary facilities. So far, I have not heard about the progress of the circular which is to go out with the Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill.
It is vital that the different departments get together. As your Lordships know, disabled people have so many needs and cross so many departments. These Acts of Parliament are interlinked. If I do not hear anything about England shortly, I shall be putting down a Question to find out what the progress is. With the drop in numbers of children at present, it seems that schools are likely to close rather than that new ones will be built. Therefore, I hope that local authorities will try their hardest to make suitable facilities by adapting some of the existing buildings. So much can be done if the attitude is helpful. Where there's a will, there's a way.
The needs of children with disabilities are so varied. I expect that before long this Bill will have to be amended. There is a problem which I do not think has been discussed, but I hope that some satisfactory solution can be found. This concerns the mobility allowance for children who attend residential special schools. I quote from a letter which I received from the headmaster of Welburn School in Yorkshire last week. He said:
"While I am delighted by the benefit that this allowance has been to so many of my pupils and ex-pupils, I am concerned to note that a few of them do not enjoy any improvement in their lot …
"A small number of my pupils, who are quite properly assessed as eligible for mobility allowance, spend their time at home in uninspiring circumstances, while their parents enjoy the extra income of the weekly mobility allowance.
"It has been suggested that the school should be able to benefit from the allowance during the term times, but I am opposed to this, even if it were feasible to arrange it. Perhaps the best solution would be to make a trust provision which would empower social services to monitor the proper use of the allowance.
"I realise that one could not legislate to compel parents to take children out and about so as to enrich their lives and enlarge upon their experience, but it makes me angry when I discover that the mobility allowance is used by people to run a car into which their handicapped child hardly ever, or never, enters".

591
Because of the difference of needs and the attitudes of parents and teachers towards the education of handicapped children, we need to keep a flexible approach. I hope that this Bill will not hinder progress, but will help to bring together all concerned to work for the overall benefit of all children with problems. I also hope that the noble Baroness will continue to take an interest in this matter, even though she is leaving the Department of Education..
5.4 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the Government deserve to be heartily congratulated on this Bill and on the open-minded way in which Ministers, including my noble friend Lady Young, have considered the arguments put forward in all parts of both Houses of Parliament. Of course, the Minister initially responsible was my right honourable and learned friend Mr. Mark Carlisle, who is no longer in the Cabinet. Whatever may have been the reason for his departure, he deserves credit for having in this Parliament introduced three Education Bills, and for getting two of them onto the statute book with this one to come. He deserves credit, especially, for acting on the Warnock Report. So many valuable reports of independent committees, Royal Commissions and so on especially on education are well received all round and highly regarded, but they never reach the statute book. But Mrs. Mary Warnock and her committee have, in their lifetime achieved the apotheosis that they deserve.
The parents of mentally handicapped children—and I grant that, although they are the largest group of the handicapped, they are among the smaller groups to be considered by this Bill, because a huge proportion of children who were considered to be normal are now regarded as having special educational needs—are grateful for the main provisions of this Bill dealing with special education, special schools and the assessment of special educational needs. Although it is, strictly speaking, an enabling Bill, like most Bills of this kind, it is unthinkable that it should not be implemented quite soon, as my noble friend indicated.
May I briefly mention three ancillary matters? First, on the confidential reports under Clause 7, I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, for telling us that the American provisions apply to medical reports as well as to educational reports. Unfortunately, the Government had apparently been wrongly advised on that and we had a Division, in which those of us who were trying to press the point lost by only five votes. I daresay that it might have been different if I had not had to withdraw that part of my argument. Then, so far as notification under Clause 10 is concerned, I accept what my noble friend said this afternoon in reply to my amendment. We can only hope for the best and that local authorities will co-operate fully. This Bill is a worthy contribution to the many efforts which are being made in this International Year of Disabled People. Well may it serve its purpose!
Baroness Bacon: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships' House very long, because I know that there is other important business to come. However,
592
I was very pleased indeed that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, paid tribute to the late Lord Boyle, and I should not like the opportunity to pass without my saying something, too. The late Lord Boyle was a great friend of mine for over 30 years and I was very pleased when he was appointed vice-chancellor of the university which had been in my former constituency. During the 11 years it was there, I was a member of the court and council, and saw at first hand how he served the purposes of education in Leeds University with great distinction. He served not only the university but the city, particularly in the sphere of music. We shall all remember his speeches. I remember many when we faced each other from opposite Front Benches in another place. But although we faced each other from opposite Front Benches, I know that there was very little difference in our outlook towards education.
The speech that I shall remember most in your Lordships' House was made in December 1979—nearly two years ago. Very few people realise the circumstances in which that speech was made. A few weeks previously Lord Boyle had had a serious operation. He took the rather unusual decision to come to convalesce in a London hotel. Having got as far as that London hotel he could not resist coming to your Lordships' House. That day we were debating overseas students' fees. In the afternoon he said to me, "I can't be here and not speak. I am going back to my hotel to rest for a few hours and then I shall come back to speak". I told him I thought it was rather unwise but he insisted upon speaking. He not only spoke but he spoke at midnight.
I am very pleased indeed that we are paying tribute in an education debate to one who felt so strongly about education. He was a great man who never lost his temper, who was compassionate and who always saw the other person's point of view. I do not want to go into detail about this particular Bill. That has already been done. I know, however, that it is a Bill after Lord Boyle's own heart. One of the things he did at Leeds University soon after he arrived was to set up a special committee to consider the needs of disabled students in Leeds University. Many changes were made to the structure of the university so that disabled people could get about the campus better.
I wish this Bill well. What is important is not what is said in the Bill but the spirit in which it is put into operation. I hope that this Bill will not be only a piece of paper but will become a reality within the next few years.
5.12 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I, too, welcome this Bill. I make no apologies about speaking on one subject which has not been considered very much in any of our debates. I think that it should be mentioned, even though I am interested, as many other Members of your Lordships' House are, in the business which is to follow.
This Bill will not be crippled at birth, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said. This seemed to me to be rather an unfortunate expression about a Bill concerning handicapped children. However, I am very worried about one matter which has not been mentioned; namely, the staffing which will be necessary. To be very parochial for a minute, I made a speech at

593
Second Reading, about which my noble friend Lady Young was very kind, concerning a new special school. Because of the nature of the school—where we take in children from normal schools although they remain on the school roll of that normal school and therefore they are not on the official roll of our school—we are very worried that when the figures for the teacher-pupil ratio go to the Department of Education and Science, as I believe is the case with every single special school, the computer there will go stark, raving bananas. It will probably leap through the roof. It will give the officials an awful fright. Therefore, I hope that whoever is in the department at the time will look kindly at those figures.
Even more important than that are wider questions concerning teacher training. We have to consider the integration of less fortunate children into our normal schools. I am thinking of children we have classified before as ESN(M)—those with minor learning difficulties and those suffering from behavioural problems. There is a very real danger that teachers, who we know are very conscientious, will have so little experience of these children that they will tend to classify them as either stupid, gauche, or even as completely "Bolshie" and therefore will place them on one side and will not encourage them. They may even look upon them as insolent. This can be countered to a certain extent during initial treacher training but I do not think that this situation is very satisfactory. The teachers who are being trained at the moment will not come into the mainstream for another year or so, and we hope that this legislation will come into effect before then.
There is an even more important fact: that practical experience for teachers of what I might describe as children in a normal school is fairly important before they come across handicapped children. By realising what they are looking for in the ordinary child and spotting the mischievous types, they will be more wary and will spot the differences when they come into contact with handicapped children. The answer to this problem is in-service training. Indeed, in-service training must be the answer to both problems. But the important question is: where on earth is the money going to come from? As a result of the present cutbacks, I believe that Lincolnshire recently announced that it is closing down all its teacher centres. Other local authorities are having to follow suit and greatly cut their resources.
Although my noble friend has told us that it will not cost very much, under this Bill I can see extra costs creeping into the budgets of local education authorities because of the very detailed assessment and appeal procedures which this Act gives rise to. I believe therefore that there is a very real danger that teachers will not be prepared to cater for children coming from special schools into ordinary schools. I hope that my noble friend will be an ally on behalf of education and on behalf particularly of—under this Bill we must not call them special children any more but children with learning difficulties. When she is in Cabinet perhaps my noble friend will remember some of the things that have been said in your Lordships' House today. I wish this Bill well and I wish my noble friend well. I hope she will remember us when the hard talking takes place in another place.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I should like to make a few comments on the Third Reading of this Bill. I shall be brief but I wish to emphasise the points made about Lord Boyle. I knew him when I first entered local politics. I was one of the councillors in the Handsworth division. Although we represented different points of view in different parties, before he became a Member of your Lordships' House Lord Boyle was thought highly of in the Handsworth division. He involved himself with the ethnic minorities there and showed his humane attitude towards the disadvantaged, even if they were not suffering from physical or mental disadvantages.
May I touch briefly on what was said about the 16 year-olds by the noble Baroness in her reply to me on a previous occasion. I must remind her that the education of the 16 year-olds and above has been regarded as something of a privilege for those with special needs. Further education is certainly not available for all those who wish to take advantage of it. According to the latest reports in the Library, which go up to 1978, the number of boys and girls who are staying on at school after the age of 16 is very small. We have to recognise clearly that the child who is going to be disadvantaged in the future will in the main be a child with a multiple handicap. All the statistics point to the fact that straightforward disabilities are disappearing. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Mrs. Warnock felt that there was a need to blur what we call the different categories. As was said by the previous speaker, the children who are suffering from multiple handicaps—who perhaps are partially sighted and suffering from severe spasticity, or who are deaf and also suffering from cystic fibrosis—are those who are now having to be catered for inside special schools.
Obviously, as the noble Lord who has just spoken said, these children need a tremendous amount of resources. They need extra special teaching and these will be the children whom we shall have to think of more and more in the future. Medical science keeps these children alive and, unfortunately, some of them are very seriously disadvantaged. I have enjoyed very much listening to the great experience in special education, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who obviously speaks from a great deal of experience and knowledge. What I think we have to consider when we are thinking seriously about the Bill is that there will be many children who are at school today who will not be able to play their part in life in employment. Many more children will be unable to find employment, even if the employment position, as we all hope, improves in the near future. Therefore, we shall have to look to those older age groups from 16 years of age upwards for the development, not of special courses to fit them for future employment in a sheltered workshop—though that might be desirable—but of what are now called self-help skills. Such skills will lead the boys and girls to greater independence so that they will be able to manage alone when their parents die.
So it is in society's own interests that we emphasise the importance of the education which these people will require. It is economically more satisfactory for them to be able to stay in the community. Even if they are not earning any money at all it is cheaper

595
for them to stay in the community, as well as being more humane. The development of what we might call further education might have to be the development of these skills, and it is these skills that will be given to what we call the young adults that will enable them to integrate into society because it is at young adulthood that difficulties arise with handicapped people of all description.
We look at this Bill and hope that the deliberations which have taken place in this House will perhaps enthuse those outside. Although as I said at a previous stage of the Bill I do not think it goes far enough, one has to accept that in the circumstances the Government do not intend it to go any further, and all we can hope is that people outside will work to the maximum of their ability to give greater independence to all handicapped people.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I apologise that I was called away, but I intend to make only three points. One is to pay a tribute to the men and women who for many years have devoted their lives to teaching the underprivileged and the handicapped children in difficult schools. I should think that everybody in this Chamber who has shown an interest in education at some time or other has been to see the devoted work given by these men and women to handicapped children. My second point is one that I mentioned in a brief speech and I intend to be brief again. Anyone who has been a practical teacher—and I have had experience right through the gamut of education—knows that small classes are needed to give the care and devotion. For Heaven's sake! within reason whatever it costs the nation we shall not lose by having smaller classes if they are going to be mixed classes with handicapped pupils in them. Let us not pass this by as being merely a light point but a point that emanates from a democratic Parliament; our first priority is to have small mixed classes.
My last point is one which has not been touched on yet. I think we shall need some peripatetic nurses and dental and medical personnel attending these schools. There is a first-class dental report out at the moment on school children and their dental care. This is particularly of paramount importance in the case of underprivileged children, and therefore I hope we shall be looking at the nursing and the medical profession in relation to these new classes that will come into existence. The House is so well informed that I need not speak any more on these points because I know that they will have gone home.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have had in effect a Second Reading debate, and I should like to correct one slight misunderstanding. I am sure the House will understand that I would not in any way wish to mislead anybody at any stage of the Bill on the American experience. I think it is always rather difficult to compare different systems. I took the best advice that I could and I should like to absolve my advisers from any intention to mislead anyone. What is important is that in the important area of confidentiality I believe we have gone as far as we can to meet what we recognise to be the concerns of parents.
Another point that I should like to make is that, like
596
many others who have spoken, I wish that we could have done more in this Bill, but what is important is that the Bill makes a start on creating a new framework for children with special educational needs and we all wish to see it on the statute book as soon as possible.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with the amendments.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
5.27 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now further considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now further considered.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, I understand that Amendment No. 103 has been moved formally so we start with Amendment No. 103D.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
103 After Clause 40, insert the following new clause:
"Maps of National Parks showing certain areas of moor or heath.
(1) Every county planning authority whose area comprises the whole or any part of a National Park shall—

(a) before the expiration of the period of two years beginning with the commencement date, prepare a map of the Park or the part thereof showing any areas of moor or heath the natural beauty of which it is, in the opinion of the authority, particularly important to conserve; and

(b) at such intervals thereafter as they think fit (but not less than once in any year), review the particulars contained in the map and make such revisions thereof (if any) as may be requisite.

(2) The authority shall cause a map prepared or revised in pursuance of subsection (1) to be printed, and shall cause copies thereof to be put on sale to the public at such price as the authority may determine".
As an amendment to Amendment No. 103:
103D Subsection (1)(b), at end insert—
("; and
(d) prepare an annual report of changes in the character of the area defined on the map.").
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I have no doubt that my recollection of events which occurred at a very late hour on Thursday, when we last dealt with this Bill, is perhaps as hazy as the recollections of other noble Lords. Certainly we were in a fairly confused state—a state of confusion which was perhaps partly added to by the assistance which we received at the last moment from the noble Lord the Chief Whip when we endeavoured to adjourn the House in the midst of one amendment and halfway through another, but my recollection is that this Amendment No. 103D, standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady White, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and myself was spoken to partly by my noble friend Lady White in the course of moving earlier Amendments Nos. 103A, 103B and 103C, with which it is closely related, although I do not think she got as far as formally moving it.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say much

597
more about this amendment, save this: I think the answer given to us by the noble Earl to an earlier amendment regarding the requirement to prepare a map was so very satisfactory, making it utterly clear that there was not to be this onerous burden on the National Park Authorities to produce, print and make available for sale an entirely new map of the area every year. That being so, we were glad to withdraw an earlier amendment.
That being the position, the case for this amendment becomes doubly strong. This amendment requires merely that the appropriate authority should prepare an annual report of changes in the character of the area as defined on the map. It does not need to be a detailed map; it could be a written document containing statistics, and those statistics I am sure are very necessary. They would certainly be helpful to the Countryside Commission, a body which has a continuing duty to advise Government, and would certainly have to advise them on the question of the implementation of Clause 40 of this Bill. In order to give effective advice it will need this kind of information coining in from the national park authorities and it will need to collate that information.
One of the problems which I think has bedevilled our discussions in regard to Exmoor, and other areas where areas of moorland are being restored for agriculture, is that we have had bandied about a whole series of different figures at different times. There has been a great deal of disagreement as to how much of Exmoor has been lost, how much has not been lost, and how much is likely to be lost in the future. I think therefore—since it is not only Exmoor that is concerned; the Northumberland National Park is in the same situation and the North Yorkshire Moors and many other areas of outstanding landscape and scenic beauty are under some threat from agricultural development—it is surely absolutely essential that the process should be monitored on a regular basis. I am absolutely sure it will be monitored by the various national parks, and since they will be monitoring and collecting this information it is also important that they should prepare an annual report so that all these various changes can be collected together and collated and considered by the appropriate bodies, the Countryside Commission, the Government and all others concerned, when deciding what other steps to take. I do not think I need say any more about this amendment, save that it seems to me to have become even more necessary than it was since we had the reply to the earlier amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the amendment to the amendment.—(Lord Winstanley.s)
Lord Melchett: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, we debated this question when discussing earlier amendments. Like him, I am sure the national park authorities will prepare these figures annually. I would have thought it would be a dereliction of their general duty if they did not. Therefore, I see absolutely no harm in their having a duty under this Bill to prepare an annual report which will be available to the public. When we left this point last week the Government seemed to be of the view that none of these amendments were necessary. I would hope that the noble Earl if not able to be filled
598
with more kindness and sweetness and light at this earlier hour and actually to accept the amendment, can at least tell us that the Government in the general discussion on regulations or whatever will be prepared under this part of the Bill will encourage the national park authorities to make these figures available annually, so that we are not forced to extract them from the Government by way of written parliamentary Question, which seems the only alternative.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend, Lord Hunt, who particularly represents the parks' interest, and from this Bench, I would just like to say that we are entirely behind this amendment. I think the case has been adequately put by the mover and I need not put it again.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I said on Thursday night, there is very little difference between us on these four amendments. If I might just recap, on the first one, unfortunately, we were unable really to look at it because "in the opinion of the authority" was omitted in the amended version. With regard to the second one, as Lord Winstanley has kindly said, I was able to put everybody's mind at rest by saying that I would put on record the Government's view that it would be completely unnecessary and indeed it would be grossly extravagant for every national park authority to prepare and publish a revised map each year, but we think the authorities ought to be bound by statute to review the situation annually. I think that satisfied everybody on that one. The third one was about the Countryside Commission, and again I was able to say that that is exactly what we had in mind but did not want to make it statute.
Now I come to the proposition that each national park authority should be required to prepare a annual report of the changes in the character of the area defined on the map. The effect in practice would be to increase the administrative burden on the authorities, because they would be obliged to prepare annually a report of the changes rather than carry out an annual review which might be no more than an internal exercise of a limited kind. It is really that limited kind which seems to make it necessary to put this legally binding statute on the authorities. However, I would very happily give the Government's view, and put it in Hansard that it is the Government's view, that it would be advisable to have an annual report and to make sure that the national parks authorities realise this. I hope with that undertaking perhaps the noble Lord will not wish to press this particular amendment.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, it seems to me that that gets us a little further. We have those words of the noble Earl on record and I have no doubt that they will be read and heeded by the national parks as appropriate. All that is of concern to me and to the other noble Lords and Ladies who are concerned about this amendment is that it is absolutely important that we should have regular and continuing information on precisely what is happening to areas of land of outstanding scenic beauty. That is something we have not had on a regular basis before. The noble Earl's

599
words assure me that that information will be regularly available when required. He knows that it will be required fairly frequently. On that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 103.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
104 After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
"Membership of National Park Authorities, 1972 c. 70.
.—(1) In Part I of Schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972 (discharge of planning and countryside functions in National Parks) in paragraph 11 after the words "one-third" there shall be inserted the words "(to the nearest whole number)".
(2) After paragraph 12 of that Schedule there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"12A.—(1) The members of a joint planning board, special planning board or National Park Committee established for an area being or comprising the whole or any part of a National Park shall include members (in this paragraph referred to as 'district council members') who are appointed by district councils whose districts comprise any part of that Park (in this paragraph referred to as 'relevant district councils').
(2) The number of district council members of such a board or Committee shall be equal to—

(a) the number of relevant district councils; or

(b) one seventh (to the nearest whole number) of the members of the board or Committee,

whichever is the less; and for the purposes of this subparagraph and casual vacancy in the membership of the board or Committee shall be disregarded.
(3) The district council members shall be appointed by such of the relevant district councils as may be agreed between those councils or as in default of agreement may be determined by the Secretary of State.
(4) The district council members shall hold office for a period of one year and shall be eligible for reappointment; and section 102(5) above shall apply in relation to a district council member appointed under this paragraph as it applies in relation to a member of a committee appointed under that section".
(3) In paragraph 14 of that Schedule for the words "subject to paragraph 11 above" there shall be substituded the words "subject to paragraphs 11 and 12A above".
(4) In the case of a joint planning board, special planning board or National Park Committee established for an area being or comprising the whole or any part of a National Park, members who are members of relevant district councils (within the meaning of the said paragraph 12A) and are neither members of a county council nor persons appointed in pursuance of the said paragraph 11 shall cease to be members of the board or Committee as from the coming into force of this section."
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 104. This amendment provides a statutory right of representation for district councils on national park authorities. At present such councils are represented on park authorities only on a grace and favour basis at the invitation of one of the councils concerned. I am sure this amendment commends itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I moved a similar amendment to this at Committee stage in this House and was glad to withdraw it on an undertaking by the Government that they would move one of their own, and I am very glad now to see it. There are indeed cogent arguments for having a clause of this type. The most direct one is that the district councils now have the staff and experience to handle development control matters in the whole of the rest of England and Wales, and it is sensible that there should be provision for them to join effectively in the discharge of those responsibilities by the county councils in the case of national parks. There is the further reason that district councils have a major responsibility for the health and wellbeing and prosperity of the local economy. That is a purpose which many people feel should be discharged by the national park authorities although it is not statutorily laid upon them. To the extent that districts will as of right be represented on the national park authorities it will be easier for that role to be discharged effectively.
The other function which it is important to have integrated into national park authorities is the function of the housing authorities and those functions are held by the district councils. There is the further reason that the district councils do contain representatives closer to the grass roots than do the county councils, and there is a greater likelihood that the representatives of the district councils on the national park authorities will be resident in the parks themselves. So for all those reasons I think the clause is welcome to the Association of District Councils. As my noble friend says, they have had a place there by grace of the county councils, and in some cases they have had more places than they will get under this clause; they would have preferred more. But this is a satisfactory compromise between the county councils and the district councils.
The House might care to know that this Friday the Association of District Councils are holding a seminar at the offices of the Countryside Commission in Cheltenham. I shall be meeting about 40 or so members of the district councils and we shall be discussing how best to discharge the responsibilities now being laid on them by this clause.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I wonder if I might add a further word to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Sandford about representation. I woud ask my noble friend Lord Avon to answer this when he comes to reply. When it comes to the appointments by the Minister—and I think he has to deal with quite a large number of appointments—will he bear in mind the desirability of appointing people whose livelihood and interests are in that area?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, there is no reduction at all envisaged in the present level of appointments made by the Secretary of State to such authorities and in no case will district council representation fall below its current de facto level. In fact, there will probably be a slight increase in representation on two national park authorities, the Peak Park and the Lake District.

