Sitting of 29 October 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o' clock

Preamble
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

Orders of the Day

  Wildlife and Countryside Bill [Lords]
  Lords amendments in lieu of a Commons amendment, Lords amendments to Commons amendments, a consequential Lords amendment and a Reason for disagreeing to certain other Commons amendments, considered.
  The Lords disagree to the amendment made by the Commons to insert a new clause (Daily Inspection of Snares) after clause 11 but propose the following amendments in lieu thereof:

  Wildlife and Countryside Bill [Lords]

  PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN METHODS OF KILLING OR TAKING WILD ANIMALS.
  Lords amendments: No. 1, in page 13, line 20, at end insert—
  "(2A) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person—

  (a) sets in position any snare which is of such a nature and so placed as to be calculated to cause bodily injury to any wild animal coming into contact therewith; and

  (b) while the snare remains in position fails, without reasonable excuse, to inspect it, or cause it to be inspected, at least once every day,

  he shall be guilty of an offence."

  POWER TO GRANT LICENCES
  Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 16, line 5, after "11" insert "(1) and (2)".
  ENFORCEMENT
  Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 19, line 10, after "11" insert "(1) or (2)".

  PENALTIES, FORFEITURES ETC.
  Lords amendment: No. 4 in page 20, line 3, after "11" insert "(1) or (2)".
  Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 20, line 6, after "section" insert "11(2A)".

  ENACTMENTS REPEALED
  Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 104, line 19, at beginning insert—

  "2 and 3 Geo. 5 c. 14.

  The Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912.

  In section 9 the words "or any snare" and "or snare"."

  4.35 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane):I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments proposed in lieu of Commons amendment No. 33.
  1008
  When the House agreed on Report to provisions requiring daily inspection of snares, it did so on the clear understanding that the amendment would need some technical redrafting in another place. That was acknowledged by both sides.
  The Lords amendments give full effect to the intention of the amendment that the House accepted on Report. In addition, it provides for reasonable excuses such as illness, accidents or bad weather. The maximum penalty is set at a fine of £500.
  Mr. Ted Graham (Edmonton):The House knows that we are entering the final stint of the Bill, which has occupied the House and another place for most of the year.
  There have been occasions in Committee and on the Floor of the House when the issue of snares has been raised and voted on. I congratulate the Under-Secretary on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box with his new responsibilities and on taking charge of the Bill. He must know that there were occasions here and in Committee when the Opposition gave serious consideration to the possibility of not making progress on the Bill. We were uncertain of the Government's intentions.
  I pay tribute to the former Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who is no longer able to take a direct involvement for the Government. I also pay tribute to the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services for the wisdom he has shown on more than one occasion. Those Ministers recognised that the Bill was worth saving, and changes were made in it.
  Before I look at the procedures involved in the amendments I feel obliged to inform the Under-Secretary that the Opposition are not satisfied that the Government's good intentions will make progress—despite what they consider to be the reality of the situation.
  We shall want to look closely over the next two years at the effect of the amendments. We want to give the Government the benefit of the doubt, particularly on this amendment and others, but we shall watch closely to see whether the Government's proposal results in a satisfactory solution. If it does not, our intention as an incoming Government will be to revise the procedures we do not agree with.
  We are grateful for another opportunity to consider the issue of snares. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) referred at Second Reading to the snare as a vicious and a cruel device.
  Progress has been made in Committee and on Report. We are now considering something different from what we wished to achieve in Committee—not the prohibition of snares but the operation of them. The operation of snares should be discussed for good reasons. Snares are considered by a wide sector of the farming community to be essential. Snares will be legalised and operated provided that there are certain safeguards and assurances.
  The Minister rightly mentioned the narrow point, which the House has conceded, that snares need daily inspection. Our concern is not the damage or pain that is inflicted at the time an animal is caught, but the length of time that it is possible for the snare to be in position. The person who sets the snare does not always catch only the desired animal. He may also catch a wide range of other animals.
  Experience has shown that, when a snare has been set to catch a rabbit or fox, in addition to catching those animals it catches badgers, deer, cats and dogs. Even sheep, cattle and pigs have been caught. It is essential that

  1009
  snares be inspected daily. We appreciate that the previous Under-Secretary did not accept our amendments and said that they would need to be revised, but we want to ask a number of questions about the new proposal.
  The RSPCA, to its credit, has served the House, as it served the Committee, faithfully and well over the many months of our consideration of the Bill. However, it says of the Lords amendment:
  The RSPCA does not mince words. We are bitterly disappointed by the Government's proposals and feel that the purpose of the amendment would be completely frustrated by the Government's alternative. We believe that the proposed amendment is so negative in its approach and so hedged about with qualifications that its declared purpose could not be achieved.
  I want to ask a number of questions. The wording sent to another place was based on provisions relating to traps mentioned in section 10 of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and those relating to spring traps and snares contained in section 9 of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912.
  Why have the Under-Secretary and his colleagues ignored precedent, which has been lauded so often by Ministers in our discussion of the Bill? Why have they departed from language in existing legislation that has caused no problems?
  For example, why are the words "reasonable excuse" introduced? Earl Ferrers said in another place that they were necessary to take account of cases of illness, accident or bad weather. The Government have more than once stressed the need for absolute clarity, yet they propose to introduce the term "reasonable", which, for hundreds of years, has given the courts field days in assessing and interpreting its precise meaning.
  If a shepherd set a snare in the knowledge that the lambing season was imminent and thereafter failed to inspect the snare because of his commitment to the stock would that be a "reasonable excuse"? Why has the reference to the competence of a person inspecting a snare been removed? That is a crucial change, and both the 1911 and 1912 Acts use the expression. The Opposition do not intend to vote against the amendment, but the Government must spell out why that change has been made.
  Are the Government really suggesting that a snare should be inspected by someone who is, or could be, incompetent, or incapable of taking remedial action? The purpose of inspection is to release a captured animal humanely or to destroy it humanely. If that is not done, the person who inspects the snare is guilty of an offence and must pay the penalty.
  Another matter that has vexed the House on this Bill and thousands of others is that of enforcement. Whatever words we use, the problem of enforcement will be with us for a long time. It is a difficult problem and we suggest that it has been made even more difficult by the omissions and changes of emphasis that have taken place. If enforcement is virtually impossible, why should we bother to make such a drastically weakening provision?
  We accept the sincerity of the hon. Member for Dumfries who assured us when he was Under-Secretary that he accepted the spirit of our amendments but could not accept the wording. But we strongly suspect that the change in the form of words pays scant attention to the wishes of the House. We want the new Minister to justify the way in which the words sent from this House were changed in another place.
  Mr. Macfarlane:I welcome the observations of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) about the general principles of the legislation. I am aware, not only as the incoming Minister, but as one who has voted on the Bill from time to time in the past six to nine months, of the distinguished contribution and painstaking efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). I pay tribute to his enormous contribution that has helped to make the Bill a possibility.
  4.45 pm
  Many hon. Members spoke in Committee and on Report about the matters outlined by the hon. Member for Edmonton, and there are naturally deep anxieties among animal lovers, the RSPCA and others. The hon. Member said that the RSPCA was bitterly disappointed with the Lords amendment. I am depressed to hear that, because there are safeguards in the amendment and I hope that we shall see that they are effective. Only time will tell, but the maximum penalty is £500. The hon. Member also referred to previous legislation, but that is a detailed matter for the courts to inspect.
  The hon. Member for Edmonton mentioned shepherds setting snares in the lambing season. That was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries in Committee when he referred to the difficulties facing those in far-flung regions, especially the North. He said that snowstorms and blizzards in the Highlands would cause particular difficulties. That is the reason for including the phrase "reasonable excuse". We are looking for general competence among the individuals who will be concerned.
  There are a number of question marks over any legislation. The hon. Member for Edmonton said that the Opposition would monitor the effects of this measure over the next two years. It is up to the various agencies and individuals involved to make the legislation work. The overall objectives are beyond rebuke and we now need to move on.
  I believe that the Opposition should be satisfied with the amendment. I am sure that the hon. Member for Edmonton's heart is in it. He recognises that there are anxieties about how it will be implemented, but it gives full effect to the amendment that the House approved on Report. The reasonable excuses, such as illness, accident or bad weather, are effective and adequate safeguards.
  I hope that the Opposition will understand that the amendment has the best interests of everyone at heart and that it will be for the courts and everyone else concerned to make sure that that is recognised.
  Mr. Graham:By leave of the House, may I reply to what the Minister has said? He has asked us to take on trust that he believes that the spirit of what the whole House wants—daily inspection by competent people—will be covered by the words of the amendment. We are prepared to take that on trust, because we have no alternative, but there are anxieties among people outside, and I am not talking of snoopers or those who look for trouble.
  As a "townie", I was told more than once that no one who sets snares desires to do anything other than inspect them daily, because no one wishes to prolong an animal's suffering. We were told that snares would usually be inspected every day and we are happy to take on trust that problems caused by snowstorms, snares set during the lambing season and so on will be few and far between.
  We have to give the Government the benefit of the doubt in a difficult situation. My hon. Friend the Member

  1011
  for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will be raising that matter later. It is not possible for us to be precise and to take account of every conceivable problem. Therefore, we shall not delay the Bill's progress.
  Question put and agreed to.

  AREAS OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST
  The Lords agree to the following amendment made by the Commons: In page 26, leave out lines 6 to 29 and insert——
  (3) The owner or occupier of any land notified under subsection (1)(b) shall not carry out, or cause or permit to be carried out, on that land any operation specified in the notification unless—

  (a) one of them has, after the commencement date, given the Council notice of a proposal to carry out the operation specifying its nature and the land on which it is proposed to carry it out; and

  (b) one of the conditions specified in subsection (4) is fulfilled.

  (4) The said conditions are—

  (a) that the operation is carried out with the Council's written consent;

  (b) that the operation is carried out in accordance with the terms of an agreement under section 16 of the 1949 Act or section 15 of the 1968 Act; and

  (c) that three months have expired from the giving of the notice under subsection (3).

  (5) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.
  (6) It is a reasonable excuse in any event for a person to carry an operation if—

  (a) the operation was authorised by a planning permission granted on an application under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972; or

  (b) the operation was an emergency operation particulars of which (including details of the emergency) were notified to the Council as soon as practicable after the commencement of the operation.

  (7) The Council shall have power to enforce the provisions of this section; but nothing in this subsection shall be construed as authorising the Council to institute proceedings in Scotland for an offence.
  (8) Proceedings in England and Wales for an offence under subsection (5) shall not, without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, be taken by a person other than the Council.
  (9) A notification under subsection (1)(b) of land in England and Wales shall be a local land charge.
  (10) A notification under subsection (1)(b) of land in Scotland shall be registered either—

  (a) in a case where the land is registered in that Register, in the Land Register of Scotland; or

  (b) in any other case, in the appropriate Division of the General Register of Sasines.

  (11) Section 23 of the 1949 Act (which is superseded by this section) shall cease to have effect; but any notification given under that section shall have effect as if given under subsection (1)(a).
  (12) Subsection (1A) shall not apply in relation to a notification of any land under subsection (1)(b) where a notification of that land under the said section 23 has effect as if given under subsection (1)(a).'.
  but propose the following amendment thereto: No. 7, In subsection (3), line 1, after "land" insert "which has been".
  Mr. Macfarlane:I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill):With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 8.
  Mr. Macfarlane:The Lords amendments clarify two points in the clause. The first makes it clear that once land has been notified as being of special scientific interest, in accordance with the new procedures agreed by the House, all owners and occupiers, including successors in title, will be required to give the Nature Conservancy Council advance notice of harmful operations. The second amendment makes it clear that the notice must be given in writing.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian):Deeply concerned though I, along with colleagues, have been for the last nine months with the Bill, and deeply interested in it, may I be forgiven for saying that it will be thought a little odd by thousands of my constituents working in the truck and tractor division of British Leyland that we are discussing this afternoon relative minutiae of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill rather than the very serious, spine-chilling problems that concern the future of British Leyland.
  Were there such a thing as gratitude in politics—and we all know that in British politics gratitude is a very rare commodity—the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) would have been allowed to finish his work on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, on which he has borne the heat and burden of 27 sittings in Committee, not to mention our activities on the Floor of the House. However, I suppose that Downing Street had to find ministerial niches—at any rate at Under-Secretary of State level—for those to whom it is obliged for party and personal services far remote from the Wildlife and Countryside Bill and that someone had to give way.
  On account of the hon. Gentleman's helpfulness to the Opposition, and his stubbornness in combating what in our view was a less than helpful set-up at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, we regret that the hon. Gentleman is no longer on the Front Bench to see his task through. Nature in the raw, which we have so often discussed in Committee Room 12, is probably less cruel in selecting its victims and certainly less random than Downing Street. In the process of culling her Ministers, the Prime Minister set her sights on the wrong stag when she disposed of the hon. Member for Dumfries. There were many others in the ministerial herd whom we would rather have seen her get rid of. I hope that those remarks will be taken in a kindly spirit and as a "thank you" to the hon. Member for Dumfries.
  The new ministerial team has to be asked a direct question on amendments Nos. 7 and 8, compared with which other matters are peripheral. Does the Minister have the authority from the Treasury to provide moneys for conservation agreements? Clause 28 explicitly asks for notification of the Nature Conservancy Council, and the only reason for this is that the NCC can enter into managerial agreements to solve problems. After clause 44 we discover that the level of management payments will be decided by Ministers. If we assume that 11 to 13 per cent. of sites of special scientific interest were damaged last year, if the Nature Conservancy Council is to react, what sums will be needed? The same point, incidentally, applies to the national park authorities.
  Admittedly, we do not know how many SSI agreements will be entered into, but there are 3,800 sites. Is there a

  1013
  determination on the part of the Government to finance management agreements? Can we, arising out of these amendments, explore the nature of the bid placed by the NCC to the Department of the Environment in respect of the extra responsibilities that accrue to the NCC as a result of the provisions of clause 28 and of the Bill in general?
  The Nature Conservancy Council's most recent surveys show that last year over 8,000 hectares of sites of special scientific interest were seriously damaged. About 50 per cent. of this resulted from agricultural and forestry operations. Even if we ignore the inevitable increase in the amount of SSSI land that will be threatened next year because of the incentives to plough up SSSIs under the new compensation system, about 4,000 hectares of SSSIs will need to be protected annually by the Nature Conservancy Council.
  Most of the threats to SSSIs from agricultural operations will come in lowland areas, where the agricultural value of land is at a financial premium. Areas such as the north Kent marshes, the Somerset levels, the Nene washes and the Derwent ings are all prime SSSI grade 1 sites currently under threat. In these places an acre of land costs over £1,000, and the difference in profit between land managed for nature conservation and land under intensive agricultural systems is as much as £80 to £100 per acre.
  It is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which will be determining the value of the management agreements that the NCC will be forced to enter into under the new provisions, and we can be sure that they will reflect accurately the revenue that might have been earned had the land in question been converted for agricultural production. Given these sets of figures, it will be necessary for the NCC to be given at least £3 million in additional revenue if it is to safeguard SSSIs properly.
  It is, therefore, of paramount importance that the NCC be given enough money to make its side of the voluntary system work. If it is unable to protect sites because it has not asked for enough money, or because the Government have not given it enough money, landowners will rightly be able to claim that it is not their fault that the provisions to protect SSSIs, and land in the national parks, are not working.
  Additionally, it is essential that the NCC should not find itself in a position where it cannot object to a damaging proposal simply because it does not have sufficient funds to finance management payments. If this were the case, sites would be lost by default, without the conservation case even coming to the attention of Ministers. Unless the money is forthcoming, there is no conceivable chance of the voluntary system working. The Opposition's fear is that there has been an underestimate by Government of the finances required to protect sites of special scientific interest and national park land.
  Specifically, is it true that the NCC has used the figure of £600 per hectare in calculating how much money it will need to purchase land to ensure the protection of SSSIs? If the £600 per hectare assumed cost is right, is this not a gross underestimate for the lowland areas where SSSIs are most likely to come under threat? I can accept that for a hectare of Crinan moss in remotest Argyll £600 per hectare is not unreasonable, even though my fellow countrymen—and the fellow countrymen of the hon. Member for Dumfries—might value their bog at a steeper price than £600 per hectare.
  1014
  Let us journey from Argyll to lushest, rich Norfolk. Who in their right mind will assess a hectare of Halvergate at £600 a hectare? I am told by Peter Melchett that in Norfolk the going price Ls at least £3,000 a hectare. What about the Nature Conservancy Council's book? Halvergate will be the great test case in assessing how compensation agreements will work in practice. At Halvergate 1,175 acres of SSSIs have to be protected. Halvergate alone will probably cost the Broads authority and the Countryside Commission a cool £1½ million at 1980 prices over 20 years. That is the financial lead that worries us.
  5 pm
  Does the Minister fully comprehend the mammoth nature of the task that is now being given to the NCC to finance SSSIs and to undertake the problem of renotifying owners and occupiers, involving one letter and possibly more to about 3,800 sites? Some of the sites will have to be revisited by a trained scientist. I understand that on average the NCC has little more than one person per area. There may be as many as 50 sites of special scientific interest in a county. It is possible that 50 to 100 persons will have to be notified on one site.
  We return to the issue whether the NCC will have the wherewithal to undertake the task. Resources for the NCC are crucial to the Bill. All our work and its usefulness is triggered by the assumption that the NCC will have the resources for the task that we have given it.
  We think that the written notice requirement in Lords amendment No. 8 is important. Without that provision farmers could say "I phoned your office the other day. The girl at the end of the phone said that she would give a message. Did she not pass on the message?" There must be no misunderstanding on notification. That is why we think that the Lords are right to insert the word "written".
  It is the resources of the NCC that are the crucial issue. Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett)—like my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), he has played a massive part in the Bill—asked about the NCC. His question appears in column 862 of Hansard of 28 October. The Minister replied that he would deal with the question of moneys. I asked him to comment further this afternoon. I think that this is the appropriate moment to insert that question.
  Mr. Macfarlane:I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for his support of Lords amendment No. 8. We, too, believe that it is important to insert the word "written". I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxieties on other matters. I agree that I said yesterday that we could discuss these matters more fully. Parliamentary Question Time does not always provide that opportunity.
  It will come as no surprise to the House when I say that I do not speak on this occasion with authority from the Treasury. However, I hope that the issues that the hon. Member for West Lothian has raised will be noted in appropriate quarters. They embrace important aspects of this measure.
  We shall be having urgent discussions with the interested parties in the near future. Those parties will include the NCC. On 18 September my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke at a national parks conference. On that occasion he was questioned about finance. At the same time in another place the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, referred to the

  1015
  financial issue at some length. He accepted that, as legislators, we must carry the tabs that follow from the legislative decisions that we ask Parliament to take. He added that the response had been intended to be encouraging.
  I am unable to make detailed comments upon the statistics that the hon. Gentleman has produced. The presentation of those figures confirms that he has taken a diligent interest in the passage of the Bill. His knowledge of these subjects is inestimable. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not go into detail on the figures. I shall not be able to deal with land valuation in various regions of the United Kingdom. However, I shall consider the issue that he raised and communicate with him.
  We are considering an important amendment. I confirm that we shall be having discussions with the NCC and other bodies to ascertain the estimates that they are making between now and next year. It is important to note that the funds for the NCC over the four years to date have remained at a constant level of slightly over £9 million at 1980–81 prices. Those funds have been supplemented by £4.6 million in 1978–79, £1.09 million in 1979–80 and slightly less than £300,000 in 1980–81 at 1980–81 prices. Those figures indicate that the funding has risen. I assure the House that there will be an urgent dialogue to ascertain the needs and requirements of the various organisations as we try to shape the way to implement this measure over the next few years.
  Mr. Dalyell:I ask for the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak again on the amendment.
  I accept that the Minister is new in his job and will find it difficult to go into the detailed figures. However, will he confirm that the assumed cost is £600 a hectare? The areas that need the most protection are often lowland fertile areas, and £600 is an unreal sum at current land prices. One might get away with £600 in a remote mountain area, but such a sum would be unthinkable in areas of Norfolk and other similar areas. We are concerned with lowland and often extremely fertile agricultural areas, and it seems that £600 a hectare is not realistic.
  I regret that the Minister does not have the authority of the Treasury. We promise the hon. Gentleman that our interest in the Bill and in the way in which it works will not come to an end this afternoon. Some of us feel that it is deeply unsatisfactory that some hon. Members sweat their guts out for honourable reasons—I include the hon. Members for Harborough (Mr. Fan), Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) and Hereford (Mr. Shepherd)—only to find that they are left with no positive assurances. We have made changes to the Bill and some of us will continue to monitor the consequences of our actions, perfect or imperfect though they may be, with not only the Minister's Department but the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and certainly the Treasury. I hope that the hon. Gentleman gets all the authority from the Treasury that he needs. It will be authority in a good cause. If the Bill does not work, the heritage will be greatly damaged and it may prove to be our last chance.
  We shall monitor it. If it does not work, I make no off-the-cuff threat. The repercussion was spelt out eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), who is Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment. There are serious people in the
  1016
  House who, albeit reluctantly, might think that the only answer was a system of planning. This would be unacceptable in a number of quarters. However, that may be the alternative if we do not succeed in what we are doing.
  Mr. Macfarlane:I cannot give the assurance about the statistics now. I have indicated that I shall communicate with the hon. Gentleman. I give the assurance that the Government are grateful for the support that he will provide over the next couple of years in monitoring how the legislation is implemented. All Ministers within the Department of the Environment will do everything possible to make certain that the legislation works and will monitor it closely through the relevant agencies. It is a vital piece of legislation. There is still a great deal of work to do. We shall be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 8 agreed to.

  ORDERS DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST
  The Lords agree to the following amendment by the Commons:
  In page 28, line 30, at end insert—
  '(11) A report made under section 17(1) of Schedule 3 to the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973 for any year shall set out particulars of any areas of land as respects which orders under this section have come into operation during that year.'.
  but propose the following amendment thereto: No. 9, in line 1, leave out "made under section 17(1)" and insert "submitted by the Council to the Secretary of State under paragraph 17".
  Mr. MacFarlane:I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  This is a technical amendment. The Nature Conservancy Council submits annual reports under schedule 3(17) to the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973. The Lords amendment corrects an erroneous reference to reports made under section 17 of the Act. It is as simple as that.
  Mr. Graham:I agree with the Minister that this is a technical amendment. However, it provides the opportunity, which we intend to take on every occasion this afternoon, to underline, not our suspicion of, but our sensitivity over, the aspirations of the Bill being carried forward. We are here to support the Minister and his departmental colleagues in what we consider will be the battles that they will have to fight inter-departmentally, particularly with the Treasury.
  >The amendment refers to a part of the Bill that will
  set out particulars of any areas of land as respects which orders under this section have come into operation during that year.
  We envisage that additional land will be acquired for management and other purposes and that moneys will have to be found. We do not wish to see another Act full of good intentions placed on the statute book, with Ministers with their hands on their hearts having said upstairs, in another place and here, that they want to see it work, only to find that the public say cynically that all that has happened is that a duty has been laid upon a body to carry out certain things but that the moneys to carry out those responsibilities have been denied. We do not wish to see increased responsibility and diminished funding.

  1017
  Will the Minister give the assurance that when he refers to meetings that will take place—it was helpful in the context of today's debate that he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) yesterday—they will not be along the lines of the Minister informing the bodies that their aspirations will have to go into cold storage? Will he listen sympathetically to the bids that will be made to him? Will he accept that the bodies asked to carry out the duties placed upon them by the Act will feel entitled to tell him that they require certain sums of money? I acknowledge that these are difficult times, but we want the dialogue with the bodies, particularly the Nature Conservancy Council, to be meaningful and not a sham.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Macfarlane:I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. His remarks echo largely those of his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I have indicated our plans for the next few months. I shall not anticipate the dialogue. That is hypothetical. I acknowledge the points made by both hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench. Those points will form an integral part of the dialogue with the agencies, but I can give no guarantees this afternoon.
  Question put and agreed to.

  LIMESTONE PAVEMENT ORDERS
  The Lords agree to the following amendment made by the Commons:
  In page 31, line 20, at end insert—
  '(6) In this section—

  "the Commission" means the Countryside Commission in relation to England and Wales and the Countryside Commission for Scotland in relation to Scotland;

  "limestone pavement" means an area of limestone which lies wholly or partly exposed on the surface of the ground and has been fissured by natural erosion;
  "the relevant authority" means the county planning authority in relation to England and Wales and the authority exercising regional planning functions in relation to Scotland.'.
  but propose the following amendment thereto: No. 10, in the penultimate line leave out "regional" and insert "district".
  Mr. Macfarlane:I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  This was a subject raised by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) in Committee at some length. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) paid their tribute to the hon. Gentleman. The amendment provides that limestone pavement orders should be made in Scotland by the authorities exercising district planning functions. These are the authorities with day-to-day control over planning matters, including minerals.
  Mr. Dalyell:Comments were made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) and myself in Committee about the removal of limestone pavements from areas of Sutherland by Bristol university. Subsequent correspondence has proved that we were not accurate in blaming Bristol university. I wish to make a public
  1018
  apology to Sir Alec Merrison and his colleagues for the misunderstanding that arose by recalling newspaper reports that turned out to be less than accurate.
  Sir Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough):I wish to associate myself with that apology. What we said was wrong. It was being taken down and tested for shellspar. It was not limestone pavement.
  Mr. Graham:I should like the Minister to comment on some disturbing news that I have received late in the day. We are discussing a change that has come to us from another place to delete "regional" and insert "district". We are talking about the Countryside Commission. I understand that the commission is to close three of its regional offices—those at Reading, Nottingham and Manchester—and that there is to be a cut of 25 in regional staff.
  It is possible, in the light of the apologies that have just been made, that I shall need to apologise later for wrong information. If, however, the information that I have received is correct, how on earth can we begin, on the last day before a Bill becomes an Act, with the news that there may be a review, perhaps by another Department or perhaps arising for some macroeconomic reason? If, in one breath, we are saying laudable things about what we want to achieve and, in the next, denying the diminished staff the resources to carry out the job, that surely makes nonsense of what we are trying to do.
  Mr. Macfarlane:I cannot make a detailed comment on the information that the hon. Gentleman has disclosed. It may or may not be accurate. I have no means of being 100 per cent. certain at the moment what are the plans of the Countryside Commission and its regional organisations. In any case, this would not be a matter for my Department. The manner in which agencies such as the Countryside Commission are organised throughout the regions is very much a matter for the commission. I shall nevertheless look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.
  Mr. Graham:With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may speak again.
  I listened carefully to the Minister. He said that the way in which the staff was disposed of might not be a matter for him. However, the reason for the way in which staff are disposed of or made redundant can arise directly out of decisions made by the Minister and his colleagues relating to finance. I appreciate that the Minister is unable to debate the matter, but he should riot pass it off as having little or nothing to do with his Department.
  I repeat that if the funds to do the job properly are to be dried up or denied that will make it very difficult for people who want to do a good job of work to do so.
  Mr. Macfarlane:Perhaps I may correct the hon. Gentleman. I did not refer to the way in which the staff were disposed of. I referred to the way in which the Countryside Commission organised its regional offices throughout the land.
  Question put and agreed to.