601
I am sure that the points made by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderney will be borne in mind. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford for his comments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
105 After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
'Duties of water authorities etc., with regard to nature conservation and the countryside.
.—(1) For subsection (1) of section 22 of the Water Act 1973 (duties with respect to nature conservation and amenity) there shall be substituted the following sub-section—
"(1) In formulating or considering any proposals relating to the discharge of any of the functions of water authorities, those authorities and the appropriate Minister or Ministers—

(a) shall, so far as may be consistent with the purposes of this Act and of the Land Drainage Act 1976, so exercise their functions with respect to the proposals as to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservavation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest;

(b) shall have regard to the desirability of protecting buildings or other objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest; and

(c) shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the beauty of, or amenity in, any rural or urban area or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings or objects."

(2) In subsection (3) of that section the words "not being land managed as a nature reserve") shall be omitted.
(3) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(4) Where any land has been notified to a water authority under subsection (3) above, the authority shall consult with the Council before executing or carrying out any works or operations appearing to them to be likely to destroy or damage any of the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the land is of special interest.
(5) Subsection (4) above shall not apply in relation to any emergency operation particulars of which (including deatils of the emergency) are notified to the Council as soon as practicable after the commencement of the operation.
(6) References in this section to water authorities shall include references to internal drainage boards and the reference in subsection (3) above to the water authority in whose area the land is situated shall unclude a reference to the internal drainage board in whose district the land is situated."'.
As an amendment to Amendment No. 105:
105B Subsection (2), line 1, after ("land") insert ("for the time being").
As a consequential amendment to the Bill:
105C Page 104, line 6, column 3, after ("land") insert ("for the time being").
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105, and to speak to Amendment No. 105B, and the consequential Amendment No. 105C. Amendment No. 105, and the earlier Amendment No. 93, concern the conservation duties of water authorities, internal drainage boards and the appropriate Minister or Ministers.
Noble Lords will recall that in Clause 36 this House made provision to extend Section 22 of the Water Act
602
1973, which places water authorities and the appropriate Minister or Ministers under certain duties towards conservation. The effect of Clause 36 was to extend those duties to internal drainage boards as well and to add a duty of consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council. I shall explain that point later. Section 22 requires the NCC to notify water authorities of areas of special scientific interest, and Clause 36 added a duty for the water authorities and the internal drainage boards in turn to consult the NCC before they carry out any works or operations, except emergency operations, which they think likely to be harmful to the special interest of any areas notified to them.
Turning now to the new Amendment, No. 105, this is a new clause which incorporates Clause 36, so that Clause 36 itself is no longer necessary, and the purpose of Amendment No. 93 was to take it out. But the new clause, Amendment No. 105, is not only a replacement of Clause 36; it also amends another subsection of Section 22 of the Water Act—subsection (1). In respect of the conservation of natural beauty and of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest, it changes the duty of the water authorities, internal drainage boards and the appropriate Minister or Ministers from a duty to "have regard" to conservation to a more positive duty to "further" conservation. Since the rest of the new clause is the same as Clause 36, this is really the point for consideration.
It may be useful to refer to the origins of this matter. At Committee stage, on 17th February (Official Report, cols. 604–609), we debated a new clause put down by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, proposing various amendments to the Water Act 1973, one of which would have required the water authorities to "take steps to preserve" natural beauty et cetera in place of the duty to "have regard" to it in Section 22. I said then that the Government did not honestly think that we ought to ask the water authorities to do more than what Section 22 requires. But the matter was raised again in another place and the Government were persuaded to reconsider the position.
While the Government still do not think it appropriate to place the water authorities in exactly the same position as regards conservation as they are already under as regards recreation in Section 20 of the Water Act—that is, they are under a duty to "take steps" et cetera—we decided that it would be right to go so far as to give them a positive duty to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and wildlife in the course of their work, and the Commons so agreed and this amendment provides for that.
However, the amendment does not require the water authorities or IDBs to do anything inconsistent with the Acts to which they work; on the contrary it only applies so far as may be consistent with the purposes of the Water Act 1973 and the Land Drainage Act 1976. To exercise their functions in a way which furthers conservation will be one of their duties, albeit a secondary one, and the bodies will have to use their own judgment.
Turning back briefly to the consultation with the NCC, which as I have explained is in Clause 36 already, anxiety was expressed in the Commons about consulting over maintenance operations. We gave an undertaking that we did not mean to let this new clause

603
impose an unnecessary burden on those concerned and that we would initiate discussions and publish guidelines to clarify the best way in which the NCC can be consulted by the water authorities and IDBs without cumbersome work. Steps are already in hand to do that.
There are also the two very minor amendments to which I should briefly like to refer—namely, Nos. 105B and 105C. These are technical amendments which correct an error on the part of Amendment No. 105B which has, in fact, been copied from Clause 36. Section 22(3) of the Water Act refers to land:
"not being land for the time being managed as a nature reserve"
The amendments ensure that the entire expression is deleted and not just the words which appeared in Amendment No. 105, which would have left Section 22(3) of the Water Act in a nonsensical state. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105.—(The Earl of Avon.)
5.46 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa Lord Buxton of Alsa moved Amendment No. 105A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 105:
105A Subsection (1), at end insert ("and water authorities shall have power to incur such expenditure as may be necessary to mitigate or eliminate any such effect as may be detrimental thereto; such expenditure shall be eligible for grant under section 90 or section 91 of the Land Drainage Act 1976".)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 105A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 105. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his encouraging comments and remarks, but I do not believe that they are sufficiently explicit to convince me that they meet the requirements that we are proposing under Amendment No. 105A. This is a very simple proposal. It enables the water authorities, and particularly internal drainage boards, to spend money received as grant from the Minister of Agriculture in order to mitigate the effects of their activities in the interests of public amenity and conservation.
On Amendment No. 105A, once again I want to make it clear to your Lordships that I am not making conservation arguments particularly, so much as drawing attention to the unfair situation where agricultural grants and the internal drainage boards are concerned. These produce a situation which in my view heavily favours agriculture—and I am a farmer—but which is heavily tipped against other public interests. The Minister of Agriculture seems to me to have almost unlimited funds, by comparison, to subsidise and sustain agriculture. The rest of the nation, about 50 million citizens or more, have only chickenfeed to match it by comparison through the conservation authorities.
But if agriculture has exceptional privileges and financial support—and I do not regret it myself—the independence and the resources of internal drainage boards are quite remarkable. There was never a great problem with internal drainage boards and water authorities in the past, not until the last decade or two. In the old days they did what they could in viable and
604
sensible ways with the manpower and equipment available, and grazing marshes and meadows were then a very special feature of the English landscape.
However, everything has now changed radically due to two overwhelming factors: first, new technology and the arrival of vast new machines; and secondly, access to substantial financial resources through grants from the Ministry. Today these formerly modest boards have immense power and resources at their call. As I understand it, they can virtually propose a scheme without informing anybody—that has quite often happened—get a grant from the Minister (and I understand from what I have read that it can be up to £1·5 million on the nod) and the machines can then move in and start cutting huge dykes before anyone living in the vicinity has ever heard about it. In the case of some broadland drainage, that has actually happened—it has only come to light by accident.
It is essential that this unfairness to the nation should be evened out. I cannot be against agriculture, and, of course, I am not against farmers or landowners. However, I feel that it should be evened out and that public interest should receive more consideration when Ministry money is spent by internal drainage boards or water authorities. I believe that the best way of achieving this and ensuring that the public interest is not totally ignored—as it already has been, most notably in the case of Halvergate and the Broads—is for the water authorities and the internal drainage boards to be empowered to spend their grants for conservation purposes as well as for anti-conservation purposes. That seems only fair to the public who provide the money.
It is quite clear now as a result of the debate last week on Amendment No. 76A that the primary duty for funding future proposals cannot possibly fall solely on the conservation authorities unless the Government give them funds sufficient to contend with the massive claims which will arise. As the Government show no sign—and how could they?—of giving such funds to the conservation authorities (unless my noble friend Lord Ferrers failed to inform us in his reply), it is only fair to the public who provide the funds that the water authorities and the Ministry should contribute to the mitigation of the consequences of their own actions.
There is nothing peculiar or radical about the proposal in this amendment. Over the whole spectrum of Government it is, in fact, the norm: there is ample precedent. The Ministry is totally alone in refusing to fund mitigation of their own actions in the public interest while freely spending the public's money. The principle that the polluter pays is the accepted European principle to which we have to subscribe. Therefore, the costs arising from the obligation to further conservation interests should be met by the promoters of the schemes. This happens with all other Government departments. For example, routes of new motorways are influenced by landscape and countryside needs, and the extra costs are met by the Department of Transport. The siting of new reservoirs is similarly influenced and any extra cost is met by the water authorities. Anyone who receives planning permission has to bear the cost of meeting conditions designed to maintain amenity.
Surely it is illogical and anomalous that one Government department should spend money to prevent poten-

605
tial beneficiaries from actually benefiting from a scheme funded by another Government department. It is clearly inconsistent with Government practice that when activities are initiated and subsidised by the Ministry of Agriculture, through internal drainage boards and water authorities, they alone should be the one and only sector which does not, likewise, fund the necessary protective measures.
Speaking from these Benches and as a farmer and landowner, this worries me because, in my view, it appears to the world outside to be arrogant and unfair to the nation, and as a farmer I find it very bad PR and rather embarrassing. During the Second Reading debate on this Bill I pleaded that we were not here to represent ourselves, that we were not here to represent only landowners, farmers and agriculture. I said that we were here to represent everybody. I urged that the worst thing that could happen is that this House should appear as the bastion for protecting the interests of farmers and landowners against public interest, amenity, recreation and conservation. There are votes in conservation. There are about 20 times more members of conservation and naturalist bodies than there are farmers. By their acceptance of the obduracy of the Ministry on this point and the farming lobby, I genuinely fear that the Government might be seen on this particular front at the next election to be both sectarian, favouring a lobby with very close ties in this House, and also philistine, taking a view which is really not very sensitive. Inevitably, this could be a black mark in the eyes of millions of floating voters who favour the countryside, wildlife and amenity for their recreation and wellbeing. I have all the evidence about public sensitivity—as have many noble Lords—accumulated from over 20 years in television and broadcasting. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the amendment to the amendment.—(Lord Buxton of Alsa.)
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa. He has said that we do not stand here just to represent ourselves or our interests. However, I think that one could almost say that if one rises and supports this interest, one is rising, standing and supporting the farming community. To a certain extent the Ministry of Agriculture forms the lives and the economic policy of those in the farming community. Let us be quite honest and open about it. Up to now the Ministry of Agriculture has been the most superb instrument for producing food and encouraging farmers. It has been the best example of the corporatist state. It has done what the Japanese MITI does for Japanese industry. It has produced this co-operation between the farming community and the Government, and it has done it extremely effectively under both Governments. However, I suspect that it is now becoming insensitive. Unless it becomes more sensitive to public pressures and to the public's concern for conservation, I think that we farmers will be on the receiving end of the public's wrath, and I, as a farmer, do not want that to happen. I want a nice easy, cushy life if I can possibly get it. That is why I rise and I very much hope that this amendment will be supported by the House, and that my noble friend Lord Avon will be able to accept it.
606
This amendment has been inspired by the Countryside Commission. Before any Minister suggests that it is improperly drafted and does not make sense, I would point out that it has, in fact, been drafted by the Treasury Solicitor. If the Minister is about to say that it does not make sense, then he had better sack the Treasury Solicitor.
I very much want to support what my noble friend Lord Buxton said about the polluter paying and the fact that this is the principle of modern legislation—it is an EEC principle. I suspect that if I were better educated I would know of a Latin tag which would encompass that, going back very much longer than European Community legislation. Of course, I am not saying that the agricultural industry is a complete polluter, but I draw this parallel.
If I, as a farmer, allow silage effluent to leach into a stream, not only am I prosecuted very smartly, but I also have to install some very expensive and competent method of catching that silage effluent. I am not allowed to pollute the countryside or effect damage to my neighbours by silage effluent, and quite rightly so. I believe that 1,500 tonnes of grass silage produces the amount of effluent which has the same biological oxygen demand as the untreated raw sewage of a city the size of Bristol. Consequently, one can see why one is not allowed to do this.
Therefore, if the Ministry of Agriculture gives a grant for land drainage which can have devastating effects in some areas—Halvergate Marshes is obviously one of them, where the taxpayers are being encouraged to spend in grant £1 million to drain these marshes and then another £1 million not allowing one-fifth of them to be used, at the same time increasing the value of the farmer's land from about £500 an acre to about £2,000 an acre, with very little expenditure on his part—surely those who benefit (that is, the farmers, who admittedly do not pay even the majority of the internal drainage board rate, and the farming Ministry, which encourages it) should pay for the environmental damage which ensues.
Another example of the damage which can be caused by internal drainage boards is at Horsey Mere, where deep drainage has released sodium sulphide, which is then oxidised, producing sulphuric acid and ferric hydroxide. That sounds incredibly complicated and like one of those diagrams with CO2, or whatever it is, all over it. I am certainly not a chemist and I lifted those terms straight out of a book. However, the effect is absolutely catastrophic. It produces a deep, dirty, orange sludge in the water. The water in other parts of the Broads and even in the partially drained areas of these grazing marshes is absolutely gin clear. It contains pretty plants and sticklebacks. I know that it is not some great, grand thing which everybody can see or can be shown on television, but it is part of our inheritance and part of our surroundings. We simply cannot continue chucking into the water vast quantities of ferric hydroxide, which has the effect of killing all the fish and all the small water plants; the reedbeds up to two inches up are surrounded by this dirty, nasty, red sludge.
Another example is the North Kent Marshes from Gravesend to Whitstable, which are an internationally important home for wintering wildfowl. Thirty per cent. of these grazing marshes has now been converted

607
to arable land. It has been done on the piecemeal system: 100 acres there, 20 acres here, 80 acres there, so perhaps it was not noticed to start with. But when all the little bits are added together it becomes very noticeable. These are two examples of damage which can be done by internal drainage boards where grants should be more readily withheld and certainly paid for by the Ministry of Agriculture for the use of conservation.
That is why I rise to second the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa and to persuade your Lordships to agree with this amendment. Finally, if the Ministry of Agriculture is unable or unwilling to pay or contribute, I do not believe that the duties which are put upon the Ministry in this Bill can be taken very seriously.
6 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I should like to support the two noble Lords opposite and this amendment. I must say that I think we are getting into some fairly difficult waters—if that is not the wrong way of putting it when talking about these particular authorities. The Government appear to be saying two things at once. First, they are saying that the primary duties of water authorities and IDBs are unchanged and all that is being suggested in this clause is that these authorities can do certain things as long as they do not conflict with those duties. This is what they are really saying to the NFU to keep them happy. At the same time the Government are saying to conservationists, "Well, lads, this gives you everything you want and every IDB in the country will be bursting to spend money on conservation projects as long as they are within the overall remit of the Act of Parliament under which they are working".
Those interpretations—both of which were included in the noble Earl's opening speech and one of which will, I am sure, be included in his reply—cannot both be the case in practice. Either IDBs are going to spend money to mitigate the effects of their schemes or they are not. My information is that those responsible for actually implementing this—people working for IDBs, officials working for the Ministry of Agriculture, for example—do not think that this clause, as currently drafted anyway, would put any obligation on them to pick up the tab if a landowner in the middle of a drainage scheme decided that he would prefer the land not to be drained and would like to enter into a management agreement to preserve it in its undrained state—and therefore in a state of interest in nature conservation. As I understand it, MAFF officials have said outside this House and in other places that that is not the sort of case for which this clause would make IDBs liable to pay. That would be, as we were discussing last week, yet another thing that the conservationists would have to pay for.
In fiddling around with the wording of these clauses, I really do think that the Government are trying to have it both ways in respect of the two competing lobbies who have been battling at their door over this. Rather than do that, I would have hoped that the Government might have the courage to come down a little bit more firmly on one side or the other. To come down with this amendment and put a little bit of a check on
608
internal drainage boards would not, I believe, be asking too much even in the terms of the Government's own political philosophy, which, as I understand it, is to provide some checks on public expenditure.
Last year IDBs asked the Government for grants for 50 per cent. more schemes than they did in 1978. They spent £17 million on land drainage works. Many of those operations caused serious ecological damage to some of Britain's richest wetlands. It may be argued that while this is something, apart from the grant from MAFF, for which farmers—because they are on IDBs and are the ratepayers who contribute to IDBs—are really paying. Farmers really make the decisions of IDBs because landowners appoint people to these organisations. But people might say that they are also paying the rates and so that is only fair. But of course that is not the case. As a recent article in the New Scientist pointed out, in the case of one IDB in Yorkshire, 98 per cent. of the land is agricultural but in 1976 agricultural ratepayers paid only 7 per cent. of the drainage rates. The other 93 per cent. of the drainage rates were paid for by urban ratepayers. So in the case of schemes such as these. if that IDB is typical, as to half the money the farmers are spending 93 per cent. is coming from the poor old urban ratepayers in the IDB area, and the other 50 per cent. from the rest of us, in taxpayers' money from MAFF. On top of that, apart from the people sitting on IDBs, there seems to be virtually no control over what they spend or how they spend it. I understand—and maybe the noble Earl can confirm this—that until very recently IDBs did not even think they were covered by Section 11 of the Countryside Act, which is meant to lay a duty on everyone including bodies such as theirs, to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside.
If the Government really took seriously anything they say to the rest of us about controlling public expenditure they would welcome this amendment with open arms. But I do not believe they do take things seriously when it comes to farmers and landowners. I think that what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, about the way things will appear outside this House is actually going to prove quite an accurate reflection of the outcome of debates on this Bill; where farmers will be getting their cake and being able to eat it and to spend the money somebody else paid to buy it at the same time. We are getting ourselves into a nonsensical situation and I hope that the Government might try to rescue themselves a little from it by accepting their noble friends' amendment.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I very much agree with the argument which was put by my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa, and I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that the NFU and the CLA would do very well to heed his warnings. All the time there is this peril of having planning control brought down on farming and agricultural operations. We already have a specific directive from the EEC that such things as the draining of the Halvergate Marshes would be subject to an environment impact assessment. I myself do not believe that Amendment No. 105A is necessary if the Government are wholehearted—which is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was making

609
—about what they put into Amendment No. 105. If they are wholehearted about that and if that is the philosophy which they have grasped and intend to enforce, then I think the House should know why it is not going to be applied to the problem of the Halvergate Marshes. If it were applied then everybody would know that the Government were in earnest in proposing Amendment No. 105 to your Lordships' House. If it is not going to be applied to the Halvergate Marshes then, for heavens sake, why not?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, from my serried rank on this Bench I would like to support the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa. 1 was unable to be present at the earlier debates and so I shall not speak in detail but I should like to make one or two points of principle. Am I wrong in thinking, as the law would stand without this amendment, that there is nothing to stop (except the paying for it) the entire surface of the Broads being reclaimed for more efficient farming? Or is that a misconception? It does seem to me that this is always a question of degree. Clearly, without the fenlands and Lincolnshire we should be much poorer than we are. There was a time when it was absolutely right to reclaim. That time is certainly at question now in a number of different areas. The Broads are a very special area, not only from the point of view of the birds there, which are unique, but also from the point of view of the fish and marsh plants.
It seems to me that there should be a restriction on the ease of getting rid of them for money—which is what this really amounts to. It seems to me that the kind of restriction put here in this amendment is a fairly effective one. It is that the IDB has two duties. One duty is to the farmer, but the other is to be cost-effective in not spoiling too much and having to pay if they do. This seems to me to be a very wise and suitable restrictive measure and I very much hope that this amendment will be carried.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am certainly not going into the history of the reclamation of the Fens, interesting and important though that is. All I want to do is to make it clear to the noble Earl, before he replies, that there is support for this amendment in all parts of your Lordships' House. I do not want to repeat the arguments so admirably put by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, and reinforced by the noble Lords, Lord Melchett and Lord Sandford. I believe the case is utterly clear. This amendment gives body and real significance to the Government's own amendment, Amendment No. 105. Without this amendment to the Government's amendment, I am of the opinion that Amendment No. 105 becomes no more than the paper upon which it is written. I hope that we shall hear some pretty clear assurances with regard to this amendment or the intentions which lie behind it.
6.10 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate on this amendment, which is narrow in itself. I should like first to take up some of the remarks by my noble friend Lord Buxton about agriculture, generally. I do not think I need remind him that the world population has increased by 50 per cent.
610
since the war; that production of food is vital to the nation, otherwise we would have to import, and it does save on the balance of payments, so there is importance in agriculture. It is not just for the benefit of farmers as individual people but it is for the benefit of the nation as a whole. The importance of food production is foremost in our minds, and let us get it clear that agriculture is essential to the nation.
I have been listening to both ways; lack of courage and balance. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who produced and stimulated this amendment in the first place—and I spoke to it when I introduced our amendment—now seems to be switching slightly over to the farmers' side. We think that this is a good amendment and we think it has answered all the comments made previously in the House and in the other place. Before answering the amendment in detail, may I say something about the Halvergate marshes. I do not want to say too much because it is, although not sub judice, at the moment under discussion.
There is a case of whether to hold a public inquiry, which will be a decision to be taken by the Minister of Agriculture. But a scheme of management agreements from the Broads Authority to conserve the highest quality landscape in 1,100 acres has been under negotiation locally, and the Broads Authority still have finally to decide their attitude towards the drainage scheme in this light.
If they are content they would receive 75 per cent. grant aid from the Countryside Commission, as the Secretary of State for the Environment announced in his speech to the national parks on 18th September. On the other hand if they decided that they were not content, that would be a different position, and it would seem to me, and I am sure the House would agree, quite wrong for a Minister to decide about intervening with a public inquiry before the appropriate authority, the local authority, the Broads Authority, have finished considering their position.
A specific case was brought up about an IDB which was financed mainly by urban ratepayers. This is most unusual. It does happen when there is a central electricity GB power station in an IDB with a very high rateable value. However, in most IDBs the rates are mainly paid by farmers. Certainly at Halvergate the cost of the scheme will be met almost wholly by farmers, who will pay an annual rate of £20 per acre per annum for the next 20 years.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Earl said that in most IDBs the rates are mainly paid by farmers. Could he quantify the "most" and "mainly", because to give us that statement the Ministry must presumably have worked out the figures in detail'?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have not got the detailed figures in front of me at the moment. The cost of the scheme will be met almost wholly, Yes. I will try to get them to you before I sit down if we have them with us.
May I come back to the amendment moved by my noble friends. I would remind you that the new clause, the clause we are talking about, 105, is
"Duties of water authorities et cetera, with regard to nature conservation and the countryside".