  MARINE NATURE RESERVES
  The Lords agree to the following amendment made by the Commons:
  Leave out clause 34 and insert the following new clause—
  "(1) Where, in the case of any land covered (continuously or intermittently) by tidal waters or parts of the sea in or adjacent to Great Britain up to the seaward limits of territorial waters, it appears to the Secretary of State expedient, on an application made by the Nature Conservancy Council, that the land and waters covering it should be managed by the Council for the purpose of

  (a) conserving marine flora or fauna or geological or physiographical features of special interest in the area; or

  (b) providing, under suitable conditions and control, special opportunities for the study of, and research into, matters relating to marine flora and fauna and the physical conditions in which they live, or for the study of geological and physiographical features of special interest in the area,

  he may by order designate the area comprising that land and those waters as a marine nature reserve; and the Council shall manage any area so designated for either or both of those purposes.
  (2) An application for an order under this section shall be accompanied by—

  (a) a copy of the byelaws which, if an order is made, the Council propose making under section (Byelaws for protection of marine nature reserves) for the protection of the area specified in the application; and

  (b) a copy of any byelaws made or proposed to be made for the protection of that area by a relevant authority,

  and an order made on the application shall authorise the making under that section of such of the byelaws proposed to be made by the Council as may be set out in the order with or without modifications.
  (3) Byelaws the making of which is so authorised—

  (a) shall not require the Secretary of State's consent under subsection (1) of section (Byelaws for protection of marine nature reserves); and

  (b) notwithstanding anything in the provisions applied by subsection (4) of that section, shall take effect on their being made.

  (4)The provisions of Schedule (Procedure in connection with orders under section (Marine nature reserves)) shall have effect as to the making, validity and date of coming into operation of orders under this section; and an order made under this section may be amended or revoked by a subsequent order so made.
  (5) The powers exercisable by the Council for the purpose of managing an area designated as a marine nature reserve under this section shall include power to install markers indicating the existence and extent of the reserve.
  (6) Nothing in this section or in byelaws made under section (Byelaws for protection of marine nature reserves) shall interfere with the exercise of any right of passage by a vessel other than a pleasure boat, any functions of a relevant authority, any functions conferred by or under an enactment (whenever passed) or any right of any person (whenever vested).
  (7) In this section and section (Byelaws for protection of marine nature reserves)—
  "enactment" includes an enactment contained in a local Act;
  "local authority" means—

  (a) in relation to England and Wales, a county council, a district council, the Greater London Council or a London borough council;

  (b) in relation to Scotland, a regional council, an islands council or a district council;

  "relevant authority" means a local authority, a water authority or any other statutory water undertakers, an internal drainage board, a navigation authority, a harbour authority, a pilotage authority, a lighthouse authority, a conservancy authority, a river purification board, a district board for a fishery district within the meaning of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1862, or a local fisheries
  1020
  committee constituted under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966;
  "vessel" includes a hovercraft and any aircraft capable of landing on water, and "pleasure boat" shall be construed accordingly."
  but propose the following amendment thereto:
  No. 11, in subsection (6), leave out:
  "any right of passage by a vessel other than a pleasure boat".
  Mr. Macfarlane:I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker:With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 16.
  Mr. Macfarlane:The Lords amendments deal with two distinct aspects of the control of pleasure boats in marine nature reserves—access and discharges. I should like to deal first with the question of access.
  As it was worded when it left this House, the clause on marine nature reserves, subsection (6), allowed a byelaw to prohibit absolutely the entry of pleasure boats into a reserve. Although the Government gave categorical assurances that the byelaw-making power would never be exercised in that way, certain interests, as hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will know, protested strongly that the mere existence of an enabling power was an infringement of the cherished rights of innocent passage.
  In another place, amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 were agreed. They have the effect of removing the Secretary of State's power to confirm byelaws which could stop all pleasure boats from entering or passing through any part of a reserve at any time, while at the same time allowing the prohibition of access to certain areas within the reserve at certain times of the year. Since this is closely in line with the way in which it was expected that the previous provision would have been applied, the Government saw no need to resist. I trust that the House will feel likewise.
  As it left this House, the Bill provided that discharges from pleasure craft could be controlled by byelaws while discharges from other craft could not. The Lords held that this was discriminatory. As the Bill is now worded as a result of Lords amendment No. 15, all craft are now subject to the same controls. The only effective control at present available is the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971, which covers the discharge of any oil or oily substances except bilge water from boats of under 80 tons. The Dumping at Sea Act 1974, which was mentioned in another place, does not cover pleasure boats. I hope that that clarifies the matter.
  What we must now do is look to the future, and to the next couple of years in particular. When section 31(5) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 comes into force, the Secretary of State will have power to prohibit by regulation the deposit of any polluting matter into areas which he may designate. Where there is an international dimension to the problem, section 20 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 can be brought into play. Under that, Orders in Council could be made to give effect to any international agreement which relates to prevention, restriction or control of pollution of the sea by matter from ships. At present there is no relevant international convention in being but the subject is of great international concern, and to attempt to treat our marine nature reserves in isolation is not necessarily the most effective way forward. Pollution from outside the reserves can so easily flow in

  1021
  I asked the House to agree, as the NCC has agreed, that the broad front approach is the right one. Meanwhile, the Royal Yachting Association has agreed enthusiastically to co-operate with the NCC in drawing up a code of conduct for our marine nature reserves. If this proves ineffective and if pollution from pleasure craft is seen to be a problem, it will always be open for the NCC to make out a case for the application of the power to make a byelaw to route vessels away from sensitive areas.
  I hope that what I have said will be of reassurance to the House.
  Mr. Dalyell:As will be known to the Minister—and I take this opportunity of thanking the Department for all its courtesies throughout the long passage of this Bill—I contacted the Department this morning about our worries on this issue. Has there not been a little misunderstanding? I am not casting blame on the Minister in the House of Lords. I understand that notes were passed frantically to him—which may be the source of the difficulty. I have had notes passed frantically to me by Friends of the Earth, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the World Wildlife Fund, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Council for the National Parks, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Council for the Preservations of Nature and, indeed, on occasion, the National Farmers Union——
  Mr. Graham:And the Whip!
  Mr. Dalyell:Mr. Dalyell: *Certainly the Whips—and my colleagues on the Front Bench. I know what it is like to have notes suddenly thrust in front of one, so I do not blame Lord Avon for having misunderstood one. However, I should have thought that if there had been a misunderstanding, something could be done about that by a very tiny alteration of the legislation over which we would not create difficulties. As I understand it, the directorate of rural affairs in the Department, advised by the departmental lawyers, thought that the Dumping at Sea Act would cover the dumping of rubbish from pleasure boats. I understand, however—and the Minister has confirmed it—that that is not so, because that Act concerns specific dumping of items such as sludge and sewage.**
  *In reality, it is in the interests of pleasure boat users and those who are concerned about marine nature reserves that the clause be restored, because if there were no control of dumping, boats would be restricted in their access to marine nature reserves. If the clause is restored, pleasure boats would gain greater access since dumping would be illegal. If this provision goes through, is it not a fact that the pleasure boat fraternity would be the losers and would possibly be forced to do things that they do not want to do?
  I understand also that there is a problem concerning the code of conduct with the Nature Co nservancy Council. One would hope that implementation of part II of the Control of Pollution Act through means of orders by the Secretary of State would take care of it in the short term, but surely that could very easily be put right next Session for the long term.
  Some of us think that one of the best things to come out of the long arguments on this Bill was the preservation, in its pristine form, of the idea of the marine nature reserve. We really care about it, and we hope that this will not be vitiated by a comparatively small matter. Can it not be put
  1022
  right in the early period of the next Session, when, as the Minister knows, Governmemts traditionally have very little business that is ready?**
  Mr. Macfarlane:Mr. Macfarlane: *I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I refrain from commenting in detail on that latter aspect. I cannot speculate on such affairs. I am grateful for his recognition of the difficulties facing Ministers in both Houses when legislation is at a certain pitch. I pay tribute to my colleague in another place, Earl Avon, who made the observation. It was an incorrect recognition, and he was ill-advised on that occasion. I hope that we have now satisfied the House. There is existing legislation. There is a framework within which we can proceed. This is of great benefit for our marine nature reserves.**
  Mr. Dalyell:Mr. Dalyell: *By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a further comment.**
  *Like many other things in relation to the Bill, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.**
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 16 agreed to.
  The Lords agree to the following amendment made by the Commons:

  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 subsection—
  "(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 conservation 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 or which the land is of special interest.

  (5) Subsection (4) above shall not apply in relation to any emergency operation particulars of which (including details 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 include a reference to the internal drainage board in whose district the land is situated." '.

  1023
  but propose the following Amendment thereto: No. 17, in subsection (2), line 1, after "land" insert "for the time being"
  Mr. Macfarlane:Mr. Macfarlane: *I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.**
  Mr. Deputy Speaker:Mr. Deputy Speaker: *With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 18.**
  Mr. Macfarlane:Mr. Macfarlane: *The Lords amendments correct an error in the clause concerning the duties of water authorities. 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, not just the words which appeared in the new clause about water authorities, which would have left section 22(3) of the Water Act in a nonsensical state.**
  *I hope that that clarifies the matter for the House.**
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Graham:Mr. Graham: *I shall not detain the House for long. I agree that this is a technical amendment. However, it provides us with the opportunity to reinforce the significance of the changes that were made to strengthen the intentions of the Bill.**
  *Subsection (1)(a) says that those concerned shall
  "exercise their functions with respect to the proposals as to further the conservation and enhancement",
  and so on. The words "to further" are stronger than those used in paragragh (b), "shall have regard to" and also those in paragraph (c), "shall take into account".**
  *We are grateful that this requirement is to be an obligation on the water and drainage authorities. They will have a duty, not merely to have regard to and wring their hands and say "What a pity; we do not have the money or the time", but to further the interests of conservation and preservation. Labour Members are happy that this requirement has become part of the Bill.**
  Question put and agreed to.

  ENACTMENTS REPEALED
  Lords amendment No. 18 agreed to.
  The Lords agree to the following Amendment made by the Commons:

  PAYMENTS UNDER CERTAIN AGREEMENTS OFFERED BY AUTHORITIES
  (1) This section applies where—
  (a) the Nature Conservancy 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)
  but propose the following amendment thereto: No. 19, in subsection (3), line 3, after "arbitrator" insert "(or, in Scotland, an arbiter)"
  Mr. Macfarlane:Mr. Macfarlane: *I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.**
  Mr. Deputy Speaker:Mr. Deputy Speaker: *With this we may take Lords amendment No. 20.**
  Mr. Macfarlane:Mr. Macfarlane: *These are small, technical, amendments which are necessary in deference to Scots law.**
  Mr. Dalyell:Mr. Dalyell: *This is the appropriate time to ask a question of which I gave notice to the Minister and about which he kindly wrote to me. It relates to the subject of Scots law.**
  *There was a report in The Observer under the name of Mr. Lane about the suppression of a report by the University of Edinburgh on matters relating to the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment, as he did in his letter, because I believe that he can explain the matter.**
  Mr. Macfarlane:Mr. Macfarlane: *I have no detailed comment to make. I have written to the hon. Gentleman. The report that appeared in the paper was not accurate. The representatives from the university who were credited with having generated the suppression in the first place refuted the issue as quickly as possible. That was the gist of the message that I gave the hon. Gentleman yesterday.**
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 20 agreed to.

  REPEALS AND SAVINGS
  The Lords agree to the following amendment made by the Commons:
  In page 53, leave out lines 24 to 39 and insert—

  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.

  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.

  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."

  but propose the following amendment thereto: No. 21, in subsection (3), last line, leave out "after" and insert "before".
  Mr. Macfarlane:Mr. Macfarlane: *I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.**
  *Again this is a technical amendment. The Lords amendment is necessary to correct a drafting error and thus ensure that reviews that commence before the new procedures are brought into operation will be unaffected by the repeal of the present legislation.**
  Question put and agreed to.

  BIRDS WHICH MAY BE KILLED OR TAKEN
  The Lords disagree to the following amendments made by the Commons:
  page 57, line 7, at end insert:
  "Curlew Numenius arquata".
  page 57, line 20, at end insert—
  "Redshank Tringa totanus".
  Lords Reason:
  Because the curlew and redshank, as the only two remaining shore waders that could otherwise be shot, should be protected.

  Mr. Macfarlane:Mr. Macfarlane: *I beg to move, That this House doth not insist upon the amendments to which the Lords have disagreed.**
  *I know that this matter occupied much time in debate, both in Committee and in another place, and I understand that deep views are held on all sides. We come to what can safely be said to be the substantive Lords amendment to part I. It is their disagreement to Commons amendments Nos. 143 and 144, the effect of which would be to give protection at all times to the curlew and the redshank.**
  *Hon. Members will recall that their Lordships, when considering the Bill earlier in the year, voted substantially to remove the curlew and redshank from schedule 2 part 1. That is the list of birds which may be shot as legitimate quarry species outside the close season. This House disagreed with the other place in its amendments during proceedings on the Bill in Standing Committee D. The Government's attitude on amending schedules is well known and on record. It is that species should be given additional protection only where their conservation status warrants such a step, where an adequate scientific conservation case for protection is made out. We see this as an important basis for reconciling the conflicting interests in the countryside.**
  *It is clear, however, that the other place feels particularly strongly about these two species. I know that Labour Members and many Conservative Members feel that the Government do not advise opposing the amendments which their Lordships voted on in favour of restoring to the list on two occasions. However, we believe that the element of conservation is an important element. I realise the deep convictions that are held on both sides. Accordingly, I urge the House to accept the amendment, recognising that their Lordships have now voted on two occasions. The objective and purpose of the Bill are of enormous importance, and hon. Members on both sides acknowledge its long-term contribution to our heritage and to conservation.**
  Mr. Dalyell:Mr. Dalyell: *Again we come to the aid of the red shank and the curlew, though I confess that to be discussing them when Leyland is in peril may seem odd to many of my constituents. Nevertheless, West Lothian, alt hough primarily concerned with the situation of Leyland workers, has redshank and curlew on its shoreline.**
  *Some 30 species of wading birds visit Britain's shores. All but a few are protected by the Protection of Birds Act 1954, including species which are abundant, such as dunlin, knot and lapwing, all of which are more common than the curlew and the redshank.**
  *Waders, particularly in flight, are difficult to identify, and confusion can easily arise between similar species. Reports of protected species being shot in error are received each year. It is, therefore, better to protect all shore waders to prevent such mistakes. The only species that are not protected now are the curlew and the redshank.**
  *Thus, our first point concerns error, particularly when the light is not very good. Frankly, I do not believe that many people can differentiate between species in bad light or in bad conditions.**
  *Waders flock and roost in mixed species parties. Thus, wader shooting causes disturbance to both protected and quarry species. Disturbance in mid-winter can cause stress and increase mortality. Although curlew and redshank, as such, are not endangered, public feeling against their being shot is very strong. Those of us who took part in the Bill received, long after the Bill was finished, representations to this effect from time to time. Even the Nature Conservancy Council recognised this and supported their removal from the shooting list in the Lords.**
  *Many protected birds are more abundant than these species, yet they are protected—for example, the blackbird, the robin, the swallow, and so on—simply because society wants them to be protected. Incidentally, I do not think there can be very much fun in shooting redshank and curlew.**
  *Tastes and wildfowling practices have changed. Shore waders are not a major part of the wildfowler's quarry. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has received reports from East Anglia of people using redshank for practice, and not even bothering to retrieve the birds once they had been shot. In the earlier debates in the Lords many wildfowling peers agreed that shore waders were unpleasant to the modern palate and therefore could see no reason why they should be shot. Some of us will say "Amen" to that.**
  *The curlew and redshank occur in large numbers on British estuaries. We hold internationally important

  1027
  populations of these birds. To encourage other nations to protect their bird life, we should honour these moral obligations and protect waders.**
  Recent correspondence in the Shooting Times and Country Magazine has indicated that hunters themselves are not of one mind about the retention of the redshank and curlew on the hunting schedule. In the issue of 11 June 1981, Robin Brockbank, director of the British Field Sports Society, made the following comments:

  "There is room for more than one opinion on many issues in the shooting world, whether they be in the firearm fees, the unrestricted shooting of lapwings or brent geese, the use of air weapons, or the tricky question of the ethical approach to wildfowling practices which has been a predominant issue in the debates in the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. As an indication of this I received a tiny mailbag on the subject of Mr. Kimball's policy on firearms fees but a not inconsiderable one and hostile at that from BFSS shooting members opposed to our decision to back WAGBI in the offence of Sunday wildfowling in England and Wales and the shooting of curlew and redshank."

  In the issue of 2 July 1981, there was a letter from David Tomlinson which presented the facts in full. It was headed "Protect not shoot?" It said:

  "Sir, Am I the only WAGBI member who would like to see curlew, redshank and bar-tailed godwit removed from the list of sporting quarry? In my experience, and I have been fowling on many marshes in England, Scotland and Wales, few experienced wildfowlers consider shooting these birds. Also I have met few wildfowlers who were sufficiently competent ornithologists to tell bar-tail from a black-tailed godwit or a redshank from a spotted redshank in the half light of dawn or dusk"—
  [Interruption.]

  I hear the Government Whip and the Solicitor-General muttering to each other. Apparently they are not conversant with the bar-tailed godwit problem.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival):The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I have not been muttering at all. I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dalyell:Mr. Dalyell: I suspect that the hon. and learned Gentleman was imitating a bar-tailed godwit.
  The Solicitor-General:The Solicitor-General: Oh!
  Mr. Dalyell:Mr. Dalyell:. I apologise. I do not wish to be rude to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I thought that he was muttering to his hon. Friend at the suggestion that I should not go into all this detail.
  Tomlinson goes on in his letter:

  "I agree that there is no strong argument on conservation grounds for not shooting these species but it could be fairly argued that an open season for blackbirds and song thrushes would have little impact on the population of these birds, both of which made reasonable eating. However, it would be very bad public relations to shoot songbirds. In the same way I feel it is detrimental to the wildfowlers' image to shoot waders, especially as none of the trio in dispute is particularly good to eat. A September curlew well roasted may be acceptable but a January bird of the saltings is fit only for the dustbin. Much better to leave it alone and enjoy instead the most beautiful and haunting of calls across the marsh."

  Although the curlew is quite a common breeding and wintering bird in Britain, we have an international responsibility for its protection. Our wintering population of about 44,000 is 15 per cent. of that wintering in the whole of Europe. Furthermore, 11 of our estuaries are sites of international importance for this species, meaning that they hold 1 per cent. or more of the wintering European population. There is an important argument that, with the removal of the whimbrel and now the bar-tailed godwit
  1028
  from the list of those species which may be hunted, the curlew should also be removed on the grounds of "look alike" identification difficulties. The three species have very similar flight patterns.
  In Committee, we were indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), who has considerable experience of these matters, for making the same point. My hon. Friend has a by-election in his constituency and has asked me to give his apologies to the House for not being here.
  5.45 pm
  The main reason, however, for the removal of the curlew and indeed all shore waders concerns the serious disturbance that they suffer during the vital feeding and roosting periods. This disturbance affects not only quarry species but others feeding or roosting with them or nearby, including protected birds.
  Although redshanks are widespread and common in Britain, they are declining as breeding birds, as they are in several other European countries. Declines are connected with habitat loss of various kinds—principally wetland and coastal reclamation.
  Some 150,000 redshanks winter in Europe as a whole, of which almost one-third winter in Britain—up to 51,000 birds—where there are 20 sites of international importance for this species. Thus we have international responsibility for a substantial part of the entire winter populations of the species.
  An equally important consideration that applies to all shore waders is that of serious disturbance at vital times of feeding and roosting. This applies indiscriminately to other species occurring with redshanks, whether protected or not, and possibly even more so than in the case of other waders due to the redshank's use of wider range of habitats. The redshank weighs only 4½ oz and is 10½ ins from bill to tail. The bill is 2½ ins long. The estimated numbers shot is 2,000 a year.
  I go into this in some detail. Normally it would be unnecessary. But I see the hon. Members for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) and Harborough (Mr. Farr) ready to pounce. I say to them with a certain amount of friendship, because they have worked very hard on the Bill "Do not spoil your contribution to all these days and months of work by pressing this matter, because it is not a worthy one for you to contest at this stage." I hope that both hon. Members will protect their reputations by not pressing the matter in view of the facts that I have put forward.
  Sir Marcus Kimball:Sir Marcus Kimball: The House will find itself in an even more difficult position if it decides to disagree with the Lords in their disagreement with the Standing Committee.
  Her Majesty's intention to prorogue Parliament tomorrow morning at 9.30 has already been announced. I believe that another place is no longer sitting. If we disagreed with this disagreement and sent a message to the other place, there would be no possibility of getting back their Lordships' agreement to our disagreement with their disagreement. If we succeed in pressing this disagreement, we shall lose the Bill.
  I have no desire to sacrifice the amount of work which has been put into the Bill by my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members. I am sure that no one

  1029
  wishes to do that. However, I regard this disagreement of the Lords with the Commons Standing Committee as a very dangerous precedent.
  I do not believe that there are sound conservation reasons why protection should be extended to the two species which are the subject of the amendment. Both are plentiful, and there is no sound conservation reason for protecting them. It is a dangerous precedent to state that, because a bird is charming, pretty or attractive or that it makes a nice noise, it must not be shot. A ptarmigan is a lovely bird. It is also great fun to shoot. A black cock is a lovely bird, but it is a game bird. The argument that, because a bird is attractive, which the curlew and redshank are, it should not be shot is very dangerous, and it represents the first step down a very slippery slope. I would never shoot a redshank or a curlew. As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, only about 2,000 redshank a year are shot periodically in September round our shores.
  Without any sound conservation reasons, during the dinner hour, a few unelected peers moved by emotion upset a decision of the elected Members of this House. This is a very dangerous precedent, and it is good that it should be said for once from the Government Benches and not by an Opposition Member.
  Mr. Dalyell:Mr. Dalyell: Is the hon. Member joining my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)?
  Sir Marcus Kimball:Sir Marcus Kimball: I am firing a warning shot against the other place for taking an emotional decision without sound conservation reasons. The other place has removed the targets from the less-well-off members of the shooting community. By doing that, it has increased the pressure for shooting on the remaining number of game birds. That is a typical action of an unelected Chamber. The other place has not come out of the argument well.
  I disagree with the disagreement with the Lords, but I do not want to lose the Bill, so I shall say no more.
  Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries):Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries): I had not wished to participate in the last stages of the Bill, but I feel that I owe it to my conscience to say a word or two on the amendment. I thank the hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) for their kind and touching remarks, which were warmly supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane). Our reward, when the Bill is enacted tomorrow, will be improved protection and conservation in the years ahead.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) has highlighted the impossible position in which we are placed, in that whatever we wanted to do, nothing further could happen; the amendment could not be reconsidered in another place. Like my hon. Friend, I am the last person who would want to lose the Bill at this stage. Therefore, there is no question of trying to take the matter a stage further by pushing it to a Division. I shall not have anything to do with that.
  It is right that we should put a few matters in perspective if only to prevent such an event happening again for the wrong reasons. I remind the House that when the Bill was published under a year ago there were already many changes to the schedules dealing with bird protection. We had gone through it with a toothcomb with consultation papers and all the conservation bodies. A number of birds had been taken from the quarry schedule
  1030
  and put on the protected schedule. Therefore, all the issues which were debated at length relative to the redshank, curlew and godwit had been dealt with before the schedules were printed and presented to Parliament.
  I speak tonight because, speaking as a Minister, I gave an assurance in the House, and outside on a number of occasions, that there would be no impact on field sport where conservation was involved. The only issue relative to field sports that has been touched on during the passage of the Bill dealt with otter hunting. That was because the Nature Conservancy Council gave a firm recommendation that otters should be protected. They were as a result. I was quite hurt by some of the inaccurate statements made by the League Against Cruel Sports, which was running true to form.
  When the schedules were discussed in another place, a great deal of careful work had taken place before the amendments were put forward on 10 March. Those amendments were to remove the three waders from the quarry schedule. It is right to remember that Lord Chelwood, who moved those amendments, gave the strong impression that on conservation grounds there was not a good case for protection. The vote, which was accentuated by the issue of the godwit, showed a majority of 51 in a House numbering only 115.
  We have touched on the case for conservation. We know that there are roughly 62,000 curlews, 97,000 redshank and about 40,000 godwit wintering here. The breeding pairs are 40,000 to 70,000 curlews and 38,000 to 40,000 redshank—the godwit does not breed in the United Kingdom.
  Before the debate in another place the matter had been referred to the advisory committees on the protection of birds in England and Scotland. Neither committee could recommend protection on grounds of conservation. That is important when we are considering whether birds should be added to protection or quarry schedules. There must be reason and there must be a principle running through the decisions which are made.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, I have never shot a redshank or a curlew, and I never intend to. Some skilled wildfowlers—wildfowlers by and large are extremely skilled shots, know what they are doing, and know their bird recognition—wish to do so and have done so for generations. As has been said, at certain stages of the season, particularly in early autumn, they are good eating. Therefore, judging from the figures, there is no reason to say that for conservation reasons one should put those two waders—the curlew and the redshank—on the protected list. However, their Lordships had a short debate and put all three birds on the protected list.
  In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) moved an amendment to replace the three birds on the quarry list. In reply to an interesting debate, I proposed that, because the godwit breeds outwith our shores and therefore we have no control over the conservation of breeding grounds, we should follow their Lordships' wish, but that, for the reasons which I have given in my speech and in Committee, the redshank and curlew should return to the quarry list. That was accepted by the Committee and there was no vote. That issue was not debated on Report in this House. Surely the rights of the House of Commons should be given as much consideration as the rights of another place. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough about that.
  After the Bill left the House and returned to another place, their Lordships put down amendment to place the two birds in question—let us not forget that the godwit is not part of that deliberation—on the protected list. I regret that the arguments were ones of sentiment and not of conservation. I agree with him that all birds are attractive to look at. It is no use saying that the godwit is more attractive than, for example, the cock pheasant, the partridge, or the blackcock or many other birds which are on the game or quarry list. Therefore, it was right that their Lordships stuck to conservation reasons alone and did not change their tack to reasons of sentiment, as they did in earlier debates. The removal of the godwit was significant because the majority, which in the first instance was 51, was reduced to 19, in a House numbering only 105.
  The Wildfowlers Association of Great Britain and Ireland—now the British Association for Shooting and Conservation—and the British Field Sports Society feel that they have been let down, because the view of the House of Commons has not prevailed. As I said, we are in an impossible position. If we ask the other place whether it really wishes to persist with the amendment, the Bill will be placed in jeopardy, and I am the last person to wish that to happen.
  6 pm
  In considering this important Bill I set out with the principle that we should improve conservation and protection. For field sports that principle was that conservation must be all important. At this final stage, the principle that I set out to achieve has gone by the board. Therefore, the words that I have from time to time uttered on this subject will not be fulfilled in their entirety. Because of the timing and the practicalities involved, I must make clear my view on how this issue has been handled in the other place. The measure was always supported by my noble Friend Lord Avon, but, regrettably, it was lost in the other place.
  If further protection measures are introduced—and they will be as evolution in bird protection proceeds—I hope that we shall always bear in mind that principles are as important as other mechanical means of obtaining protection, such as those of the Division Lobbies. I am sad about this one aspect of the Bill, but in other respects I am more than delighted that the tremendous step forward represented by the Bill—and supported by Europe and Britain—will be enacted tomorrow. It will immensely enhance conservation and protection in Great Britain.
  Mr. John Farr (Harborough):Mr. John Farr (Harborough): I add my congratulations to those given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), which have been echoed on both sides of the Chamber. We are pleased to have the benefit of my hon. Friend's advice. As we learnt in Committee, his advice is usually full of good, sound, common sense.
  I agree with the criticisms levied by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball), and to a lesser extent by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, who, naturally, chose his words carefully. The House is in an invidious position. As Opposition Members have said, there are many important matters before the country, and that makes one wonder how many members of the public would regard it as right to be discussing this
  1032
  measure. In addition to the threatened strike at British Leyland and the IRA bombs, there are many other important matters to discuss.
  The last straw is that the House is not only discussing such relatively trivial matters, but cannot reject the provision because the other place is not sitting. That is intolerable. I cannot understand how the other place can engage in such brinkmanship on a Bill of such magnitude and importance. The Bill has been carefully prepared and thought out. For years before its introduction consultations were carried out with all the different bodies and a consensus was reached. I cannot understand how, at this late stage, the other place can be so rash and foolhardy as to prejudice the whole Bill. It is doing so for the sake of 18 or 20 amendments, none of which—with the exception of this amendment—is of any consequence.
  For purely sentimental reasons the amendment seeks to pursue something that the House, in a democratic way in Committee, considered and rejected. No hon. Member can disagree with the analysis that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough put forward when he said that we had no alternative but to accept the amendments. The Bill is a credit to the Government and, in particular, to the careful way in which Ministers have listened to various opinions. The Bill is a monument to their achievement. No sensible Conservative Member could do anything but reluctantly accept the Lords amendments.
  Mention has been made of the careful consultations carried out. We are playing for big stakes tonight, and whether the bird is a curlew or a redshank does not matter. Indeed, it is all the same whether the bird is a bar-tailed godwit or a dodo. We are playing for big stakes, because many people, particularly in the other place, believe that monumental progress has been made on the protection of sites of special scientific interest and moorlands and on the protection of plants by the new laws that have been introduced on wild and captive birds. The new marine nature reserves are inspiring. The Bill contains important provisions on public rights of way, with all that they entail. It is unthinkable that the Bill should be imperiled simply for the sake of a couple of minor species, such as the curlew and the redshank.
  According to its manifesto it is part of the Labour Party's official policy that hunting, coursing and shooting for sport should be banned. The Bill is part of that battle, and the sooner that is recognised, the better.
  In Committee and in the other place vigorous discussion took place. Labour Members launched several attacks on all forms of shooting. They sought to ban certain forms of wildfowling, to limit the woodcock shooting season, to reduce the snipe shooting season, to ban night-time shooting and, as I have said, to ban the Sunday shooting of wildfowl. In Committee we carefully considered the evidence relating to the population count of the curlew and the redshank.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries referred to a governmental committee. Until recently he had the benefit of its advice, and, as he said, it advises the Government of the day of danger levels among the various species. The committee was originally a Home Office committee, but it was transferred to the Department of the Environment. It was originally known as the advisory committee on the protection of birds for England and Wales. When the committee was under the Home Office,

  1033
  there was a separate committee for Scotland. The committee is now called the Nature Conservancy Council advisory committee for Great Britain.
  The committee considered whether there was a risk to the redshank and curlew. It was confirmed to me today by members of that committee that the conclusion was reached that on conservation grounds there was no need for protection. Those birds are adequately represented in population numbers. Surely that evidence must guide a sensible politician. We were guided by similar evidence in Committee. There was considerable discussion of the matter and figures were given of population numbers. Give or take a little, the analysis of population counts for the curlew and redshank are almost exact. Both birds are prolific breeders, both breed in Britain, and their wintering numbers are numerous.
  What will happen if, after having been shot for many years—only a small cull is taken annually by wildfowlers on our foreshores—these birds are not culled? There is a real risk that some of the scarcer waders will have difficulty in maintaining their population levels. If the curlew and redshank are allowed to continue breeding unmolested—they are big, strong and aggressive birds—some of the smaller waders that are not numerous, such as the avocet in Suffolk, could find their existence at risk, because the total area of feeding grounds is limited and the total population of all waders that can be carried on those feeding grounds is limited. If these two birds are protected, the balance on our foreshores, as we know it today, could be endangered.
  In Britain today about 2 million people enjoy the recreation of shooting, in one form or another. It is estimated that about 100,000 people gain a living thereby, directly or indirectly, either in arms and ammunition manufacture or in maintaining and keepering woods, fields and plantations. They carefully conserve and protect the remoter—some not so remote—parts of the country and keep them quiet for breeding purposes. In addition, the sport of shooting is a big foreign currency earner. These birds will continue to flourish only if quarry which is in abundance is harvested or shot during the open season.
  There is nothing that hon. Members can do today but squeal and wriggle, because we cannot reject the amendments. We cannot imperil the progress of the Bill by insisting on our right to eradicate the amendments. If we follow the reckless attitude of the other place, we shall have much to answer for. When the Bill is enacted, even with these flaws, it will prove to be an edifice and a monument to the caring attitude of the Conservative Government towards our countryside.
  Mr. Macfarlane:Mr. Macfarlane: I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and to my hon. Friends for their comments on the amendments. I know that there are deeply held convictions on both sides of the House and it is difficult to sum up effectively because those views and opinions have been deeply held for a long time.
  Strange alliances are often struck in this establishment, and one of the more endearing memories that I shall have of this dying Session is that the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) seem to have a certain similarity with those of the would-be aspirant for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), in his revulsion of the House of Lords, which I do not wholly accept. We must remember that this legislation started in
  1034
  the House of Lords and thus has occupied a great part of this Session. Views and arguments have passed to and fro between the Houses, and we and the country have every reason to be grateful for the great knowledge that hon. Members have brought to bear on the subject. I respect their views.
  I am also glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), formerly the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who saw the Bill through most of its stages, alluded to the rights of the House of Commons. When legislation starts in another place, it is always difficult to know which House sees it as its Bill. My hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Harborough (Mr. Farr) acknowledged that time is not on their side and that we have to bow to the two votes in another place, when well in excess of 100 peers were present on both sides, even though only between six and 12 took part in the debate.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Dalyell:Mr. Dalyell: I shall treasure many memories of the passage of the Bill, among them being the virulent attack on Members of the other place by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball). If there were ever a proposition to do certain things to the other place, I should be extremely fascinated to see how the hon. Gentleman would vote.
  That is a light-hearted note on which to end what has been a very long journey for many of us. I repeat that our interest does not stop here. We shall be monitoring point by point the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Treasury.
  Question put and agreed to.
  The Lords agree to the following amendment made by the Commons:

  AMENDMENTS OF THE DEER ACT 1963, THE CONSERVATION OF SEALS ACT 1970 AND THE BADGERS ACT 1973
  In 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 owners 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 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

  a police dog, a guide dog, a trained sheep dog, a working gun dog or a pack of hounds."

  but propose the following amendment thereto: No. 23, in line 17, after "or" insert:
  "(subject to sub-paragraph (2;) below)"
  Mr. Macfarlane:Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker:Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 24 and 25.
  Mr. Macfarlane:Mr. Macfarlane: These amendments give effect to the intention of this House, when amendments concerning ground game were agreed on Report, that the law should be the same in Scotland as in England and Wales. The Lords amendments ensure that in Scotland, as in England and Wales, agricultural tenants will be entitled to delegate the right to shoot ground game at night only to one person, who must be an employee or a member of the household.
  The amendments also remove an unintended effect of the provisions that this House accepted on Report whereby an owner of shooting rights in Scotland would have been required to obtain the consent of any other owner of shooting rights to shoot ground game at night. The Lords amendments ensure that that constraint will apply only to agricultural tenants in order to protect rights over game.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Betting and Gaming Duties Bill [ Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

  Betting and Gaming Duties Bill [ Lords]

  GENERAL BETTING DUTY
  6.20 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival):The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 2, leave out '71/2' and insert '8'.
  The Bill and the others to which we shall come in a moment have passed through the other place and come thus far with a tranquillity and brevity that are perhaps the best reflection that there could be of the great confidence reposed by both Houses in the work of the Joint Select Committee, the Law Commission and the draftsmen. Some hon. Members will know that that tranquillity was momentarily broken last Friday morning, but, due to the presence of mind of the Patronage Secretary and the assistance of the House—particularly that of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), to whom I offer my warm thanks—the tranquillity was quickly restored and our customary brevity was even improved upon.
  As my right hon. Friend has clearly developed a feel for the presentation of consolidation Bills and managed to shorten the time taken to even less than that achieved by the rest of us, I had thought of inviting him to take charge of the remaining stages. I have not done so because I want to take this, my first, opportunity to echo what was said on Friday about the part played by the Commission, the Committee and the draftsmen.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip will receive the message, in which I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will join me, that if he should feel a wish to intervene in these proceedings later this evening the Committee would be agreeably disposed to hearing more of the eloquence that he displayed last Friday, which can be read in Hansard, at column 13, lines 33 to 38.
  The Chairman:The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Solicitor-General, but we are discussing an amendment. This is not a general debate, and I hope that no one will feel tempted to indulge in one.
  The Solicitor-General:The Solicitor-General: You have beaten me by a second, Mr. Weatherill. I was about to say "I turn to the first amendment". I hope that you will not rule me out of order if on this amendment I say something that is common to all the others, because it will save me repeating it.
  Most of the amendments are necessary because the Finance Act 1981 altered some of the provisions that are consolidated in this Bill. If any hon. Member wishes me to give information on any of the amendments, I shall be happy to do so. In the absence of any indication to that effect, I shall simply move the amendments formally.
  Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West):Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West): I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his kind comments. There is nothing between the two sides of the House on the matter of law reform. We are all anxious to expedite the passage of the Bill. If I say no more, I hope that that will be interpreted simply as a desire to expedite its passage.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 2 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  BINGO DUTY
  Amendments made: No. 2, in page 13, line 28, leave out '71/2' and insert '10'.
  No. 3, in line 31, leave out 'three thirty-sevenths' and insert 'one-ninth'.
  No. 4, in line 33, leave out '71/2' and insert '10' .—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 18 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  AMOUNT OF DUTY
  Amendments made: No. 5, in page 17. line 13, leave out '£20' and insert '£25'.
  No. 6, in line 15, leave out '£.25' and insert '£60'.
  No. 7, in line 16, leave out '£25 plus £100' and insert '£60 plus £120'.
  No. 8, in page 17, leave out lines 19 to 27 and insert—

  Description of machines authorised by the licence

  Duty on whole-year licence

  Chargeable at the lower rate.

  £75 per machine.

  Chargeable at the higer rate.

  £200 per machine.

  Chargeable at the peak rate.

  £400 per machine.

  —[The Solicitor-General.]
  Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 24 to 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  SHORT TITLE, CONSTRUCTION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  Amendment made: No. 9, in page 25, line 32, leave out subsection (3).—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedules 1 to 6 agreed to.

  REPEALS
  Amendments made: No. 10, in page 56, line 19, leave out 'Section 2' and insert 'Section 2(2)'.
  No. 11, in line 29, leave out '7(1) and 8' and insert 'and 7(1)'.
  No. 12, in line 32, leave out 'Section 9' and insert
  'In section 9, in subsection (1) the words from "section 1(2) (b)" to "and", subsections (2), (3), (4), (5), (7) and in subsection (8) the words from "Subsections (2)" to "subsections (5)".'—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  Acquisition of Land Bill [Lords]
  Considered in Committee
  [MR. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair] Clauses 1 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Acquisition of Land Bill [Lords]

  INTERPRETATION
  6.27 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival):The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 30, leave out 'county'.
  The First Deputy Chairman:The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may take Government amendment No. 2.
  The Solicitor-General:The Solicitor-General: Both amendments are of a technical nature. Their purpose is further to ensure that the Bill properly expresses the existing law. I believe that they do so and I therefore commend them to the Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 2, in page 5, line 9, at end insert 'by statutory instrument' .—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 8 to 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedules 1 to 6 agreed to.
  Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  New Towns Bill [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair] Clauses 1 to 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedules 1 to 10 agreed to.

  SAVING AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
  6.30 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival):The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 97, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 98.
  The amendment removes from the Bill a provision made unnecessary because of the appointment of a day under the British Telecommunications Act 1981 for the transfer of functions of the Post Office as to telecommunications and data processing to British Telecommunications.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.

  CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendment made: No. 2, in page 99, line 28, at end insert:
  'Housing Act 1974 c. 44
  13. In the Housing Act 1974—

  in section 5(3)(d),

  in section 84, and

  in section 99(2)(e),

  for "New Towns Act 1965" substitute "New Towns Act 1981". ' .—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 13 agreed to.
  Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  Northern Ireland (Magistrates' Courts)
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine):Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I call Mr. Humphrey Atkins to speak on the Northern Ireland order.
  The Solicitor General (Sir Ian Percival):The Solicitor General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move,
  That the draft Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
  The order consolidates the law of Northern Ireland relating to practice and procedure before magistrates' courts. The extent of the repeals of existing enactments contained in schedule 7 to the Bill demonstrates the value of the measure in gathering all of those provisions into one consolidated measure. Therefore, I am sure that it will be welcomed by all.
  The Joint Committee reported on 15 July that it had considered the draft, and was satisfied that it was pure consolidation and there was no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. I know of no other point to which I should draw the attention of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.

  European Community (Mandate)
  6.33 pm
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Humphrey Atkins):The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the Report of the European Commission on the Mandate of 30th May 1980 (COM (81) (300)) and fully supports Her Majesty's Government in their determination to negotiate a satisfactory solution to the problems of budgetary contributions, to achieve reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy and to give an impetus to the development of Community policies.
  I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why you may have wished to call me on the previous order relating to Northern Ireland, but it is more than 10 years since I made a speech in the House about the European Comunity. . I do not know how many right hon and hon. Members in their places now were present on that occasion—I believe not many. In my previous job in Northern Ireland there was not much call to talk about the European Community, and in the job before that I was not allowed to make speeches at all.
  It is appropriate that I should start by reaffirming in the strongest terms both my and the Government's commitment to the Community. The British people made a wise decision six years ago when they voted in the referendum by a majority of two to one to remain in the Community. Community membership offers Britain the best and, indeed, the only satisfactory basis on which to build our future prosperity and economic strength.
  Our trade with the Community has reached a point where it takes 43 per cent. of our exports—60 per cent. if we include the European associates to whose markets we also enjoy tariff-free access. There has been a steady increase in industrial investment in Britain by American, Japanese and other overseas firms which, to a considerable extent, are attracted here by the fact that we are part of a free market of 270 million people. That investment, as we all know, means a great deal in terms of new jobs and new activity, most of it fortunately coming to the areas where it is most badly needed.
  The Community has given us greater weight in international economic negotiations. That last point has recently been vividly illustrated by the new consensus on minimum export credit rates, which should produce significant savings for the British taxpayer and which was reached largely as a result of pressure on Japan by the European Community and the United States acting in concert.
  Our belief in the Community doe not blind us to the defects that still remain in the way in which it works. On the contrary, it stengthens our determination to stick with our partners' ways of making it work better.
  The report that we are debating was produced by the Commission in pursuance of the mandate given to it in the agreement of 30 May 1980. That agreement among the Heads of Government of all the member States provided for substantial refunds of the United Kingdom's net budgetary contributions over the succeeding two, or possibly three, years, and went on to state that a structural solution designed to prevent the recurrence of any unacceptable situation would be decided by the end of 1981. Since I had nothing to do with the negotiations, I cannot be accused of immodesty when I say that the agreement was a significant step forward for Britain and the Community as whole.
  When we took office we inherited an intolerable situation. Unless some action had been taken, Britain, a country below the Community average level of prosperity, would have had to pay a net contribution of about £1,000 million a year into the Community. The Government changed that, thanks in no small part to the determination and negotiatiating skill of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  As a result, we have already received about £675 million as refunds of our net contribution for 1980. We shall receive the balance of the refunds due in respect of 1980 when the final calculations of our net contribution for that year are made.
  Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North):Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): I apologise for intervening so early in my right hon. Friend's speech, but an important calculation must be made if we pay the money one year and get it back a year or a year and a bit later. If there is money in the bank it earns interst, but if one has to borrow it one pays interest. Can my right hon. Friend at some stage calculate how much the delay in getting the money back has cost us, and therefore by how much the amount that we receive back has been reduced by the interest payments that we have had to make in the meantime?
  Mr. Atkins:Mr. Atkins: I could not do the mathematical calculation on my feet at the Dispatch Box, although it can be done. However, my point is that had we done nothing at all we should be paying £1,000 million a year, but as a result of the discussions in May 1980 we have got back £675 million, and we shall get more for the year 1980. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I propose to come to what we propose to do to replace that admittedly unsatisfactory arrangement, whereby we are out of the money for some time, with something better.
  I have spoken about 1980. We shall shortly be getting the first refunds in respect of 1981. The May 1980 agreement made a major reduction in our net contribution over those two years. As I said earlier, there is provision for a similar arrangement to apply to 1982 if necessary.
  However, it was only a temporary solution to a continuing problem. The 30 May agreement also pledged the Community to resolve the problem on a longer-term basis by means of structural changes. That was an important decision. It was agreed that the problem should be tackled through an examination of the development of all Community policies, including the common agricultural policy, with the aim of preventing the recurrence of unacceptable situations for any member State. The report before us gives the Commission's proposals on how that may be done.
  The report deals with the problem in three sections—the development of policies other than agricultural, the reform of the CAP and the problem of unacceptable net budgetary contributions. In the first section the Commission sets the problem within the broad context of Community development in the medium term and the need for the Community to meet the challenge of the 1980s. It calls for progress in a number of areas, including completion of the internal market, energy policy, development of the European monetary system and research and development. It recommends that the resources of the regional and social funds should be increased and concentrated on areas of particular need, in
  1044
  particular, that the regional fund should concentrate on areas suffering from underdevelopment as well as the problems of industrial decline. At the same time it says that the social fund should give more emphasis to current problems, particularly in regions where traditional industries are concentrated, and to preparing young people for working life.
  On the common agricultural policy, the Commission, although endorsing the basic principles of the policy, concludes that, since the Community is now more than self-sufficient for most agricultural products, sound management and the need to keep costs under control require that adjustments should be made to the way in which it operates in future. It recommends a number of guidelines, which include the following five: first, a price policy based on a narrowing of the gap between Community prices and prices applied by its main competitors; secondly, a limitation of the open-ended price guarantee, so that if Community production exceeds certain thresholds the full Community price will not be paid; thirdly, the possibility of direct income support subsidies to certain producers in specific circumstances; fourthly, an active export policy which would honour the Community's international commitments; and, fifthly, stricter discipline over national aids to agriculture.
  It is the Commission's view that, if these guidelines are implemented, the Community's agricultural expenditure should grow more slowly than its financial resources, and that, of course, means that what we consider to be the excessive proportion of Community expenditure devoted to agriculture would be gradually reduced.
  Finally, in the third section dealing with the budget itself the Commission recognises that the United Kingdom continues to face an inequitable budget situation, mainly because it obtains a much smaller relative return from the CAP than do the other member States. It recommends that there should be a corrective mechanism based on the difference between the United Kingdom's share of Community gross national product and the proportion it obtains of FEOGA guarantee expenditure. It suggests that the corrective should be temporary, but should last until the development of other Community policies makes itself felt.
  Mr. Marlow:Mr. Marlow: I am terribly sorry to intervene again. My right hon. Friend talks about radical ideas for reform of the CAP. Reforms have been required and requested and plans put forward for years, going back to the Mansholt plan, which must be about 10 years old. Can my right hon. Friend really give us hope that this time changes will take place? What is the difference now that will make changes take place? If we do not get the changes within a limited time, will the Government take action unilaterally to support the consumer in the United Kingdom, who has been milked for so long by this wretched policy?
  Mr. Atkins:Mr. Atkins: The difference is that the Heads of Government on 30 May recognised the existence of the problem, instructed that work should be done to see how it could be resolved and told the Commission to produce ideas, and the Commission, for the first time that I know of, has produced them. Those are the ideas that I have outlined. I was about to comment on them. I have so far briefly put what the Commission, in pursuance of the mandate, produced as ideas about what should be done. That is a new departure.
  I should now like to make a number of detailed comments on the Commission's report. In general, although we believe that in some respects the report does not go far enough in the solutions that it puts forward and the approach to solving the budgetary problem is too narrowly based, we none the less regard it as a step in the right direction.
  The European Council at the end of June this year agreed on the procedure for handling the report. It called for work to be done so that conclusions could be reached by the Heads of Government at the next meeting of the European Council in London on 26 and 27 November. It is a major priority of our Presidency to ensure that we make decisive progress on the subject.
  Mr. Julius Silverman (Birmingham, Erdington):Mr. Julius Silverman (Birmingham, Erdington): As many of the proposals are not comprehensible and none is specific, how can the Council of Ministers on 26 November reach a definite conclusion on the document?
  Mr. Atkins:Mr. Atkins: I repeat again that we are discussing tonight the Commission's ideas produced in June on how the mandate given on 30 May 1980 might be fulfilled. In June, when the Heads of Government met in the European Council again, they called on member countries to sit down, discuss, negotiate and work out how best to solve the problem, whether by adopting the proposals or in some other way, and present Heads of Government with decisions for them to endorse, or, if decisions were not possible, at least alternatives to discuss and decide on. That is what is happening. Discussions have gone on steadily and intensively over the past weeks and months.
  I am glad to say that at the Foreign Affairs Council that I attended earlier in the week all member States represented recognised the need to accelerate the work, because 26 November is not far away. To facilitate decisions at the November meeting we are under instructions from our Heads of Government to do just that. It is accepted by all the countries that it is necessary to arrive in November at a position where the Council can take decisions.
  As I say, the negotiations have been and still are going on. The House will agree that it would not help our case to give details of the Government's negotiating hand tonight. However, I wish to explain how the Government view the main problems and how we hope to see the discussions develop.
  It has been agreed in the Community that discussions should be carried forward on a broad front, encompassing all three elements in the Commission's report. They are in fact closely connected. It is recognised that what is needed now is a general revitalisation of the Community and that our decisions should be taken in the context of an overall strategy to that end. My right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary has indeed been calling for this for some time. We wish this to apply to areas where no expenditure is required, such as the completion of the common market and the creation of common rules for the service industries, such as insurance, as well as to the Community's regional and social funds, whose expansion we have consistently supported and whose operation we feel should be focused more precisely on the main areas of need. It is welcome news that certain other countries, most recently the new French Government, have now made similar calls for the renewal of the Community through the development of its policies in these fields.
  In parallel, there will have to be genuine reforms in the CAP. A great deal of nonsense is talked about the CAP in Britain, It has become one of the "Aunt Sallies" of our time. Clearly, it would be ludicrous to "jettison" the CAP, as the Opposition amendment suggests. The CAP is a working system, imperfect but capable of improvement. All the Opposition have to offer is a hope and a prayer. They say "the British consumer would be free to buy food at the lowest prices". Where would we find the quantities that we would need at these "lowest prices"? Do they think the British consumer would have welcomed the opportunity to buy sugar at "lowest 'world prices" last year, when these were about £400 per tonne, compared with a Community price of £300 per tonne? Perhaps they do and will tell us.
  Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli):Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli): The right hon. Gentleman is misreading the amendment. The amendment does not say "lowest world prices". It specifically says "lowest prices". In any world market there is a lowest price.
  Mr. Atkins:Mr. Atkins: It is interesting to hear the Opposition's sudden interest in low prices. Under the Labour Administration, agricultural expenditure in the Community increased by an average of over 20 per cent. a year. Since the Conservative Party took office that figure has been 51/2 per cent.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster):Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster): My right hon. Friend referred to the Community's regional and social funds. He said that they should be focused more on the areas in need. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that this is the first time that we have succeeded in persuading anybody to include in any Community document areas in industrial decline? They are of paramount importance to this country.
  Mr. Atkins:Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend knows better than I whether it is the first time. That is a very important thing to do.
  Although the CAP policy is not perfect and needs improvement, our level of agricultural self-sufficiency has increased. Food prices have risen more slowly than the general rate of inflation. The "intervention stocks" that we hear so much about are in most cases down now to a few days' supply. I cannot understand how the Opposition's policy would do the Opposition's farmers, their dependent industries or our balance of payments any good.
  It is encouraging that the need for reform of the common agricultural policy is also generally recognised in the Community. That is a major step forward.
  Mr. Silverman:Mr. Silverman: Does not the mandate specifically exclude basic reform of the common agricultural policy?
  Mr. Atkins:Mr. Atkins: No, it does not. The hon. Gentleman should spend a moment or two reading the document. If he did so he would be able to make a useful contribution to the debate. Our aim is to make the most of this generally recognised need for reform and to work for serious and practical changes designed to lead to reductions in the Community's surpluses. That would therefore affect the common agricultural policy's share of expenditure.
  A central element in this must be a policy for agricultural price restraint on the lines proposed by the Commission. There will also have to be limitation of guarantees once certain production thresholds are passed. Measures of this sort should, however, not discriminate