611
This question of the powers of water authorities and internal drainage boards to incur expenditure as a result of the new clause which is introduced by Amendment No. 105 was raised at a Committee stage in another place. At that time my honourable friend the Minister who spoke, Mr. Michael Roberts, said:
"The honourable Member wanted an assurance that IDBs have legal power to spend money in pursuance of their existing conservation obligation and that MAFF has power to grant aid them. They already have that power. The new clause [that is the clause embodied in Amendment No. 105] will give them a further obligation and the power to spend accordingly".
I can only spell out in greater detail the assurance given then by the Government; namely, that in carrying out work in pursuance of their powers under the Land Drainage Act 1976 these drainage authorities already have the power to incur expenditure on conservation and amenity, and that subject to the normal rules about reasonableness and so on any such capital expenditure will be eligible for grant aid under Sections 90 and 91 of that Act.
To the extent that this amendment is seeking to give that power it is unnecessary because that power is conveyed by the new clause itself. The amendment, No. 105A, as I see it does not therefore achieve anything My noble friend Lord Buxton seemed to argue, however, that the purpose of the amendment was to give wider powers to water authorities and internal drainage boards to incur expenditure which does not directly arise from the exercise of their function under the Land Drainage Act 1976, and even to make revenue expenditure grant aidable.
I have to say that the Government could not accept provisions of this kind because it would require the water authorities, internal drainage boards, and the Minister to take action and incur expenditure not consistent with their functions under the Land Drainage Act, and that is of course the Act to which this particular clause refers.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that there are no more exact figures available at the moment than I gave. I hope with these explanations my noble friend will see that his amendment is not necessary and will accept the assurance that the Government are wholeheartedly behind Amendment No. 105 just as they are behind all the clauses in this Bill.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, could he say whether that means that the Ministry of Agriculture with its grant system could not be asked, or will not pay, for anything towards management agreements to offset the damage done by deep draining, or some such similar operation, by an internal drainage board?
The Earl of Avon: No, my Lords, the grants are only for the improvement of agriculture, so they would not have the power for that. Incidentally, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, gave me two examples, and I meant to say to him that they would both be covered under the Government clause.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for what he said. Every time he speaks his words give a great deal of assurance. What worries me is that I still do not see us any nearer
612
to the Ministry, and through the Ministry the internal drainage boards and the water authorities, accepting any responsibility in the financial sense for the conservation damage which they cause. Of course, I accept the Minister's assurance and argument about the proper function of the Ministry and the water authorities, but I do not follow it when all other Ministries are allowed to do exactly what we are asking in the same context. I do not know what the functions are as laid down for the Ministry of Transport, but they are perfectly entitled to plant hedges, lovely banks, and broom and everything along the motorways, and this seems to me exactly what we are asking in the case of the Ministry of Agriculture and the water authorities.
On the wider front, I quite see the point, and I have pontificated and lectured about the population explosion and everything else, until everyone is bored with it. Of course the population is rising and will continue to rise, and the need for food will be overwhelming no doubt, but that is exactly what public inquiries are for and exactly why careful assessments have to be made of the economic factors to see whether schemes are viable. In the case of Halvergate and the Broads, I am perfectly prepared to leave a thorough assessment at a public inquiry having been convinced that it is the best scheme that has ever been put up. All I say is that everything I have heard indicates that it is the worst scheme that has ever been put up. Therefore, I hope that if the Minister is to be consistent, with all that implies as my noble friend Lord Sandford said they will listen to the huge weight of opinion from every quarter and follow the proper course, which is to have a public inquiry in that connection.
On the question of an inquiry, as I understood the Minister, if the local authorities, including the Broads Authority, do not reach an agreement then the Minister will probably have such an inquiry. That being the case, I am prepared to withdraw this amendment with the agreement of my noble friend, but in the confident hope—no, confident anticipation—that the Government are going to be consistent in all that they have said in the Act; that they are going to be consistent in the case of Halvergate and the Broads and all the other major schemes around the country. We shall be watching with hawk-like vision every move that is made in this respect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
As an amendment to Amendment No. 105:
105B Subsection (2), line 1, after ("land") insert ("for the time being").
6.20 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the amendment to the amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, amendment to Amendment No. 105 agreed to.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I did not raise a question on this when we were discussing Amendment No. 105A

613
because I thought it would become too confusing, for me if for no one else. When the noble Earl, Lord Avon, was introducing Amendment No. 105 he made some remarks about maintenance and the need for regional water authorities or IDBs to consult with the NCC prior to carrying out maintenance works which would affect sites of special scientific interests, and he said that some concern had been expressed about the matter and that the Government were to publish guidelines on it.
It is worth stressing that maintenance works carried out by regional water authorities can be just as damaging, if not more so, as capital works; that has been the case in the past. For example, where major capital schemes have not been proceeded with by a regional water authority, the work has often been done under the auspices of a maintenance scheme, particularly if the original capital works did not meet cost benefit targets. For example, that happened at Alconbury Brook in Huntingdonshire in the Anglian Water Authority's area. Maintenance work can often cause significant and serious damage; channel maintenance on stretches of the Severn division of the ST Water Authority resulted in the removal of several otter holes. The 1976 Act, which is worded in a similar way to the Land Drainage Act and Water Act and has similar aims, ensures that consultation with the NCC takes place before maintenance work which would affect SSSIs is carried out.
This is therefore a very important issue, and I hope the noble Earl will say that the guidelines which the Government will be issuing—which might be taken, from what he said, to qualify the words in the amendment, and I hope the guidelines will not impose any such qualification on what Parliament has agreed—will be published in draft so they will be available for interested parties (water authorities, the NFU and conservation bodies) to comment on, and that the Government will ensure that the NCC (who, after all, are the people to be consulted) are entirely happy with the guidelines before the Government finalise them.
My second point relates to the clause as a whole and I raise it in response to the noble Earl's comments on the information I wanted about IDBs and the percentage of rates coming from urban or farming interests. His department must have had the figures to have given him a brief which allowed him to say that most of them did; they could not have done that without working it out. I hope he will write to me and let me have the figures on which the statement was based.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as regards maintenance and the need for regular consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council, that will be fully covered in the guidelines, and they will be agreed with the NCC before issue.
Lord Melchett: Will they be published in draft, my Lords, so that interests other than Government agencies may look at them?
The Earl of Avon: While not giving a guarantee to that effect, my Lords, I note what the noble Lord said and I am sure that if at all possible it will be done. In
614
regard to his second point, I will of course write to him.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.
As a consequential amendment to the Bill:
105C Schedule 16, page 104, line 6, column 3, after ("land" insert ("for the time being").
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
106 After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
"Payments under certain agreements offered by authorities.
(1) This section applies where—

(a) the Nature Conservance Council offer to enter into an agreement under section 16 of the 1949 Act or section 15 of the 1968 Act providing for the making by them of payments to—

(i) a person who has given notice under section 28(3) or 29(4); or

(ii) a person whose application for farm capital grant has been refused in consequence of an objection by the Council: or

(b) the relevant authority offer to enter into a management agreement providing for the making by them of payments to a person whose application for a farm capital grant has been refused in consequence of an objection by the authority.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), the said payments shall be of such amounts as may be determined by the offeror in accordance with guidance given by the Ministers.
(3) If the offeree so requires within one month of receiving the offer, the determination of those amounts shall be referred to an arbitrator to be appointed, in default of agreement, by the Secretary of State; and where the amounts determined by the arbitrator exceed those determined by the offeror, the offeror shall—

(a) amend the offer so as to give effect to the arbitrator's determination; or

(b) except in the case of an offer made to a person whose application for a farm capital grant has been refused in consequence of an objection by the offeror, withdraw the offer.

(4) In this section—
"farm capital grant" means a grant under a scheme made under section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970;
"management agreement" and "the relevant authority" have the same meanings as in section (Duties of agriculture Ministers).
As amendments to Amendment No. 106:
106B Subsection (3), line 3, after ("arbitrator") insert ("(or, in Scotland, an arbiter)").
106C Subsection (3), line 7, after ("arbitrator's") insert ("or,) in Scotland, the arbiter's)").
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 106. I shall, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 106B and 106C to the amendment. This is a new clause which relates in part to management agreements offered under the "Sandford" clause, but which also concerns agreements entered into by the Nature Conservancy Council following a notification to the council under Clause 28(3) or Clause 29(4) of the Bill as amended. The new clause requires the NCC or relevant authority to provide in the agreement for payments,

615
"in accordance with guidance given by Ministers",
and this reflects the original Sandford proposal.
However, as I said last Thursday, the Government have gone further and added provision for arbitration in the event of dispute. Under subsection (3), the offeree will have the right within one month of receiving the offer to require reference to an arbitrator, and the arbitrator is to be appointed by the Secretary of State in default of agreement. In the case of management agreements offered by the NCC—except where capital grant has been refused, in other words the voluntary agreements—the offer can be withdrawn by the council if the arbitrator determines a higher sum. However, in the case of management agreements offered by the NCC or relevant authority following rejection of an application for a farm capital grant, the arbitration decision will be binding. The Government share the view taken by another place that this is a fair approach where it is the council or relevant authority which has taken the initiative to object. The clause provides farmers with a guarantee of reasonable terms when management agreements are offered in the circumstances stated. Discussions are already in progress on the terms of Ministers' financial guidelines, and we expect to be consulting on a draft of such guidelines shortly after Royal Assent to the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 106B and 106C replace the word "arbitrator" with "arbiter" in deference to Scots law; I am advised that arbitrators are not a resident species north of the Border.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
[Amendment No. 106A to the amendment not moved.]
As an amendment to Amendment No. 106:
106B Subsection (3), line 3, after ("arbitrator") insert ("(or, in Scotland, an arbiter)").
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the amendment to the amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question amendment to Amendment No. 106 agreed to.
As an amendment to Amendment No. 106:
106C Subsection (3), line 7, after ("arbitrator's ") insert ("(or, in Scotland, the arbiter's)").
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the amendment to the amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, amendment to Amendment No. 106 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 106D and 106E to the amendment not moved.]
Lord Sandford: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to confirm that the guidelines, when they have been agreed, will be laid before Parliament by statutory instrument? All our discussions indicate that they will be of the greatest importance.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, may I, for clarification, ask my noble friend a question relating to subsection (3), as I believe one month will be insufficient to consider and possibly initiate an offer, and it
616
seems that the Bill is somewhat unclear as to whether or not the authority is expected to discuss arrangements with the farmer before making the offer? I hope that my interpretation is correct that the offer of one month refers to the final offer of a financial payment and not to the offer of a management agreement, for the very obvious reason that we want time to consider the matter. Can my noble friend confirm that the offer of one month is the final offer?
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I think that the real evil in this clause was decided by the House last week by a very narrow majority and it would be foolish to re-open that debate. But given that the House and Parliament on the Government's advice have decided on a really disastrously expensive method of protecting important areas for wildlife, it would be reasonable to ask the noble Earl to give us some assurance in a rather more forthcoming way than he did last week to the effect that some additional money at least will be made available to pay for all of this.
In recent months it has become clear that there are a number of areas such as the North Kent Marshes, the Swale Marshes, the Berwyn Mountains, the five proposed SSSIs on the Somerset levels, the Derwent Ings, the Nene Washes, and so on which are capable of agricultural development, and for which there are either actual plans or proposals for major agricultural development schemes. If such areas are to be saved for conservation under this clause, very large sums of money, annually indexed to keep up with inflation, will have to be found to pay farmers.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said earlier that the threat of planning controls was hanging over all this huge and expensive edifice if it collapsed and did not do the job. I should not myself have said that it was the threat of planning controls, but rather the much more attractive option of planning controls. It is more attractive because it would provide a much more sensible system. It would be much cheaper to the public and I should have thought that at least on those grounds it might have commended itself to some noble Lords opposite; and lastly it should commend itself to conservationists because it would work, while this system, without huge sums of money, clearly will not work.
I hope that the noble Earl, while he has been very busy getting the replies to the questions that his noble friends asked, will also have had a slight change of heart since last week and will be able to tell us, now that the Secretary of State for the Environment appears to be having a change of heart about aspects of Government policy, that rather more money will be available than the noble Earl suggested last week.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with regard to the questions which my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, asked, I am bound to tell my noble friend Lord Sandford that the guidelines regarding the consultations are not expected to become statutory, but I shall certainly look up the point and take a note of it. My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley asked whether the period of one month will refer to the final offer or the first offer and discussion. The answer is that it will refer to the final offer in which a person has the time to accept or reject the final offer.

617
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, asked whether I would be more forthcoming than I was last week on the question of the amount of money that would be available. The answer to that is that I will not be more forthcoming, because my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, when speaking in Norwich, admitted that management agreements might be expensive, and he said:
"I shall have to take into account the new responsibilities placed on statutory authorities by the Bill".
I cannot go further than that. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, knows perfectly well that in any financial arrangements with which departments are involved it is necessary to discuss their commitments, both individual and total, in the light of all their expenditure and the Treasury requirements. My right honourable friend has made the position perfectly clear. He said:
"I have many very hard decisions to make about the use of scarce resources".
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would not expect me to go further than that, but if he does expect me to go further than that, I shall not go any further.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wonder whether I may speak again on this point, because, fully expecting the answer, yes, I asked my noble friend the question whether the guidelines will be laid before Parliament by statutory instrument. I should have thought that the House would certainly expect that to be so, in view of the enormous importance that is attached to the question of whether or not the funds will be available to meet the management requirements that will be called for from time to time—myself, I think not very often—under the new clauses introduced by Amendments No. 76 and 101. I think that it is getting close to improper for the House to allow through an amendment such as this without knowing one way or the other whether that particular point will be so. But if my noble friend could increase his assurances to the point of recognising the importance of Parliament seeing these guidelines and approving them before they are introduced and using his best endeavours to ensure that they are laid by statutory instrument, I should be happy to leave it at that. But I do not think that the assurances should be any less weighty than that before we allow the amendment to be incorporated.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend says that he is entirely happy to leave it at that, because in fact he was entirely out of order to have spoken again. I can tell him only what I have previously told him and your Lordships; namely, that the drafts will not stipulate any specific sums per acre to be paid in consideration of the restrictions which are imposed. That would be completely inappropriate, as the payments offered, whether by way of annual payments or a capital sum, must depend on individual circumstances and be subject to negotiation. Therefore such draft guidelines as are envisaged will not relate to sums of money, by which my noble friend thinks it is possible to make calculations.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
107 Clause 45, leave out Clause 45.
6.37 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 107. As I explained when speaking on Amendment No. 101 (the "Sandford" clause) the purpose of Clause 45 has been achieved by subsection 1(a) of that amendment and therefore it follows that Clause 45 is redundant. The present amendment provides for its deletion.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
108 Clause 46, page 40, line 19, leave out 'county planning authority' and insert 'relevant authority within the meaning of section 32'.
109 Clause 47, page 40, line 39, after 'to' insert 'Scotland or'.
110 Clause 47, page 40, line 39, at end insert—
'(1A) In the application of this Part to England and Wales—

(a) references to a local planning authority shall be construed, except as respects Greater London, as references to a county planning authority and a district planning authority and, as respects Greater London, as references to a London borough council; and

(b) references to a county planning authority shall be construed, as respects Greater London, as references to a London borough council;

and in the application of this Part to Scotland references to a local planning authority shall be construed as references to a regional planning authority, a general planning authority and a district planning authority".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 108 to 110. Amendment No. 108 is consequential on the extension to Scotland of the provisions concerning limestone pavement orders. Amendment No. 109 makes an appropriate reference in the interpretation section to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and Amendment No. 110 provides interpretation of the references to planning authorities that are made at various points in Part II of the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
111 Clause 47, page 41, line 3, after 'Part' insert '(except sections 40(1) and (Duties of agriculture Ministers))'.
112 Clause 47, page 41, line 4, leave out '(except the power to make an order under section 40)'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 111 and 112. Amendment No. 112 is consequential on Amendment No. 111. Subsection (4) of Clause 47 provides that wherever in Part II an action is to be performed by, or in relation to, "the Ministers", which is a plural phrase, it may be performed by, or to, either of them separately. However, there is one exception. Subsection (4) excepts the case where the action consists of making a Moorland

619
Notification Order under Clause 40. In England, this can be done only by the Ministers jointly; that is, by the Secretary of State for the Environment jointly with the Minister of Agriculture.
Amendment No. 111 is designed to add another exception where in England the action must be joint. The "Sandford" clause of the Bill, the new clause which concerns duties of agriculture Ministers, applies the "Sandford" approach to national parks, but also enables the Ministers to apply it to other specified areas. When the Ministers do this Amendment No. 111 will require them to do it jointly. This is because we think that both these types of action under Part II of the Bill—deciding whether to impose compulsory notification on moorland farmers in a national park and deciding whether to apply the Sandford approach towards Ministry of Agriculture capital grants to areas outside national parks and sites of special scientific interest—ought to be taken jointly by the Ministers responsible both for the environment and for agriculture. Amendment No. 112 is consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
113 Clause 48, page 42, line 14, leave out 'showing' and insert' which (when considered with all other relevant evidence available to them) shows'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 113. This is a useful amendment in that it ensures that surveying authorities whenever they discover or are presented with evidence which suggests that a definitive map and statement should be modified must take into consideration all other relevant evidence available to them concerning the status of the right of way involved. The requirement applies only to evidence currently at the authorities' disposal, and does not mean that they must actively solicit additional evidence either in support of or opposition to the particular proposal. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
114 Clause 49, page 44, line 12, after 'carriage-way' insert or a carriage-way'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 114, which brings the provisions of subsection (7) of Clause 49 into line with the present provisions in the Countryside Act 1968 on the upkeep of byways open to all traffic. The omission which this amendment rectifies crept in during the reprinting of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
115 Clause 50, page 44, line 22, at end insert—
'(1A) Where such a survey or review so begun is abandoned, the Secretary of State shall give notice of the abandonment as appears to him requisite.'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to give such notice of the abandonment of a survey or review as he considers appropriate. Your Lordships will recollect that at Report stage the procedure in Schedule 14 for making definitive map orders was amended to the effect that objections to proposals that would lapse on the abandonment of a review would remain in abeyance until the surveying authority resurrects the particular proposal by way of an order under the new procedure. This arrangement does not, however, take care of properly made objections to draft revisions which are essentially claims for the addition to definitive maps of rights of way not previously shown. In such cases the person making the claim would be obliged to apply to the surveying authority for a definitive map order in accordance with the provisions of Clause 48(5) and Schedule 13. The principal purpose of this amendment is therefore to enable the Secretary of State to notify such persons individually of the abandonment of the review to which they objected and of the provisions of Clause 48(5). The Government are satisfied that this useful amendment in the way it is to be applied will help considerably to offset for many persons the consequences of abandonment. My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 115.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 115A as an amendment to Amendment No. 115:
115A Line 2, after ("give") insert ("to any person whose representation or objection will as a consequence of the abandonment not be determined").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the noble Earl has said Amendment No. 115 is an improvement on the Bill as it left your Lordships' House in that it goes some way towards ensuring that people whose objections and representations will be discarded by the Secretary of State will actually be told of his decision, and that seems only reasonable. But the amendment which another place inserted in the Bill does not ensure that the Secretary of State will tell people when their objections and representations are discarded, and Amendment No. 115A imposes a strict duty on him to see that they are informed.
I think the noble Earl really made the case for Amendment No. 115A at the same time as he made that for Amendment No. 115. It really seems a bit rough if people who have registered objections to a proposal which is then discarded by the Secretary of State are not even told that it has been discarded. The Bill was improved to remedy that omission, and all that now seems necessary is to ensure that the Secretary of State does tell everyone who is involved. I hope the Government will accept Amendment No. 115A as a modest improvement to their own amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the amendment to the amendment.—(Lord Melchett.)
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I find this one a slight tongue-twister, but I shall try to get it right. The Government find it difficult to accept this amendment in so far as it would require the Secretary of State to notify all objectors whose objection will not be determined of the abandonment of existing reviews. It goes way beyond the undertaking given at Committee stage of a Government amendment to enable the Secretary of State to notify objectors whose objection amounts to a claim for the addition to the definitive map of a right of way not hitherto shown. The result of that undertaking is Amendment No. 115, which, because it requires the Secretary of State to give such notice as he considers appropriate of abandonment, will enable us to ensure that these persons will be duly notified.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, takes no account of the fact that in relation to specific proposals in draft provisions to alter the definitive map which would lapse on the abandonment of review the Bill was amended in this House to the effect that the objections would not be lost but would remain in abeyance until the surveying authority resurrect the particular proposal by way of an order under the new procedure. Nor does it take account of the fact that in future the reclassification of RUPPs will take place against the background of different criteria from those that apply at present. This means quite simply that many of the present reclassification proposals will disappear.
There are also, if I may say so, administrative problems associated with fulfilling the requirements of the noble Lord's amendment. It would not simply be a matter of informing persons that a particular review has been abandoned but would also involve advising them of how their objection is affected by the new arrangements and of the different options open to them. Each objection would need to be examined separately, which would be a considerable task and would mean diverting the resources available within the department, which are by no means unlimited, from the more essential task of implementing the new system. We believe that these particular objections would run into five figures, and it is the size of the task rather than the principle which makes me ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, if he could withdraw his amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I take it from what the noble Earl has said that the Government intend to use the provisions now in the Bill to implement the undertaking given at Committee stage in another place that those who have put in a claim for a new right of way and whose claim is abandoned will be informed. I think the noble Earl said that, and he is nodding to confirm it, so that it is on the record. Far be it from me to wish to place any additional financial burdens on the Department of Environment than those that the Government have already placed on it, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
6.48 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
116 Clause 50, page 44, line 34, after 'any', insert 'determination or decision of the authority under section 29(3)
622
or (4) of the 1949 Act in respect of which either there is no right of appeal or no notice of appeal has been duly served; (aa) to give effect to any'.
117 Clause 50, page 44, line 35, leave out 'the 1949' and insert that'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116, and, if I may, I should like to move No. 117 at the same time. In addition to enabling the abandonment of surveys and reviews being carried out under the present procedures, Clause 50 also provided that in the event of abandonment those proposals in draft maps and statements which did not attract objections, or, if they did, on which the Secretary of State has given a decision, shall take effect.
Under the survey procedure in the 1949 Act, responsibility for the determination of objections and representations to draft maps and statements rests with the surveying authority with a subsequent right of appeal to the Secretary of State on some but not all of the authorities' decisions. Since the Bill did not require decisions for which there is no right of appeal, or for which the right of appeal has not been exercised, to be given effect, and there is no apparent reason why they should not stand, we remedied the situation with these amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
118 Clause 51, page 46, line 28, after 'of' insert 'or of any part of'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 118. This relatively simple amendment will enable surveying authorities when faced with a request for a certified copy of a definitive map and statement for use in connection with legal proceedings to produce either the complete definitive map and statement or the relevant extract.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
119 Clause 52, page 46, line 35, at beginning insert 'An order under the foregoing provisions of this Part shall be in such form as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, and shall contain a map, on such scale as may be so prescribed, showing the modifications to which the order relates.
(1A)'.
120 Clause 52, page 46, leave out lines 39 to 41.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 119 and if the House agrees, I should like to move with it Amendment No. 120. These amendments require the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulations the form of definitive map orders. They specify that these orders shall contain a map to a prescribed scale showing details of the modifications encompassed by the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
121 Page 47, line 35, at end insert—
'(6) Every surveying authority shall take such steps as they consider expedient for bringing to the attention of the public the provisions of this Part including, in particular, section 48(5) and subsection (4).
(7) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 121. This amendment is essentially two amendments in one. The first part, new subsection (6), requires a surveying authority to give such publicity as they consider appropriate to the new review procedures but to pay particular attention to the provisions of Clause 48(5) on applications for definitive map orders and Clause 52(4) on the availability of definitive maps and statements for public inspection. The second part is, as I have already indicated, consequential on Amendment No. 119 and transfers the provisions for the preparation of the various regulations to be drawn up under this clause from the end of subsection (1) to a new subsection (7).
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
122 Clause 54, page 48, line 19, at end insert—
'(4) In this section "recognised dairy breed" means one of the following breeds, namely, Ayrshire, British Friesian, British Holstein, Dairy Shorthorn, Guernsey, Jersey and Kerry.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order add any breed to, or remove any breed from, subsection (4); and an order under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 122. The new subsection (4) adds to the Bill the names of the seven recognised dairy breeds in England and Wales, for the purposes of the bull exemption subsection. These seven breeds would be prohibited in fields crossed by public paths. The new subsection (5) empowers the Secretary of State to add or remove any breed from the list.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
123 Clause 56, page 48, line 36, leave out '3', and insert '2'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 123. This amendment reduces the normal restoration period for public rights of way after ploughing from 3 weeks to 2 weeks. We consider that it provides a reasonable compromise between the farming interests who, I believe, would have been happier if we had kept to our original 3-week re-
624
storation period and the path-user interests who have been pressing for restoration on the day that ploughing takes place.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
As an amendment in lieu of Amendment No. 123.
123A Page 48, line 36, leave out ("3 weeks") and insert ("one week").
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 123, and I propose Amendment No. 123A in lieu thereof. The noble Earl suggested that two weeks was a reasonable compromise between three weeks and one day. I am not sure if that is typical of the Government's mathematics in general but I do not think that it is a reasonable compromise. We had several long debates in this House about the restoration of footpaths after ploughing. At that stage, I was worried about two aspects of the siuation. The first was the length of time—it was then three weeks and is now two weeks—which is given to the occupier to restore bridlepaths and footpaths after they had been destroyed by ploughing; and, secondly, the exemption which allowed the occupier, in effect, if there was exceptional weather, to make the restoration as soon as practicable.
That exemption for exceptional weather conditions has remained in the Bill and, as the noble Earl has said, the only change has been to change three weeks to two weeks. The original concern about this provision from those interested in access was that in practice the existing law has turned out to be unenforceable. That, I understand, is the advice given by the local authority associations who are involved in enforcement. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could confirm whether the provision is thought by the local authority associations to be unenforceable—because that is what they said to Mr. Michael Spicer on the Spicer Committee which considered this.
More importantly, it may be that the noble Earl could say whether the Government have any information from the local authority associations which suggests that they think that the change from three weeks to two weeks will make this provision enforceable. I do not believe it will; and they are the people who are meant to enforce it. If that is the case, I should have thought the Government should welcome my amendment which reduces the period to one week. Whatever period of time is chosen could be open to question and I accept that it was felt by those who represent them that to do it on the day or within a day of ploughing was unduly onerous on the farming community. As a farmer myself, I could not see why that argument was advanced, given that there was the exceptional weather conditions let-out. I think that the insertion of "one week" will make the provision more enforceable and more understandable and would be a marginal improvement in what is otherwise likely to be a very weak provision.
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 123 but doth agree with Amendment No. 123A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, may I say that this is