  1047
  between producers so as to penalise efficiency. We are against further recourse to general or linear co-responsibility levies of the sort that have been tried in recent years.
  We also support the Commission's proposals for stricter control of national aids. They serve to distort the common market in agricultural produce. We are, however, cautious about the Commission's proposals for a more active export policy if these mean that the practice of exporting at heavy subsidy will be expanded. The Community must be careful of its obligations to its main trading partners, whether developed or developing. The overall objective must be to establish effective financial control over the CAP and reduce costs so that resources can be released within the 1 per cent. VAT ceiling for the other policies that the Community badly needs.
  The changes that I have outlined should make some contribution in due course to reducing the extent of our problem over the Community budget. Therefore, they will take time to bring about and their effect in the short term can only be small. This is why we endorse the Commission's conclusion that, in addition, corrective measures are needed to deal with the budgetary problem.
  We welcome the Commission's recognition that the United Kingdom is in an inequitable situation which must be corrected and the fact that it has proposed one way in which the correction could be made. However, we see this as a problem not just for the United Kingdom. The net contributions and receipts of all member States come about haphazardly as a result of separate decisions by different Councils on individual policies. No attempt is made at present to decide the overall pattern of the budget outcome. No member State would dream of proceeding this way at home. Any member State could in theory find itself in an unacceptable situation.
  It would be nonsense to find, for example, that after its accession Portugal, with a GNP of about half the Community average, was a net contributor. In practice, not only we but the German Government are saying that our net contribution is excessive and should not be openended.
  We have suggested that the right approach should be for the net contributions and receipts of all member States to be decided by the Community on the basis of objective criteria such as relative prosperity and population size. That we have to find an answer to this is clear. If the financial basis of the Community is acceptable to all, there will be much greater willingness to develop new and useful policies.
  Despite some speculative claims from Labour Members, the Commission's ideas are couched in general terms and it is simply not possible to make precise estimates of what its results would be for the United Kingdom. A great deal depends on the detailed implementation of any scheme, whether the Commission's or another. That is a key part of the negotiation.
  Mr. Marlow:Mr. Marlow: I am sorry to interrupt again. My right hon. Friend has been more than kind so far. When we are talking about our net contribution, will my right hon. Friend, when he is looking at it and putting it to the Community, remember that not only are we making a net contribution to the budget, but that, by and large, over the years we shall be forced to buy—if the common
  1048
  agricultural policy stays roughly as it is or under any conceivable CAP—some of our food from Europe? We would otherwise be able to buy that food on the world market—often at lower prices. The present policy is a real additional burden on the United Kingdom housewife and community, It is just the same as a budget contribution, but additional to it. When we are looking at the amount spent on the Community they must in fairness be added together.
  Mr. Atkins:Mr. Atkins: When considering the balance sheet of the advantage and disadvantage to the United Kingdom of belonging to the Community, one has to take into account factors other than the budgetary outcome alone. Many factors can be brought into the balance sheet, but I was talking only about the budget, while focusing on the fact that our budgetary contribution was unacceptable and had to be put right and suggesting that, although we are glad that the Commission has made one suggestion about how that might be done, we believe that it can be done better and more fairly in a different way. We have been negotiating with our Community partners and we have every intention of carrying the negotiations through to a successful conclusion.
  We achieved a firm Community pledge in the 30 May agreement to resolve the problem. We have a Commission report which provides a useful starting point. We have a shared interest with our partners in the Community in further developing a number of policies which we ourselves support, in eliminating the wastefulness of some aspects of the CAP and in preventing the recurrence of unacceptable budgetary situations. These are all major elements in our favour, and we shall build on them. The Government utterly reject the defeatism of most of those on the Labour Benches.
  Even when in Government, the Labour Party's record of determination to secure improvements in the Community was less than impressive, Labour's famous "renegotiation" never yielded a single penny in refunds of our net contribution, and yet, without regard to the substantial achievements that the Government have made, the Opposition are saying that it is all too difficult and suddenly, apparently, the Community is incompatible with the pursuit of true Socialism—a view which is rejected by all their Socialist colleagues in Europe.
  The national executive committee of the Labour Party and the TUC are now, I gather, embarking on an analysis of the economic and political consequences of withdrawal from the Community. Personally, I should have made the analysis before announcing the policy—but so be it. I shall be interested in the results. I hope, however, that when we emerge from the current negotiations Labour Members will look honestly at their policies on the Community. But I would much rather that they backed the true British interest, which is to secure a better Community which works more effectively to the benefit of its citizens.
  Let me sum up. We are determined to achieve a satisfactory solution to the problem of budgetary contributions, a reform of the CAP and the development of other policies leading to a better balance in Community expenditure. Membership of the Community is the essential framework within which we have to increase the economic strength and prosperity of our country. I therefore hope that all hon. Members will support the Government's efforts to bring that about.
  7.3 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli):Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "notes that the proposals contained in the Commission Document (COM (81) (300) of 22nd June 1981 in respect of the Mandate of 30th May 1980 are totally inadequate to remove the heavy burden imposed upon the economy of the United Kingdom by the Common Agricultural Policy and the budgetary arrangements of the Community; further notes that that burden can only be removed by jettisoning the antiquated mechanisms of the Common Agricultural Policy so that the British consumer is free to buy food at the lowest prices; and urges Her Majesty's Government to reject any new arrangements which fail to ensure that the United Kingdom's contributions to the Community Budget do not exceed its receipts."
  I add my welcome to the Lord Privy Seal following his move from the rigours of Northern Ireland to the calmer waters of the Foreign Office. His Minister of State told us on Monday that Foreign Office Ministers never panic. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman has the good sense to throw out of the window the collected works of John Maynard Keynes, which his predecessor kept in his room, and to indent for the collected works of Milton Friedman he will have no need to panic.
  As the right hon. Gentleman told the House, our debate concerns the mandate which arises from the famous temporary compromise of 30 May last year on Britain's budgetary contribution. The Government have tabled a motion in suitably vague terms and the Opposition have moved a precise amendment. The document is utterly inadequate to solve the problem and we heard nothing from the Lord Privy Seal to suggest otherwise. The best that he could muster, with all the authority of the Foreign Office, was that it was a step in the right direction.
  The document shows that the Commission does not have the will to present any radical proposals for change. In the immortal phrase of Ernest Bevin, most of the document is "Clitch after clitch after clitch". The best example of its vacuuity is paragraph 4:
  "In this way the Community will finally take its rightful place in the world and become a catalyst for peace and development".
  Considering that most of the senior officials who worked on that document are probably earning at least £40,000 a year tax free, one could have expected them to do better than to write that sort of rubbish.
  The document is supposed to set out proposals for finding a permanent solution to the absurd situation of the United Kingdom always having paid far more money to the Community than it has received in return. However, out of 28 pages of what I charitably describe as prose, a mere two pages are specifically devoted to the United Kingdom's unacceptable situation. The paper takes 12 pages to get to the CAP and when it does it produces this dazzling sentence:
  "the result of twenty years of the application of the C.A.P. is positive."
  We in Britain could rewrite that statement to read "The result of eight years of the application of the CAP is a positive disaster".
  The Commission makes it clear that it has no intention of putting forward radical suggestions. It states candidly in paragraph 19:
  "It is neither possible nor desirable to jettison the mechanisms of the common agricultural policy".
  We must have some sympathy with the Commission, because even if it wished to put forward radical policies—though I doubt whether it would, since it has a
  1050
  vested interest in the bureacracy of the CAP—its hands are tied. The Lord Privy Seal glossed over the temporary compromise, but it is clear that the Commission is not allowed to produce radical policies. The damage was done in the compromise.
  The House will remember what happened on that occasion. The Foreign Office and the Prime Minister accepted a compromise arrangement which we have always argued was damaging to Britain and which should never have been accepted in the form that it was. Let us consider that compromise. First, the Prime Minister accepted half a loaf, having said that she would not do that. She accepted a temporary amelioration for only two years, but in every debate in the House she and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made it clear that the Government were looking for a permanent solution.
  But perhaps even worse than those two aspects of the compromise was the acceptance that any proposal for change should not call into question the basic principles—these words are used clearly in the communiqué
  and the compromise—of the common agricultural policy and of the budgetary arrangements. Once that pass has been sold, once that bargaining counter has been given up, there is no way in which we can possibly get any satisfactory solution of this problem in the interests of Britain. The common agricultural policy and the budgetary arrangements of the Common Market are inimical to the best interests of this country, because they were devised without this country in mind.
  Mr. Humphrey Atkins:Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Am I not right in thinking that this was the position following the renegotiation in which the right hon. Gentleman had a hand?
  Mr. Davies:Mr. Davies: Of course the right hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that, and we have never disguised it. The point that we are making—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not try to make party points—[Interruption.] We are concerned here, as the right hon. Gentleman said in his splendid peroration, with the interests of Britain, and I should have thought that he would want to raise the level of the debate and to look at the interests of Britain in this matter. It is not in the interests of Britain to be a party to these arrangements.
  Sir Anthony Meyer (Flint, West):Sir Anthony Meyer (Flint, West): Since the right hon. Gentleman is contending that the common agricultural policy is a bad way of sustaining British agriculture, would he care to confirm that, after an examination by the Labour Party of the cost of reverting to a deficiency payment system, it was found that out of six sets of assumptions on which a deficiency payment system could be based the minimum cost was £400 million a year and the maximum cost was £1,700 million a year, and that all the other assumptions, apart from the one that I first mentioned, were substantially larger than the sum expended by Britain on the common agricultural policy?
  Mr. Davies:Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, misses the point. The common agricultural policy is damaging to Britain in many ways, and no doubt we can debate the question of costs on the appropriate occasion. The point that I am making now is that it is not possible, once the basic principles are not challenged, to make the common agricultural policy beneficial either to British agriculture or to the British consumer.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nicholas Ridley):The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): Why, then, did the right hon.

  1051
  Gentleman remain in the Labour Government which commended to the House the common agricultural policy after their renegotiation in 1975?
  Mr. Davies:Mr. Davies: That is the kind of silly remark that we expect from the Financial Secretary. This is the second debate on Foreign Office matters at which a Treasury Minister has been present to keep an eye on the Foreign Office, and we are glad to see him taking part in the debate. My answer to his question is that I was not a member of the Government when that renegotiation took place.
  The paper deals and the Lord Privy Seal has dealt with the common agricultural policy. The Commission says clearly that all it is doing is to set out some adjustments to the CAP. It has given up the chance of any radical reform. It is not allowed to have it. So we are talking about adjustments, which it describes as guidelines. These are extremely vague and the Lord Privy Seal glossed over them quickly in his speech. Since they are only guidelines, I do not see how Mr. Ertl, the German Minister of Agriculture, will be able to accept them, or, indeed, that fierce lady who has just become Minister of Agriculture in France, and who sometimes sounds more Gaullist than Mr. Chirac on these matters. I cannot see her accepting them either. Perhaps we can be told by the Financial Secretary how the Government see these so-called guidelines being put into practice.
  One disturbing feature of the Commission's proposals is its desire, when it looks at the surpluses and the cost of the CAP, to extend the system of what is called co-responsibility to curb the milk surplus in the Community, and presumably also raise more money for the Commission, for in paragraph 24 the Commission report states:
  "For milk products, the Commission considers that the objective of controlling production can only be achieved if the principle of co-responsibility is extended."
  Stripped of the Community doublespeak, that means, in effect, a kind of tax on milk products. The Lord Privy Seal has great experience in these matters and I put this question to him: why on earth should the British dairy industry and the British consumer have to suffer this levy on milk when there is no surplus of milk products in Britain?
  The Lord Privy Seal mentioned the co-responsibility levy. I hope that we shall get a reassurance from the Government tonight that they will not agree to the ridiculous suggestion of a new co-responsibility levy for the ostensible purpose, apparently, of reducing the milk surplus. As a result of the co-responsibility levy, the consumers will have to pay more for their milk than they would otherwise have had to pay. It will also damage the dairy industry. It is wholly unnecessary to have such a policy.
  The suggestion of a co-responsibility levy demonstrates the absurdity of the CAP system. It is not simply a common agricultural policy; it is also a tax gathering policy. The agricultural system is one of the three heads of the own resources system and we find agriculture being used to raise revenue. That in itself is an extraordinary and retrograde system, because decisions are taken about farm policy not intrinsically on their merits—the co-responsibility levy is a classic example—but in order to raise more money for the Commission to spend on various other projects.
  It is clear that one of the main preoccupations of the Commission is to raise more money in order to further its plans. Paragraph 40 of the Commission document contains the extraordinarily arrogant statement:
  "The Commission cannot accept that an artificial ceiling be put on own resources".
  In other words, the Common Market should be allowed to spend what it wants and the money must then be found to pay for it. That is what the Commission is saying: the real world must not be allowed to intrude upon the Commission's grandiose designs. That is how the Common Market has operated up to now. That is what has happened. Projects have been approved and money then has to be found for those projects. That is why the Common Market is now getting into a serious financial crisis.
  Now that the 1 per cent. ceiling in VAT will probably be reached in a few years, depending on world prices, the Commission is desperate to raise more money, and that is one purpose of the document. I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary, who is one of the disciples of Mr. Milton Friedman, will make it absolutely clear tonight in his reply that the British Government will not in any circumstances agree either to a lifting of the ceiling of 1 per cent. or, indeed, to an abolition of that ceiling, and that the ceiling of 1 per cent. VAT contribution will stay in all circumstances. We know the Financial Secretary's puritan views on these matters, and I hope that we shall get that assurance from him.
  The system of collecting tax through VAT is in itself damaging to Britain. It is damaging for many reasons, but mainly because it is a poll tax. It is not a progressive form of taxation. It is based on spending in the economy, without taking into account a country's gross national product. It is therefore damaging to us as it is and would be even more damaging to us if the limit were raised.
  To some extent, the Commission has done everyone a favour by showing in the Commission document what little can be achieved by tinkering with the common agricultural policy. We believe that the only course now open is to start dismantling the CAP and to replace it with national aids to agriculture. I was sorry to hear the Lord Privy Seal endorsing the statement in the document that national aids to agriculture must be discouraged, because we believe that the best way to help British agriculture and the British consumer is gradually to replace the CAP and allow each country in Europe to support its own farmers according to its own traditions and its own agricultural industry. Why should the agricultural sectors of 10 Western European nations have to be fitted into the straitjacket of the common agricultural policy?
  Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester):Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester): Given the proportion of the Community budget that is expended on agriculture, should not the right hon. Gentleman come clean with the House? His proposals have precious little to do with aiding British farming or agriculture. They amount essentially to a wrecking policy to destroy the main mechanism of the Common Market.
  Mr. Davies:Mr. Davies: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman referred to the "main mechanism of the Common Market". The real purpose of the CAP is not to aid farming or benefit the consumer. It is there because nothing else is there. If it were removed, what would be left of the bureaucratic centralised operation? I do not believe that the Western Alliance will crumble as a result of the demise of the CAP.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East):Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East): The right hon. Gentleman has displayed on previous occasions his sure-footed grasp of EEC statistics. Last year he told us that 25 per cent. of the population of France was engaged in work on the land. I hope that he has now secured the right figure. Surely his argument points to the beneficial redistributive potential of EEC funds for Britain. If money is collected through agricultural levies and if we get money back for non-agricultural purposes because we have a small agricultural sector, that is redistribution that we should encourage and develop. Why is the right hon. Gentleman against that?
  Mr. Davies:Mr. Davies: Because we are not getting the money back. There is nothing in the document to suggest that we shall get it. One of our objections to the CAP is that it is the main reason why we have been making such large contributions to the budget. We are not receiving any compensatory refunds from the Common Market.
  Before Conservative Members say that dismantling the CAP amounts to a Marxist plot dreamt up by the Left, Transport House and Walworth Road, I remind the House that the House of Lords Select Committee on European Communities—it does excellent work under the chairmanship of Baroness White over the complete range of Common Market policy—in its 29th report on the reform of the budget states:
  "The Committee"—
  that is the Select Committee of the House of Lords—
  "has argued in this and previous reports that a solution is most likely to be found in increased national responsibility for agricultural expenditure."
  The Committee considered the issues objectively and came to the same conclusion as the Opposition: that the only way in which the problem can be solved—that is the budgetary problem and the problem of the CAP, because they are intertwined—is by moving away from a centralised bureaucratic CAP towards national aids for agriculture.
  It is the document's objective to try not to put forward some reform of the CAP but to remove permanently the unacceptable contributions that we make to the budget. The Commision admits—the Lord Privy Seal mentioned this—that the adjustment of the CAP that is proposed will not achieve the purpose of changing the contributions that we have to make to the EEC. Paragraph 41 states:
  "It is clear that their implementation could not have a significant impact for some time to come."

  The Commission then looks for an alternative scheme or policy to try to solve the problem. The problem arises in respect of the EEC budgetary year 1982 and onwards. The result of the compromise of 30 May is a mechanism for 1980 and 1981. As I understand it, there is no agreement at present on our net contribution for 1982. If there is no agreement for 1982, will the Financial Secretary indicate what our net contribution might be during that year? We have calculated that our net contribution for 1982, in the absence of an agreement, could be £1,250 million or more. That will be the starting figure. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what our net contribution for 1982 might be if the mechanism which the Commission is suggesting in the document is applied? The mechanism compares our share of the Community's GNP with our share of receipts under the CAP.
  If there are to be negotiations between now and the end of November, and if the negotiations take into account the system advocated by the Commission, surely the British
  1054
  Government must have the figures to enable them to determine whether the new scheme will be of benefit to Britain. The Opposition do not have the resources of the Foreign Office, the Treasury or the Commission, but we estimate that in 1982, under the Commission's so-called solution, we shall make a net contribution of about £800 million. Such a figure is unacceptable.
  If we assume that the proposals are not agreed and that the proposals for 1980–81 are agreed for 1982, what will be Britain's contribution? We believe that extending the compromise of 1980–81 would mean that for the budgetary year 1982 our contribution would be about £500 million. There have been no proposals from the British Government. The Lord Privy Seal said nothing on this issue and did not indicate the proposal that he favoured. It is clear that the Government do not have the foggiest idea how to solve the problem.
  As the amendment makes clear, and as the House has accepted unanimously on two occasions, the only real solution is for Britain not to contribute more to the budget than it receives. There is nothing revolutionary about that suggestion. As I have said, eight of the 10 members of the Community are already in that position. Only two member States contribute towards running the EEC—West Germany and Britain. What kind of a Community is it when only two members are paying to keep it going? Eight of the 10 members are receiving benefits from the Community in excess of the money that they put into it.
  Four of the five richest countries in the Community are the three Benelux countries and Denmark. If they were in broad balance instead of receiving money from the Community, that would free £1,000 million on last year's figures alone. That sum could be spread among the other member States. We are making a modest request. We are asking for something that eight of the 10 member States already enjoy. We are asking only for a broad balance.
  The French Government occasionally have to make a contribution, but in the past they have generally been in broad balance, despite the fact that they oppose in principle the notional juste retour. France has benefited from the notion of juste retour almost every year during its membership of the EEC.
  Mr. Marlow:Mr. Marlow: If I may put the same point to the right hon. Gentleman as I put to my right hon. Friend before, although the French Government are basically in broad balance budgetarily, they produce a mass of food which they sell to other Community countries at prices well above world prices. Although in terms of the budget they are in broad balance, they are making a massive profit out of the Community. That is one of the problems we are faced with when we try to renegotiate.
  Mr. Davies:Mr. Davies: I accept that. I am not arguing that France should not be in broad balance. If it is in broad balance—it may have other benefits from the Community too difficult to quantify in this debate—we ask that Britain should be in broad balance. We are not asking for more. That is a reasonable request. We want a fair and equitable balance in relation to our contributions to the Community. If past form is anything to go by, at the end of the day the Government will suggest a satisfactory solution. They have left the motion open to obtain a satisfactory solution and the Lord Privy Seal will use all his diplomatic arts to say that it is in the interests of Britain that we accept his solution. All we will get is a cobbled-up compromise that

  1055
  will last a few years and do nothing to solve the basic problem. We shall have to return to the matter time and again.
  If, on this occasion, the Government cannot produce a fundamental and radical change and are not able to solve this problem once and for all, the British people will not be fooled by any attempts to dress up this compromise as a permanent solution. What the Government will do is to increase the determination of the people of this country to rid themselves of the absurdity of the system and to free Britain once and for all from the shackles of the Treaty of Rome and the Treaty of Accession.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. George Gardiner (Reigate):Mr. George Gardiner (Reigate): It is a little late in the debate for me to join the welcome to my right hon. Friend in his new position but, at least, following the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), I hope that it is not too late for me to wish him well in his task. I believe that he has already chaired a meeting of the General or Foreign Affairs Council. My right hon. Friend has therefore become blooded in his new role very quickly. Given the importance of this subject and these proposed reforms to this country, it is a matter perhaps worthy of passing remark how little interest or enthusiasm they seem to have elicited on the Opposition Benches.
  For my sins, I look in each year at the Labour Party conference just to see what is happening. This year, I came away with the firm impression that these matters and the very question of our membership of the Community were burning issues. If they are of burning issues, the flame is certainly flickering very low this evening. I do not think that there have been more than five Members of the official Opposition present at one time.
  In fairness, I should say that it is even more remarkable that we have had not a single representative from either the Liberal Party or the Social Democratic Party to join these discussions. It had been my impression that a commitment to the Community was, if you like, a basic test of membership of the Alliance or either of its two constituent parts. Clearly, however, that enthusiasm does not extend to any wish to join in discussion of how the Community can be improved for this country or its institutions strengthened.
  Just before this report was presented by the Commission, I and one or two colleagues on the Government Benches had the opportunity to visit Brussels and to talk to Commissioners on how their ideas were taking shape. It is fair to say that we were impressed by their determination to apply some original thoughts to the problem before them and to come up with some propositions that they regarded as pretty radical.
  The Commissioners must have been disappointed at the criticism that has been heaped on their report from a number of quarters, most notably from within the European Parliament. It seems to me that the central and most important weakness, almost notable weakness, in their report is its treatment of the problem of the distribution of resources within the Community as if it were purely a British problem. It is, of course, not purely a British problem. It is dangerous to treat it as if it were. It is a Community problem.
  West Germany, since the settlement of May 1980, has become by far the largest net contributor. Many would
  1056
  argue that this is only fair, given the strength of the West German economy. What, however, are we to say about the position in which Portugal or Spain will find themselves under the present arrangements once they become Community members? Surely, we are not then to go through all this process yet again to ensure that Portugal, for example, does not become a large net contributor to the Community that it has joined.
  We need a corrective mechanism for the distribution of resources within the Community that will meet not only Britain's needs but also the foreseeable future needs of an expanding Community. United Kingdom Ministers have already made a constructive response to the suggestions outlined in this document. I am glad to see that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on 14 September made strongly the point that as things stand within the Community there is very little effective central management of the demands that are presented under different budget headings. He said:
  "The problem of budget imbalances has arisen because policy decisions are taken by different Councils in different contexts with little regard to cumulative effects on individual countries. If arbitrary consequences are to be avoided then the Community should, in our view, take conscious decisions on how the budget as a whole should affect individual member States."
  That must be an important element in any changed mechanisms that come out of the current discussions.
  Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East):Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East): Given that this is a laudable aim, is there anything in this document suggesting that such a view will be taken?
  Mr. Gardiner:Mr. Gardiner: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is one of the criticisms that can be levelled against the document. Indeed, it was the implicit criticism of it being levelled by the Minister of State in the remarks I have quoted. In further support of that, I make an observation that I have heard several times in Europe about the Council of Agriculture Ministers.
  It is observable often that it makes little difference which country the Minister represents and, indeed, whether the Government that sends him there is of the Right, the Right-center or Left complexion. Once there, they all act as Agriculture Ministers with their own farming votes to satisfy. The outcome presents a further headache for the remainder of their colleagues in the Community. I hope that we can create a structure in which the Community dog does not appear to be wagged quite so vigorously by that tail in the future.
  I have been perhaps a little critical of the Commission's report. There is one aspect that I should like to commend particularly to my right hon. Friend because, although he mentioned it in passing, he was obviously not able to dwell on it at length. That is the element concerning an expanded social fund. This is an element that could be of great beneficial value to the United Kingdom.
  It is a proposal that offers more new emphasis on job creation and preparing young people for working life. One of the things that we do rather badly in this country at the moment is to prepare young people and school leavers for working life. There is a great deal that we can learn from countries such as West Germany in this respect. It is very important, outside the context of this discussion, that we should devise better means for training young people and preparing them for industry, particularly immediately after they have left school, providing more flexible training than we do now and certainly over a much broader spread.
  If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment were able, over the coming Session or beyond that, to devise a more ambitious and imaginative and, at the same time, realistic programme for preparing those leaving school for the world of business and industry, I would hope that that would be an area that would attract strong support from the European budget, and particularly through the mechanisms of the social fund. My right hon. Friend and some of his colleagues might bear that in mind in the discussions that are shaping up further on the restructuring of the budget.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East):Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): Does not my hon. Friend accept that if he or anyone wants to have different forms of training for school leavers or anything else, there is nothing to stop us doing that now? What difference does it make whether this receives the stamp of the Common market social fund when we are net contributors to the budget and when every pound that we have got from Common market funds up to now has cost the British taxpayer £1.71? What difference does it make, particularly when the Government maintain the principle of additionality?
  Mr. Gardiner:Mr. Gardiner: With respect, I was not suggesting that schemes of the kind that I should like to see should be conditional upon receiving heavy support from the social fund. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If we want to do these things, we can go ahead and do them.
  Mr. Taylor:Mr. Taylor: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Gardiner:The point that I was making is that if we are seeking, as my hon. Friend is seeking, ways and means of getting more funds back into this country to balance those that go out, of which he has spoken frequently, this is a commendable way of doing it, and there is a great opportunity for us here to kill two birds with one stone.
  I should like to deal with the negative attitude displayed by the official Opposition's amendment. We must look at the amendment and what the Opposition have to say in the context of their official party policy to quit the Community, come what may, without giving the citizens of this country even the courtesy of a referendum to reverse the decision that they took so overwhelmingly in the previous one. It is not for me this evening to dwell on the disruptive effect that that would have in this country on a scale that is impossible to imagine. However, I wonder how the Opposition, in putting forward such an amendment, imagine that they can help the Government to negotiate better terms for Britain while at the same time trumpeting loudly from their conferences elsewhere that they are pledged to withdraw Britain from the European Community whatever happens.
  Although we always enjoy the contributions from the right hon. Member for Llanelli, particularly his shafts of unintended humour, we must regret that we do not have the pleasure this evening of the company of his right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), who, in the past, has treated us to some rather ambivalent thoughts on this subject. I should like to quote his remarks to us on 24 March 1980, when he seemed very confused as to whether it was a good thing for Britain to press for payments and refunds from the Community budget anyway, since he complained:
  1058
  "By seeking to secure increased Community expenditure in Britain we are allowing the EEC increasingly to determine our own public expenditure priorities and to increase its influence and competence over Government decisions in Britain."—
  [Official Report, 24 March 1980; Vol. 981, c. 1087.]
  The first thing that we would like to know from the Labour Party is whether it is in principle in favour of securing these refunds to us, and whether it wishes to see increasing Community expenditure in Britain on programmes of regional benefit—employment, retraining, or whatever.
  Secondly, the Opposition have some things to sort out on their side in this respect. They cannot, on the one hand, say that accepting increased Community expenditure in Britain robs us of power to determine our own public expenditure priorities and, on the other hand, at the same time, allow one of their representatives in the European Parliament, Mr. Richard Balfe, to use his position on that Parliament's finance committee to seek to chop in half the refunds that were negotiated for us by the Prime Minister in the teeth of such hard negotiations. The Opposition must sort out what it is that they want. Do they want Britain to have the primary say on where these resources go, or do they accept Mr. Balfe's arguments that it is some Community institution that should have the right of decision on, this money is spent? When we hear further Opposition speakers, I hope that they will clarify that point.
  Next, one cannot let this opportunity pass without drawing attention to the sheer hypocrisy underlying the amendment. Throughout Western Europe we have a problem of mounting unemployment. It has affected all members of the Community, but it is felt more acutely in Britain for reasons that were explained from the Front Bench only yesterday. In tackling this problem in this country, whether or not in conjunction with our partners, we must remember that it is access to Community markets that is essential for our industries and our jobs. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has pointed out how 43 per cent. of our exports go to Community markets, Indeed, it has been established that 21/4 million jobs or so depend directly on such sales.
  Of course, I am not pretending that if the Opposition had their way and we were to withdraw from the Community we would lose all those sales or, automatically, all those jobs. But it is a fact that if we succeeded in keeping two-thirds of that trade, the loss of the remaining third would still add 1 million to the dole queue that we have today.
  There is more to it than that.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor:Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gardiner:Mr. Gardiner: No. My hon. Friend will be able to develop his arguments later.
  We have heard in this debate of the non-budgetary benefits and costs which enter into these calculations. It has been said that West Germany, particularly in the context of its large net contribution, achieves non-budgetary benefits from this in terms of access to markets. A non-budgetary benefit that we in the United Kingdom get from this, and intend to get in a much more marked fashion, is the investment that we are trying to attract, the investment that is essential if we are to reduce the total of nearly 3 million unemployed and if we are to get the jobs that we need for the future. It is crucial that we get additional benefit, both within our own shores and from overseas investment.
  Recently we have had very encouraging investment decisions by a number of large overseas companies—the Burroughs Corporation, Yates Industries, Sony, Motorola, National Semi-Conductors, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, to name just a few. I note a sentence in a recent report from the Scottish Economic Planning Department. It said:
  "New investment projects"—
  in Scotland—
  "in recent months have often envisaged more than 80 per cent. of output being exported, most of this to Western Europe."
  Do we imagine that these investors will still come to this country and establish new plants here if, instead of a domestic market of 270 million people, there is a domestic market of only 56 million? We know very well that soon those investment resources would be diverted into the main market.
  Many of our own firms, too, would feel the pressure, as they felt before we joined the Community, of having to try to channel investment into the Community to get a foothold there. I maintain that that alone justifies an appeal to the House to treat the Opposition amendment with the contempt that it deserves.
  In so doing, I say to my right hon. Friend and his colleagues "Go on. Get the best deal you can for Britain and for a strengthened and more prosperous Community, and take no notice of the treacherous whining of the Opposition."
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Julius Silverman (Birmingham, Erdington):Mr. Julius Silverman (Birmingham, Erdington): I shall not follow the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), if for one reason only, and that is that I speak as the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation &c. For that reason I shall not refer to the merits of the motion, nor to those of the amendment.
  I want to put to the Lord Privy Seal one or two relevant questions. First, however, I should tell the House that this document has not been recommended for debate by our Committee. This is an interesting issue, and I shall go into its history in a moment.
  The first question that I want to ask is: why has this document been produced at all in its present form? The second question is: why, having been produced, is the document being debated today in the House?
  We should bear in mind the fact that the Commission had to fulfil its mandate by the end of June—by 26 June, I think. That means that it had to put concrete proposals before the Council before the end of June. Yet the document contains nothing like that. It is a vague document that expresses a number of sentiments, with perhaps one or two minor changes in direction.
  It is true that the Commission is inhibited by the terms of the mandate, which provides that the main principles of agricultural policy shall not be questioned. The main policies relating to Common Market finances—that is, mainly the own resources policy—also shall not be questioned. Those restrictions impose considerable difficulties on the Commission in proposing a restructuring of Community policy in that connection. It does not do so.
  Its policies are vague. In fact, that vagueness is commented upon in The World Today, which says:
  1060
  "Analysis of the Commission's report is complicated by its lack of clarity and coherence, It is in places vague or ambiguous and occasionally self-contradictory. The cause seems to have been that the final draft was prepared in haste."—
  I stress that point—
  "with several last-minute revisions, and translated from the original French in even greater haste. Perhaps also some differences within the Commission remained unresolved when the final text of the document was drawn up. The effect is that the reader has difficulty discerning what, if any, meaning to read into some passages and reconciling what is said in one place with what is said in another. Although negotiations may be facilitated if proposals of this sort are not set out in too much detail, they may be hampered if the imprecision is such that even the broad intent is obscured."
  I entirely agree with that analysis, having looked at the document.
  Sir Anthony Meyer:Sir Anthony Meyer: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I recognise that we have to debate the document that is before us, that being all that we have, but, as we all know, the Commission has produced much more specific proposals during the past week. Those proposals contain figures that go a long way towards meeting our requirements. It is unrealistic that we should be so bound by procedure that we cannot take account of the realities.
  Mr. Silverman:Mr. Silverman: The point is that we are not discussing those proposals. Our discussions are confined to the document that is before the House. That is the subject of our debate. If there are more precise proposals, clearly they should be brought before the House and discussed here. Not only should they be brought before the House, but, in accordance with the procedure of the House, in the first place they should be brought before the Scrutiny Committee and be discussed by that Committee and then reported to the House, recommending a debate on specific items.
  So far no other document relating to this matter has been brought before the Committee. That is a gross breach of procedure. Having read the report, I cannot help feeling that some time before 26 June—the deadline by which the Commission had to fulfil its task; in other words, produce the documents—someone said to someone else on the Commission "Look lads, we have to produce a document by 26 June", and so they produced something that has all the marks of being cobbled together at the last moment, as was pointed out by the article that I quoted. It contains sentiments that have long been in the minds of the Commission, but there is not a single specific proposal that the House or the Committee could discuss in concrete terms. That is my chief criticism of the document.
  It was for that reason that the Committee decided at the earliest possible moment that the Minister of State should give evidence to the Committee, not only to clarify the Commission's proposals, but to state the Government's attitude to them. I am bound to say that we have made little progress in that respect today. The invitation extended by the Committee to the Minister of State was to give evidence this morning, and we were astonished to learn a few days ago that the debate was to take place this afternoon. Clearly, that did not provide any time for the Committee to consider the proposals and then report to the House.
  That is a matter about which the Committee and the House have a serious grievance. The invitation to the Minister had to be cancelled. No doubt the invitation will be renewed in due course. Perhaps the Minister will bear that fact in mind. He will then be able to clarify these

  1061
  proposals and state with much greater clarity the Government's views on them. I regard the whole situation as most unsatisfactory, and I bring this matter to the House's attention.
  I ask two questions: first, can the Government say why the document in its present form was produced so late, bearing in mind that the mandate had to be fulfilled by 26 June, and why has this debate been organised for today? Secondly, why, if other documents have been brought forward, have they not been placed before the Scrutiny Committee and why are they not before the House today so that we can discuss them as an essential part of this debate? Those are questions that I am entitled to ask, not merely as a Member of the House, but as Chairman of the European Legislation Committee.
  I shall not go into any of the proposals in detail, but, speaking now as a Back-Bench Member of Parliament representing a West Midlands constituency, I wish to ask the Minister one specific question. I notice that it is suggested—it is a suggestion of which I do not disapprove—that there should be an extension of the social and regional funds and that in that way the United Kingdom Government could recoup a certain amount of their contribution. However, it should be pointed out that this matter was dealt with in the sixth annual report on European regional development, in which the Committee referred to projects having been approved in Scotland, North England, North-West England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  In the West Midlands there has been a savage deterioration in the level of employment, and it has occurred rapidly and suddenly. No reference is made to that in this document, and no project has been provided for the West Midlands. Of course, that is a matter that is decided not so much by the Commission as by the Government, and that is a broad aspect of Government policy that I should like to have explained. Those who are suffering most seriously, not merely in terms of unemployment but in terms of a huge deterioration in their position, do not: understand it, and I should like to hear the Minister's views on it.
  Those are the questions that I put to the Minister. I hope that before the end of the debate the House will hear the reply to them. I repeat that my Committee will renew its invitation to the Minister to give evidence, during which we look forward to hearing some clarification of the proposals.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East):Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): I share the views of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman), but I wonder why we are debating this matter at all. The document is little more than a series of broad generalisations which give no detailed indication of how the mandate can be carried out in a way which is politically acceptable to member States. What is more, to the extent that they are no more than general indications, they are not helpful to the United Kingdom. Those who doubt whether the paper is helpful should read page 5, which contains a full list of wide and general sentiments that make no real sense and give no indication of how the mandate can be pursued.
  In the mandate we are concerned largely about how we can resolve the problem of the common agricultural policy and member States' contributions to it. Having read the document and the Foreign Office paper on it, and having
  1062
  listened to the Minister and the Opposition Front Bench, I am depressed to discover that all the indications are that it will be extremely difficult—assuming that it is possible at all—to get any meaningful reform of the CAP which is politically acceptable to member States.
  As the Minister said, the obvious problem is that of production levels, which are likely to rise. How can they be controlled? The Commission seems to believe that the answer lies basically in lower prices. Unfortunately, there is no indication that these necessarily result in a reduction in production. Indeed, in some quarters it is argued that a lowering of prices often brings about a further increase in production. But even if lower prices worked, and even if such a solution brought Community prices into line with world prices and succeeded in controlling production, does the Minister seriously believe that such a proposal would be acceptable to all member States unless they agreed at the same time to national "fiddles.' whereby the money could be made up with national cash? The idea that we could solve the CAP problem by lowering prices is not politically acceptable to all member States, and I doubt whether it would be acceptable to Britain and its agriculture.
  What about the possibility of production curbs? The implication of co-responsibility payments basically is production curbs—in other words, we shall not finance open-ended production. Does the Treasury Minister believe that British agriculture—or French or German agriculture—will be prepared to accept what amounts to specific curbs on production? But even if that were the case, would it make sense in Britain's case when we are telling all our industries that they must become more efficient and productive? Our farming has a very good record in this connection. At a time when we are not self sufficient in food, how can we tell British farmers that they must produce less than at present? The Minister will be aware of the sentiments of those engaged in milk production about the existing co-responsibility levy.
  There is a third way, of course. The Commission hinted at it, and I was delighted with the response to it by the Lord Privy Seal. It is not only to continue with subsidised exports but to have general agreements for continuing exports of subsidised food. The Lord Privy Seal was right to say that we must not solve the problem of overproduction by having a massive increase in the amount of subsidised food, which will not only wreck the economies of the poorer countries but create an intolerable burden for the CAP.
  I am sure that Treasury Ministers were as appalled as I was that, despite all the promises, our exports of subsidised food to the Soviet Union last year broke all previous records. What is more, our exports of subsidised wine were way above all previous figures, and all the indications are that they will be up again this year.
  Whatever the Government do, I hope that they will not try to solve the problem of CAP over-production by a massive increase in the dumping of food throughout the world. The example of sugar is a very good one. By the dumping of surplus sugar at a very low price, great damage has been done to some of the poorest countries.
  Having listened to the Minister, I adhere to the view that I have held for a long time, that, despite all the Government's efforts, there is no realistic way in which we can look to major reforms of the CAP which are politically acceptable unless it is as the result of a "fiddle", by which I mean replacing CAP cash with national cash

  1063
  to supplement it, or finding ways of disposing of production other than destroying it, as we do at present, or exporting it at knock-down prices and thereby damaging the world economy.
  One hon. Member who has now left the Chamber repeatedly shouted "What about the farmers?" whenever a criticism was made by an Opposition Member. I accept that British agriculture has benefited from the CAP and the EEC. The prices made by British farmers have gone up considerably, since they have risen to EEC levels and the green pound has been removed. In this way British agriculture as a whole has benefited. however, I hope that those engaged in agriculture will look to the future with a view to deciding whether the CAP will be as good for them then as it is now. If we reform the CAP in any meaningful way, it means either curbs on prices or specific curbs on production, which will apply to efficient British agriculture as well as to those on the Continent who are still inefficient. In my view, there is no way in which we can increase prices without adding to the intolerable problems of overproduction by the EEC.
  In the circumstances, British agriculture should be looking to the future, realising that the only real hope of long-term prosperity will be if Britain looks after its own agriculture, bearing in mind that we are not self sufficient in food. I doubt whether anyone really believes that there is a genuine way in which the CAP can be reformed effectively to bring supply and demand into broad balance and to get rid of the cheating and fiddling which up till now have maintained the CAP. They can be contained so long as the Government adhere strictly to their commitment to a ceiling of 1 per cent.
  The only feature of the document which really worries me is that the Commission has been given an impossible task and that, as has happened in the past when given an almost impossible task, it has sought the answer in a further extension of Community activities, in setting up more organisations, in planning to spend more money and in trying to solve other problems because it cannot solve the ones before it. The paper states specifically that it is believed that it will help if there is an extension of the European monetary system, if there can be a Common Market energy policy and policies on new technology, training and employment.
  I hope that before the Government plunge into a further extension of our involvement with the Common Market and with the Common Market's policies they will make a genuine and serious independent study of the impact of the EEC on the British economy and British jobs. Whenever we ask specific questions on that matter, we are told that it is impossible to find out. In a question this week I asked why British unemployment has soared so substantially, more than that of almost any other country in the Western world, while the four little European countries which did not join the Common Market in 1973—Austria, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland—now have virtually full employment as in 1972.
  Mr. Dykes:Mr. Dykes: Really?
  Mr. Taylor:Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend knows the facts. He might say that Austria, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland are different from Britain, but they were different in 1972 as well. If we regard the plight of the jobless as our main concern, as we should, we should at least be prepared to
  1064
  look at obvious and prima facie evidence on why, since 1972, our unemployment has soared so much, while the little countries which stayed out of the Common Market have done wonderfully well. In Sweden the percentage of unemployment has reduced.
  The Minister cannot ignore this serious point. There must be an answer. I believe passionately that in our decision to join—this should colour the way in which we approach reform—we made a dreadful mistake for the British economy in that we joined when Western Europe as a whole was heading for decline. We joined at the time when the principle that "big is beautiful" was being destroyed, if one considers the economic situation in the world as a whole. We made the terrible mistake of making ourselves peripheral to what is a declining part of the world.
  That is my point of view, but the facts support it. Surely before we go further, as recommended by the paper, we should have a proper, objective inquiry, a proper assessment of the effect of the EEC on the British economy. The effects have been substantial and negative. The Government must accept that our giving a net sum of over £3,000 million since 1972—over £1 million a day—must have damaged the British economy. That cannot be denied. If any country, particularly one such as ours with problems, is having to give foreign aid of £1 million a day virtually for nothing, for which we pay more and get back less, that must do damage, because it means that we lose £3,000 million of public spending that we could have used in other helpful ways, for example, for investment and reducing taxation. I hope that that point is accepted by all hon. Members.
  It should be accepted generally that the CAP has damaged the British economy. It has given temporary relief to agriculture, but surely by removing the one competitive advantage that we had as a country—access to food at world prices—we have added considerably to the costs of British industry by unnecessarily forcing up the cost of living. No one knows whether we shall be able to buy the food at lower prices in the future. However, we know that there is a tax on imported butter of over 60p a pound, of 61.14p per pound on cheese, of 67p a pound on beef and of 27p a pound on lamb, which has pushed prices up considerably more than might otherwise have been the case. I obtained those figures from a parliamentary answer. Surely it must be accepted, even by the Euro-fanatics, that the CAP puts up prices in Britain and thereby adds to industrial costs.
  Mr. Dykes:Mr. Dykes: No.
  Mr. Taylor:Mr. Taylor: I hope that we shall not talk about slogans, but will look at the problem seriously and accept that if a tax is levied on food, if one's country is almost the largest importer of food in the world, and if those taxes are given to the Common Market, that must do some damage to the British economy.
  Mr Dykes:Mr Dykes: My hon. Friend knows that I was saying "No" because the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Industry have estimated twice that in domestic food prices in the shops in Britain the original EEC farm gate prices represent only at most 10 per cent. of the total effect of price increases. It is domestic inflation that has had the overwhelming effect.
  Mr. Taylor:Mr. Taylor: The Government and their Departments have made various assessments. We know that for their

  1065
  own good reasons the Government are trying to show the best face of the EEC. At present the Labour Party has a policy of withdrawal from the EEC. I do not believe that that will happen as the party is split too much. At the moment we are looking for propaganda.
  Sir Anthony Meyer:Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend insinuating that Government Departments are deliberately giving wrong figures?
  Mr. Taylor:Mr. Taylor: Certainly not. No Government Department would tell an untruth. If, for example, there is a series of six facts, three in one direction and three in another, it is possible for a Minister and others in their speeches to put more emphasis on one side than the other.
  Mr. Dykes:Mr. Dykes: What about my hon. Friend?
  Mr. Taylor:Mr. Taylor: I am trying to be objective. If any hon. Member disagrees with anything that I am saying, I hope that he will interrupt me. A parliamentary answer stated that the net cost to the housewives is £3,000 million per year, from which the costs of deficiency payments have to be deducted. I hope that it will be accepted that the CAP has damaged the British economy. We cannot assess the extent, but it has been a negative factor.
  No one can deny that if countries erect a common tariff barrier they will do more trade within that barrier. What has worried me is the way in which that trade has changed. The positive balance with Europe, which was consistent when trade was increasing before we joined the Common Market, with an average profit of £300 million a year in the eight years before we joined, has suddenly become an average annual loss of £1,300 million. While that has been happening, our trade in manufactures in the rest of the world has been improving. Everyone knows the figures, because they have been given in parliamentary answers, which are available to all.
  Mr. Dykes Mr. Dykes indicated dissent.
  Mr. Taylor:Mr. Taylor: It is silly for my hon. Friend to disagree. Those figures were given to me by the Secretary of State for Trade in an oral answer. For example, in 1978, 1979 and 1980, Britain had a profit in manufacturing trade of about £15,000 million. On the other hand, in our manufacturing trade with the EEC, we had a massive deficit of about £5,000 million. We made a profit in manufacturing trade before, but now we make a substantial manufacturing loss. That considerably affects jobs. Germany is referred to as our best customer. We are now doing more trade with Germany, but our deficit in manufactures last year was over £2,000 million, which is about double our deficit with Japan.
  What worries me even more is that we are becoming involved in more Socialist schemes through the EEC. That will do us more damage. We know the effect of the CAP. I fear that steel is moving in the same direction. Because we have problems with production, supply, prices and losses, we are moving slowly but surely towards a scheme for steel whereby there will be a substantial tariff wall, artificially high prices and controlled production. That will add considerably to the costs of British industry.
  Mr. Marlow:Mr. Marlow: This is alarming news. Quite reasonably, the Government are concerned about the effect of Japanese trade on the United Kingdom and about the massive deficit that we have with Japan in manufactured goods. My hon. Friend has said that we have a deficit in manufactured goods with the Federal Republic
  1066
  of Germany that is twice as big as our deficit with Japan. Is it any less wrong that one of my constituents should lose his job because of competition with German ball bearing factories that have been heavily invested in for some time, when compared with another hon. Member's constituent—half a person, for the sake of comparison—who has lost his job as a result of Japanese electronics and technology? Should not the Government be as vigorous in their pursuit of the problems with German trade as they have been in their pursuits of the problems with Japanese trade?
  Mr. Taylor:Mr. Taylor: The exact figures are set out in the parliamentary answer that I received. The deficit with Japan last year was £1,187 million, while the deficit with Germany amounted to £2,007 million. Should we become more involved, or should we stop and ask ourselves whether the EEC has been good for the British economy and whether it has damaged jobs? Is the EEC a great job destroyer? If it is, should we approach reform from a different point of view and refrain from becoming more deeply involved?
  It is possible to manufacture slogans and figures. It is also possible to pick out figures. I have made a desperate effort to avoid doing that. Let us take the figure mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) as that is at the nub of the argument. I refer to the figure of 1 million jobs. At Blackpool, it was included in the Prime Minister's speech. By coincidence, Mr. Roy Jenkins used it on the same day. It is suggested that if we lose one-third of our trade with the EEC when we leave it, 1 million jobs might be lost. The assumption is that one-third of our exports will disappear, but that none of our imports will disappear. It is strange that such a precise figure can be given, because whenever the Government are asked about the EEC's effect on jobs they say that it is neither possible nor realistic to isolate from all influences that bear on employment those that are due solely to our membership of the Common Market. I am scared that we are scratching round and looking for any figure that can be interpreted to show that the idea is good.
  We have had a referendum and a vote. The Labour Party is split from end to end on the issue of the EEC. I am sorry to say that, but it is true. Therefore, we must look for the right type of reform. We should try to get equal contributions. The CAP will not be effectively reformed not because of a conspiracy by nasty foreigners, but because a major reform will not be politically acceptable. Before we become further enmeshed in more Euro-steel plans, Euro-energy plans, Euro-training plans and Euro-employment plans, we should stop and objectively consider why Britain has suffered massive and soaring unemployment since 1972. We have suffered greater unemployment than that experienced in the other EEC countries and infinitely more than those countries that did not join the EEC. The time has come to look at the situation objectively so that we can see which type of reform is most suited to the special problems of our poor nation.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East):Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East): I shall try to follow the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) in his objectivity and non-selectivity. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one of the major adverse factors in our relationship with the EEC is that we joined it when the

  1067
  European economy was slowing down. Therefore, many of the arguments that my colleagues and I used in the 1960s were less relevant as a result of the slowdown in world and European trade that followed the OPEC price rises.
  I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that the common agricultural policy has probably had a negative effect on the United Kingdom. However, it is impossible to put a value on security of supply, which has been one of the major facets of the CAP. I agree that the prospect of radical reform of the CAP is remote and will probably founder on the rock of vested interests among those of our partners who currently benefit so greatly from it and on the fact that for many in Europe the common agricultural policy is the Ark of the Covenant and the high spot of European achievement. They fear that if there were a root and branch reform of the EEC the whole structure would crumble. That is a major factor.
  If the position is as negative as the hon. Member for Southend, East says, that does not quite square with the desire expressed by the Iberian countries and possibly by Greece to play a full part within the EEC. The hon. Gentleman was a little disingenuous when he asked for an objective appraisal, a cost-benefit analysis of our relationship with the EEC. He knows as well as I that much of what he has asked for cannot be obtained. For example, who can calculate with any precision the tariffs that we may face if we leave the EEC? On the assumption that Britain would leave the EEC, who can make a proper analysis of the likely trends in world food production and the availability of agricultural supplies? Who could, with any precision, say what alternative markets—if any—there might be for the percentage of the 43 per cent. of our goods that we would certainly lose if Britain were no longer a member of the EEC? I fear that the hon. Gentleman is asking the impossible. From different standpoints the hon. Gentleman and I look at factors in a fairly subjective way.
  The mandate is based on the May 1980 agreement. On any criteria, the agreement represented a substantial step forward for Britain. The agreement covered only the years 1980 and 1981, with—if there were no clear agreement to the contrary—a probable follow-through to the budget year 1982. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) asked the Minister several important questions. He asked what we were likely to pay over the exchanges—according to the best available estimates—in the budget year 1982 if the 1980 agreement were extended. If, on the other hand the current Commission's proposals were accepted, bridging the gap between our proportional gross national product and receipts from the CAP, what then would be the probable figure? We should like to gain some idea of the difference—probably negative—if the proposals contained in the mandate are accepted.
  A positive feature is that for the first time our partners have recognised that an "unacceptable situation" has arisen. Given the smallness of our agriculture sector and the fact that the EEC budget is predominantly oriented towards agriculture, that was probably inevitable. The Commission was given a clear task to examine current policies, to propose structural changes to the budget and,
  1068
  most important, to prevent a recurrence of the "unacceptable situation". It was asked, as far as was practicable, to provide a basis for a long-term solution.
  The response to the mandate, on any basis, must be disappointing, particularly given the substantial intellectual resources available to the Commission. It is a typical piece of Euro-schizophrenia, in that it is mighty in word, weak in deed and gradualist in detail. The part that relates specifically to the British contribution which, after all, was the purpose of the mandate, is found only towards the end. In my first rapid reading of the mandate document I almost missed the reference to the United Kingdom. The reader is forced to fight his way through a jungle of tangled verbiage to reach the weak and inadequate conclusion.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli has already set out the grand principles in the first few pages of the report:
  "the Community's institutions owe it to the people of Europe and to history to defend and develop this inheritance.
  The Community, soon to be enlarged to twelve, can set an example to the world.
  The Community will finally take its rightful place in the world and become a catalyst for peace",
  and so on. The principles are grand but the details are very inadequate.
  Paragraph 21 gives guidelines on the reform of the CAP. With the possible exception of the refusal to sanction increased national aids, they are clear and sensible enough. They advise a greater adherence to the market, greater selectivity, greater quality control, and so on. But the time scale is not right. If the guidelines were implemented in detail—one knows the political problems of that—they are likely to have very little short-term impact on the excesses of the CAP.
  Overall, the document is weak, partly because although the Commission was asked to provide a long-term solution to an unacceptable position, it has not done so. It has done a patching operation. The proposals that relate to the United Kingdom contribution are possibly less valuable to us than a continuation of the May 1980 agreement. The proposals are also weak because they exclude the Federal Republic of Germany, which, in terms of its contribution to the budget, is in an equally "unacceptable position". It pays over £1 billion per annum to the budget and has taken our place as the paymaster of Europe.
  The proposals cannot provide a long-term solution because there is little attention to enlargement. The implications of the accession of the Iberian countries in 1983–84 are mentioned in paragraph 17 but only in passing. As the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) said, at that time, on present principles, Portugal is likely to be a net contributor. If one compares Greece with Ireland, in terms of benefit per head of population, there is a factor of about 1:9 in favour of Ireland, which on any basis of integration and common purposes is wholly inequitable. Nothing is suggested to remedy that position, which will arise very soon.
  Although the grand federalist principles are enunciated in the opening paragraphs of the document, nowhere is there a serious suggestion of a transfer of resources between rich and poor on a European basis, as is done on a national basis by the tax or social security mechanisms.
  The essential weakness of the document is the gap between the aspirations—the grand principles—and the reality. The vision of the founding fathers, regrettably or not, is clearly not now realisable, yet lip service continues to be paid to that immediate post-war vision and a more