625
a matter of debate but also of balance. This is a Bill of balances and compromises which has been followed throughout with great difficulty by the Government. There are still some who say that two weeks is not long enough. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said that two weeks is too long. I suggest that the Government stick to their amendment.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I feel driven to say a few words in opposition to this amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on the view that one week appears to be an unreasonably short time. When the Bill left here to go to another place the time allowed for reinstatement of paths had been three weeks. The time for restoring paths at the moment is three weeks normally unless notification to the highway authority has been made. The Spicer Committee had also recommended three weeks as being a suitable period. That committee was set up to get agreement between interested organisations about these things. Then a political deal was made and there was a reduction to two weeks—
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the debate but I wonder, if the noble Lord is leaving what the Spicer Committee recommend, whether he can remind the House of what they had to say about the exceptional weather conditions let-out and what the local authority representatives on the Spicer Committee had to say about enforcement of all this.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I am not sure, but I think that all this was dealt with on a previous occasion. I wanted to say that the reduction from three weeks to two weeks is considered by farmers to be likely to increase the demand for them to do things which are likely to be difficult and which will add to the arable farmer's life a degree of inconvenience, wasted effort and cost. But farmers' organisations have accepted this particular part of the package in any case and therefore I am sure they would not want to disturb the balance achieved now. I should not like to see the truce broken. I think it is most important that this House should approve the Commons amendment without further alteration.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, may I support the amendment moved by my noble friend? I recognise that public paths may have to be ploughed up of necessity; but many of us walk in areas where we have not walked before and—as I have had in recent weeks—experienced situations where a path has gone across a field which has been ploughed up. Where does one go in order to pick up the path on the other side? It is becoming a problem. One can have a situation where one takes a path around a field which has been ploughed up. It may be argued that one can easily find where to pick up the other side. But that is not so where the field next door has always been ploughed. Therefore, there are real difficulties. While accepting the position of the farming community in carrying out their operations, the path should be restored as quickly as possible, and one week seems to be reasonable.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I should like to stress that under existing legislation a farmer has up to five
626
weeks—we are talking about maximums and not minimums—in which to restore a path after ploughing, after giving seven days' prior notice of his intention to plough; or three weeks where no notice is given. The amendment which I moved at Report stage last March provided for restoration within three weeks, with an exceptional weather conditions proviso which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has mentioned.
The Government believe that three weeks is a reasonable period bearing in mind the other husbandry operations which have to be carried out after the initial ploughing operation. However, in a spirit of compromise we agreed to reduce this period to two weeks, this being one of the concessions agreed to in the other place. It is true that the local authority representative on the Spicer Committee said that three weeks would be difficult to enforce. So far as we are aware, they have not commented on the two-week period. We believe to reduce that period still further to only one week would mean that there would be hardly any time for the other husbandry operations, and could involve the farmer in restoring the path more than once. We do not believe that it is reasonble to expect farmers to do this, and the Government cannot therefore accept this amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I do not intend to press this amendment but I think it is worth making two comments. First of all, it might have been a little more responsible of the Government to check with local authority associations what their attitude was to the change that was made and the further changes which were being proposed. They are the bodies which are going to have to enforce this law. It is regrettable that the Government did not check. Secondly, I would say to the noble Lord opposite who suggested that this Bill was the result of a careful balancing act by the Government between competing interests that it is strange that all the interests on one side see the balance as having swung against them in every single case where there has been any conflict. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, perhaps with the leave of the House this would be a good moment to adjourn for dinner. I beg to move that further consideration of Commons amendments be now adjourned until
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.3 until 7.50 p.m.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
124 After Clause 56, insert the following new clause:
"Appointment of wardens for public rights of way.
A local authority may appoint such number of persons as appear to the authority to be necessary or expedient to act as wardens as respects a footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic which is both in the countryside and in the area of the authority, and the purpose for which the wardens may be so appointed is to advise and assist the public in connection with the use of the path or way".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment No. 124. With the leave of the House, I should like to speak to No. 127. The existing Clause 58, which this new clause replaces, enables wardens to act on footpaths and bridleways. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
125 Clause 57, page 49, line 32, leave out 'public rights of way', and insert 'footpaths and bridleways'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment No. 125. This is a technical amendment which acknowledges the fact that Clause 57 concerns the amendment of legislation which relates only to footpaths and bridleways, as opposed to public rights of way in the more general sense. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
126 After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
"Publication of dedication of footpaths and bridleways.
At the end of section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 (creation of footpath or bridleway by agreement) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(6) As soon as may be after the dedication of a footpath or bridleway in accordance with a public path creation agreement, the local authority who are party to the agreement shall give notice of the dedication by publication in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area in which the land to which the agreement relates is situated.".".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment No. 126. This new clause amends the provisions of Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980, which enables local authorities to enter into agreements with landowners for the dedication of footpaths or bridleways. It does so by requiring the authority to publicise in the local press that a footpath or bridleway has been dedicated for public use in consequence of such an agreement. In the Government's view, it represents a welcome improvement in the law in this area since at present the public have no way of knowing that a footpath or bridleway has been so dedicated and is available for use. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 126A as an amendment to Amendment No. 126:
126A Line 7, after second ("dedication") insert (" to such bodies as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State or as the authority may consider appropriate and ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords I beg to move Amendment No. 126A as an amendment to Amendment No. 126. As the noble Earl said, Amendment No. 126 is a very welcome change to the Bill and, in so far as it goes, I think will he of considerable interest to those interested in using the rights of way.
628
My amendment would simply take this process a little further by requiring notice also to be given to such bodies as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations or as the authority may consider appropriate.
This is really an attempt to tidy up the Bill for the Government, which I am sure the noble Earl will be able to welcome, because this change would bring the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 126 into line with the procedures for informing interested parties which the Government have now adopted throughout Schedules 14 and 15. I think it is also reasonable and logical that those bodies representing likely users of a new path should be informed of its creation in the same way as the users will be by a notice in the local paper—because after all most walkers get their information about new and existing rights of way from organisations representing them rather than poring through official notices or looking at page 57 of the local paper. I hope that explanation will commend the amendment to the Government and to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the amendment to the amendment.—(Lord Melchett.)
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the principles ralsed by this amendment apply equally to two later amendments which have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in so far as all three are about the degree of publicity that newly-created footpaths and bridleways should receive. This first one concerns the dedication of footpaths and bridleways as a result of agreements under Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980. It is intended to serve the needs of the local community and I am satisfied that a notice in the local press, in accordance with the requirement of Amendment 126, is an adequate way of ensuring that people living in the locality, who after all are the ones who really matter, are informed of a new footpath or bridleway which has been made available for their use. Unlike public path orders, there is no right of objection to a creation agreement and so there is no need on that score for wider publicity than a notice in the local press. In addition to persons visiting the area from outside, the path will, under the new system, appear on the definitive map within a relatively short period of time.
In all these three amendments the noble Lord is suggesting that in addition to a notice in the local press, as envisaged by the Commons amendment, the availability of these footpaths or bridleways should be given wider publicity. The Government do not accept that this is essential. In general, footpaths and bridle-ways are derived from dedication agreements and public path orders and do only serve the local community. The case for such widespread publicity would be stronger if it were thought necessary to cater for a right of objections; but in these cases there is none. Landowners in any event will be aware of what is happening and other local authorities, because of their statutory responsibilities, should similarly be in touch with developments. In addition, as I have mentioned already, to persons visiting the locality from outside the path will appear much more quickly.

629
Having said that, the Government are prepared to go some way to meet the noble Lord by recommending to local authorities in the guidance that will follow the enactment of the Bill that they consider informing local user organisations of the availability of these footpaths and bridleways. I hope, with that undertaking, that the noble Lord will see fit not to press his amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, that is very helpful. I do think there is a basic misconception which the Government may have picked up from frequent contact with other interests, and that is that the footpaths are still only used by local people. The whole argument in favour of retaining a network of public footpaths is that while it is accepted they are no longer used for people living in a village to get to church or to a neighbouring village, the argument the footpath users would advance is that they now form a major part of the recreational assets of this country as a whole; and a lot of our debates earlier in the Bill were concerned with people visiting areas where they do not live or walking along long-distance footpaths, walking in areas they have not been to before, and so on, and the problems and difficulties and rights that apply to them.
I am afraid that this argument that footpaths are no longer of any importance, except where they are used by local people is one used very occasionally—and I am sure never by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley—by some farmers. I am sure it is the wrong one and it is a shame that the Government have picked it up, even if only to use it in arguing against one of my excellent amendments.
The noble Earl also said that these paths would appear on the definitive maps much more quickly than in the past. I hope that is something that everyone will be able to hold the Government to and that the Government will be able to deliver on. It is certainly something that path-user organisations will be watching very closely. As I say, the noble Earl's assurance was a helpful one and I am grateful for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
127 Clause 58, leave out Clause 58.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 127, which is consequential on Amendment No. 124. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
128 Clause 60, page 50, leave out lines 32 and 33.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 128. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
129 Clause 61, page 51, line 18, after '32', insert', (Marine nature reserves)'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 129. I spoke to this amendment when we were discussing Amendment No. 91. This amendment extends the scope of Clause 61 to include the marine nature reserve provision. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
130 Clause 65, page 52, line 20, at end insert:
'"London borough council" includes the Common Conucil of the City of London;'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 130. This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
131 Clause 66, page 52, line 34, at beginning insert:—
Section 4 of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act 1935 (power to fence roads subject to restrictions) shall have effect, in relation to any area in the countryside of which walls of a particular construction are a feature, as if references to fences included references to walls of that construction; and in exercising their powers under that section in relation to any such area, a highway authority shall have regard to the desirability of exercising the powers conferred by the foregoing provisions of this subsection.
(1A) In section 20(2) of the Hill Farming Act 1946 (penalty for contravening regulations with respect to the burning of heather and grass) as originally enacted for the words from "five pounds" onwards there shall he substituted the words "£200".
(1B) In section 27 of that Act (penalty for contravening the provisions of that Act relating to muirburn) for the words "five pound" onwards there shall be substituted the words "pound;200".
(1C).'.
132 clause 66, page 53, line 1, after '1961', insert '(power to reduce numbers of pigeons and other birds in built-up areas)'.
133 clause 66, page 53, line 20, at end insert—
(8) In section 31(10) of the Highways Act 1980 (dedication of way as highway presumed after public use for 20 years) for the words from "subsection (4)" to "that section" there shall be substituted the words "section 51(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (which provides that a definitive map and statement" and the words "or of that subsection" onwards shall be omitted.
(9) Section 80 of that Act (power of highway authority to fence highways) shall have effect in relation to any area in the countryside of which walls of a particular construction are a feature, as if reference to fences included references to walls of that construction; and in exercising their powers under that section in relation to any such area, a highway authority shall have regard to the desirability of exercising the powers conferred by the foregoing provisions of this subsection.
(10) In section 136(4) of that Act (time when hedges may not be required to be cut or pruned) immediately before the words "between the last day of September and the first day of April" there shall be inserted the word "except".

631
(11) In section 4(5) of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (grant or refusal of licence) the entries relating to the Protection of Birds Acts 1954 to 1967 and the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 shall be omitted and there shall be added at the end the following entry—
"Part I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981".'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 131, 132 and 133. Amendment No. 131 deals with two entirely separate subjects. The first part relates to the provision of boundaries when building or improving a road. We had considerable discussion on this at Report stage, and in another place there were many representations that highway authorities have sometimes set up fences in areas where stone walls are normal, and that there should accordingly be some formal duty or discipline operating in such areas so that highway authorities are bound to consider whether walls would be the appropriate form of boundary. It was accepted in another place that, wherever a highway authority has decided to provide boundaries for its own purposes and at its own expense, it should consider building walls where they are the local form of boundary construction. The first part of Amendment No. 131 achieves this end.
The overall effect of the amendment, is to establish that when, in certain areas, a highway authority decides that some form of highway boundary is required for highway purposes, it has a duty to consider whether a "traditional style" wall will be the appropriate boundary. This particular amendment applies only to Scotland. The second part of Amendment No. 133 makes identical provision in England and Wales.
The second part of Amendment No. 131 deals with penalties for burning heather and grass out of season or in an unsafe manner. The amendment also removes the provision in the Hill Farming Act 1946 for one month's imprisonment (30 days in Scotland) for illegal burning. This is in line with the Government's policy of reserving a provision for imprisonment only for those offences which involve considerable dishonesty or danger to the public.
Amendment No. 132 is a drafting amendment. Amendment No. 133 relates to four different subjects. The first and last subsections provide for references to the Bill to be inserted in other legislation in place of references to earlier provisions which are to be superseded by the Bill. The second subsection of Amendment No. 133 is the counterpart to the first subsection of Amendment No. 131, and makes provision for traditional walls or fences in England and Wales. Finally, the third subsection corrects a defect in the Highways Act 1980. Section 136 of this Act allows highway authorities to make orders requiring that hedges be trimmed or cut back to prevent damage to highways. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am sorry to stop the rush, but I must make a few remarks on these amendments, particularly as my noble friend Lord Buxton obliquely referred to this amendment when he
632
was speaking to his Amendment No. 105A. I have to put him right, if he had it wrong—I am not certain that he did—but we have to accept that there is no obligation whatsoever on the authority to fence, except where there is a motorway. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he can give me some assurance on how the Government see this amendment working in other places, on roads other than motorways.
Do the Government accept the philosophy of this amendment which was put in by another place—which I may say they did not accept here—and the philosophy that was brought out in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Monro? He said,
"As I said early, the Department of Transport has this corps of landscape architects and has made full use of the Royal Fine Art Commission. I should be singularly disappointed if I learned that they had not taken the initiative when dealing with major new motorways and trunk road systems. That is what they are there for".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee D; 25/6/81, col. 1209.]
What I am asking my noble friend is: What action will the Government take to enforce and encourage themselves, as opposed to county councils who usually behave very much better than the Department of Transport or the Welsh Office, to pay some regard to fencing in the manner suggested in this amendment?
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I supported the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and others when they moved a similar amendment in your Lordships' House, and I am delighted that another place accepted it. I see it as a very useful precedent to be applied to those who put up buildings, whether farm buildings, housing or whatever in areas such as National Parks. Hopefully, we shall soon have a legislative provision that they should also construct things in a particular stone that is a feature of the countryside. I shall not press the noble Earl to give a definitive reply on that as yet, but will allow the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, to think about it for a while
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have been assured that the Department of Transport and the Welsh Office have every intention of applying the new power in the spirit and letter of this amendment. That is to say, when they decide to provide boundaries for highway purposes in areas of countryside where walls are the traditional form of boundary, they will now be more likely to build walls rather than fences. However, there may be cases where the financial burden would really be prohibitively disproportionate.
I am bound to say that the amendment of Section 80 of the Highways Act 1980 does not alter the position that the highway authorities have no statutory obligation to fence highways, or to build new boundary walls to replace any which have to be demolished for roadworks. This remains a matter for negotiation between the authority and the landowner in the context of compensation for the land taken from him, and depreciation in the value of the land he retains. Subject to this the department has been very willing to meet owners' wishes about fences or walls; and, indeed, in exceptional cases, to consider meeting the extra costs of providing walls as accommodation works where there are overriding amenity or environmental grounds to justify the additional cost to public funds. It is intended to

633
commend this approach to local highway authorities. I hope that those assurances will satisfy my noble friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
134 Clause 67, page 53, leave out lines 24 to 39 and insert:—
(2) Nothing in the repeals made by this section shall affect the operation of sections 27 to 32 of the 1949 Act in relation to any surveys begun before the commencement date.
(3) Nothing in the repeals made by this section shall affect the operations of sections 33 and 34 of the 1949 Act and Parts II, III and IV of Schedule 3 to the 1968 Act in relation to any review begun after the commencement date.
(4) Notwithstanding the repeal by this section of the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975, section 9 of the Badgers Act 1973 shall continue to have effect with the amendment made by section 16 of the said Act of 1975. '
8.7 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 134. This is essentially a drafting amendment. It also deletes from the Bill an unnecessary provision concerning the transitional arrangements for surveys and reviews of definitive maps following the reorganisation of local government in 1973. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
As an amendment to Amendment No. 134:
134A Subsection (3), line 4, leave out ("after ") and insert ("before").
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this amendment is necessary to correct an error in the drafting. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the amendment to the amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
135 Clause 68, page 53, line 43, leave out '34, 39 and 43 ' and insert '31, (Duties of agriculture Ministers), 43, (Membership of National Park authorities) and (Duties of agriculture Ministers with respect to areas of special scientific interest) and Schedule 12 '.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 135. If it is convenient to the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 136 and 137. These amendments concern the commencement of various provisions of the Bill. The Government have followed the helpful advice which my noble friend Lord Renton gave at an earlier stage and have provided that, where-ever possible. the provisions of the Bill will come into effect one month after enactment, without the need for any further parliamentary procedure. This will prevent any unnecessary delays and will simplify the statute books. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Corn-
634
mons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
136 Page 53, line 44, leave out '54, 56' and insert 54 to 56'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 136.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
As an amendment to Amendment No. 136:
136A At end insert (" [Publication of dedication of footpaths and bridleways]").
Lord Melchett: My Lords, Amendment No. 136 would bring the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 126 into operation one month after the passing of the Act, rather than leave it to be brought in by the Secretary of State through regulations. I hope that this amendment will ensure that things are implemented rather more speedily than would be the case if the Bill were left as it is, and that, again in the interests of getting everything moving quickly, the noble Earl will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Moved,That this House doth agree with the amendment to the amendment.—(Lord Melehett.)
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, in contrast to the other provisions in Part III of the Bill which are to be brought into operation one month after enactment, these relate to powers, whereas Amendment No. 136 imposes a specific duty on local authorities to publicise the dedication of footpaths and bridleways flowing from agreements under Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980. The Government consider that one month is not long enough for local authorities to obtain copies and absorb the contents of the Bill and to implement the additional duties it imposes upon them. I emphasise the difference between powers and duties. I would prefer for this reason to leave the provisions of Amendment No. 126 to be brought into effect at a later date.
I agree with the noble Lord that there is no reason why they should not be brought in before the new definitive map review system and various changes being made to the public path order provisions and we will endeavour to bring them in at the earliest opportunity. In the circumstances, and with this assurance, I trust the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his objection.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, he said "at the earliest opportunity". This is one of those code words which Government use when they do not want to tell you anything. Can the noble Earl go any further than that and give us an indication of whether it is likely to be months, or weeks, or years? Could he be a little bit more definitive?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, obviously I cannot be more definitive because this is going to depend a great deal on the speed at which everything is happening at that particular period. The point is that it cannot

635
be within one month, but we shall do it as soon thereafter as we possibly can.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that helpful assurance. I accept that those of us who have been living with this Bill may not think it would take a month to read and understand it but that others, coming to it afresh, may find it rather more complicated and that local authorities will need a little time to digest and implement the new powers which they have. In the light of the noble Earl's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Commons amendment No. 136, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
137 Page 54, line 1, leave out '66(1) and (3)' and insert '66(1C), (3) and (II)'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree wth the Commons in their Amendment No. 137.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
138 Page 54, line 14, leave out from beginning to 'do' in line 16 and insert—
'The following provisions of this Act, namely— sections 37, 38, 40 to 45, (Maps of National Parks showing certain areas of moor or heath) and (Duties of water authorities etc. with regard to nature conservation and the countryside) and Schedule 12; and
Part III '.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 138. The amendment concerns the extension of the Bill to Scotland. It extends to Scotland the provision about limestone pavements, upon which I have already spoken. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
139 Page 54, line 17, after '15' insert '(1)'.
140 Page 54, line 17, after 'Schedule 10' insert 'and, so far as regards any enactment mentioned in Schedule 16 that so extends, section 67 and that Schedule'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if it is convenient to the House, I should like to speak to and move together Amendments Nos. 139 and 140. These are technical amendments. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 139 and 140.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
141 Page 54, leave out lines 19 to 23.
The Earl of Avon:My Lords, 1 beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 141. The amendment deletes the words which were inserted by this House to avoid questions of privilege. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
142 Schedule 1, page 56, leave out lines 48 to 51 and insert—
'NOTE. The common name or names given in the first column of this Schedule are included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, the common name or names shall not be taken into account.'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 142. With this amendment I can speak to Commons Amendments Nos. 145, 147, 148, 150, 151, 172 and 176. These are drafting and clarification amendments to the footnotes and they are intended to be helpful. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
143 Schedule 2, page 57, line 7, at end insert—

'Curlew

Numenius arqata'.

Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 143. Perhaps I may have your Lordships' permission to speak to Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 together as the arguments are very similar.
After a full debate during the Committee stage when we discussed these two questions I withdrew my amendments to remove both these birds from the quarry list at the Government's request so that the advice of the statutory birds advisory committees could be sought. At the Report stage the House considered the question again in the light of that advice and the amendments were carried by a large majority of 83 to 32, with all-party support. In another place a Conservative amendment to put both birds back on Schedule 2, which I call the quarry schedule, was accepted without a Division. We must now decide whether to confirm our previous view. I have no doubt that if it is necessary to press this to a Division again—I hope it will not be—we shall again divide on non-party lines. What could be less political than the curlew—a real Cross-Bencher?
None of the arguments has changed since February. If anything, the case for protecting both birds is stronger than it was. The England and Wales Advisory Committee on Birds which now comes under the auspices of the Nature Conservancy Council could not recommend the protection of either bird on pure conservation grounds, but a strong majority would accept their protection on aesthetic and common-sense grounds, or on what were described in another place as ethical grounds and grounds of sentiment. The Scottish Committee made no comment. Both comm-

637
ittees had been asked by my noble friend to consider the views expressed during the Committee and Report stages when we discussed these matters.
Both birds are quite common in this country. The wintering population of the curlew is probably around 60,000 and of the redshank around 100,000. These figures must be fairly wide estimates and both figures, I understand, are accepted by the Government. About one in six of the European population of the curlew winters here, and as much as one-third of Europe's redshank population. They winter in our estuaries, many of which are classified as sites of international importance for birds, which gives us a special responsibility in this respect.
Birds are not fair game just because they are common. Among the waders, for example, knots and dunlins, which are protected and always have been, are far, far more numerous than curlews and redshank, the dunlin so much so that it is 10 times more common than the curlew. Its numbers run into something like a half a million wintering population. Are we to shoot song thrushes and larks, like the French always have done, because they are common? Nobody has suggested that we should, nor robins or swallows. Patéde grieve is something which I do not like eating at all, and I would not like to eat Paté de chevalier, which is the French for the redshank.
Evidence is conflicting as to whether the numbers of curlew and redshank are on the decline. Nobody can be sure. Probably they are. Certainly they seem to be as breeding birds. Both are probably on the decline in other Community countries as well, though their numbers are quite clearly cyclical. Therefore any clear decision about this is difficult. There is no doubt, however, about the fact that the loss of habitats which they can most frequently be seen in is bound to affect their numbers, especially the loss of wetlands. This is no doubt one of the reasons why Mr. Stanley Cramp, an eminent and much respected ornithologist and the chairman of the England and Wales Advisory Committee, strongly favours the long-term protection of both these birds and has so advised the Commission in Brussels to which he has been the senior consultant, I think I can call it, during the consideration over the past six to eight years of the Birds Directive of which we have taken such careful account. Some 30 species of waders visit our shores. The curlew and the redshank are the only waders which will remain on the quarry list unless Parliament accepts these two amendments. That was no doubt one factor in the advisory committee's mind when they made their recommendation. No doubt they also had in mind, as we have, that both birds are all too easily confused with protected waders —some of them rare or even very rare.
For example, who could possibly put their hand on their heart and say that they could tell the difference in the half light of morning or evening between a spotted redshank and a redshank or between the whimbrel and the godwit on the one side and the curlew? I do not think that anybody can be sure of doing this. Shooting them therefore causes a lot of disturbance to large numbers of protected shore birds, many of which must get killed or wounded by mistake, especially in the half light of early morning or dusk. So protecting these two birds would result in a welcome reduction of daytime shooting on estuaries since most wild-
638
fowling, as we all know, takes place generally at dawn and at dusk. There is no excuse, either, for shooting these birds for the pot, most people being agreed that they are pretty inedible, particularly later in the season. Some say they are quite nasty. Discarded corpses of redshank and curlew have been found in a number of places in this country, most recently in Lindisfarne, presumably because those who had shot them could not be bothered to pick them up because they were not worth eating. It has never been suggested that either bird is a pest, which some shore birds can be.
I suppose sentiment enters into it to some extent and under that heading I would make this one comment: Curlews really are one of the most beautiful birds that we have in this country. Their call is a haunting, wonderfully liquid cry—perhaps even more lovely than the song of the nightingale. Any of us who have heard the call of the curlew in a marsh can hardly think of anything more beautiful.
As to the serious suggestion that has been made that these are ideal birds for youngsters learning to shoot, what are we coming to? Let them have a go at the vermin—the hooded crows, the pigeons or even, if they must, at the starlings which make a passable imitation of partridges at times. Indeed, anything on the black list but not the curlew and not the redshank. Who on earth, my Lords, really wants to shoot a curlew or a redshank and, for heavens' sake, why? I wonder how many noble Lords have actually shot them? Very few indeed, I would warrant.
I cannot help feeling that the lowest common denominator has had its way in the British field sports advice that has been given, although their director has made it clear that a good many of their shooting members favour protecting both birds. I have little doubt either that the same is true of WAGBI, now renamed as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, and I hope they will now recognise that tastes and times have changed and wildfowling practices with them. I hope, therefore, that they will live up to the last word of their new title—Conservation.
I am very happy indeed to see my noble friend Lord Arbuthnott in his place and I hope he will contribute to the debate, although I fear that he may not fully share my views. As for your Lordships' House, whose Members the Economist regard as "habitually clumping around in marshes", there are few things I enjoy more. I love my wildfowling. How right that enlightened weekly was to beg us to have the courage of our earlier convictions. That is just what I am asking your Lordships to do today, in the hope that it will not be necessary to divide the House again. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said amendment—(Lord Chelwood.)
Lord Melchett: My Lords, when we discussed these amendments previously, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has said, we passed them by a very large majority made up of Peers from all sides of the House and from the Cross-Benches. We on these Benches again support the deletion of the curlew and redshank from the shooting list.
I have had some correspondence which has suggested to me that this would be a terrible threat to wildfowling. If I may take up the point made by the noble Lord

639
that wildfowling attitudes and practices do change, during the summer I was reading a book which was published in 1935 called Sea Swallows, about Blakeney Point, which is now a national nature reserve near where I farm in Norfolk. One part of the story of the life of the warden on the Point contains the following reminiscence, which is told with some pride in the achievement and in the interests of the area of which he was warden. He says:
"On another occasion three hunters met on the flats opposite Stiffkey and paddled up to a large flock of knot"—
one of the birds which the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, mentioned as being a lot more numerous now than curlew or redshank—
"all fired simultaneously and bagged 603 birds. The knot is grey with a few dark spots and a trifle larger than the blackbird".
I would suggest that that wildfowling practice, while being perfectly acceptable and indeed something to be proud of in 1935, is not something that many wild-fowlers would be particularly proud of if they heard of it happening today. Practices change. In my researches among actual wildfowlers in the area where I farm I have yet to find anybody who claims ever to shoot, as a matter of course, redshank or curlew, and indeed I have met a number of wildfowlers who have assumed that they were already on the protected list. It seems to me to be a little far-fetched to suggest as some have, that to protect these birds would be a terrible blow to the sport. I simply do not think that is the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, said that some people had suggested that they were suitable quarry on which people might practice and I am afraid that the RSPB has received reports from East Anglia of people using redshank for practice and not even bothering to retrieve the birds that are shot because, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood said, they are completely inedible. My father told me that he had once eaten curlew, and he described it as being like a Wellington boot that had been boiled in sea water for 24 hours. It is not surprising that if these birds are shot they are often not recovered.
Finally, it is clear from the debates that there have been in wildfowling quarters, as well as from the debates in Parliament, that there are many people who go wildfowling regularly who are very unhappy at the idea that these birds should remain on the shooting list. They feel that that is not a sensible thing for wildfowlers to be attempting to defend. As the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, said, it is very hard for even the most experienced ornithologists to claim that they can distinguish a redshank from a spotted redshank at dusk, and I do not think very many wildfowlers would seriously claim to be able to do so. They would see the demise of the spotted redshank as being one of the incidental disadvantages of this, but I dare say that if they had not gone to retrieve it they would not he aware that it had happened.
It seems to me that the arguments which convinced your Lordships' House some months ago have, if anything, been greatly strengthened by the investigations and the experience of the last few months, and I very much hope that the House will reiterate its earlier decisions on both these amendments.
Lord Kilmany: My Lords, I find it unnatural to be on different sides with my noble friend Lord Chelwood, especially on a matter of this sort where we are both so keen on what is good for the natural life of the countryside, but I am bound to say that when he asked your Lordships, "What wildfowler would want to shoot a curlew?" he seemed to expect that no wildfowler in this country—and I include Scotland—would want to shoot a curlew. But the fact of the matter is that, not only if you go to the committees of wildfowlers but if you go among them and talk about it as a wildfowler, you will find that a very large proportion of wildfowlers are only too happy to shoot a curlew, and it does not do anybody any harm.
A noble Lord: Except the curlew!
Lord Kilmany: My Lords, it does not do any harm to cull a species which is not in short supply. It is a good thing to cull the domestic hens; it is not a bad thing to cull seals when they get too numerous, or even deer. The curlew, and to a much lesser extent the redshank, are well able to look after themselves.
I do not want to stamp upon the sport of not very rich people who cannot afford to shoot grouse but who can afford to shoot wildfowl on the shore, and for that reason I hope that the Government will take a firm line and will not accept this amendment although it has been moved by my very good friend Lord Chelwood.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords I should very much like to support the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, on this amendment. I was brought up within sound of the call of the curlew and it was always regarded as absolute sacrilege if anybody shot one. When I was in Scotland this year I listened for curlews—I knew it was past the time for their wonderful call but I asked why I heard so few and I was told that there were many fewer. I only wish that the habitat of the curlew could be extended to many more places, because I do not think it does any harm and, with due respect to the noble Lord opposite, I do not think it should be considered for eating. I think it would be sacrilege to do so and therefore I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, to take up the point the noble Lord has just made, is he really suggesting that there are too many curlews when he talks about culls? He talks about seals and other animals and birds. He talks about culling curlews, but I do not think that enters into this debate at all. The suggestion is not that the curlew should be restricted in this country.
The Viscount of Arbuthnott: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, knows, I cannot support him in his amendment, really for the reasons he gave himself; that is, that there are no conservation reasons to give us any reason to take away from the legitimate sportsmen what is presently their legitimate quarry. As he said, wildfowling habits are changing. He referred to an incident at Lindisfarne where one of these quarry species was discarded, and I know that that case was taken up seriously by the wildfowling

641
organisations concerned and the culprits disciplined. But I go back simply to stating that there are, as the noble Lord admitted, no conservation reasons why—
Lord Melchett>: My Lords, I wonder whether I could intervene. The noble Viscount says that there are no conservation reasons, but both the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and I suggested that it was impossible in practice to distinguish the redshank from the spotted redshank, and the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, said a curlew from a whimbrel. These other birds are protected and there are good conservation gounds for protecting them. Surely that is a conservation argument for these amendments.
The Viscount of Arbuthnott: My Lords, I am sure the House does not want to prolong this discussion on these slightly esoteric matters. The fact is that the redshank we are talking about is more likely to be found on the high marsh and it is not very difficult to distinguish it there from its rarer fellow. Equally, you will not find whimbrel fighting in the same way as curlews do. I do not think that argument stands up. I come back to the argument given by the noble Lords themselves; that there are no conservation reasons that I know of for taking these species off the quarry list.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should like to find out what the definition of a sportsman is. The definition of a sportsman, as I see it, is either somebody who kills because something is vermin or because it is useful. Personally I have never heard of curlew pie. I wonder whether you can use their feathers for anything. I cannot think of anything else that would be useful, and I do not know whether they are vermin, so I hope somebody will repy to me on that.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, this debate is showing signs of coming to life, and it might just as well be on the curlew as anything else. 1 think the time has come to send a note of defiance to the other place and no better subject on which to do it than this. I think we should try and curb the predatory instincts of the other place. As the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, asked a moment ago, what do you shoot a curlew for? Is it to eat? Is it for its feathers? The answer is, No—for sport. That presumably is what it is all about. And I do not think shooting anything is a genuine sport. This constant concern for the wildfowlers—what God-sent creatures are they? Have they some special claim upon the sympathies of the community—wildfowlers must be out at night; wildfowlers must be out on Sunday because they cannot wildfowl on Saturday. We have had all this out, and it seems to me the arguments are so thin that they can only really come from those who feel that the right to use the gun is something which should not be taken away unless there are very strong reasons for doing so.
We heard a moment ago that to shoot a curlew is not to do anybody any harm—nobody, that is, except the curlew. I think all shooting probably does harm in the long run in public attitudes. I shall have an opportunity a little later of saying that with all that we hear from the party opposite about law and order they will not curb the gun. I think the fewer species there
642
are to shoot lawfully the greater the curb on the use of the gun. Your Lordships may say, "Here is an extreme fellow; he is putting up these arguments on the general principle of shooting and not addressing his remarks to the particular question of the curlew". On that I would say we went over all this before and we reached a conclusion. There is no reason why this House should change its opinion.
My criticism of the Government is that very often they gave the impression of accepting the will of this House in the course of the earlier stages of this Bill, and let our progressive reforms in this Bill slip away in the reactionary atmosphere down in another place. We ought not to put up with that. It really is time for your Lordships to assert the prestige and the authority of this House, and let us tell the country the curlew shall be saved.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I think one ought to put in the remark that the next time a Conservative Opposition attacks Labour Bills the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will be quoted with considerable relish about attacking the reactionary principles of another place. I think one ought not to be too unkind about wildfowlers. They need support. It is a perfectly legitimate and honourable sport in my view. But all the same I think there are enough duck for them to shoot, and you can eat duck and they are good to eat. The feathers would make an excellent hat for the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. But there is no necessity to confuse the curlew with the whimbrel or the redshank with the spotted redshank. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will vote in numbers, coveys of your Lordships will go into the Lobby, on the side of the curlew and the redshank.
Lord Tryon: My Lords, I will be very brief, but 1 may slightly surprise your Lordships in that if we do divide on this amendment I may find myself in the same Lobby as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Having been extremely keen on shooting all my life, I have thought long and hard about these two birds, and I have never shot them, although I would probably be the only person in the Lobby supporting Lord Chelwood who has almost certainly shot every other bird on Schedule 2, Parts I and II, quite a lot of other things I should not have done besides. These two birds, I think, are very well worth preserving and I see no call to put them on the shootable list.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I rise to support noble Lords who have spoken in defence of the Commons amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked what is a wildfowler. I was glad to get support from a very unlikely source here. Having said he was going to vote the other way, I am not surprised that he is moving out of the Chamber. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who described the wild-fowler as the common man, the ordinary chap who goes down and shoots below the tideline, where he does not have to pay the large rents which certain noble Lords on this side of the House can afford to pay for their shooting. He is not some terrible character who goes out and shoots everything that moves. I put it to your Lordships that if there are a number of wild-fowlers who do not wish to shoot the curlew there is

643
nothing in the Bill that compels them to do so. They can be quite happy to watch them go over.
Indeed, I very much like watching the curlew. I am lucky enough to be in one of those places where there are both curlew and redshank and with common nests, and I love going to watch them. Nothing would induce me to shoot one—absolutely not. I cannot think of anything that I would less rather do. However, I think that those who go and shoot them are quite entitled to do so. They eat them. It is amazing to me that nobody seems to have grasped this. I have actually eaten one. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that it tasted rather like old boots. In fact it is referred to as a poor man's grouse. They do, generally, like eating them. They take them home to their wives and I suppose that they tell them to pluck them. What they do with the feathers I do not know—it is up to them. In any event, they shoot them, take them home and eat them.
There are nearly as many people who shoot curlews, on the foreshore as there are people who have the good fortune, as some of us may think, to shoot red grouse during the grouse shooting season. There are a lot of people at stake. Noble Lords have given various reasons—not many of which I agree with—as to why this species should be excluded. I think that there is a sentimental reason as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has said. It is lovely to hear their bubbling cry. I love it myself.
On the other hand, there are people who enjoy sho- oting them, who go down and shoot them, and who take them home and eat them at the end of the day. To deprive them of that right, which they have had for goodness knows how many years, for the reason of conservation, when there is no good conservation reason for it, is a matter as regards which I hope that your Lordships will support the Government.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Swinton has finished on the line with which I should like to begin. It seems to be common ground that there is no conservation reason except the reason produced by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, of mistaken identity. Confusion of identity is something at which we have looked and we rejected it as a basis for listing, otherwise the mind boggles at what one might have to take into account. Anyway, it is the Government's considered view that there is no conservation reason. However, not many are shot and the numbers are stable. I am not even sure that, if anybody were to say they were decreasing, I would not say that they were increasing.
It might interest the House to know that in the Community, Denmark, France, Italy and Greece shoot these species and Ireland shoots the curlew. Of the other Community countries, only Germany has given up shooting both species recently, and those species are shot in nine other countries in Europe outside the Community. Therefore, Britain for once is not the odd man out.
The particular objection to the use of a moral argument when the argument of conservation fails, is that once accepted there is no logical stopping place. The Government believe that there is a place for field sports and fishing and the moral argument, however
644
sincerely held, ends only when all these are abolished. Conservation must be the touchstone to decide whether changes need to be made. This sound basis has led to 13 species being removed from the quarry list. Noble Lords, of course, will be aware that that figure includes the bar-tailed godwit as regards which it has been accepted that there is a conservation case for giving it protection at all times. We rest our case on conservation and hope very much that the House will agree with the Commons in their amendment.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I listened with great care, naturally, to the excellent discussion that we have had. Very little entirely new has been said but I should like to comment on one point, namely, the question of mistaken identity as regards which, with great respect, I think that my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Viscount, Lord Arbuthnott, have both got it wrong, which is rather surprising, particularly bearing in mind that the noble Viscount, Lord Arbuthnott, is I believe President of WAGBI.
The curlew and the redshank occur in mixed species flocks. That is a fact. Indeed, curlew and whimbrel often flock and roost together which makes it all the more difficult to identify one from the other, particularly, as I said in my opening speech, in the half light. The same is true of redshank and spotted redshank which are often seen in mixed flocks. Therefore, the question of mistaken identity is very serious. There really cannot be any doubt that many protected birds—some of them, as I have said, extremely rare—get shot and wounded by mistake; and that is something which certainly should be avoided.
As I have said, I have listened with care and attention to the debate. I think that the case for protecting all shore birds as they are protected in North America is a very strong one indeed. I feel bound to divide the House and I feel sure that, if the amendment is passed again, as it was during the Report stage, another place will take most careful account of the reiteration of our strongly held view. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether this House doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 143?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 62; Not-Contents 43.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ardwick, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bishopston, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Kemsley, V.

Brockway, L.

Killearn, L.

Chelwood, L.—[Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Collison, L.

Knutsford, V.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Davies of Leek L.

Loudoun. C.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lovell-Davis. L.

Faithfull, B.

McCluskey, L.

Greenway, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Hacking, L.

Melchett, L.—[Teller.]

Haig, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Hampton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Hanworth, V.

645

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Stamp, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Onslow, E.

Tordoff, L.

Oram, L.

Trumpington, B.

Peart, L.

Tryon, L.

Phillips, B.

Underhill, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Renton, L.

Westbury, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arbuthnott, V.

Holderness, L.

Avon, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Bathurst, E.

Kilmany, L.

Beloff, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Reigate, L.

de Clifford, L.

Sandys, L.—[Teller.]

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

Savile, L.

Digby, L.

Selkirk, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Sharpies, B.

Elton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swinton, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Vivian, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Young, B.

Hives, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Commons amendment disagreed to accordingly.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
144 Schedule 2, page 57, line 20, at end insert—

'Redshank

Tringa totanus'.