  1069
  realistic vision has not been adopted. If the new Europe is to have any meaning, it must be rooted in the possible. We shall have to jettison the expectation—grand though it was at the time—of the federalists in the immediate postwar world, when the old landmarks of Europe had been obliterated in the " European civil war".
  The new Europe must be based on the reality of national States pooling their sovereignty for perceived common purposes—be they industrial, commercial or political, as in the Middle East—for their mutual benefit. Hence, there will clearly be a need for agreement in the steel sector and also, one hopes, in response to the challenge from Japan. This co-operation on a basis of perceived problems can lead to a real unity in key areas.
  In my view, it should also be rooted in the concern of the people of Europe. Several hon. Members have mentioned employment, and the background faced by all our peoples within the Community is that of a worsening economic and social position.
  I welcome paragraph 36 on regional policy, which mentions greater selectivity. But, of course, after enlargement, areas in the United Kingdom are likely to find that their portions will be reduced because of the demands of Greece and eventually Spain and Portugal.
  So far as it goes, I also welcome paragraph 37 on the social fund, which talks about greater flexibility. Having said that, the problem of resources is touched on only gently in paragraph 45. Yet that is fundamental. Having said why I believe this document to be a wholly inadequate, short term and timid response to the mandate given at the end of May 1980, I should like to suggest the response of the Council of Ministers to it. The document's inadequacies should be recognised. It should be sent back. The Council of Ministers, as a body of responsible and accountable politicians rather than Commissioners and bureaucrats in Brussels, should realise that public opinion in Europe is increasingly bored with the enterprise—
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman:Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: As the hon. Gentleman has said, this document is only an outline. The debate is suffering very much, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) said, from the fact that we do not have the other five documents. Unfortunately, we cannot refer to them because they are not before the House. However, the hon. Gentleman should remember that the Council will have those documents.
  Mr. Anderson:Mr. Anderson: Documents can be produced indefinitely. But the Commission, with all the resources at its disposal and all the think tanks that have agonised over the direction of Europe, has emerged, with this inadequate document even though a quite sufficient period of one year was available. That suggests something about the decision-making processes within the Commission.
  The leaders of the various countries on the Council of Ministers should realise more and more that this approach is irrelevant to the problems as perceived by their own electorates. Unless more adequate propsals—perhaps the five documents; who knows what may be produced at the last minute?—are produced, it will be too late for Europe if the Community shows itself slow to respond to the real issues, worries and anxieties of our own people.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East):Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East): Like other hon. Members, I shall refer briefly to the inadequacy of the
  1070
  document before us. However, my thoughts and conclusions are different from those of other hon. Members.
  The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) made the mistake that is always made, namely, to blame the poor long-suffering Commission for producing inadequate proposals and timid documents. However, after years of bitter experience the Commission is fed up to the back teeth with continually being knocked on the head by the Council of Ministers, which in recent years has displayed a complete absence of any political and collective will to take the Community forward in an institutional and collective way.
  The demoralisation experienced continually in the Commission, as well as at lower levels and in most of the important directorates-general, is a problem that can be overcome only if the Council of Ministers resumes sufficient political will to take the Community forward. That is the tragedy. It means also that hon. Members who are malevolent towards the EEC and all that it stands for have a wonderful opportunity to have the best of both worlds. They say "How dare the Commission produce proposals" and "We want everything done on a national basis again", yet, when the Commission produces proposals they criticise them as being intrinsically inadequate and timid.
  If only we could elevate the debate about Europe and its future to a higher level of constructive proposal, it would improve the workings of the Community for all citizens and member States. We should do that instead of harking back to the fundamental argument about entry. We shall have to endure that even more in future, because the Labour Party—for internal reasons, as usual—has decided to advocate withdrawal from the Community.
  We have had slightly veiled references to that stance tonight from the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). I remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman's statistical, mathematical and intellectual authority collapsed last year when he declared boldly that 25 per cent. of the population of France was on the land, whereas the latest figure, issued six months ago, shows 91/2 per cent. No one can have confidence in a spokesman for the Opposition—now for foreign affairs, but previously for Treasury matters—who can make such a massive blunder. The right hon. Gentleman has still not apologised to the House; nor has he explained how he made that mistake. Everything that he says is coloured by that mistake, and not only his statistical but his intellectual authority has collapsed. Therefore, we cannot accept his arguments and we reject the amendment utterly.
  I was struck by the words of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal—and I, too, congratulate him on talking from the Front Bench for the first time on the subject—when he reminded us how modest is Britain's European Community contribution—although we agree that it should be reduced as much as possible pro rata in future and although our burden of payments is unfair. I believe that the whole House acknowledges and admits that.
  I am reminded of the figures in Cmnd. 8175 which show that, on an outturn basis for 1981–82, the net contribution of £531 million compares with total public spending in Britain of £104 billion. Social security alone takes nearly £28 billion, health and personal social services £121/2 billion, defence £12.3 billion, Scotland £5.7 billion and Northern Ireland—with a small

  1071
  population—£3.2 billion, and lending to nationalised industries was then estimated at £.1.8 billion, although it is now more.
  The reality is that we make a net contribution that looks relatively heavy in comparison with those of other member States, for accidental mechanistic reasons that are not the fault of either ourselves or other member States. They reflect a pattern of trading and a historical and economic pattern that are different from those of other member States, but they are becoming less so as the years go by. The sum that we receive in total benefits for our Community membership is a tiny figure.
  It remains extraordinarily incomprehensible and bizarre that the Labour Party is in favour of increasing public expenditure when it is domestic pound notes, but not when it is Community pound notes, or whatever currency we are dealing with. That is a gross inconsistency that it has never properly explained.
  I wish that the document were more concrete in its proposals. I agree with the suggestion that the CAP proposals are more radical and bolder than some people would give the Commission credit for. I do not believe that the proposals are timorous in that sense. The Commission is now going along the right lines.
  Mr. Marlow Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Dykes:Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend has intervened five times in this debate already, and those interventions have been long. I believe that in the previous EEC debate he made 10 extremely lengthy interventions. The House is sick and tired of his silly contributions. As I said earlier, we now wish to elevate the debate, and I should prefer my hon. Friend to keep quiet and listen to my remarks. Otherwise, my speech will be too long, which will be unfair to succeeding speakers. My hon. Friend has far more than his fair share of time. He is the equivalent of France in terms of Community contributions—he gets too much.
  The document is more constructive than others on the agricultural proposals, particularly the idea of the production limiting mechanism. That is the point to focus on, so that we avoid the production excess problems. It is all very complicated, but that is the direction in which we should go. However, there is a dilemma for the House and for the Community, and we might as well face it. That is why I continually end up in favour of a significant expansion of the total Community budget. Some hon. Members on the Labour Benches may also be in favour of that, but they dare not admit it, because of the Labour Whips. That must be the only way to proceed.
  We all know that even if we limit agricultural spending in the Community budget—which is a good thing per se—there is no way in which we can substantially reduce it. That is unrealistic. Therefore, to get more of the desirable currency in pound notes that this country desperately needs in other non-farm areas we must have a major expansion of the Community budget. That is the way to cope with the problems of maldistribution of resources in the Community.
  If our pattern of trading, economic history and internal economic configuration is different from the others, because we have a small agricultural sector and import pro rata too much from the rest of the world in comparison with other member States, let us build up the social,
  1072
  regional and energy research and development funds—the other non-agricultural funds in the Community—to give us more money.
  Why is it so immoral and wicked to suggest a significant expansion of the Community budget? I hope that the Minister will listen to this idea. Let us make it 50 per cent. more. I know that this is difficult for some to take, but I am in favour of exceeding the 1 per cent. ceiling in due course. We do not have to worry about that happening now, because the inflation receipts and the rise in world food prices has kept the figure below 1 per cent. for longer than we expected two years ago, but eventually we shall come up against it.
  I am in favour of the Community raising international loans and borrowing money. A lot of that money could then come to this country and we could invest it in longterm capital projects. It is a good idea. I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) would accept those sensible ideas to build up the Community and not denigrate and knock it all the time.
  That denigration and knocking are more modulated now. I have an interesting document produced by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the European Reform Group, some of whom were previously in favour of withdrawal, but who now appear to have dropped that and only want reform. I hope that I am not misrepresenting them. It is a fascinating document, called "Eurofact". It costs 20p. I see from the last page that it was printed in Southend-on-Sea. The document asks:
  'don't we get advantages for our own people in freedom to work in the EEC and to obtain benefits? Yes, but this is rather one sided. In May 1979.… there were 620,000 EEC nationals over 16 … in the United Kingdom and 410, were at work."
  Mr. Teddy Taylor:Mr. Teddy Taylor: There is a comma after the "410" and it means 410,000.
  Mr. Dykes:Mr. Dykes: Perhaps the printers—Circle Services, 19 Clarence Road, Southend-on-Sea—will not make printing errors next time.
  The question that is most important in the document is "Has our trade improved?" The answer is "Yes". However, I wish that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the European Reform Group would be balanced in their arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)—I do not know whether he arranged the printing of the pamphlet—knows that we do not normally have a surplus with other advanced areas of the world, including other member States.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor:Mr. Teddy Taylor: We used to have.
  Mr. Dykes:Mr. Dykes: Traditionally, we normally had a surplus only with the less developed parts of the world. We never normally had a surplus with any advanced area, whether in the EEC or not. That is the point on which my right hon. and hon. Friends must focus.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor:Mr. Teddy Taylor: It is not true.
  Mr. Dykes:Mr. Dykes: I shall not give way, because time is short. I make my points and it is for hon. Members to deal with them later.
  I was struck by the contrast between the Labour Party's attitude and that of the French Socialists to the Community and to this document. On 13 October the French Minister in charge of European affairs issued a memorandum on behalf of the new French Government. That document

  1073
  emphasises points that would fit in with not only the philosophy but some of the details of the document before us.
  The French Minister proposed, inter alia, increased Community borrowing to promote investment in high technological industry. He dealt with the expansion of the European monetary system and the greater efforts needed to align the economic policies of member States.
  We are confronted with high unemployment everywhere, although the figure is much worse here. That is not due to the reasons aired by some hon. Members. Unemployment is higher because our economy has been deflated more than the economies of other member States.
  Interestingly enough, the document deals with a proposal for the development of what is called "A European Social Space". That is not an inspired description. It states that job creation policies would be pursued by methods such as a reduction in the working week, which is coming in this country.
  It is interesting to contrast the positive ideas detailed by the French Socialists, who seem to want to have nothing to do with Labour Members here, and the negative attitude and ideas of the Labour Party in this country towards both this document and EEC membership.
  In the French memorandum there was an emphasised proposal for a greater drive towards European self-sufficiency in energy. Those key proposals fit in well and closely with some proposals in the Commission document. It sounds strange for me to say that the French Socialists have good ideas, but they do. I believe that we can follow the proposals in the memorandum and observe whether the Government can take them up when the European Council meets at the end of November.
  One of the most important aspects must be membership of the European monetary system. I wish that we could become a member as soon as possible.
  Another important point is the need to align the economic policies of member States. There is no point suggesting that one should have greater harmonisation of the Community budget but not the concomitant harmonisation of economic policies in general. Economic policies in general include interest rate policy, monetary control policy and all other parts of the total apparatus.
  We should aim for those objectives and not fear that we are losing some sort of essential totem sovereignty. That is out of date, old-fashioned and unreal. By working in close harmony in the Financial Council, the Finance Ministers could do much more. They would have greater control of the EEC budget, which is an important point, and would have greater co-ordinating ability of the different member States' economies. There would be a greater convergence of rhythm, output and expansion than we have now.
  We have to support what is stated in the proposal. We await the arrival of the document referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellet-Bowman).
  I refer finally to "European File" of October 1981. As hon. Members know, that is produced by the Commission. The Commission specifically referred to "The British problem". It said:
  "The advantage that each member country gains from Community membership cannot be solely computed in budgetary terms: the introduction of a common industrial market"—
  we still do not have that—
  "respect for European competition laws and the international role of the Community cannot be translated into budget credits."
  1074
  The document continued:
  "The recovery envisaged by the Commission would allow a better balance in the allocation of financial resources."
  I believe that we must focus on that last point.
  "While waiting for the recovery to take hold, Community solidarity, meaning the desire to increase confidence between the member countries and thus enable new progress to be made, dictates that a solution be found to a problem that the Commission feels only really affects one country, the United Kingdom."
  I know that that is not the Government's view. They have asserted that the problem is common to other member States. We know that we are suffering the worst effects of the imbalance and dislocation, but we should give the essential combined will to the Community—the Commission and the Council of Ministers acting together—to rectify that problem, while expanding the Community and building up the budget so that we can build up the British national economy again.
  8.56 pm
  Sir Anthony Meyer (Flint, West):Sir Anthony Meyer (Flint, West): By calling my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) before me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have saved the House some time, because he has made the most of the points that I intended to make in what I expected to be a brief intervention anyway.
  The admittedly rather battered document before us is an early part of the process of trying to make the EEC a more just Community. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal called it a step in the right direction and I am certain that, under the Presidency of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary and the other Ministers who have greatly distinguished themselves in conducting the meetings over which they have presided, the process of making the Community fairer and more just will be carried forward rapidly.
  It is important that the Community should be seen to be even handed in its treatment of member States. Almost all the firms in this country are aware of the need for us to remain within the EEC and to retain guaranteed access to a market of 270 million consumers. Of course, there are worries, eagerly fanned by those who oppose our membership, that, whereas we obey the rules, no one else does. Therefore, I welcome the emphasis in the document on the importance of an effective competition policy.
  A firm in my constituency that manufactures steel wire is gravely threatened by what it regards as unfair competition from Italian producers of steel wire. It has tried repeatedly to get figures to prove that the competition is unfair, but is reconciled to being unable to establish that. A properly enforced and effective competition policy would go a long way towards making that firm feel that at least it was not fighting with one hand tied behind its back.
  I should like to raise a matter, which I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to deal with, but which I hope he will pass on to the appropriate Minister. I suspect that some firms are damaged by the operation of parts of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 that may prevent sensible zoning arrangements that could enormously reduce the distribution costs of British firms.
  For example, if the firm in my constituency is having to beat off competition from an East Midlands firm by seeking outlets for its produce in East Anglia, both firms

  1075
  are incurring transport costs that diminish their advantage over, say, Italian exporters of steel wire who have to send their goods much further.
  Informal arrangements to encourage firms to seek customers in their own areas, as far as possible, would maximise the distribution costs advantage of local firms, as opposed to overseas firms, but they might fall foul of the 1976 Act. I should like Ministers to consider whether the Act is imposing unnecessary additional burdens beyond the requirements of a fair EEC competition policy.
  It is now clear that the cause of British participation in the EEC has passed and recovered from its low point. Its unpopularity was very largely based on ignorance and was aggravated by the campaign that the Government necessarily had to wage in order to secure a reduction in our budget contribution.
  Public opinion polls are registering a slow but steady improvement in public opinion on the EEC. This will intensify as the Labour Party, which is the only major party committed to British withdrawal, continues on a downward spiral, which is in its turn given a fresh twist by the extremism of the policies that it is advocating. The Labour Party is all alone with a policy that becomes less and less tenable the more closely the party looks at it. The figures that we have exchanged this evening on the relative cost of maintaining British agriculture by deficiency payments go a long way to demonstrate it.
  It is very easy for people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and Labour Members to demonstrate the admitted manifold drawbacks of membership of the European Community. It is open to them to argue that we would be better off without membership. I do not for a moment accept that argument, but it is one that they are perfectly free to put forward. What cannot possibly be maintained is that this country could derive any conceivable advantage from withdrawing from the EEC, with all the consequent rupture of existing ties and the accusations of bad faith that would necessarily follow. That being so, I do not see how for one minute that argument can be sustained.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North):Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): I will be brief. All I wish to say to the Government on the issue of Europe is this: "You can fool some of the people some of the time but cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Please, when you are putting the case to the public, do not put things forward that are manifestly wrong".
  We hear about the million jobs that we would lose if we changed our association with the EEC. I am not saying, and most people are not saying, that we should come out, but we are getting a raw deal at the moment. It can be proved that the balance of jobs goes the other way. My hon. Friend the Member of Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) made a telling speech on that subject.
  When we go into the negotiations, all I ask is that the Government should remember the appalling deal that we are getting at the moment, and not just with the budget or the common agricultural policy, which is quite unsuited to a food importing country. There is the fact that we are buying European food when we could otherwise get it at world market prices. There is also the fact that we have a trading policy that does not suit us, given the difference between our industry and European industry.
  I say to the Government: "Fight for Britain within Europe, and if you get it right the British people will become more enthusiastic towards Europe. If you get it wrong, you will have the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) putting before the public a popular platform, a popular programme, for getting out of the Community, which will destroy everything that you are trying to do."
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies:Mr. Denzil Davies: The debate has been fairly true to form in respect of the debates that we have on obscure Commission documents. They generally end in a kind of slanging match between the pro-Marketeers and the anti-Marketeers. Tonight it has been even worse because of the poor quality of the document before the House. Indeed, the slanging has come from the Conservative Party. We have had three pro-Market speeches from Tory Back Benchers and two anti-Market speeches. The debate has shown the deep split which exists in the Tory Party on this issue. Clearly, it is split as it has been in the past, and I do not see any evidence of that split resolving itself.
  We were told from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) that we should be debating five documents tonight. We have had one document, with no figures, but apparently there are five documents. I hope that the Financial Secretary will tell us why he has not seen fit to put before the House the five documents. We have read in The Guardian and the Financial Times about the figures that the Commission is producing on the CAP. I have no doubt that the Treasury and the Foreign Office have them. I am sure that they are at the fingertips of the Financial Secretary. Where are the five documents? We shall want to debate this matter again before the meeting on 25–26 November. The necessary information is not before the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give the assurance that we shall have a proper debate when the Treasury has considered the documents.
  Before the end of the year we shall be considering some sort of solution to the budgetary problem. The House should have all the necessary figures to enable it to make up its mind. I hope that the Financial Secretary will tell us something about the five documents and give the assurance that when we debate these matters again we shall have all the documents before us and not merely one inadequate Commission document.
  I put some specific questions to the Lord Privy Seal and I put them again to the Financial Secretary as a marker. I realise that I may not get a full answer on this occasion. First, what is the Government's attitude on the co-responsibility levy? Are they against the levy? Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will not agree to any increase in the VAT ceiling of 1 per cent.? Thirdly, does he agree that we must have comparative figures on the effect that the various suggestions will have upon our budgetary contribution? Those figures must include the present position, the position if we agree to the Community document and the position if there is no agreement. The House should be given the figures so that it can form a judgment and decide whether there is a satisfactory solution to Britain's budgetary problem.
  I am sorry that the three Conservative pro-Marketeers did not concede that it is reasonable to argue that Britain should not pay more into the Community than it receives

  1077
  from it. Surely there can be general agreement on that. I know that there are other factors to be taken into account. Those factors apply to all countries, including those which are net beneficiaries and those which are in deficit. However, there should and could be general agreement in the House that it is only fair and right that Britain should not pay more to the Community than it receives from it and that it should not be in a worse position than nine of the other countries of the Ten. It is disappointing that the Government are not accepting that part of the amendment. Surely they should accept that that is a sensible and equitable solution and that they should press for it.
  It is clear that at the end of the day we shall not get a satisfactory solution. This running sore will continue until the British people decide to withdraw from the Common Market.
  9.8 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nicholas Ridley):The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): Time will not permit me to answer all the questions to which I should like to respond. I say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) and the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) that the document before the House was produced so that the debate could take place. It was the Scrutiny Committee's desire that a debate should take place. Documents have been deposited in the past day or two, an event that took place after the Scrutiny Committee decided that it wanted the document that is now before us to be debated. In my opinion that was a correct decision because it is an important document. I see nothing improper in holding a debate—
  Mr. Denzil Davies:Mr. Denzil Davies: What about the other documents?
  Mr. Ridley:Mr. Ridley: They are laid in the Library now. They have only just arrived. The document before us is only a basis for negotiations. It is the Commission's document and not the Government's document. The final outcome will depend on negotiations in the Council.
  The agreement of 30 May 1980 was a great step forward. That was the view of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), although it does not seem to coincide with the view of the right hon. Member for Llanelli. He asked me what would be the results for 1982 on three different possibilities. If there is no agreement about the mandate, the form of refund is clearly set out in the 30 May agreement. It is impossible to calculate, because 1982 has not even been reached let alone the finances determined. If the Commission scheme, as set out, is adopted, it is impossible to estimate the effect, because it is only an outline and not a precise scheme. We do not yet know what will be the costs of the Community budget next year. The United Kingdom will not be satisfied with the scheme put forward by the Commission. We shall seek to find a better solution than that which appears to be contained in the Commission's document.
  Mr. Denzil Davies Mr. Denzil Davies rose—
  Mr. Ridley:Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken twice. I have many points to answer. I shall not give way.
  The Commission proposes to solve the mandate problem under three headings. One is non-agricultural expenditure. The reason why the hon. Member for Erdington has not yet received any assistance from the social or regional fund for his West Midlands constituency is that these contributions from the Community are
  1078
  accredited to assisted areas only. The West Midlands is not an assisted area. This does not affect the distribution of United Kingdom expenditure but in order to qualify for the refunds certain projects have to be put up. It does not affect United Kingdom expenditure. It is just a device for reclaiming our money. The heading on which the House has spent most time is that concerning agriculture. We do not question the principle of the common agricultural policy, although both the Government and the Commission admit that it is capable of reform and are in favour of reforming it.
  The United Kingdom Government are not in favour of the 1 per cent. ceiling being breached. This was one of the specific questions put by the right hon. Member for Llanelli although he is not even listening. We shall do our best to make sure that this does not happen. The amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman was to the effect that we should come out of the CAP and establish our own agricultural regime. We have had the benefit of hearing what the Labour Party intends in this respect. Its plans were leaked in an article in The Guardian on 19 October. The House should hear some of what that article stated. It should be heard by some of my hon. Friends who have alternative ideas to the CAP and the agricultural policy we should pursue. It stated:
  "Farm prices would be reduced in real terms and production of some commodities—the Labour Party discussion document suggests cereals, dairy produce and sugar—emphatically discouraged. A deficiency payments system would place a heavy burden on the taxpayer but enable shop prices to be held down … The burden on the Exchequer would be far higher than 10 years ago, the Labour plan admits, because, under the EEC regime British farm output has risen."
  The article goes on to say:
  "The cost of a new scheme would 'range between £400 millions and £1,700 millions a year at 1979 prices'".
  That is agricultural Ken Livingstone stuff. That is what the right hon. Member for Llanelli has in mind. He will spend far more on deficiency payments than we ever spent on the common agricultural policy and he will drive agriculture in this country into the grave.
  I should like to quote to the right hon. Gentleman his own party policy document, as reported in The Guardian article:
  "The discussion document suggests that the proposed policy would involve considerable loss of jobs in food manufacturing, as well as in the agricultural sectors earmarked for decline".
  The hypocrisy of the Labour Party in debating unemployment with tears in its eyes when it has positive plans for increasing it in agriculture is breathtaking. The idea that the Labour Party can produce a better agricultural policy than the CAP, with all its defects, is exploded by this detailed exposé of its policy. From what the right hon. Member for Llanelli said, I do not think that the anodyne amendment will be pressed. I can see why. When hon. Members, including those of my hon. Friends who have doubts about the CAP, see what is the alternative—massive agricultural devastation, and massive subsidies in order to try to placate the electorate—they will understand why it is better for us to stay within the CAP and try to renegotiate our contribution so that it is in accordance with the principles that the Government have always enunciated.
  Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the Report of the European Commission on the Mandate of 30th May 1980 (COM (81) (300)) and fully supports Her Majesty's Government in their determination to negotiate a satisfactory solution to the problems of budgetary contributions, to achieve reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy and to give an impetus to the development of Community policies.