8.52 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I beg formally to move that this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said amendment. In fact, I spoke to this when I spoke to Amendment No. 143.
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Chelwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
145 Schedule 2, page 57, leave out lines 42 to 45 and insert—
"NOTE. The common name or names given in the first column of this Schedule are included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings. the common name or names shall not be taken into account.".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. I spoke to this when I spoke to Amendment No. 142. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
146 Schedule 3, page 58, leave out line 20.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that
646
this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. It is now our understanding that present information on the rook does not justify its retention in Schedule 3. Sale and exhibition can be allowed by licence under Clause 16 for those people who breed these birds. Should breeding records, at some time in the future, support inclusion of this species on the schedule, it can be added by order. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
147 Schedule 3, page 58, leave out lines 46 to 49 and insert—
"NOTE. The common name or names given in the first column of this Schedule are included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, the common name or names shall not be taken into account.".
148 Schedule 4, page 60, leave out lines 16 to 19 and insert—
"NOTE. The common name or names given in the first column of this Schedule are included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, the common name or names shall not be taken into account.".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments. I spoke to these amendments when I spoke to Amendment No. 142. 1 beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
149 Schedule 5, page 60, line 32, at end insert—

'Butterfly, Swallowtail

Papilio machaon'.

The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. We are advised by the Nature Conservancy Council that the population of this attractive butterfly is declining. Its addition to the schedule of creatures which require a degree of special protection is therefore justified. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
150 Schedule 5, page 61, leave out lines 25 to 28 and insert—
"NOTE. The common name or names given in the first column of this Schedule are included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, the common name or names shall not be taken into account.".
151 Schedule 6, page 61, leave out lines 51 to 54 and insert—
"NOTE. The common name or names given in the first column of this Schedule are included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, the common name or names shall not be taken into account.".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments. I spoke to these amendments when I spoke to Amendment No. 142. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
152 Schedule 7, page 62, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert:—
'The Ground Game Act 1880
.— (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 6 of the Ground Game Act 1880, it shall not be unlawful for the occupier of any land himself, or one other person authorised by him under section 1 of that Act, to use firearms for the purpose of killing ground game thereon between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last hour before sunrise if (except where he has the exclusive right) the occupier has written authority of the other person or one of the other persons entitled to kill and take the ground game on the land.
(2) In this paragraph "ground game" means hares and rabbits.
The Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948
.—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 50(1)(a) of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948, it shall not be unlawful for the owner of the shooting rights on any land or any person holding those rights from him, or the occupier of any land (who may in writing nominate one other person), to use a firearm for the purpose of killing ground game thereon between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last hour before sunrise, if (except where he has the exclusive right) he has written authority of the other person or one of the other persons entitled to kill and take the ground game on the land.
(2) In this paragraph "ground game" means hares and rabbits.
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953
—(1) At the end of subsection (2) of section 1 of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 (penalty where dog worries livestock on agricultural land) there shall be inserted the words "or
(c) being at large (that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control) in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep".
(2) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) Subsection (2)(c) of this section shall not apply in relation to—

(a) a dog owned by, or in the charge of, the occupier of the field or enclosure or the owner of the sheep or a person authorised by either of those persons; or

(b) a police dog, a guide dog, a trained sheep dog, a working gun dog or a pack of hounds."

The Deer Act 1963'
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. With the leave of the House, I shall speak first to Parts I and II of Amendment No. 152. Part 1 of the amendment would rectify an anomaly arising from the interpretation of the Ground Game Act 1880. The anomaly being remedied in England and Wales by superseding the application of the 1880 Act to night shooting is between, on the one hand, owners of land with shooting rights (whether or not in occupation of the land) and shooting tenants not in occupation who have been held by the courts not to be subject to the ban on night shooting and, on the other hand, occupiers who are. As for the most part such non-owning occupiers are tenant farmers who wish to protect their crops, the anomaly is considered to be unjust and in need of remedy.
648
The first part of Amendment No. 152 gives occupiers in England and Wales the right to shoot ground game at night if they have the written authority of one of the persons with a similar right. They would also be able to delegate the right to shoot to a person under Section 1 of the 1880 Act; for example, an employee or a member of his household resident on his land. This brings the position at night into line with that during the day.
The second part of Amendment No. 152 deals with the position in Scotland. At present, no person in Scotland may shoot ground game at night. There is no difference in circumstance between England and Wales, and Scotland which justifies a difference of this nature. Accordingly, the second part of Amendment No. 152 was intended not only to give occupiers—provided they have written permission—the right to shoot but also to give such rights to the owner of the shooting or a person who has been granted shooting rights whether exclusively or otherwise.
With the leave of the House, I shall now turn to Part 3 of the amendment which concerns sheep worrying by dogs. Noble Lords will recollect that the Government were sypathetic to the intention of protecting sheep from dog worrying but did not feel able to support the amendments which were moved during various stages of the passage of the Bill in February and March. However, we recognised that there was a wide measure of support in this House for the inclusion of some provision to prevent sheep worrying to supplement what is already provided for in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 and the Animals Act 1971, and there was similarly widespread support for such a measure in the other place. We therefore undertook to draft a suitable clause.
The clause which was produced forms the third part of this amendment. It contains various exemptions which are considered to be necessary. We have defined "at large" in relation to dogs in fields to mean "not on a lead or otherwise under close control". As Sir Hector Monro said, in moving this clause on Report in the other place,
"We recognise that the meaning of "under close control" cannot be precisely defined, but the phrase is evidently acceptable to the major interests which support the tightening up of the sheep-worrying legislation and we believe that the implications will generally be clear".
If the House agrees to this amendment, it is the Government's intention that it should be brought into effect in time for the lambing season.
At the same time I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 152B, 152C and 152D. These amendments are necessary in order to ensure that the law on shooting ground game at night should be the same in Scotland as in England and Wales, and they are consequential to Amendment No. 152. Certain inconsistencies arose as a result of the drafting.
The amendments that I propose will make it clear that in Scotland, as in England and Wales, the occupier of agricultural land will be entitled to delegate the right to shoot at night only to one person who must be in his employment or a member of his household. The amendments will also remove a curious effect of Commons Amendment No. 152 whereby an owner of shooting rights in Scotland would have been required to obtain the consent of any other owner of shooting

649
rights to shoot ground game at night. The amendments ensure that that proviso applies only to tenants in order to protect rights over game. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
As an amendment to Amendment No. 152:
152A Leave out lines 1 to 26.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name, to leave out lines 1 to 26. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, intended to do full justice to the purpose of these amendments, but I must say that, had I not studied this matter very closely myself, I should have had difficulty in following the merits of the arguments that he used. The truth is that we have been here before. On 8th July last year, the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, introduced as a Private Member's Bill the Ground Game Bill 1980, which was to amend the Ground Game Bill of 1880, as though to celebrate the centenary of the passing of the 1880 Act. That Bill received its Second Reading in your Lordships' House on 23rd July last year but thereafter it ran into difficulties. At Committee stage amendments were seriously considered and the Committee stage collapsed because, when there was a Division, there were not the necessary numbers to support a valid vote of this House. As time was going on in July of last year, the Bill made no further progress. Before that Bill came here it had been introduced as a Private Member's Bill by Mr. Hooson, Member of Parliament, in July 1979. It went through another place without a word being said in support of it. It got through its Second Reading on the nod. It went to a Committee upstairs in another place, where the sponsor of the Bill submitted a redraft of the only substantial clause in the Bill which had been supplied to him by the Home Office. The Committee proceedings were over in 11½ minutes. It was on that basis that the Bill passed through another place and was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, in this House in July of last year.
Where does Amendment No. 52 on the Marshalled List tonight come from? Where did the other amendments come from? Who put them there? First, no attempt was made in your Lordships' House at any earlier stage in this Bill to introduce clauses which have nothing to do with this Bill and which are alien to it. No such attempt was made by anybody—not by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. The Bill went to another place without any attempt being made here to resuscitate the clauses in the Ground Game Bill of 1980. It went to Committee in another place and still no attempt was made to bring these clauses into the Bill. But the Bill got to Report stage, and on 13th July these amendments were put into the Bill without, so far as I can find, any debate whatsoever.
I have never surely encountered legislative change with so little being said in support of it. Talk about a silent conspiracy, this is the neatest piece of sleight of hand that I have seen in Parliament for a very long time. If we are going to deal with the question of Scotland, let me stress the fact that Scotland was excluded from the Ground Game Bill of 1880 and, so far as I can find out, at no time has the proposal
650
been made here or debated elsewhere to include in this Bill an amendment of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 as amended by the Pests Act 1954. The Ground Game Bill of 1880 enlarged the area of the use and the right of shooting of hares and rabbits, but in 1948 and in 1954 Scotland changed the Act of 1880 in one material respect. It prohibited the shooting of ground game at night, whereas the 1880 Act made lawful the shooting of ground game at night by certain persons specified in the Act itself. Scotland has a complete ban at the present time on the shooting of ground game at night.
This amendment proposes to remove that ban. That was not proposed in the Bill which came before your Lordships' House last year. It has never been put forward in another place until spatchcocked into this Bill right now. This seems to me to be a most irregular use of the machinery of Parliament to bring about a significant change of that kind. Scotland is turned from a civilised to an uncivilised country overnight by amending the legislation which has been there so long.
There is an anomaly. The anomaly to which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, referred began with a judgment by the Court of Appeal 67 years ago, in 1913. The anomaly has persisted ever since, and 67 years after it started we are told that it is time to remove the anomaly. I should have thought that, if an anomaly is created by a judgment of the courts, one will not necessarily remove the anomaly by a further extension of the right to shoot. I suspect that one would first wish to consider what were the intentions of Parliament when the original Act of 1880 was passed. There is no doubt that the Act of 1880 did two things. It enlarged the area of the destruction of hares and rabbits, but at the same time it prohibited those who were brought in to the enlarged facility for shooting from shooting at night. I see no justification for bringing these amendments before your Lordships' House in this Bill. Is it conservation? What is it? What is the purpose behind these clauses that is relevant to the Bill?
Just recently the noble Earl on a number of occasions has said that the test within the scope of this Bill must be—is it conservation? Is it the preservation of the species? Is it the safeguarding of the environment? Is it a conservation purpose? The Government have gone to extreme lengths to prevent this Bill being used as an instrument against blood sports. I recall for the benefit of your Lordships how far the Government have gone along that path. We have protected the otter from being killed or taken. We have protected the otter from the disturbance of his habitat. But we have not outlawed hunting. You can hunt the otter in law. You may not kill it; you may not take it; you may not destroy its habitat, but you can hunt it.
That of course is a palpable absurdity, but it is maintained in order to preserve in the utmost degree the principle that this Bill must not be used as a means of curbing blood sports. And yet we get these amendments in the Bill just now without any argument relating the purpose of the amendments to the purpose of the Bill. All that the noble Earl has said is, "to rectify an anomaly". This Bill is not here for the purpose of rectifying anomalies. This Bill is here to achieve a certain specific purpose, and there is no reason at all for dragging in at the last stages of the

651
Bill amendments of this kind to rectify anomalies which have nothing to do with what the Bill is really about.
If it was desirable to remedy this anomaly, which I am sure very few people are aware of, I should like to know how many people have felt inhibited about shooting anything at night because of the Act of 1880 and the judgment of the court of 1913. However, one must not condone lawlessness even though a great deal of it would be through ignorance. But why is it pressing now, I ask your Lordships? Why now? I know where the impetus came from, because your Lordships who know the disposition of what one might call the British Field Sports Society will identify those who have been behind this kind of amendment in the past.
Well, I have got it off my chest. I hope I am not being unduly fussy, but it seems that this matter is regarded in some quarters as either so obvious, or as so trivial, that it is not worth uttering words about it. Indeed, in the Committee stage in another place the mover of the Bill said that it was so obvious that he need not make a speech about it. And he did not. Well, I wish we could get away with amendments and add new clauses to Bills as easily as that. But why are the Government conniving at this? Why are they doing anything about it? Why have not they resisted this in the interests of keeping the Bill in a state of theoretical purity so that we work within the boundaries laid down by the Government themselves? I feel strongly that we ought to pay a little more respect to Scotland than to sweep up into this Bill changes in laws applicable to Scotland which have been passed much more recently than 1880. In 1948 and in 1954 Scotland decided to outlaw night shooting of ground game, and here we are departing from that. I see no justification for that.
Would that Scotland had more responsibility for its own affairs, but I should have thought that night shooting in Scotland had dangers in regard to deer greater than night shooting elsewhere in England and Wales. That is the one thing I should have thought they would want to outlaw in Scotland: the night shooting of deer. If you have the night shooting of ground game, you can have the night shooting of anything.
I said earlier that the one thing we want to achieve in this country is that any shot during the hours of darkness is prima facie unlawful. Many people hear shots in the night and say, "I thought it was somebody shooting at something", only to find that their neighbour has been murdered. We are too free in the use of the gun, as though we had a prescriptive right, as though we had the American mentality—that we want a gun to defend ourselves—when our use of the gun in the civilian context is mostly to satisfy our instinct for sport. I wish that word could be deleted from the vocabulary of shooting.
However, many noble Lords will not feel as I do on this matter as a general principle. But law and order, violence, sawn off shotguns, shooting, pop guns at the Queen—anything you like—and the airgun is another example of where we have failed to take a firm grip on the use of the gun. That is why I propose to delete from the Bill the two amendments relating to the Ground Game Act 1880 and the Agriculture (Scotland)
652
Act 1948, which have no place in this Bill, which were not in the Bill to begin with but which were inserted in another place at the very latest stages of the Bill. That was done on 13th July last, when the consideration of the Bill was drawing to a close; and if noble Lords wish to read the Official Report of the proceedings there they will realise, as I do, that in another place they were scampering to the end of the Bill, hurrying to get it over before the Summer Recess so it would be here immediately we came back. We should not connive in the passing of legislation in that sort of mood and in those circumstances.
That is why I propose this amendment. Let us deal with that anomaly, if such it be, in a manner that can be considered entirely separately from the principles of the Bill, to which it does not belong, and let the subject come forward, as it did before, as a Private Member's Bill, when we can discuss it at our leisure, without the Whips on, and not with the Government recommending the acceptance by your Lordships of amendments they have not seen or discussed before, unless they took part in the debates last year.
Moved, That this House doth agree to the amendment to Commons Amendment No. 152.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
Lord Monk Bretton: I wish briefly to speak against the amendment, my Lords. The issue is narrow, as my noble friend Lord Avon endeavoured to point out, and because of its narrowness it is inevitable and perhaps not unreasonable that there should not have been a great degree of discussion, and perhaps one need not complain too much about that. My understanding of the position is that this affects only the tenant farmer who is also tenant of the sporting rights. In most cases, after all, a tenant farmer is not also tenant of the sporting rights, or alternatively there is an owner occupier who probably himself has the sporting rights, so only a small category of people are concerned; I doubt whether their numbers are at all large.
I think the House has already agreed the night shooting issue, and one does not want to elaborate at this late stage much further on that. There seem to be strong arguments that as a few people are affected by the curious position which results from the court interpretation of the Ground Game Act 1880, those people should be put in the same position as everyone else. This is not the time to talk broadly about night shooting, but I feel it right to mention in passing that it is a means of controlling the rabbit, a tiresome pest, particularly in the period after harvest. At that time of year there is usually too much cover to adopt any other means for some little while, and to protect the autumn-sown corn as it comes up, it is useful to be able to go night shooting during that period.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, perhaps I may put the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, right on one or two minor points. The matter was actually discussed in Standing Committee D on 2nd June in the other place and it was raised by my honourable friend Mr. Farr. In view of the fact that this does not seem to have been discovered, I should like to read out his final sentence and the first paragraph of the speech of the Opposition speaker, the honourable

653
Member Mr. Hardy. Mr. Farr stated—I quote from column 384 of the Official Report of Standing Committee D of 2nd June—
"I particularly believe that the present anomalous position should be resolved and that all farmers who comply with relevant legislation should be allowed to control ground game at night for the better protection of their crops. I do not believe that tenant farmers should be liable to prosecution, as has happened in the past, for protecting their crops with this undoubtedly effective method, which is already widely used".
Mr. Hardy responded to that:
"If the hon. Gentleman is right—I believe that he is—that the amendment seeks merely to remedy an anomalous situation and is a gesture towards egalitarian arrangements in the countryside, it is unobjectionable".
The noble Lord quoted the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948. That re-enacted previous legislation without amendment. It did not remove ability to shoot ground game at night.
There exists here an anomaly which is unfavourable to the occupier, and it is this situation which we are being asked to remedy. The anomaly in question is of some significance. It is not merely a question of conditions in the law. Rabbits and hares do considerable damage to crops and pasture. Night shooting is one of the principal methods of keeping down their numbers to a reasonable level. Protection of crops is a matter which concerns occupiers especially. It would therefore seem desirable that they should have the same right to protect their crops.
I recognise the concern that the Commons amendment might lead to a dangerous increase in the amount of shooting done at night. I appreciate these fears, but I hope that we may keep them in some perspective. Research has conclusively shown that there is no link between the level of crime and the number of guns legitimately held under firearm certificates.
The shooting of ground game at night is not a new activity. The police are fully acquainted with it. As your Lordships will be aware, the Firearms Act 1968 imposes strict controls on the use of firearms. Chief constables are given the power by that Act to decide who should have firearms certificates. I believe that we can have sufficient faith in the judgment of chief constables to be confident that this amendment would not result in any increase in the number of undesirable persons using firearms at night.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, made the particular point as to how we got on to Scotland, and I can imagine that that was through the vigilance of my honourable friend the Minister in the other place, who was none other than Sir Hector Monro, who if he can stand up for Scotland at any time, certainly does. I imagine that that is why Scotland was included. I hope that, having heard those points, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will feel able to agree to what is, as my noble friend behind me said, a narrow but important amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, it might be said that Sir Hector Monro got his deserts at the hands of his Leader for sticking up for Scotland or anywhere else. I waited until the noble Earl had replied to my noble friend because I was hoping to hear an explanation of why the Government had decided in another place to amend the Ground Game Act when we had been told
654
so repeatedly and so firmly by the noble Earl and his colleagues in this House that this Bill was not the place to amend the game Acts or to put forward amendments which had any effect on legitimate sporting activities, as noble Lords opposite would have it. On the whole my noble friend and I abided very strictly by that informal advice from noble Lords opposite. It seems to me that that understanding was pretty shamelessly thrown aside when the Bill got to another place and when this provision was inserted, just as other understandings which were arrived at by all parties in this House appear to have been discarded by the Government when the Bill got to another place, without a "by your leave".
I do not think that my noble friend and I can do very much about it at this stage. But I hope that we might take some comfort from a thought about the totally unreasoning opposition, as I see it, to various amendments that have been put forward which would have affected some aspects of shooting such as night shooting, the length of the shooting season. Sunday shooting, and so on. The Bill and the debates that we have had, including the debate on this amendment. will have alerted responsible conservationists and the animal welfare movement to some of the grave shortcomings in the legislation affecting shooting and in the long run will have done some service, in the sense that those defects will secure much more public scrutiny than they have in the past.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted one or two brief comments. As regards Scotland, when the Ground Game Bill of 1980 was under consideration in this House, the sponsor was advised that it would be inappropriate to extend the provisions of that Bill to Scotland, particularly as Section 6 of the Ground Game Act 1880, of which the present Bill is a qualification, has already been repealed in Scotland. He was advised that the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 repealed Section 6 of the Ground Game Act 1880, which prohibits the use of firearms by occupiers to take rabbits and hares at night in respect of Scotland. But Section 50 of the Agriculture Act, as amended by Section 10 of the Pests Act 1954, prohibits any person from shooting ground game at night; and its provisions were not restricted to certain persons as in the Ground Game Act of 1880.
Therefore, the present position is that any person in Scotland is prohibited from shooting ground game at night. That, as I am advised, is the position. I am not very clear what the amendment on the Marshalled List does in Scotland: whether it repeals that entirely or whether in some way it modifies what is the existing law in Scotland. In any case the position is not as clear as the noble Earl indicated a moment or two ago. Let us be clear what the 1880 Act did. It gave owner occupiers the right to take ground game even where they had granted game rights to another person. Even though they had contracted the shooting rights away, they were entitled under the 1880 Act to shoot ground game. It also gave tenants the right to take ground game even where the owner had reserved the game rights to himself or where he had granted them to some person other than the tenant. The 1880 Act gave owner

655
occupiers and tenants, irrespective of contractual rights, the right to shoot over the land they occupied.
That is what the 1880 Act did; but at the same time, in giving those extra contractual rights—and the great debate in 1880 was whether an Act of Parliament should override the law of contract—it included a stipulation that those to whom extra rights were granted should not use them to shoot at night. That was where the anomaly, as it turned out to be, lay. The Leworthy v. Rees case in 1913, which was a judgment of the Court of Appeal, made a very narrow construction of the 1880 Act and produced the anomaly. That is my reply on the technicalities of both Scotland and the present anomalous position—anomalous only because a court of law construed the 1880 Act as they thought fit against what obviously were the intentions of Parliament at the time.
Finally, I apologise to the House for not having discovered, in the enormous volume of paper that I went through on this matter, the references to this at the Committee stage in another place. I went through the Report stage and could not discover the origin of these amendments, but if they were discussed in Committee in another place I am very glad of it; it is the only discussion of these provisions that has taken place since the matter was first introduced in 1979.
I am sorry, but I do not feel able to withdraw my amendment, though I do not feel that I ought to trouble your Lordships to exert yourselves unduly at this hour of night to register your vote in the Lobbies: but there is a difference between withdrawing an amendment and taking the collective voice of the House.
On Question, amendment to the amendment negatived.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 152B, 152C and 152D to Amendment No. 152:
152B Line 17, after ("or") insert ("(subject to sub-paragraph (2) below)").
152C Line 17, leave out ("(who may in writing nominate one other person)").
1521D Line 21, leave out from ("sunrise") to ("this") in line 25 and insert—
"(2) The occupier of any land shall not use a firearm as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above unless (except where he has the exclusive right) he has first obtained the written authority of the other person or one of the other persons entitled to kill and take the ground game on the land.
(3) An occupier who is entitled, in terms of this paragraph, to use a firearm for the purpose of killing ground game may, subject to the provisions of section 1 of the Ground Game Act 1880, authorise one other person so to use a firearm.
(4) In").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 152B, 152C and 152D. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the amendments to the amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, amendments to the amendment agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 152E to Amendment No. 152:
152E Line 37, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 152E as an amendment to Amendment No. 152. Amendment No. 152—at least, this part of it; we are now on the part dealing with the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953—was introduced in another place as the result of several debates that we had in this House about the need to tighten the law so as to prevent, or help to prevent, livestock being worried and killed by dogs. The objective is one which I fully share, and I certainly supported noble Lords opposite in some of the final drafts of the amendments covering this point which we considered. So I am in favour of the amendment in principle.
I have just one small worry about it, and that is that at the moment it seems to me that it creates an absolute offence in circumstances where this would not always be reasonable. We have had this argument when, as it were, the boot has been on the other foot, when it was suggested that it would be quite wrong for landowners or farmers to be guilty of absolute offences, and I hope that noble Lords opposite will feel that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander and they will apply the same sort of criteria when discussing what happens to a dog owner who is walking through a field.
If the dog owner is in a small field, the weather is clear and the sheep are visible, there seems to me to be absolutely no doubt that if the dog is out of control in the field that is bad practice. That is something which this amendment would make illegal, and I am all for that.
Where I am worried is if somebody with a dog is walking on an open hill and they enter something which it is not apparent to them at the time is an enclosure but which actually is, and that, of course is quite possible, either because of the weather conditions—they could be in cloud at the time and not be able to see that the wall they have just passed through is actually part of the wall of a field, or the weather conditions could be such that they think they can see across the whole of the field and that there are no sheep in it when in fact there are—or, alternatively, because of the shape and the lie of the ground, which could prevent them from seeing a small number of sheep huddled in a corner out of the wind, or whatever, so that only when they get very close to them or get up on to a rise in the ground can they see the sheep.
In those fairly unusual circumstances, and bearing in mind that the field or enclosure in this clause is not defined in any way, that there is no limitation on it and that it could therefore presumably be something covering a very substantial area indeed, it seems to me that the test of reasonableness should be applied; in other words, that the person in charge of the dog should be able to say, "It was quite unreasonable for me to see that there were sheep in this field or to realise that I was in a field or enclosure; I just had no way of knowing", and that would be clear from the evidence that was presented about, as I say, whether conditions, the lie of the land or whatever.
In those circumstances, it would be foolish for them to be made guilty of an offence. This is something about which in other discussions noble Lords opposite have felt strongly and have gone into the

657
Division Lobbies to resist any absolute liability being placed on people. I hope that in those circumstances in practice this amendment will strengthen the provision which the Government are suggesting be put into the Bill. By making it a more reasonable provision it is more likely that prosecutions would be taken and people would end up in court and found guilty. If it goes in as it is now, in some circumstances it will be quite unreasonable and end up by not being very strongly enforced, which is what often happens to provisions of Acts of Parliament which are not really fair. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree to the amendment to Commons Amendment No. 152.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, although one necessarily tends to agree with the noble Lord that we should not create offences of absolute liability—that is to say, offences which make it unnecessary for the prosecution to prove a guilty intent. Nevertheless, the defence which he purports to set up in the words in Amendment No. 152G makes it much too easy a defence. Even when one accepts that the onus will be on the accused to prove this, all that he or she has to say in effect is: "When I took my dog there I did not think that it was in a field or enclosure in which there were sheep". That seems to me to be much too easy.
I do not think, with great respect, that this is realistic. It could nullify the effect of the main provision which is to extend the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act, 1953 and to make sure that where dogs worry sheep on agricultural land there shall be an offence committed in the circumstances mentioned in the original provision as extended in Amendment No. 152. While one appreciates the sincerity of the motive of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, it does not seem to be a practicable proposition to accept it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly on this. Regarding the words, "reasonable belief" and "at the material time", with respect, may I say that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is always telling us that we should have amendments that the layman can understand. Frankly if he can understand that, I cannot and I do not think that anybody else can. I think my noble friend Lord Renton will agree that legally it does not make a great deal of sense. The other point is that this amendment came back agreed in the Commons by all the parties; by the farmers, the British field sports people, I think, and the ramblers. They were well aware of this right the way through. Now at this stage the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, brings it up. I suggest that we leave it as it was decided and agreed by a compromise, which is really what this Bill is and has been and should be all the way through.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Lords down, could he tell us on what basis this was agreed by the Ramblers' Association when it was introduced in another place.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, Yes. The ramblers have been a part to this right from the start. At no time have they objected to this amendment. If they are objecting
658
it is only at this stage, they did not object to it in the Commons.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has explained, is designed to meet those circumstances where the shape of a field or the configuration of ground is such that sheep may be hidden from the person in charge of the dog. At first sight—particularly as explained by the noble Lord—it seems not unreasonable that if a man can see no sheep he should be allowed to assume that there are no sheep there. But there is the other side of the coin, and I submit it is equally reasonable to expect a man to make sure that there are no sheep in the field before letting his dog loose. That is to say, that if the whole of the field is not in view he should assume that it is unsafe to let his dog go until he has firmly established that the field contains no sheep. That is really the basis of the argument between us.
My preference is for the second proposition. I believe that the dog owner has a duty to ensure that it is safe to release his dog before doing so. If we were to accept the amendment it would be all too easy for the dog owner to claim that he had reason to believe that he was not in a field containing sheep. He could in fact make such a claim without even being near the dog. My noble friend Lord Renton has already put the legal argument so clearly that I think it is unnecessary for me to underline it, but I was going to say that the Government think this amendment would be very difficult to enforce. For that reason we cannot recommend it.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, as I said, I support very strongly the basic objective of the amendment that has been introduced and I would not want to put something in it that was going to make it difficult or even impossible to enforce, so I have no intention of pressing the amendment.
I also accept the argument the noble Earl has put forward, that it is reasonable to expect people in sheep-rearing areas where sheep farming is carried out and where they know that to be the case, walking into a field, to keep the dog under close control or on a lead until they have ascertained whether or not there are sheep there. Whether the same could be said if one unexpectedly comes across a flock of sheep in an entirely arable area, where of course this amendment would still apply, I am not so sure. There may be some hard cases but then I accept that farmers have a very hard case to deal with when a dog gets loose, savages sheep and kills large numbers of them. That, of course, is the evil this amendment is designed to prevent.
I should like to put the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, right. As far as I know—and I have had discussions with them—the Ramblers' Association were not entirely happy with the detail of the amendment as introduced in another place and the same is true of the detailed drafting of amendments that were discussed in your Lordships' House when the Bill was here. They, like me, have never been worried about the objective which the amendments have been aimed at but they have been worried about the practical consequences for quite innocent people walking their dogs in the countryside. I must say I would still have some worries on

659
that score myself. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Commons Amendment No. 152, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 152F and 152G not moved.]
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
153 Page 62, line 7, leave out '1963 Act' and insert 'Deer Act 1963'.
154 Page 62, line 26, leave out 'the 1963' and insert 'that'.
155 Page 64, line 1, leave out 'the 1963' and insert that'.
156 Page 64, line 4, leave out 'the 1963' and insert 'that'.
157 Page 64, line 15, leave out 'the 1963' and insert 'that'.
158 Page 64, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert—
'The Conservation of Seals Act 1970'.
159 Page 64, line 21, leave out '1970 Act' and insert' Conservation of Seals Act 1970'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with Amendment No. 153 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 154 to 159, as well as to Amendments Nos. 162, 163, 166, 167, 169 and 170. These are purely drafting amendments. They are consequential on Amendments Nos. 34 and 152, the principal amendments to which the House has agreed. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 153 to 159 en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
160 Page 64, line 33, leave out '(a) which' and insert 'which—
(a)'.
161 Page 64, line 33, leave out lines 37 to 41 and insert—
'(b) has been notified under section 28(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (areas of special scientific interest);
(c) is an area to which section 29(3) of that Act (special protection for certain areas of special scientific interest) applies; or
(d) has been designated as a marine nature reserve under section (Marine nature reserves) of that Act."'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 160 and 161. These are technical amendments which I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
162 Page 65, leave out liner 1 to 3 and insert'—
'The Badgers Act 1973'.
163 Page 65, line 4, leave out 1973 Act 'and insert' Badgers Act 1973'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 162 and 163. 1 spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 153. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
164 Page 65, line 6, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'sub-sections'.
165 Page 65, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert 'any part of, or anything derived from, a dead badger, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (2) above if he shows that—

(a) the badger had not been killed, or had been killed otherwise than in contravention of the provisions of this Act; or

(b) the badger or other thing in his possession or control had been sold (whether to him or any other person) and, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser had had no reason to believe that the badger had been killed in contravention of those provisions.'.

The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 164 and 165. Amendment No. 164 is purely drafting and Amendment No. 165 does two things. First, it provides that it is an offence not only to be in possession of an illegally killed or taken badger, but also to be in possession of any part of or anything derived from a dead badger. This would close a loophole in the Bill as presently drafted. The words used accord with similar provisions in Part I and cover all eventualities. Secondly, we realise the difficulties that a person who buys, for example, a badger shaving brush, could have in proving that the badger from which it derived was not illegally killed or taken and accordingly Amendment No. 165 provides at paragraph (3)(b) a defence. Clearly a person who buys an article from a shop has no reason to suppose that an offence has been committed. I am sure that these will meet with general approval. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
166 Page 65, line 13, leave out 'the 1973' and insert 'that'.
167 Page 65, line 27, leave out 'the 1973' and insert 'that'.
9.46 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 166 and 167. I spoke to these when moving Amendment No. 153. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
168 Page 65, leave out lines 40 to 44 and insert:
'it had become apparent, before that time, that that action would prove necessary for the purpose mentioned in that subsection and either—

(a) a licence under section 9 of this Act authorising that action had not been applied for as soon as reasonably practicable after that fact had become apparent; or

(b) an application for such a licence had been determined"'.

The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 168. This amendment makes the same provision in Schedule 7 as does Amendment No. 28 to Clause 10, which the House accepted on 15th October. It would replace the provision at sub-paragraph (1B) of paragraph 7 of Schedule 7. It is similar to Amendment No. 28. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
169 Page 66, line 19, leave out 'the 1973' and insert 'that'.
170 Page 66, line 27, leave out 'the 1973' and insert 'that'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 169 and 170. I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 153. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
171 Schedule 8, page 66, line 38, at end insert:

'Calamint, Wood

Calamintha sylvatica'.

The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 171. The purpose of this amendment is to add the wood calamint to the schedule of protected plants. The effect would be to give this plant the full protection of Clause 13. The wood calamint is a very rare plant, which is found only in one site on the Isle of Wight. It is, however, a conservation success story. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
172 Page 67, leave out lines 45 to 48 and insert:
'NOTE. The common name or names given in the first column of this Schedule are included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, the common name or names shall not be taken into account.'
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 172. I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 142. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is with apology that I rise very briefly at this point. I should have taken the point at an earlier stage of the Bill, or even when my noble friend was moving Amendment No. 150. I make the point now only for the sake of the record, and so that those authorities who are responsible for enforcement of the Bill may watch out for the point in the years to come.
Ignorance of the law is no defence, but it is very strong mitigation and people are likely to raise in mitigation the fact that they did not know the Latin name, the name in the second column. If they had been tied to the name in the first column, which is the common name, they could not have raised that mitigation and the sentences would, therefore, have been heavier against them. This is a point of which we should not lose sight in due course.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing that out.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
173 Schedule 9, page 68, leave out line 12.
174 Schedule 9, line 27, at end insert—

'Marmot, Prairie (otherwise known as Prairie Dog).

Cynomys '

The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 173 and 174. These amendments remove the existing misleading description "dog, prairie" and replace it by the correct term. The prairie dog is not a dog, but a rodent of the marmot family. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
175 Page 69, line 3 at end insert—

Hogweed, Giant

Heracleum mantegazzianum

Kelp, Giant

Macrocystis pyrifera

Knotweed, Japanese

Polygonum cuspidatum'.

The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 175. Part II of Schedule 9 is a list of plants which may be introduced into the wild only under licence. Amendment No. 175 would add three further species to the list. All are exotics. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
176 Page 69, leave out lines 5 to 8 and insert—
'NOTE. The common name or names given in the first column of this Schedule are included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, the common name or names shall not be taken into account.'
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 176. I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 142. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
177 Schedule 10, page 70, line 4 after 'Where', insert 'in the case of a live animal or plant of any kind which is condemned or deemed to be condemned as forfeited'.
178 Schedule 10, page 70, line 5. leave out from 'to' to 'those' in line 7 and insert—

'(a) its return to the wild; or

(b) its being kept at premises (whether within or outside the United Kingdom) which are suitable for the keeping of animals or plants of that kind,'.

The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 177, which is linked with their Amendment No. 178. With permission, I shall move both of them together. These amendments seek to extend a provision added to Schedule 10 by your Lordships on Report. Under this provision, when a specimen has been condemned or deemed to have been condemned as a consequence of attempted illegal importation, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise may reclaim their expenses in returning it to the country of export—in other words, returning it to the wild. This is in accord with Article VIII of the Washington Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
179 Page 70, line 11, leave out from 'seizure' to end of line 12.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 179. The amendment seeks to remove the "three times the value" restriction. There is a precedent for this. The provisions which enable the agriculture departments to take action when products have been imported in contravention of various plant
664
and animal health orders where notice has been given to the importer and he has failed to take action as required by the notice—for example, destruction, disinfestation or other treatment—allow for recovery of their costs to be sought without limit against the relevant importer. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
180 Page 71, line 6, [Schedule 10] leave out from 'animal' to second 'of' in line 7.
181 Page 71, line 8, at end insert 'or an egg or other immature stage of such an animal'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 180. Amendment No. 180 is linked with Amendment No. 181, and, with permission, I shall move both of them together. These are drafting amendments to make it clear that the phrase "of any of the kinds to which Schedule 4 to this Act for the time being applies" also governs the phrase "a live or dead animal". I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
182 Page 72, line 46, at end insert:

'Saguinus geoffroyi

Geoffroy's tamarin'.

183 Page 73, line 8, at end insert:

'Cercopithecus diana

Diana monkey'.

184 Page 73, line 16, at end insert:

'Papio leucophaeus (otherwise known as Mandrillus leucophaeus)

Drill

Papio sphinx (otherwise known as Mandrillus sphinx)

Mandrill'.

185 Page 74, line 3, at end insert:

'Physeter catodon (otherwise known as Physeter macrocephalus)

Sperm whale'.

186 Page 76, leave out line 20.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 182 to 186 en bloc. Amendments Nos. 189 to 200 are also of the same type. The species of List A are all those on Appendix 1 of the Washington Convention—that is, those regarded internationally as endangered—together with others, such as birds of prey, on which the United Kingdom has traditionally had strict controls. In New Delhi in February and March of this year, the third meeting of the parties to CITES, including the United Kingdom, agreed certain amendments to Appendix 1 of the convention. The amendments which the House is now considering incorporate the changes to the appendix. With the exception of Amendment No. 186, they all concern the addition of species to the list. The species to be added will in effect from 6th June 1981 be banned from international commercial trade. There is one species, the bontebok, which has been removed. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
187 Page 76, line 31, at end insert:
'Rheas'
188 Page 76, line 32, at end insert:
'Tinamous'
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 187 and 188. These are minor amendments simply to provide labels for the Lesser Rhea and the Solitary Tinamou to indicate to which family they belong and under which any other related species may be listed, should this be required in the future. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am sure that the House would be agreeable if the noble Earl would like to speak to all the Amendments up to No. 200 and then move them en bloc. It would take us a little faster through the amendments.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
189 Page 76, line 33, at end insert:

'Penguins

Spheniscus humboldti

Humboldt penguin'

190 Page 77, line 37, at end insert:

'Penelope albipennis

White-winged guan'.

191 Page 78, line 31, at end insert:

'Amazona arausiaca

Red-necked parrot (otherwise known as Red-necked amazon).

Amazona barbadensis

Yellow-shouldered parrot (otherwise known as Yellow-shouldered amazon)

Amazona brasiliensis

Red-tailed parrot (otherwise known as Red-tailed amazon)'.

192 Page 79, line 13, at end insert:

'Cyclopsita diophthalma coxeni (otherwise known as Opopsitta diophthalma coxeni).

Coxen's fig parrot'.

193 Page 79, line 32, at end insert:

'Rhynchopsitta terrisi

Maroon-fronted parrot'.

194 Page 80, line 40, at end insert:

'Crocodylus acutus

American crocodile'.

195 Page 81, line 15, at end insert:

'Iguanas

Brachylophus

Fijian iguanas

Cyclura

Caribbean rock iguanas

Sauromalus varius

San Esteban Island chuckwalla'.

196 Page 82, leave out lines 26 to 34 and insert:

'Cheloniidae

Sea turtles'.

197 Page 84, line 23, at end insert:

'Apocynaceae

Pachypodiumnamaguanum'.

198 Page 84, line 25, at end insert:

'Cactaceae

'Ariocarpus agavoides

Ariocarpus scapharostrus

Aztekium ritteri

Echinocereus lindsayi

Obregonia denegrii

Pelecyphora aselliformis

Pelecyphora strobiliformis'.

199 line 49, at end insert:

'Nepenthaceae

Nepenthes rajah'.

200 Page 85, line 17, at end insert:

'Sarraceniaceae

Sarracenia alabamensis alabamensis

Sarracenia jonesii

Sarracenia oreophila'.

The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 189 to 200 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
201 Schedule 11, page 85, line 32, leave out 'county planning' and insert 'relevant'.
202 page 85, line 39, leave out 'county plann-ing' and insert 'relevant'.
203 Page 86, line 3, leave out 'county planning' and insert 'relevant'.
204 Page 86, line 7, leave out 'stating the name of the' and insert 'naming a'.
205 Page 86, line 11, leave out 'stating' and insert 'specifying'.
206 Page 86, line 30, leave out 'planning' and insert 'relevant.'
207 leave out lines 38 to 40.
208 Page 86, line 42, leave out 'county plan-ning' and insert 'relevant '.
209 Page 87, line 23, leave out 'county planning' and insert 'relevant'.
210 Page 89, line 16, at end insert '"relevant authority" has the same meaning as in section 32;'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 201. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to and move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 202 to 210. These amendments make changes to Schedule 11 which are consequential on the extension to Scotland of the power to make limestone pavement orders. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments. (The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
211 After Schedule 11, insert the following new Schedule:
PROCEDURE IN CONNECTION WITH ORDERS UNDER SECTION (MARINE NATURE RESERVES)
Consultation
1. Before making an order, the Secretary of State shall consult with such persons as he may consider appropriate.
Publicity for draft orders
2.—(1) Before making an order, the Secretary of State shall prepare a draft of the order and give notice—

(a) stating that he proposes to make the order and the general effect of it;

(b) naming a place in the area in which the land to which the draft order relates is situated where a copy of the draft order, and of any byelaws made or proposed to be made by a relevant authority for the protection of the area specified in the draft order, may be inspected free of charge, and copies thereof may be obtained at a reasonable charge, at all reasonable hours; and

(c) specifying the time (not being less than 28 days from the date of the first publication of the notice) within

667
which, and the manner in which, representations or objections with respect to the draft order may be made.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), the notice to be given under sub-paragraph (1) shall be given—

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

(b) by serving a like notice on—

(i) every person in whom is vested an interest in or right over any of that land;

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

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

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

(i) at council offices in the locality of the land to which the draft order relates; and

(ii) at such other places as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate.

(3) The Secretary of State, may in any particular case, direct that it shall not be necessary to comply with subparagraph (2)(b)(i).
(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), sub-paragraph (2)(b) and (c) shall be complied with not less than 28 days before the expiration of the time specified in the notice.
Unopposed orders
3. If no representations or objections are duly made, or if any so made are withdrawn, the Secretary of State may make the order with or without modifications.
Opposed orders
4.—(1) If any representation or objection duly made is not withdrawn the Secretary of State shall, before making the order, either—

(a) cause a local inquiry to be held; or

(b) afford any person by whom a representation or objection has been duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.

(2) On considering any representations or objections duly made and the report of the person appointed to hold the inquiry or hear representations or objections, the Secretary of State may make the order with or without modifications.
Restriction on power to make orders with modifications
5.—(1) The Secretary of State shall not make an order with modifications so as—

(a) to affect land not affected by the draft order; or

(b) to authorise the making of any byelaw not authorised by the draft order,

except after complying with the requirements of subparagraph (2).
(2) The said requirements are that the Secretary of State shall—

(a) give such notice as appears to him requisite of his proposal so to modify the order, specifying the time (which shall not be less than 28 days from the date of the first publication of the notice) within which, and the manner in which representations or objections with respect to the proposal may be made;

(b) hold a local inquiry or afford any person by whom any representation or objection has been duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose; and

(c) consider the report of the person appointed to hold the inquiry or to hear representations or objections.

Local inquiries
6.—(1) The provisions of subsections (2) to (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 or subsections (4) to (8) of section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act
668
1973 (which relate to the giving of evidence at, and defraying the cost of, local inquiries) shall apply in relation to any inquiry held under paragraph 4 or 5 as they apply in relation to a local inquiry which a Minister causes to be held under subsection (1) of that section.
(2) A local inquiry caused to be held under paragraph 4 or 5 before the making of an order may be held concurrently with any local inquiry caused to be held before the confirmation of byelaws made by a relevant authority for the protection of the area specified in the order.
Notice of making of orders
7.—(1) As soon as practicable after an order is made, the Secretary of State shall give notice—

(a) describing the general effect of the order as made and stating the date on which it took effect; and

(b) naming a place in the area in which the land to which the order relates is situated where a copy of the order as made may be inspected free of charge, and copies thereof may be obtained at a reasonable charge, at all reasonable hours.

(2) A notice under sub-paragraph (1) shall be given—

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

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

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

Proceedings for questioning validity of orders
8.—(1) If any person is aggrieved by an order which has taken effect and desires to question its validity on the ground that it is not within the powers of section (Marine nature reserves) or that any of the requirements of this Schedule have not been complied with in relation to it, he may withing 42 days from the date of publication of the notice under paragraph 7 make an application to the Court under this paragraph.
(2) On any such application the Court may, if satisfied that the order is not within those powers or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by a failure to comply with those requirements—

(a) in England and Wales, quash the order, or any provision of the order, either generally or in so far as it affects the interests of the applicant; or

(b) in Scotland, make such declarator as seems to the Court to be appropriate.

(3) Except as provided by this paragraph, the validity of an order shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings whatever.
(4) In this paragraph "the Court" means the High Court in relation to England and Wales and the Court of Session in relation to Scotland.
Supplemental
9.—(1) In this Schedule—
"area" includes district;
"council offices" means offices or buildings acquired or provided by a local authority;
"the Gazette" means—

(a) if the order relates in whole or in part to England and Wales, the London Gazette;

(b) if the order relates in whole or in part to Scotland, the Edinburgh Gazette;

"order" means an order under section (Marine nature reserves);
"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;
and expressions to which a meaning is assigned by section (Marine nature reserves) have the same meanings in this Schedule as in that section.
(2) References in this Schedule to land include references to any waters covering it; and for the purposes of this Schedule any area in Great Britain which is bounded by tidal waters or parts of the sea shall be taken to include—

669

(a) the waters adjacent to that area up to the seaward limits of territorial waters; and

(b) the land covered by the said adjacent waters.