  British Leyland
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Newton.]
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West):Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West): I wish to discuss on the Adjournment the situation at British Leyland and the threat that that poses to British manufacturing industry and our economy.
  After what the Opposition said in the House this afternoon, we regret very much that the Secretary of State for Industry has not seen fit to make a statement here this evening. Nevertheless, we are glad to see him present for this debate. We hope that he will be able to answer some of the pertinent questions about the dispute and to say, in particular, what action the Government will take to alleviate the situation.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) for withdrawing his Adjournment debate so that this debate could take place.
  Mr. Joseph Dean (Leeds, West):Mr. Joseph Dean (Leeds, West): When between 4,000 and 5,000 car workers lobbied the House of Commons last week because of the threat to the future of their industry, does not my right hon. Friend think that it is disgraceful that in this so-called bastion of democracy, and bearing in mind the fight that he put up earlier today, he has had to resort to asking one of our Back-Bench colleagues to give up an Adjournment debate so that this issue, which is of such importance, could be raised? Is it any wonder that some people outside this House decide that democracy itself is failing them?
  Mr. Orme:Mr. Orme: I take that point. Now, however, we must make the best of this debate from our point of view. We must put to the Government some of the crucial issues on which we want answers.
  As far as British Leyland is concerned, we are now at four minutes to midnight. We are within hours of the start of what would be one of the largest industrial disputes in Britain's recent history. I think that the Secretary of State is aware that the dispute is to start at midnight on Saturday and that on Sunday 1 November the first of the shifts will stop work. And this when there are about 3 million unemployed. In their inaction and ineptitude, the Government are not prepared to take any direct action.
  I have an editorial from The Engineer, of 22 October, a monthly magazine for middle and senior management. It says:
  "In another industry it might have worked. But at BL, 3.8 per cent. after three years of sub-inflation awards has reawakened the aggressive anger of the car workers.
  The Engineer warned a month ago that anything less than 4 per cent. would be insulting. The insult is now on the table and the value of employment by Britain's single most important manufacturer and exporter has dropped to the point where the reward for unemployment is worth within £10 a week as much as a pay packet.
  Even with nearly 3 million people seeking work, labour has a price below which it is not prepared to go. Sir Michael's advisers are better placed than most to measure that price, so it is perturbing that he should get it so badly wrong. Had the price of steel changed to the point where he had to alter his strategy, that change would be made."
  Well it can be made in wages.
  We referred this afternoon to ACAS and the negotiations that have taken place today. I shall quote again, because it bears repeating, the statement made by ACAS:
  "The separate exploratory discussions which ACAS has held with the trade unions and senior management of BL cars have not today produced any basis for reconciliation of the differences which exist between the parties. ACAS officials remain ready to assist in any way they can and will be keeping in touch with both sides."
  I have spoken to some of the senior negotiators of the trade unions tonight, and they tell me that, as they see the situation, the BL management has firmly slammed the door, that ACAS has exhausted its procedures, and that so far as they are aware no negotiations are taking place at present. If they are, perhaps the Secretary of State will tell the House the basis of those negotiations.
  We have a right to ask the Government what action they propose to take. British Leyland is a publicly owned company, and the responsibility for its future lies with this House and the Government, not with Sir Michael Edwardes and the BL board. It is therefore vital that we discuss this matter.
  I want to raise some of the issues with the Secretary of State, although not in a negotiating sense, because in my opinion the two sides are not far apart. It would be a disaster to allow this dispute to go on when there are means of resolving it.
  We know that the company offered 3.8 per cent. That was rejected by the unions because it was on the grade rates. They felt that after 5 per cent., 5 per cent. and 6.8 per cent., they were entitled to a larger increase. Management said that it had some proposals on the bonus scheme. Eventually management came up with some proposals which would have given the minimum—a floor of 3.8 per cent. on the bonus scheme which no one would go below. Examination shows that only a small minority of workers would be involved in that floor.
  The trade unions said "We have this bonus scheme. We are not parties to the way in which it is operated. It has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction within the company. However, if we have the bonus scheme and if the company would consolidate some, if not all, of the current bonus scheme on to the grade rates—in other words, transfer it over, and other benefits would arise because it would be on the grade rates—that would be a basis for negotiation." However, the management flatly refuses to take that action.
  I should like to know whether the Secretary of State has been involved throughout the negotiations, because he made an unfortunate statement outside the conference hall at the Conservative Party conference in Blackpool. He said:
  "I am supporting Michael Edwardes and the BL board right down the line."
  With those words he closed a crucial door which as Secretary of State for Industry he should have kept open. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of the industry, to reassume his impartial position, look at the issues on their merits and, as a consequence, help to get the negotiations started again.
  I was referring to the problem of consolidation. That would mean a transfer. It would also mean some new money—not entirely all new money, but some new money. We shall not get out of this dispute without some new money.
  Mr. George Gardiner (Reigate):Mr. George Gardiner (Reigate): Whose money?
  Mr. Orme:Mr. Orme: That is a very good question. It is the British people's money, and it has been put in jeopardy by the intransigence of the management of British Leyland
  1082
  and the Government. We have £1,000 million of taxpayers' money invested in British Leyland. We have the promise that the company will break even in 1983–84. We have the success of the Metro. We have the new Acclaim in production. Here is a chance for us to climb out of the pit. Now is the chance for the British taxpayers to get some return on their investment. If the company goes into liquidation, so does the money of the British taxpayers, and the Government, who pay lip service to the protection of taxpayers and to investing in publicly owned industries, should now be considering seriously what action they can and should take.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): My right hon. Friend will recall that this Government tried a similar exercise in the early part of the year with another group of workers, namely, the miners. As a result of their bluff being called—we see the same principle today: it is a game of bluff, with the Government trying to outwit the workers—in that instance although they vowed and declared that the pits would close, because the workers stood their ground, as there is no doubt they will in this case, within a few days the Government had to find £40 million. They do not need £40 million to settle this one.
  Mr. Orme:Mr. Orme: I accept what my hon. Friend says, and tonight's debate is about how we move from the present position. I shall press the Secretary of State very hard, because it is his responsibility to see that negotiations start tomorrow and that they are open negotiations. What is more, it would be very helpful if the right hon. Gentleman chaired a meeting of the British Leyland board and the trade unions, with all the facts and figures on the table, so that the matter could be discussed afresh.
  Having talked to the trade union leaders concerned throughout this week, I know their concern about the threatened dispute and I know that they do not want it to take place. The people working in British Leyland do not want it, but the vast majority say that enough is enough. Therefore, they have a right to ask for some action.
  It is a cause of great anxiety to many of us that below the surface certain comments are being made about liquidation and the selling off of vital parts of the company. It is acknowledged generally—Sir Michael Edwardes himself acknowledged it on the "Nationwide" programme last night—that the letter containing the threat of no redundancy payments was regrettable. Sir Michael went as near as he could to make an apology for the terms of that letter. But it is not sufficient to withdraw the letter. It is now important for Sir Michael Edwardes—and if he will not do it, someone else should—to get the negotiations going again.
  A statement that I received from a merchant bank source recently gave the following quotation:
  "Most likely the 3.8 per cent. wage offer will be accepted. If it is not and the company is broken up, its component parts may be quite successful and readily adapted to alternative activities."
  That quotation was by Professor Alan Walters, who is the special economic adviser to the Prime Minister. Are the Government sitting back so that the company can be broken up? We are entitled to know whether Professor Walters wants to see a successful car factory in one unit, such as British Leyland.
  The sacrifices which the workers have gone through are sufficient for the company to survive and for the Secretary of State to tell the House what steps he will take. We cannot afford to sit back and wait until the disaster occurs

  1083
  and then hope that everything will be put back. The effects of the threatened dispute on the company are already sufficient in themselves to make people aware of the problems if the dispute took place.
  Most hon. Members will have seen the article in The Times earlier this week by Sir Richard Dobson, a former chairman of British Leyland. He stated:
  "I would say to the board of BL and to the politicians behind them, please think once more … Do not mistake rigidity for courage; posterity will not thank you if the ship sinks for the lack of a ha'porth of tar."
  The general press comment has been unfavourable to British Leyland. People are now beginning to realise that Sir Michael Edwardes and the board have got it wrong. I fail to see why we could not have had meaningful negotiations. All week we have tried to help so that the negotiations could be started. We have not tried to exploit the situation politically. No one can give me evidence of that. We are trying to save the company because we are talking about half a million jobs in the British economy, skilled people who, it they are thrown out of work, will probably never return as there will be no such work available.
  We are talking about areas in the United Kingdom—the Midlands and elsewhere—which are dependent on the motor industry. We are also talking about component manufacturers who employ hundreds of thousands of workers. Those manufacturers are in the private sector, not the public sector. Many of them are almost dependent on a company of the size and capacity of British Leyland for their survival. Therefore, the knock-on effect of the closure of that company would affect hundreds of thousands of families up and down the country. How can we stand that on top of unemployment which is now over 3 million?
  The Secretary of State must act and take up his responsibility as Secretary of State. We want him to initiate negotiations tomorrow. We want to see the strike averted. In my opinion, it can be averted. There is no need for that strike. Perhaps some Conservative Members hope that the strike will take place, but I do not believe that the vast majority of hon. Members want the strike to take place. Many Conservative Members are seriously worried. I have heard them speak on the radio and have seen them quoted in the press. They have a right to be afraid of what might happen to their constituents. The problem will exist not only in Labour constituencies but throughout the country.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will answer the points that I have made. This is a major debate of great importance. I hope that we can avert the dispute. However, fresh measures and a fresh initiative are needed. Both sides must get round the negotiating table if a settlement is to be reached.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham):Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham): Hot air.
  Mr. Orme:Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman may say that while he leans back, but we are talking about half a million jobs in the British economy.
  Having put those points to the Secretary of State, I ask him to make a positive response.
  9.36 pm
  The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Patrick Jenkin):The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I hope that it will be considered helpful if I
  1084
  intervene now in the debate. However, I am not sure how much I shall be able to add to the information that is available to the House.
  The Government are well aware of the grave concern about the danger that looms over British Leyland, which has been most eloquently expressed by the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and which is felt both inside and outside the House. The Government's position has been made clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who answered questions on this subject on Tuesday and again this afternoon. The conduct of the negotiations over pay—for pay is at the heart of the dispute—is a matter for the management of the company and the unions involved. It is not, and cannot be, a matter for the Government—[Interruption.] I should like to develop that point, because it is at the heart of the issue.
  The management of the company is that appointed by the last Labour Government to manage British Leyland and, if possible, to restore the company to viability. Our predecessors backed the board with substantial sums of public money. They allocated to it about £870 million of taxpayers' money. As the House will remember, my immediate predecessor—the present Secretary of State for Education and Science—announced in January a further sum by way of support to British Leyland, amounting to —990 million. Part of that sum has already been made available and there is provision for the rest—about £540 million—to be made available to the company during the rest of 1981–82 and 1982–83.
  Confirmation that that sum will be available will depend, as in the past, on the company's submitting its annual corporate plan to the Government, embodying proposals consistent with the planned path to viability. The company has been making huge losses, which are continuing at the rate of about £500 million in the current year. But, thanks to very effective management, and with the full co-operation of the work force—Sir Michael Edwardes paid tribute to that on television last night—the groundwork has been laid for recovery and the results are beginning to show. The right hon. Member for Salford, West mentioned some of them.
  As the House knows, there are now new and, one hopes, very successful models of cars on the market. They have appeared on time and within planned costs. That in itself is a striking change from the recent past of the company. BL's market share has not only stopped falling, but is now rising, despite the most difficult trading environment for some decades. The productivity of the company is rising, despite the fact that the overall market has been falling. I know, because he has told me so, that the last thing that Sir Michael wants is the success for which he and all his work force have striven to be dashed from his hands. His reputation as a manager depends on his achievements in setting BL on the road to economic viability.
  Progress depends crucially—again as Sir Michael said on television last night—on the company keeping its costs firmly under control. Wage costs must be part of that process. If costs rise outside the limits of the corporate plan, that plan ceases to be viable and cannot be proceeded with.
  Mr. Skinner:Mr. Skinner: Sir Michael Edwardes got a 38 per cent. pay rise this year.
  Mr. Clinton Davis (Hackney, Central)Mr. Clinton Davis (Hackney, Central) rose—
  Mr. Jenkin:Mr. Jenkin: First, I shall answer the sedentary intervention of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I heard what he said. He has a clear and unmistakable voice.
  The auditors of BL are prepared to confirm that the average annual percentage compound rise in the period of Sir Michael's chairmanship of the company has been about 5 per cent. a year—[Interruption.] That is the cost to BL of his emoluments and pension.
  Mr. Clinton Davis Mr. Clinton Davis rose—
  Mr. Jenkin:Mr. Jenkin: As I said, if costs rise outside the limits of the corporate plan, it ceases to be viable and cannot be proceeded with. It is against that background that the present dispute has to be seen.
  The view of the board of BL has been made clear. It has said that if effective and financially damaging strike action takes place at BL, the board will have no option but to consult the Government on the steps that will be needed to liquidate those parts of the business that are prevented from working. That stage has not yet been reached.
  Mr. Clinton Davis Mr. Clinton Davis rose—
  Mr. Jenkin:Mr. Jenkin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I think that the House wishes to hear what I have to say. Hon. Members were asking loudly enough this afternoon.
  Strenuous efforts have been made by both sides to find a solution. The right hon. Member for Salford, West said that he thought that the unions were very anxious to find a solution, and I believe that that is true. I understand that the separate exploratory discussions that ACAS has held with trade unions and senior management of BL today have not produced any basis for reconciling the differences between the two parties. However, ACAS officials remain ready to assist in any way they can, and they remain in close touch with both sides. At this stage, therefore, I do not believe that it would be helpful to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in answering questions on this aspect on Tuesday and this afternoon.
  The right hon. Member for Salford West asked whether we wanted the company to survive. I go further: I want BL to succeed. I fully share his view that it would be a disaster for BL, a disaster for the industry and employment—not only in the West Midlands, but far beyond—and a disaster for the entire country if BL or any substantial part of it were forced by industrial action to close.
  I cannot put the point more clearly than it was put by one of my predecessors, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) when he was Secretary of State for Industry. He said:
  "I want all workers at Leyland, including those on unofficial strike today,"—
  as some of them were—
  "to be quite clear that their own future employment and the future of their company is now in their hands. They can kill it or they can save it. They will have no one else to blame or to thank."—[Official Report, 2 March 1977; Vol. 927, c. 391.]
  The right hon. Member for Salford, West has made a direct plea to me to intervene. In the Government's view that would not be helpful, and it would be quite inconsistent with the responsibilities and duties imposed upon the board of BL by the Government of which he was a member. This point was put clearly by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who as Prime Minister said:
  1086
  "A new leader for the company has been appointed. He must be supported. When he chooses to follow any path, we cannot tell him that he should do something else. If we put him there, we must back him."—[Official Report, 31 January 1978; Vol.943, c. 240.]
  That is precisely the position that I am in today, and it is the position of the Government. Of course, we must all hope that those who at present earn their living, whether as managers or members of the BL work force, will be able to settle their differences in time to avert the disaster that will otherwise assuredly befall them.
  Mr. Clinton Davis:Mr. Clinton Davis: How does the right hon. Gentleman equate the Government's intervention in buying off the miners' dispute with their refusal to intervene in this instance?
  Mr. Jenkin:Mr. Jenkin: The answer can be given clearly by referring to what the right hon. Member for Salford, West said. He said this was a public sector company, but he will know that although a substantial proportion of the shares are owned by the Government, both our predecessors and ourselves regard this as a private sector company. Indeed, the responsibilities conferred upon the board of a Companies Act company, which is what BL is, are precisely as set out by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. I quote his words again, because they are absolutely clear. He said of the leader of the company:
  "When he chooses to follow any path, we cannot tell him that he should do something else. If we put him there, we must back him."
  The Government are backing British Leyland to the tune of £990 million. When this dispute is settled, the balance of the money is there to become available on the submission of the corporate plan. We must all hope and pray that that is what happens.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."]
  9.48 pm
  Mr. Derek Foster (Bishop Auckland):Mr. Derek Foster (Bishop Auckland): This is a crucial debate. I am only surprised that the Secretary of State took so long to come to the House and make any kind of statement.
  Between 500,000 and 750,000 jobs are at stake. If parts of this company are liquidated, the whole of the West Midlands will be devastated. Many Conservative Members will not return to this House if that happens, and they know it. I wonder why they are not urging the Government to intervene at this stage to try to save the situation.
  If parts of the company are liquidated, the repercussions will be country wide. They will certainly be felt in the North-East and in my constituency, because Eaton Axles in Newton Aycliffe and Tolwood Multifasteners do a lot of work for British Leyland. My constituents will suffer as a result of the Government's inactivity. It certainly looks as though they intend to do nothing and that they are trying to wash their hands of this whole dispute. The Prime Minister boasted yesterday of her flexibility, but here is another instance of non-intervention. Yesterday, she boasted of her intervention, but this evening the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box and refuses to intervene.
  Had I been allowed to move the Adjournment tonight, I should have raised the case of Chamberlain Phipps in Bishop Auckland. It is odd that the managing director of that company is a graduate of the Sir Michael Edwardes's school of charm. He boasts, too, about the art of

  1087
  brinkmanship. As a result of his brinkmanship, 43 people in his company—which has only 100 employees—were sacked for taking one day's industrial action. In the eight years of that company's life 43 people were sacked through sheer mismanagement of an industrial dispute. We are talking about exactly the same thing this evening.
  The people who were sacked from that company were unable to claim unemployment benefit or supplementary benefit for themselves. When they tried to claim supplementary benefit for their families, it was docked by £12 a week. Many of them underwent great hardship. A man with six children received £22 a week to keep them and his wife. Another man received £9 to keep his wife for three weeks. That is the browbeating of work forces that is going on under the Government. We should like to make certain that it cannot happen.
  Oddly enough, that managing director also sent his work force a letter—a threatening one—which said that the employees would be sacked if they took one day's industrial action. That sort of approach to industrial relations is sweeping the country. People have the false idea that brinkmanship can work.
  I warn the Government to ensure that this goes no further. They will reap a bitter harvest if they try to browbeat the working people of Britain in that way. Then the situation will explode in their faces exactly as it has this evening. I plead with the Secretary of State to intervene and bring the two parties back to the negotiating table and let us have an end to this dispute.
  9.53 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley (Woolwich, West):Mr. Peter Bottomley (Woolwich, West): An encouraging sign in the debate is that so far there have been no attacks on the trade unions. Many of the employees of British Leyland believe that a strike is the answer to what they consider to be too low a pay offer.
  The question that the House needs to face—following the line of the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that this is not the place for negotiation—is whether it is right to put pressure on the management of British Leyland or the Government to increase the offer. I have not heard figures from the Opposition spokesman about the average earnings of BL employees. I believe that they are about the same as those of people in other car plants around Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] The figures would have been useful. If, as I believe, the average earnings are generally within pounds of each other—which I think the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has admitted—the question is whether British Leyland can afford another increase. It is no good considering more activity or intervention by the Government without being clear whether the Opposition or the unions are asking for extra money through the Government from other businesses.
  It is also incumbent on us all to consider what is being asked for. If the Opposition are suggesting that the extra percentage of basic pay should be, say, 5 per cent. instead of 3.8 per cent.—we are told that the gap is narrow but not how narrow—if the argument is that an extra 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. on the offer would be acceptable, the House must consider whether such an increase in a company requiring vast sums of taxpayers' money is justified. Then, if 5 per cent. is justified for a company that still needs substantial financial support from the Government, how
  1088
  much will be argued for in profitable companies? Again, if companies that are profitable but are not increasing their productivity or competitiveness and output by more than the 5 or 10 per cent. that would therefore seem sensible for a profit-making company have higher pay increases, what pay increases will be looked for in the public sector, teaching, the hospital service and throughout the economy?
  In the past two years we have witnessed a decline in industrial production and nominal earnings increases of 50 per cent. or more. In the next year, presumably, it will be more. We have seen a vast increase in unemployment, not solely because of nominal pay increases but in large part because of agreements made by employers and trade unions. I do not argue that we should solely blame trade unions for taking what they are offered or what they can force out of employers. We need a basic degree of realism.
  It is accepted that this is not the place for negotiation, but it is the place to put forward the public interest. It is in the public interest that the general level of pay increases in the forthcoming year should be kept down. Those pay increases will be nominal and not real, because we are not producing extra throughout the country to justify, or even make possible, an increase in the real standard of living. We are talking of artificial pay increases anyway. If we are talking about the level of artificial pay increases and we are concerned about the pensioner and people bringing up dependent children and all the other things that we want to do with real output, we should ask "If the pay increase for a loss-making company is more than 3.8 per cent. on basic rates, what about the rest of us?"
  The Government announced that they were thinking of a basic 4 per cent. cash limit in the public sector. We should have done the same for ourselves at the beginning of the pay round, so that we were not open to snide jeers from the Opposition Bench below the Gangway.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington):Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bottomley:Mr. Bottomley: Not at the moment.
  We should be willing to set an example. Even more than that, whether in the Labour Party or on the Government Back Benches, we should all be prepared to admit that the argument about more or less than 3.8 per cent. is artificial, because we have not even earned 3.8 per cent. extra on basic rates. I am prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Workington if he will answer my earlier question about the differences in average earnings among BL, Ford, Talbot and so on.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours:Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. It is not what the wage settlement costs. It is the cost to the industry if the dispute goes ahead. That is proved by the steel strike. According to Mr. MacGregor, the decision to take industrial action cost hundreds of millions of pounds. Will that happen again? The hon. Gentleman should consider what it will cost the country.
  Mr. Bottomley:Mr. Bottomley: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman on one understanding and he made a different point. If he will keep quiet for a moment, I will deal with the point he mentioned. My sole aim was to make the public interest case.
  There has been no argument that the cost to the nation of artificial pay increases of 3.8 per cent. is justified. The

  1089
  cost to the nation of the influence of a higher basic settlement per loss-making company is far greater than the Labour Party has been willing to admit.
  We may not be talking about comparability. We are certainly talking about a grave disadvantage to those now in work who may lose their jobs, to those out of work at the moment and to the whole range of public services that most of us are trying to protect. We hope to achieve a situation that will enable us to build on those services. It would be highly irresponsible of the Government to offer new money to British Leyland to pay for an artificial pay increase.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Newton.]
  Mr. Bottomley:Mr. Bottomley: I fully understand that British Leyland employees desire larger pay increases. Arguments this week that British Leyland should get extra money will be followed, as hon. Members said, by calls for extra money for the miners, followed by other such calls in a week's time for another group. Eventually we shall be led into a vicious spiral.
  I would take more seriously the special pleading for a case like British Leyland if the trade union movement as a whole, through the TUC or in another way, were willing to say a year in advance who were to be the special cases during a 12-month period. What is clearly wrong and inappropriate is to find a special case each week and month.
  The money being put into British Leyland is being put in by us as a whole. Other car workers, people in other industries, retired people and the whole community put money in. One union official said that one of the justifications for an extra increase was that the number of cars produced per man by British Leyland was vastly higher than it was a year ago. That is the kind of increase that should be paid for by bonuses and incentives. It is not justication for a substantially higher pay increase across the board.
  Until British Leyland can get into the position of a company like Ford, of producing profits and getting the right level of output across the whole range of vehicles, there is no justification for extra pay. The public interest demands that there should be a better case than saying that, because workers are going on strike, more public money must be paid. If that happens we are all lost.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker:Mr. Speaker: I hope that we can have brief speeches, because the wind-up is proposed for 10.20 pm.
  10.3 pm
  Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): It would have been unthinkable if the House had prorogued tomorrow without having a debate on this very important issue. I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), who has provided the time to enable us to debate this important issue. It is absolutely disgraceful that the Secretary of State for Industry was not willing to intervene earlier on.
  Let there be no doubt about the effect of any BL closure on the East Midlands. Registered unemployment in the East Midlands is now over 15 per cent. In my local travel-to-work area it is over 17 per cent., compared with less
  1090
  than 6 per cent. in May 1979. There can be no way whatsoever for British Leyland to be closed down. That would turn the West Midlands into an outright industrial wasteland.
  It is important to recognise that the matter affects not only those directly employed by British Leyland, for example, in Coventry and Birmingham, but many others. In my constituency and nearby—the Black Country areas of the West Midlands—much work is done for British Leyland—contract work, sub—contract work, component manufacturing and so on. A closure of British Leyland would have a devastating effect throughout the West Midlands. There can be no doubt about that.
  Mr. Reginald Freeson (Brent, East):Mr. Reginald Freeson (Brent, East): Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it goes far wider than that and will affect places as far away as London? The largest single ratepayer in my constituency is largely dependent upon the success of British Leyland. If BL goes, a large chunk of employment in the so-called prosperous Greater London area will also go.
  Mr. Winnick:Mr. Winnick: I take my right hon. Friend's point. The attitude adopted by the chairman of BL and his colleagues towards the unions and the work force has been unfortunate. I would describe Sir Michael's attitude as abrasive and hostile. There is a great deal of suspicion and mistrust in British Leyland plants, and a feeling that Sir Michael is doing his best to undermine the authority of the unions and representatives of the work force.
  Sir Michael's latest ploy seems to be similar to one that he has adopted previously, namely, going over the heads of the unions and saying to the work force, in effect, "Do not worry about the unions, ignore them, disobey what they say and do what we suggest". This time he will find that the ploy has not worked.
  A group of Labour Members from the West Midlands went to see the chairman and some of his colleagues on Monday. Sir Michael laid great emphasis on the bonus. One would imagine that it would be paid to all BL's employees, but that is not the case. I understand that it is likely to be paid to only about 5,000 of the 58,000 employees. Moreover, the bonus is complex. Far from its being easily understood, even senior managers do not understand how it will be worked out. It is wrong for the public relations machine at BL to give the impression that the bonus will be enjoyed by a majority of the work force.
  The Government have laid down a norm of 4 per cent. for wage rises, and I believe that the Secretary of State for Industry and his Cabinet colleagues are encouraging Sir Michael's attitude. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) to say that there is a shortage of money. We understand all the problems involved, but the BL work force has taken wage increases well below the rate of inflation in previous years. The current rate is over 12 per cent., yet the workers are being offered a wage rise of only 3.8 per cent.
  Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Hemel Hempstead):Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Hemel Hempstead): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Winnick:Mr. Winnick: No, I will not.
  Of course one also has to bear in mind the point that we made to Sir Michael when we met him on Monday, namely, his salary increase of 38 per cent. It does not matter what the Secretary of State says about a 5 per cent. increase on the salary bill. There was a 38 per cent.