(3) Regulations under this Schedule shall be made by statutory instrument which shall he subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 211. We discussed this in conjunction with Amendments Nos. 91 and 92. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
212 Schedule 12, page 92, line 30, leave out and 1968 Acts' and insert Act, the 1968 Act and this Act'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 212. Schedule 12 concerns the change of status of the Countryside Commission and, among other things, their annual report. Hitherto this has been a report about their performance under the Countryside Act 1968 and the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. In future they will have functions under the present Act as well. For example, appointment of their own staff. Amendment No. 212 consequently requires them to report on their performance under all three Acts. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree withthe Commons in the said amendment—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
213 Schedule 13, page 93, line 37, at end insert 'the authority may direct that'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 213. This is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment (The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 not moved.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
216 Schedule 14, page 95, line 6, at end insert "in the prescribed form".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 216. This amendment specifies that the notices to be used for publicising definitive map orders shall be in a form prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
217 Page 95, line 25, leave out "and"and insert—
"( ) every person on whom notice is required to be served in pursuance of sub-paragraph (2A); and".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 217. This amendment needs to be read with Amendment No. 219. Together they give effect to the Spicer Committee recommendation, in connection with the alternative arrangements for publicising rights of way orders. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
218 Page 95, line 26, leave out "bodies as may be prescribed" and insert "persons as may be prescribed in relation to the area in which that land is situated".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 218. This is another Spicer recommendation. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
219 Page 95, line 35, at end insert—
"(2A) Any person may, on payment of such reasonable charge as the authority may consider appropriate, require an authority to give him notice of all such orders as are made by the authority during a specified period, are of a specified description and relate to land comprised in a specified area; and in this sub-paragraph "specified" means specified in the requirement.".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 219. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 217. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
220 Page 95, line 42, at end insert:
"(3A) Sub-paragraph (2)(b) and (c) and, where applicable, sub-paragraph (3) shall be complied with not less than 42 days before the expiration of the time specified in the notice."
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 220. This amendment to the procedure for publicising definitive map orders has been included to avoid a situation arising in which persons entitled to receive notification of orders would have less than the minimum 42 days in which to object. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
221 Page 95, leave out line 43 and insert:
"(4) A notice required to be served by sub-paragraph (2)(b) on the owner or occupier of any land, or on a local authority, shall be accompanied by a copy of so much of the order as relates to that land or, as the case may be, the area of that authority; and a notice required to be served by that sub-paragraph on such other persons as may be prescribed or as the authority may consider appropriate shall be accompanied by a copy of the order.
(4A) A notice required to be displayed by sub-paragraph (2)(c)".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 221. As with previous amendments that implement the Spicer Committee's recommendations, corresponding amendments have been made in Schedule 15 to the public path order procedures. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
222 Page 96, line 36, after "Where" insert "at any time".
223 Page 96, line 38, leave out from "order" to end of line 39 and insert "the authority may, by notice given to the Secretary of State, elect that, for the purposes of the following provisions of this Schedule, the order shall have effect as two separate orders".
224 Page 96, line 42, at end insert:
" (2) Any reference in sub-paragraph (1) to an order includes a reference to any part of an order which, by virtue of one or more previous elections under that sub-paragraph, has effect as a separate order".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 222 to 224. These amendments refine the procedure for treating omnibus definitive map orders as separate orders relating respectively to unopposed and opposed modifications. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
225 Page 97, line 45, leave out "6".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 225. This is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
226 Page 98, line 2, after "decision" insert "of the Secretary of State".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 226. This amendment clarifies the fact that the provisions of paragraph 10 on the transfer
672
of jurisdiction to inspectors applies only to decisions that would fall to be made by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
227 Page 98, line 49, at end insert:
"(2A) A notice required to be served by sub-paragraph (2)(b) on the owner or occupier of any land, or on a local authority, shall be accompanied by a copy of so much of the order as confirmed as relates to that land or, as the case may be, the area of that authority; and, in the case of an order which has been confirmed with modifications, a notice required to be served by that sub-paragraph on such other persons as may be prescribed or as the authority may consider appropriate shall be accompanied by a copy of the order as confirmed.".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 227. This amendment implements, in relation to definitive map orders, the Spicer Committee's recommendations on the distribution of orders following confirmation. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
228 Page 99, line 12, leave out "six weeks" and insert "42 days''.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment No. 228. This is a perfect example of a technical amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
229 Page 99, line 24, at beginning insert—
"The Secretary of State may, subject to the provisions of this Schedule, by regulations make such provision as to the procedure on the making, submission and confirmation of orders as appears to him to be expedient. (1A)".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 229. This schedule sets out the broad framework for the making, consideration and determination of definitive map orders.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
230 Schedule 15, page 100, line 5, leave out 'such other bodies as may be prescribed' and insert 'every person on whom notice is required to be served in pursuance of sub-paragraph (2A) of this paragraph; and
(v) such other persons as may be prescribed in relation to the area in which that land is situated.'.
231 Schedule 15, page 100, line 16, at end insert—

673
'(2A) After that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
"(2A) Any person may, on payment of such reasonable charge as the authority may consider appropriate, require an authority to give him notice of all such orders under section 210 or 214(1)(b) of this Act as are made by the authority during a specified period, are of a specified description and relate to land comprised in a specified area; and in this sub-paragraph 'specified' means specified in the requirement.".'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 230, which needs to be read with Amendment No. 231, which with the leave of the House I shall move at the same time. As with Amendment No. 217, which deals with definitive map orders, this amendment fulfils in part the Spicer Committee's recommendation that a person should be able to arrange to be notified on a standing order basis of public path orders under the Town and Country Planning Act.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
232 Page 100, line 19, at end insert 'or by the council of a parish not having a separate parish council'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 232. This amendment extends the definition of council offices for the purpose of displaying notices of the making and confirmation of public path orders under the Planning Act to include offices and buildings provided by parish and community councils.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
233 Page 100, line 21, leave out from 'following' to 'notice' in line 22 and insert sub-paragraphs—
"(5) Sub-paragraph (2)(b) and (c) and, where applicable, sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph shall be complied with not less than 28 days before the expiration of the time specified in the notice.
(6) A notice required to be served by sub-paragraph (2)(b)(i), (ii), (iii) or (v) of this paragraph shall be accompanied by a copy of the order.
(7) A'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 233. This amendment does two things. First, as with Amendment No. 220, it ensures that local authorities and other persons entitled to receive notice of orders have a minimum of 28 days in which to object and that the site notices are displayed no later than 28 days before the objection period expires. The second part requires, as recommended by the Spicer Committee, that copies of Planning Act orders should be sent with the notice to the various persons who will in future be notified of these orders.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
234 Page 100, line 29, after 'decision', insert 'of the Secretary of State'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 234. This is similar to Amendment No. 226.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
235 Page 101, leave out lines 15 to 18 and insert—
(c) for heads (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following heads—

"(a) serve a like notice on any persons on whom notices were required to be served under paragraph 1(2)(b) or (4) of this Schedule; and

(b) cause like notices to be displayed in the like manner as the notices required to be displayed under paragraph 1(2)(c) of this Schedule.".

(2) That paragraph as so amended shall be renumbered as paragraph 6(l) of that Schedule and after that provision as so renumbered there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—
" (2) A notice required to be served by sub-paragraph (1)(a) of this paragraph on—

(a) a person on whom notice was required to be served by paragraph 1(2)(b)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this Schedule; or

(b) in the case of an order which has been confirmed with modifications, a person on whom notice was required to be served by paragraph 1(2)(b)(v) of this Schedule,

shall be accompanied by a copy of the order as confirmed.
(3) As soon as may be after a decision not to confirm an order under the said section 210 or 214(1)(b), the authority by whom the order was made shall give notice of the decision by serving a copy of it on any persons on whom notices were required to be served under paragraph 1(2)(b) or (4) of this Schedule.".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 235. This amendment serves two purposes. First, in accordance with Spicer Committee recommendations on publicising rights of way orders it requires copies of confirmed public path orders under the Planning Act to be sent with the notice of confirmation to those persons entitled to receive copies of the order as made. Secondly, it requires order-making authorities to inform all persons on whom notice of making of an order was served of decisions not to confirm an order.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
236 Page 101, line 18, at end insert—
'3A. After that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"7. As soon as may be after an order under section 210 or 214(1)(b) of this Act has come into operation otherwise than—

(a) on the date on which it was confirmed by the Secretary of State or confirmed as an unopposed order; or

675

(b) at the expiration of a specified period beginning with that date,

the authority by whom the order was made shall give notice of its coming into operation by publication in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area in which the land to which the order relates is situated.".'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 236. This amendment stems from the fact that public path diversion orders often do not become operative until some months after confirmation of the order, especially if works must first be carried out to bring the path created by the order into a suitable condition for public use. Yet there is no requirement that the authority responsible for making the order inform the public of the availability of the path for use. This amendment remedies the situation by requiring the authority to announce the fact by way of notice in the local press.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
As an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 236:
236A Line 12, after ("operation") insert ("to any persons on whom notices were required to be served under paragraphs 1(2)(b) or (4) of this Schedule and").
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I beg to move as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 236 Amendment No. 236A. I apologise for momentarily interrupting the noble Earl's headlong solo rush to the end of the Bill. This amendment, with Amendment No. 250A, would extend the requirement to give notice to include any persons on whom copies of the original order and of the confirmation have been served. Again, this is in line with other changes made by Schedule 15 and will also ensure that anyone who has been involved with a diversion order will know when the change takes place on the ground.
The noble Earl grouped this with some earlier amendments of mine, in particular Amendment 126A, I think, but I would suggest to him that Amendment No. 236A and Amendment No. 250A deal with a different matter. They deal with public path diversion orders and at the stages of publication of these and of confirmation, copies and notices will be served on listed organisations as well as published in a local paper. So it is entirely consistent for listed organisations also to receive notice of the coming into operation of these orders as my amendments would bring about. So I think that it raises a slightly different point from that raised by Amendment No. 126A because, of course, diversion orders can be confirmed and public notice can be given of that confirmation without the actual change on the ground taking place.
For example, a path might be diverted to allow development to take place and the development then may not actually take place on the ground for a year or two and only when the new path has been constructed, after the development, to the satisfaction of the local authority, does the change legally take place on the ground. That is the stage at which it seems sensible that organisations should receive notice of the coming into operation of the orders. I hope that with that explanation, and with the distinction between this
676
amendment and Amendment No. 126A, the Government might be disposed to accept the last amendment that I shall be moving to this long, interesting Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the said amendment to Commons Amendment No. 236.—(Lord Melchett.)
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, indeed I did speak to this amendment to some degree and I recognise the noble Lord's slight differential between the first one and the two latter ones. The wider publicity envisaged by the noble Lord's amendment we do not think would result in improved publicity as far as the general public is concerned, and is, therefore, the Government feel unnecessary. Regarding the need for such wide publicity, as a right of objection again does not arise, and again landowners will in any event be aware of what is happening, and other local authorities because of their statutory responsibilities should simply have been kept informed of developments, the Government are satisfied that a notice in the local press is all that is necessary to ensure that persons to whom the information is essential are informed.
Amendments Nos. 236A and 250A would both impose an additional burden on local authorities' resources which, as I have indicated before, we are loath to do. However, the Government are again prepared to recommend to authorities, in the circular guidance that will follow enactment, that they consider informing local user organisations of the operations of these orders. I hope, although I cannot actually accept the noble Lord's amendment, that that assurance will, to some degree, satisfy him.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, it satisfies me in so far as I think that it is the best that I am going to get. I am grateful to the noble Earl at least on that basis, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
237 Page 101, line 19, at end insert:
'3B.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 (diversion of footpaths and bridle-ways) for the words from the beginning to "or on to land" there shall be substituted the words "Where it appears to a council as respects a footpath or bridleway in their area (other than one that is a trunk road or a special road) that, in the interests of the owner, lessee or occupier of land crossed by the path or way or of the public, it is expedient that the line of the path or way, or part of that line, should be diverted (whether on to land of the same or".
(2) In subsection (5) of that section for the words "the council may require the owner, lessee or occupier on whose representations they are acting" there shall be substituted the words "on the representations of an owner, lessee or occupier of land crossed by the path or way, the council may require him".'.
238 Page 101, line 21, leave out 'the Highways Act 1980' and insert 'that Act'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 237, and, with the leave of the House, I

677
should also like to move Amendment No. 238. This is the first of several amendments to the provisions in Schedule 15 relating to the making and confirmation of public path creation, diversion and extinguishment orders under the Highways Act 1980. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
239 Page 101, line 39, leave out 'council '.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 239. This minor drafting amendment deletes the unnecessary duplication of the word "council". I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
240 Page 101, line 43, leave out 'such other bodies as may be prescribed' and insert 'every person on whom notice is required to be served in pursuance of sub-paragraph (3ZA) or (3ZB) below; and
(iv) such other persons as may be prescribed in relation to the area in which that land is situated.'.
241 Page 102, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert:
'(3ZA) Any person may, on payment of such reasonable charge as the authority may consider appropriate, require an authority to give him notice of all such public path creation orders, public path extinguishment orders and public path diversion orders as are made by the authority during a specified period, are of a specified description and relate to land comprised in a specified area; and in this sub-paragraph "specified" means specified in the requirement.
(3ZB) Any person may, on payment of such reasonable charge as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate, require the Secretary of State to give him notice of all such draft public path creation orders, draft public path extinguishment orders and draft public path diversion orders as are prepared by the Secretary of State during a specified period, are of a specified description and relate to land comprised in a specified area; and in this subparagraph "specified" means specified in the requirement.'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 240 and 241. This amendment and the next amendment to follow give effect to the proposal that persons should be able to arrange with order-making authorities to be notified of orders on a standing order basis as recommended by the Spicer Committee.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
242 Schedule 15, page 102, line 24, leave out '(3C) The' and insert:
'(4) After sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—
"(4A) Sub-paragraph (3)(b) and (c) and, where applicable, sub-paragraphs (3A) and (4) above shall be
678
complied with not less than 28 days before the expiration of the time specified in the notice.
(4B) A notice required to be served by sub-paragraph (3)(b)(i), (ii) or (iv) above shall be accompanied by a copy of the order.
(4C)A ".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. As with Amendment No. 233, this amendment serves two purposes. It ensures that the minimum 28 days in which to object to orders is available to persons entitled to be notified of the making of orders and that the site notices are displayed at least 28 days before the objection period expires.
In addition, it implements the Spicer Committee recommendation that the various persons notified of the making of public path orders, with the exception of those persons notified of orders as a result of a standing order arrangement, should also be sent a copy of the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
243 Schedule 15, page 102, line 27, leave out 'as made'.
10.11 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. This drafting amendment simply omits from this sub-paragraph the words "as made". I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
244 Schedule 15, page 102, line 27, at end insert:
'(4D) In sub-paragraph (3)(c)(ii) above "council offices" means offices or buildings acquired or provided by a council, or by the council of a parish or community or the parish meeting of a parish not having a separate parish council.".'
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. This amendment, in common with Amendment No. 232, brings the definition of "council offices" into line with that in Schedule 14. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
245 Schedule 15, page 102, line 30, leave out 'under paragraph 2 above' and insert 'of the Secretary of State under paragraph 2 above as respects an order made by an authority other than the Secretary of State'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. As with previous amendments on the subject, this is a clarification amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
246 Schedule 15, page 103, line 13, leave out 'and a copy of the order as confirmed or made'.
247 Schedule 15, page 103, line 15, after '1(3)' insert '(b)'.
248 Schedule 15, page 103, line 17, at end insert '(c)'.
249 Schedule 15, page 103, line 18, at end insert—
'(2) That paragraph as so amended shall be renumbered as paragraph 4(1) of that Schedule and after that provision as so renumbered there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—
"(2) A notice required to be served by sub-paragraph (1)(a) above, on—

(a) a person on whom notice was required to be served by paragraph 1(3)(b)(i) or (ii) above; or

(b) in the case of an order which has been confirmed or made with modifications, a person on whom notice was required to be served by paragraph 1(3)(b)(iv) above,

shall be accompanied by a copy of the order as confirmed or made.
(3) As soon as may be after a decision not to confirm an order to which this Schedule applies, the authority by whom the order was made shall give notice of the decision by serving a copy of it on any persons on whom notices were required to be served under paragraph 1(3)(b), (3A) or (4) above.".'.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 246 to 249 en bloc. Amendment No. 249, which corresponds with Amendment No. 235 for Planning Act orders, does two things in relation to Highway Act orders. It implements the recommendations of the Spicer Committee on the distribution of copies of confirmed public path orders with the notice of the confirmation of the order. In addition, it requires order-making authorities to inform all persons on whom notice of the making of an order was served of decisions not to confirm an order. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 246 to 249 en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
250 Schedule 15, page 103, line 18, at end insert—
'6A. After that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"4A. As soon as may be after an order to which this Schedule applies has come into operation otherwise than—

(a) on the date on which it was confirmed or made by the Secretary of State or confirmed as an unopposed order; or

(b) at the expiration of a specified period beginning with that date,

the authority by whom the order was made or, in the case of an order made by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State shall give notice of its coming into operation by publication in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area in which the land to which the order relates is situated.".'
The Earl of Avon: My Lords. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said
680
amendment. I really spoke to this when I spoke to Amendment No. 236. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
251 Schedule 16, page 104, leave out lines 2 to 4.
252 Schedule 16, page 104, line 9, at end insert—

1973 c. 65.

The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

In Schedule 27, in Part II, para-graph 101.

253 Schedule 16, page 104, line 24, at end insert—

1963 c. 33.

The London Government Act 1963.

In section 60, sub-sections (1) to (4).

254 Schedule 16, page 104, line 35, column 3, at beginning insert—

'In section 1, subsection (4) and, in subsection (5), the words "and 2(1)" and the words "and in section 4(1)" onwards.'.

255 Schedule 16, page 104, line 36, column 3, after 'Schedule 3' insert—

',in Part I, the entry relating to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and'.

256 Schedule 16, page 104, line 40, at end insert—

'1971 c. 23.

The Courts Act 1971.

In Schedule 8, paragraph 31.

In Schedule 9, in Part II, the entry relating to section 31 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

1971 c.78.

The Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

In Schedule 20, in paragraph 1(2)(a),the words "in the London Gazette and".'

257 Schedule 16, page 104, line 42, column 3, at end insert—

'In Schedule 29, paragraph 37'.

258 at end insert—

'1973 c. 37.

The Water Act 1973.

In Schedule 8, paragraph 67'.

259 Schedule 16, page 104, line 52, at end insert—

'1973 c. 65.

The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 '.

In Schedule 27, in Part II, paragraphs 115 and 168'.

260 Schedule 16, page 105, line 9, at end insert—

'1976 c. 16.

The Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1976.

In Schedule 2, in Part II, the entry relating to the Protection of Birds Act 1967.'

261 Schedule 16, page 105, line 17, at end insert—

1979 c. 2.

The Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

In Schedule 4, in paragraph 12, in theTable the entry relating to the Protection of Birds Act 1954.

681

1980 c. 66.

The Highways Act 1980.

In section 31(10) the words "or of that subsection" onwords. Section 340(2)(d)'.

1981 c. 22.

The Animal Health Act 1981.

In Schedule 5, paragraph 1.

1981 c. 37.

The Zoo Licensing Act 1981.

In section 4(5), the entries relating to the Protection of Birds Acts 1954 to 1967 and the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975.'

The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments. These amendments complete, and in the case of Amendments Nos. 251 and 256 correct, the list in Schedule 16 of enactments which are to be repealed as a consequence of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
262 In the Title, line 5, after first 'animals' insert 'to amend the law relating to protection of certain mammals;'.
263 In the Title, line 6, leave out from 'amend' to end of line 7.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments. These are technical amendments which are required as a result of the amendments made to Clause 12 and Schedule 7, to which the House has already agreed. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Melchett: My Lords, very briefly, may I simply reiterate the thanks which have already been expressed during previous stages of the Bill in particular to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who took part in some of the earlier debates on amendments. To the qualities which have been noted in the noble Earl, Lord Avon, I think we must add a remarkable speed in dealing with amendments towards the end of the Bill, for which I am sure not only I but many other noble Lords are extremely grateful. I am very grateful to him for the courtesy and kindness with which he has dealt with the very many points that have been raised by myself and by my various noble friends at different stages of the Bill. I have the feeling that, had it been up to the noble Earl, we should have had a much better Bill than we actually have, but the fact that it is a better Bill than it was when it was introduced is certainly in no small part due to his efforts. We are very grateful to him.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for what he has said. I have been learning throughout this session on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, and think I have learned quite a lot from the noble Lord opposite.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill returned to the Commons with the amendments.

  PRISONERS: MENTAL HEALTH
  PRISONERS: MENTAL HEALTH
  PRISONERS: RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS
  PRISONERS: RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS
  PRISONERS: ASSOCIATION AND EXERCISE
  PRISONERS: ASSOCIATION AND EXERCISE
  PRISONERS: SEGREGATION UNDER RULE 43
  PRISONERS: SEGREGATION UNDER RULE 43
  PRISON SENTENCES AND COUNTRY OF BIRTH
  PRISON SENTENCES AND COUNTRY OF BIRTH
  CS GAS AND BATON ROUNDS: GUIDELINES FOR USE
  CS GAS AND BATON ROUNDS: GUIDELINES FOR USE
  NORTHERN IRELAND: TAX RELIEF ON MORTGAGES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: TAX RELIEF ON MORTGAGES
  BARN CONVERSION: ENCOURAGEMENT
  BARN CONVERSION: ENCOURAGEMENT
  ETHNIC MINORITIES AND EMPLOYMENT POLICIES
  ETHNIC MINORITIES AND EMPLOYMENT POLICIES
  HERRING FISHING: RESTRICTION ON INDUSTRIAL USE
  HERRING FISHING: RESTRICTION ON INDUSTRIAL USE
  NICARAGUA: US AND SOVIET DIPLOMATIC STAFF
  NICARAGUA: US AND SOVIET DIPLOMATIC STAFF
  BRITISH GAS CORPORATION: DISPOSAL OF ASSETS
  BRITISH GAS CORPORATION: DISPOSAL OF ASSETS
  MERGER OF SOCIAL SECURITY REGIONS
  MERGER OF SOCIAL SECURITY REGIONS