  1091
  increase for the chairman, and in those circumstances one can understand why the work force wants a bigger wage increase than 3.8 per cent.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin:Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It is important that no hon. Member should continue to spread wrong statements on this matter. I understand precisely what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and the topic has caused some misunderstanding and aggravation among the BL work force. I want to put on record again that the cost to BL of Sir Michael Edwardes's remuneration will have increased at an annual rate of 5.1 per cent. compound over the five-year period of his service, excluding early retirement arrangements. British Leyland's auditors have verified that figure.
  Mr. Winnick:Mr. Winnick: The Secretary of State can play with figures as much as he likes, but the work force of BL understands only too well what a substantial increase has been received by the chairman.
  The Government have a direct responsibility to act to avoid a strike. The Secretary of State must not encourage Sir Michael in his obstinate attitude or encourage him to go over the heads of the unions. The right hon. Gentleman must recognise the impact that any prolonged strike in BL will have not just on the West Midlands, but throughout British industry.
  My view remains that the present chairman of BL is not capable of winning back the trust and support of the work force. It would be far better if Sir Michael Edwardes went. But for the immediate moment the responsibility falls on the Secretary of State. It is his job to make sure that there are meaningful discussions between management and unions. If they were to take place before Monday, there would be every possibility that the strike would not occur. I want the Secretary of State to act in a serious way and to avoid the devastating effect of a prolonged industrial dispute at British Leyland.
  10.10 pm
  Mr. Les Huckfield (Nuneaton):Mr. Les Huckfield (Nuneaton): I speak as a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, which has the largest membership in British Leyland, and also from a constituency point of view.
  It is worth bearing in mind that for the past three years the Leyland workers have accepted wage increases of 5 per cent., 5 per cent. and 6.8 per cent., and that the increase that Sir Michael. Edwardes gave himself—and it does not matter how the Secretary of State calculates it—was £38,000. One cannot get away from that. The average take-home pay, including bonus, of workers on grade rates at British Leyland is £72 a week, and that includes the vaunted bonus about which we have heard so much in the press recently.
  The 3.8 per cent. on offer to those on grade rates means a pay increase of £2.25 a week. That is what the company is offering. Sir Michael Edwardes, the company chairman, is saying that after a 40 per cent. productivity increase at Longbridge the workers can have a weekly increase of only £2.25, including the bonus guarantees that we have been talking about. That is after a productivity increase of 40 per cent. at Longbridge and 30 per cent. overall. With that kind of reward, Edwardes is saying that if the worker
  1092
  dare strike against it they will lose their jobs. That is tantamount to withdrawing the right to strike from British Leyland workers.
  What British Leyland workers have learnt is that accepting moderate wage settlements over the past three or four years simply does not guarantee their jobs. Since Sir Michael Edwardes has been chairman of the company, 70,000 workers in BL have lost their jobs.
  According to the Henley forecasting center, if after this collapse Jaguar were to be bought by private interests and if Land-Rover were to be bought by private interests, no fewer than 427,000 workers, employed either by British Leyland or its suppliers, would lose their jobs. That is the calculation that the Henley forecasting center has made, even if Jaguar, Land-Rover and Unipart—the so-called profitable parts—were to be bought by other interests. If the Secretary of State does not think that it is worth intervening to save that number of jobs, when will he intervene?
  The position gets even worse than that, for if British Leyland collapses we shall begin to see the accelerated pull-out from this country of the component manufacturers. If the component manufacturers leave, so also will what is left of the machine tool industry, and a good part of the engineering industry. Once they have gone there will be no need for Ford to stay in this country, there will be no need for General Motors, and there will be no need for Talbot. We have to calculate the effect that that would have on the steel industry and on all the other supplying and distributing industries.
  If the Secretary of State still does not think that it is worth intervening to save all those jobs—and we could be talking about well over 1 million jobs—he should resign, because now a major chunk of Britain's industrial base is directly in the hands of the Secretary of State. If the right hon. Gentleman does not intervene on behalf of the Government, he will have deliberately forfeited a major part of our industrial base that we shall never recover. My hon. Friends and I have supported our constituents against Sir Michael Edwardes in the past, and we shall support them against him again. What they are striking for or what they may take industrial action for is the right to work in British Leyland for a living wage and a right to save the industry in which they are employed.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Stechford):Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Stechford): The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) asked why those who work at British Leyland should be given an increase of 5 per cent. when the company is making losses. The answer that someone working at British Leyland would give to the hon. Gentleman is "Why should Sir Michael Edwardes have a 5.1 per cent. increase?" The losses are Sir Michael's losses as well as the losses of the other people who work at British Leyland.
  Secondly, Conservative Members must understand that the country will pay whether a bigger increase is given to the employees of British Leyland or the company is closed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) talked about the taxpayers' investment, but that is not the only issue. The country will pay because of the unemployment that will arise if British Leyland is closed.
  I know that there is an argument about whether British Leyland employees would receive unemployment benefit if they lost their jobs through being involved in an

  1093
  industrial dispute. We have been through that in the West Midlands in recent months with Ansells. But thousands of other people will also lose their jobs in other firms if British Leyland closes. They will receive unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit. Thousands will not get jobs at British Leyland and other companies if British Leyland closes. They will also receive supplementary benefit. School leavers will not have jobs and they, too, will qualify for supplementary benefit.
  Every taxpayer will lose as a result of losing the income tax that is currently paid by those who work at British Leyland. The country will lose because our balance of payments will suffer. We shall lose exports and we shall have more imports. The point is that the country will pay whatever decision is taken during the next few days or weeks.
  I urge the Government not to make the mistake that has been made by Sir Michael Edwardes. He has wholly misjudged the feelings of those who work at British Leyland. The auditors may say that Sir Michael has had an increase of only 5.1 per cent. for each of the years for which he has been at British Leyland. However, he has had a massive increase this year at the time of the current negotiations. It is what people feel that matters. Those who work at British Leyland feel immense resentment at learning that Sir Michael Edwardes has had an increase amounting to thousands of pounds when they can have only an increase of 3.8 per cent. As they see it, that is what is being presented to them on the basis that they can take it or leave it.
  The misjudgment was compounded by the infamous letter. That was the greatest mistake that Sir Michael Edwardes and his board could ever have made. I urge the Government not to make matters worse by underestimating the feelings of British Leyland employees about Sir Michael Edwardes.
  I urge the Government to intervene and to talk to trade union representatives and directors. The Secretary of State has admitted during this short debate that he has already been talking to Sir Michael Edwardes. He referred to what Sir Michael told him. Why will the right hon. Gentleman not talk to trade union representatives in an attempt to prevent the closure of British Leyland?
  At the very least, if British Leyland closes and all those who work there lose their jobs, will he make it clear that it will apply to Sir Michael Edwardes as well as to the rest?
  10.19 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Hemel Hempstead):Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Hemel Hempstead): The arguments advanced by Labour Members in this debate do not hold water. They are asking the Secretary of State to intervene for one of two reasons—to take over the negotiations or to put up more money. They cannot seriously be asking him to take over the negotiations in place of one of Britain's most skilled managers, whatever they think about individual handling of the issue. That would spell disaster for the management of every independent business in the public sector that they wish to preserve.
  Secondly, they call for more money to be put up at a time when the unit labour costs of Leyland, although they have improved massively, have not reached the good levels necessary to compete internationally. The notion that the Government should put up more money for a pay increase that is not justified largely because Labour Members do not like the way in which negotiations have
  1094
  been handled spells, once again, disaster. The third and worst argument put forward is that if this company were allowed to go to the wall it would have a disastrous effect on a large number of jobs. That is an argument that can, sooner or later, be used in any strike anywhere.
  It is not a question in principle of the number of jobs. The more jobs that are involved, the more important it is that we as a nation should face up to the problem. If we pay more money simply because a large number of jobs are at issue and thus reduce the ability, whether in the mines or in Leyland, to get the right unit labour costs to compete in the long term, we shall never solve our problems.
  10.20 pm
  Mr. Orme:Mr. Orme: With the leave of the House, I wish to put one or two points again to the Secretary of State. This has been a short but important debate but next week we may face a major crisis in British industry. For that reason, we feel that the Secretary of State this evening has not answered the central points that we have made. He has referred—
  Mr. Nicholas Baker (Dorset, North)Mr. Nicholas Baker (Dorset, North) rose
  Mr. Orme:Mr. Orme: I have only a couple of minutes. I shall not give way.
  The right hon. Gentleman has referred to previous positions and statements made by previous Ministers. No previous Minister or Prime Minister has been faced with the threat of a closure of a major company employing so many people. I ask the Secretary of State not to quote previous Ministers but to stand on his own feet and take positive action. He has discussed the matter with Sir Michael Edwardes and the board. Knocking on his door tomorrow will be some major trade union leaders asking the right hon. Gentleman to intervene in the dispute. They will include Mr. Alex Kitson of the Transport and General Workers Union Mr. Cure of the AUEW and other trade union leaders. Will the Secretary of State see those trade union leaders tomorrow before the dispute starts, listen to their side of the argument and see whether they can play a major part at this eleventh hour?
  Comparisons have been made with other companies and car workers generally. I am informed that there is a type of guaranteed payment at some companies, such as Ford, which are not paralleled at British Leyland. Car workers generally are not at the top of the scale in earnings. They are very low down the scale. We are talking about men who work on a conveyor belt for 40 hours taking home net payments of about £72 a week, including bonus.
  We do not want the matter to be left where it is. I welcome the fact that there has been a large attendance of Labour and Conservative Members for this important debate. I have not seen any members of the Liberal Party or the Social Democratic Alliance. We welcome the fact that the debate has taken place. We have had to force it out of the Government, but it has taken place. However, the debate is not the end of the issue. We do not sit back now and wait for the dispute.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will take away the views put by Opposition Members and initiate negotiations over the weekend that can get this dispute resolved. It is on that basis, I believe, that the Secretary of State has a duty not just to his Government but to the British people and to this Parliament.
  10.24 pm
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin:Mr. Patrick Jenkin: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply very briefly to the debate.
  The debate has served a useful purpose. The poll in The Sun this morning showed that only about 30 per cent. of the work force of BL believe that a serious strike will result in the closure of the company or large parts of it. I think that the remaining 70 per cent. are very wrong. Virtually every word that has been spoken by every speaker in this debate has shown very clearly that that is not a view shared in this House. I think that everyone has recognised that with this prospective strike at BL we are facing a desperately serious situation which could well result in the closure of the company or large parts of it.
  One of the most important facts that will emerge from this debate is that right hon. and hon. Members are in no doubt whatever that it is for real. If the debate serves no other purpose, that will be a valuable result.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) and a number of other hon. Members asked about figures for pay. Perhaps it would be helpful if I placed one or two figures on the record.
  Mr. Winnick:Mr. Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin:Mr. Jenkin: No. I shall answer the hon. Gentleman, because he raised a specific point which I should like to answer.
  The fact is that, whatever the basic pay increases may have been over two or three years, in both 1980 and 1981 the increase in average earnings of BL employees has been above the increase in prices. In 1980 the rate of inflation was virtually 18 per cent.; the increase in average earnings was 20.6 per cent. In 1981—for the 10 months since 1 November 1980—the rate of inflation has been 9.6 per cent.; the increase in average earnings has been 13.5 per cent. Although the increases in basic rates have been of the low figures quoted by the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), the increases in earnings—I am quoting them before tax and national insurance, in the normal way—have been higher than the increase in the cost of living.
  The right hon. Gentleman suggested that pay at BL was significantly below that of other car workers. A great many comparisons can be made; some are below, and some are above. However, the average production worker at BL, including the average bonus, earns at present £105.50. The average production worker at Fords, getting the attendance allowances that Ford pays, earns £103.50. So the BL worker—
  Mr. Les Huckfield:Mr. Les Huckfield: It is guaranteed money.
  Mr. Jenkin:Mr. Jenkin: With the greatest respect, it is earnings. It is money in the pay packet, and it is that which counts.
  I come to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). The fact is that the average bonus that has been earned in BL is £11.50. Most of BL's employees already earn good bonuses. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that only 5,000 people were earning the bonus, if I understood him rightly. The effect of guaranteeing the first £3.50 of the bonus would help 5,000 people who at present do not come up to the level of the guarantee—the first £3.50—so the hon. Gentleman got it completely wrong. The full offer that has been put on the table by the management of BL would help those 5,000 who at present do not reach that level.
  I make one other point in closing. Opposition Members have been free in their criticisms of Sir Michael Edwardes. It is their perfect right to be critical of me. They have concentrated, quite wrongly in some cases, on his salary. What is a little sad is that not one Opposition Member has seen fit to recognise that in the last two and a half years Sir Michael Edwardes and his board have given—[Interruption.] Of course, as I have said, with the full co-operation of their workers. They have given the company something that it has not had for many years—the chance of a real and viable future. That is what we want—
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o' clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o' clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  City of London
  Q2. Mr. Spearing asked the Prime Minister when she next expects to make an official visit to the City of London.
  The Prime Minister: On 16 November.

  Engagements
  Mr. Bidwell
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

  Mr. Stanbrook
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

  Mr. William Hamilton
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 October.

  Mr. Dixon
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

  Mr. Newens
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

  Mr. Lawrence
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 October.

  Mr. Joseph Dean
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

  Mr. Thomas Cox
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 October.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 October.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 October.

  Mr. Montgomery
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 October.

  Mr. Cunliffe
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 October.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

  Mr. Neubert
  asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 29 October.

  Mr. Adley
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 October.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.
  396
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis
  asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 29 October.

  Mr. Brinton
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

  Mr. Greville Janner
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

  The Prime Minister:
  I refer my hon. Friends and hon. Members to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Lewisham West (Mr. Price).

  Northampton
  Mr. Marlow
  asked the Prime Minister whether she will visit Northampton.

  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

  TUC
  Mr. Renton
  asked the Prime Minister when she next expects to meet the leaders of the Trades Union Congress.

  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

  Secretary of State for Industry
  Mr. Gwilym
  Roberts asked the Prime Minister if she will dismiss the Secretary of State for Industry.

  The Prime Minister: No. The hon. Member may assume that I do not intend to make any changes in ministerial appointments or responsibilities unless or until I make a statement to the contrary.

  Minister for Health
  Mr. Freud asked the Prime Minister whether she will dismiss the Minister for Health.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts).

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Ralph Howell asked the Prime Minister what is the percentage increase or decrease in expenditure in real terms in each Government Department (a) since May 1979 and (b) in the last year for which figures are available.
  The Prime Minister: Estimates of expenditure in constant prices, for each Government Department, were shown in the tables in part 2 of the public expenditure White Paper, Cmnd. 8175, published on 10 March 1981. The percentage increases in those estimates, between the financial years 1979–80 and 1980–81—the last complete year—were as follows for each main Government Department:—

  percentage increase

  Ministry of Defence

  + 4.9

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (including ODA)

  + 2.0

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (including Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and Forestry Commission)

  +13.9

  percentage increase

  Department of Industry

  +21.1

  Department of Energy

  + 7.3

  Department of Trade

  + 3.9

  Department of Employment

  +40.8

  Department of Transport

  -4.9

  Department of the Environment (including Property Services Agency)

  -10.8

  Home Office

  + 5.0

  Department of Education and Science

  -3.5

  Department of Health and Social Security

  Health and personal social services

  + 0.7

  Social Security

  + 3.5

  total

  + 2.6

  Liverpool
  Mr. Parry asked the Prime Minister if she has any further plans to visit Liverpool; and if she will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans for a further visit to Liverpool. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has, of course, visited Liverpool a number of times since July, most recently on 27 October. He is keeping me closely informed of developments.

  Mexico Summit
  Mr. Hooley asked the Prime Minister how many letters she received on the subject of the Mexico summit in the four months before the meeting took place, including those transmitted by hon. Members and those sent in direct by individual citizens.
  The Prime Minister: In that period I received 217 letters from right hon. and hon. Members enclosing some 650 letters from constituents. A further 900 letters were sent to me direct by members of the public, together with two petitions containing 4,477 and 404 signatures respectively.

  European Economic Community (Presidency)
  Mr. Latham asked the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on the achievements to date during the United Kingdom's Presidency of the European Economic Community.
  The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom Presidency still has two months to run, but already it is possible to point to achievements in a number of areas. In particular I would cite the following: decisions taken by the Foreign Ministers of the Ten earlier this month to improve European political co-operation; the advances made in the negotiations with Spain and Portugal on their accession; the launching of the negotiations on the Community's budget problems; the agreement on important elements of a common fisheries policy; the decision to make a third offer of Community food to Poland at special prices; the negotiation of an agreement with Australia giving the Community nuclear industry access to Australian uranium; the recent agreement on measures to limit the affect of oil shortfalls; the successful meeting in London at ministerial level between the European Community and the Association of South East Asian Nations; agreement in principle on proposals for a Community contribution to countering hunger in the world; and agreement that the
  398
  Commission should open discussions with the International Sugar Organisation with a view to Community membership of an improved agreement.

  Antigua and Barbuda (Independence Gift)
  Mr. Healey asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed that a gift be presented to the Government of Antigua and Barbuda to mark the attainment of independence on 1 November.
  The Prime Minister: The House will, I feel sure, wish to send congratulations to Antigua and Barbuda on their 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.

ENERGY

  Petroleum and Continental Shelf Bill
  Mr. Skeet asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether the Petroleum and Continental Shelf Bill still represents the policy of the Government; or whether he proposes to re-present the Bill in the new Session of Parliament, with substantial modifications.
  Mr. Gray:
  My statement of 19 October—[Vol. 10, c. 21]—reaffirmed the Government's policy towards BNOC. Details of the legislation will come forward in the normal way.

  British National Oil Corporation
  Mr. Skeet asked the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what consideration he gave to the disposal of an interest to the public in BNOC (Trading) Limited; why he has decided not to do so; and whether it is his intention to confine the privatisation of the British National Oil Corporation to the disposal of an interest in BNOC (Development) Limited;
  (2) whether he has considered the privatisation of the British National Oil Corporation as an integrated unit rather than dividing its upstream and downstream operations and the commercial advantages which would accrue from such an integrated unit.
  Mr. Gray:
  I have nothing to add to my statement of 19 October and my reply to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).—[Vol. 10, c. 21—2.]

  Mr. Teddy Taylor asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he intends to transfer the ownership of assets of the British National Oil Corporation by means of a Public Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gray:
  I shall be introducing legislation to enable me to implement the policy which I announced on 19 October.—(Vol. 10, c. 21.]

  British Gas Corporation (Offshore Oil Interests)
  Mr. Skeet asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether the British National Oil Corporation will be eligible to bid for the British Gas Corportation's offshore oil interests.
  Mr. Gray:
  Our intention is to introduce investment by the private sector, not by another public sector body, into BGC's offshore oil interests.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Cook asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the proportion of plutonium 239 normally contained in the plutonium extracted from Magnox spent fuel.
  Mr. John Moore:
  The average proportion of plutonium 239 in the plutonium currently extracted from magnox spent fuel is of the order of 70 to 75 per cent.

  Mr. Cook asked the Secretary of State for Energy, how much Magnox spent fuel is currently awaiting reprocessing; and approximately how much plutonium is due to be extracted from it.

  Mr. John Moore:
  The current unreprocessed irradiated civil Magnox fuel stock in the United Kingdom is approximately 2 million kilograms U which contains approximately 4,500 kilograms of plutonium—or isotopes.

  Mr. Cook asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions have taken place on the possibility of the United Kingdom supplying the United States of America with plutonium for its fast reactor programme; what is the amount of plutonium for civil purposes previously exported to the United States of America; what are the amounts currently being discussed; whether any assurances are being sought to ensure that any plutonium exported will not be used for military purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Moore:
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) on 19 October and the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) on 26 October. The quantity of United Kingdom origin civil material exported to the United States of America since 1971 totals approximately 50 kgs of plutonium. This material was subject to the relevant bilateral safeguards agreements.

  Mr. Cook asked the Secretary of State for Energy if, further to his reply of 3 March 1980, Official Report, c. 10, giving the yield of plutonium in tonnes per year from various types of nuclear power stations, he will clarify whether the figures given relate to 1,000 Mw gross or net electrical capacity.

  Mr. John Moore:
  The figures given in the previous answer were based on an annual average availability of between 74 per cent. and 75 per cent. for a station with an installed capacity of 1,000 Mw—gross.

  Mr. Cook asked the Secretary of State for Energy if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central on 24 July, Official Report, c. 256, any Magnox station has been altered or programmed for military purposes for reasons other than to increase plutonium production; and, if so, which.

  Mr. John Moore:
  The reactors at Chapelcross are used to produce tritium for military purposes.

  Renewable Energy Sources
  Mr. Cook asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total Government subsidy given to date to all forms of non—conventional renewable energy sources.
  Mr. Mellor:
  My Department does not give subsidies for renewable energy sources. It has, however, since 1975
  400
  been undertaking research and development to investigate the potential contribution which new and renewable sources of energy might make to United Kingdom energy supplies. Expenditure to March 1981 totals £19 million.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright asked the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will list the number of pit closures that have taken place in the coal mining industry in each calendar year since 1965 up to and including 1980;
  (2) if he will give the manpower figures in the coal mining industry in each year from 1965 up to and including 1980.
  Mr. John Moore:
  The following information is derived from the National Coal Board's annual reports and accounts.

  Year ending in March

  Number of Collieries ceasing production in year

  Average manpower in industrial grades on colliery books

  1965

  40

  491,000

  1966

  52

  455,700

  1967

  46

  419,400

  1968

  51

  391,900

  1969

  55

  336,300

  1970

  19

  305,100

  1971

  6

  287,200

  1972

  3

  281,500

  1973

  8

  268,000

  1974

  18

  252,000

  1975

  10

  246,000

  1976

  50

  247,100

  1977

  3

  242,000

  1978

  5

  240,500

  1979

  9

  234,900

  1980

  5

  232,500

  1981

  9

  229,800

  Council of Energy Ministers (Meeting)
  Mr. Forman asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about European Economic Community Council of Energy Ministers' meeting on 27 October.
  Mr. Lawson:
  The Council of Energy Ministers of the European Community met in Luxembourg on 27 October. I took the chair. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy—my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council had a wide-ranging discussion of a Commission paper on the development of an energy strategy for the Community. The paper identified five priorities: the need to ensure adequate investment in alternatives to oil and rational energy use; the development of a common approach to energy pricing and taxation; the establishment of measures to avoid instability on the oil market; the reinforcement of common policies in research, development and technological demonstration; and the further development of a common approach in external energy relations. The outcome of this discussion will be taken into account in the work leading to the European Council at the end of November.

  Three of the priority areas identified by the Commission—energy pricing, possible measures to meet a limited oil supply shortfall and demonstration projects—were considered further during the council.
  401
  On energy pricing, there was a substantial measure of agreement on draft conclusions based on Commission proposals to develop Community pricing principles and to improve price transparency. Further work is to be done as a matter of urgency with a view to reaching detailed agreement at an early date.

  The Council agreed in principle, subject to a Greek reserve, on guidelines for dealing with a limited shortfall in oil supplies as a basis for consultations with other industrialised countries. The Council will review the procedure and the range of possible measures to be taken in the light of these consultations.

  The Council considered Commission proposals for further funding of 160 million ECU for demonstration projects in new energy sources and energy savings. The Council could not agree on a figure, but asked the Commission to submit ideas on the balance between the schemes on the illustrative basis of further funding of 105 million ECU.

  The Council agreed to renew for two years ECSC decision 73/287/ECSC which established a Community scheme for subsidising intra-Community trade in coking coal. The Scrutiny Committee of the House had not considered this matter; but the United Kingdom interest in th decision is small and the United Kingdom did not believe it was right to prevent agreement at the Council. The Council also approved conclusions on oil refining capacity which noted that oil companies were already carrying out necessary rationalisation. In addition, it adopted a recommendation on electricity tariff structure and approved the seventh and latest round of Community projects in the hydrocarbons sector, totalling 26 million ECU and including two United Kingdom projects which represent about 25 per cent. of this sum. All these decisions were subject to Greek waiting reserves.

  Ministers reached general conclusions on a Commission paper about natural gas supplies.

  Prices
  Mr. Teddy Taylor asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give a general direction to the State owned energy boards that their price increases should not exceed the rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Lawson:
  I have no powers to give general directions of this nature to the boards.

  Denationalisation
  Mr. Meacher asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list those State owned assets for which his Department is responsible which have been already privatised with dates of the sale in each case; how much funding has been raised by their sale or is expected to be raised in future; what further plans he has for privatisation of publicly owned assets in future; and what sums he expects to raise in each case.
  Mr. Lawson:
  For receipts from special asset disposals in 1979–80 and 1980–81 I refer the hon. Member to the written reply given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) on 19 October 1981. The disposals for which my Department was responsible were British National Oil Corporation receipts of advanced
  402
  payments for oil and receipt of premiums for the seventh round North Sea licences. These receipts took place in March and December 1980, respectively.

  The decision to privatise Amersham International Limited was announced during the passage of the Atomic Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1981. I refer to the statement that I made on 19 October 1981—[Vol. 10, c. 10]—for the details of future privatisation of BGC and BNOC assets.

  It is not practicable to give a forecast of the likely proceeds.

  Gaseous Diffusion Enrichment Plant, Capenhurst
  Mr. Cook asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the initial capital cost of the modified gaseous diffusion enrichment plant opened at Capenhurst in 1968; what was the value of the subsidy provided by the Ministry of Defence in terms of the original defence diffusion plant; what was the nature of the modification carried out; and what was the expected and achieved throughput of the plant.
  Mr. John Moore:
  The modifications to the Capenhurst gaseous diffesion plant which opened in 1968 cost about £15 million. The modifications involved changes in design of the low enrichment stages in the plant to increase their capacity. The cost of the original stages involved in the modified plant had been fully recovered by the operator—at that time the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority—before its start—up. The plant will have generated some 4,000 tonnes of separative work prior to its closure in 1982, well in line with design expectations.

  Windscale
  Mr. Cook asked the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central on 16 February, Official Report, column 26, whether the expansion at Windscale referred to in his answer is for civil or military purposes.
  Mr. John Moore:
  The expansion at Sellafield—Windscale—is primarily intended for civil purposes, but some residues arising from Ministry of Defence operations may also be treated in the complex.

  Nuclear Power Programme
  Mr. Cook asked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the total cost of the United Kingdom's entire nuclear power programme to date.
  Mr. John Moore:
  Such information is not readily available.

  NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Mr. McQuarrie asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire East, of 23 October on the payment of value added tax by the Spastics Society, if he will consider granting relief to all charitable organisations which are engaged in working with the disabled.
  Mr. Bruce—Gardyne [pursuant to his reply, 28 October 1981]: No. I could not justify relieving only this type of charity from paying VAT, whilst a general relief for all charities would be costly and very difficult to administer.

  Avgas
  Mr. Onslow asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from the general aviation industry about the level of taxation on avgas; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Bruce—Gardyne: Following the undertaking that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the House on 30 April that the case for a reduction in the duty on avgas would be properly

  403
  examined, we have received a number of representations on behalf of trade organisations and individuals in the general aviation industry. The review of the duty structure is continuing with the aim of reaching a decision in good time for next year's Finance Bill.

  Supplementary Measures Payments
  Mr. Marlow asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the United Kingdom budget refunds for supplementary measures from the European Economic Community for 1981 payable in 1982 are compulsory or non—compulsory.
  Mr. Ridley:
  Both the Council of Ministers and the Commission of the European Community regard the supplementary measures payments to the United Kingdom as compulsory expenditure.

  £ Sterling
  Mr. Craigen asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the value of the £ sterling now as compared with its purchasing power in May 1979.
  Mr. Bruce—Gardyne: Taking the internal purchasing power of the £ sterling as 100p in May 1979, its value in September 1981, the latest period for which information is available, was 72 pence.

  National Debt
  Mr. Teddy Taylor asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the total size of the national debt, including debts on national savings; how much interest will be paid on these debts in the current financial year; and if he will express the total amount of debt as an amount per person in the United Kingdom and the total amount of interest as an amount per person per year.
  Mr. Brittan:
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.

  Sports Equipment
  Mr. Craigen asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the position of sports trusts, sports councils and amateur sports clubs in terms of zero rating of value added tax charges for their capital costs in respect of equipment and so on.
  Mr. Bruce—Gardyne: I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Beer Tax
  Mr. Lawrence asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the light of the substantial fall in beer sales since his last Budget, what is now his estimate of the total yield to the Exchequer, net of administrative costs, from beer tax for the current year; and how it compares with the total tax yield from beer in each of the past five years.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Budget estimate of the yield in 1981–82 of excise duty on beer was £1,440 million and it is estimated that net receipts of VAT from the sale of beer will be about £800 million. It would be contrary to practice to publish revisions of the Budget estimates
  404
  during the financial year. Net receipts of beer duty and estimates of the amount of VAT charged on sales of beer in the last 5 years were as follows:

  £ million

  Excise Duty

  VAT

  1976–77

  808.3

  250

  1977–78

  892.7

  290

  1978–79

  892.9

  310

  1979–80

  916.4

  600

  1980–81

  *1,048.1

  750

  * Provisional

  The cost of administration of the Customs and Excise service is subdivided only into main functions. Deductions to take account of the costs of administering the excise duties on all alcoholic drinks and of VAT, as a whole, would now probably be of the order of 1 per cent. of the respective revenues.

  Valuation Rules (Ethane)
  Mr. Hal Miller asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to amend the present valuation rules which discriminate against deals not at arm's length in the case of ethane for petrochemical use.
  Mr. Ridley:
  I agree that the present rules cannot be justified in view of the special technical difficulties which exist in the case of ethane. We propose therefore to introduce legislation in the 1982 Finance Bill to put long term inter-affiliate deals in ethane for petrochemical use on to a similar basis, so far as possible, to comparable arm's length deals.

  The details of the proposed legislation will be subject to consultation between the Inland Revenue and the oil industry.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Adley asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of domestic property transactions were eligible for payment of stamp duty by individual purchasers in 1980; and what was the relevant percentage in 1950, 1960 and 1970.
  Mr. Ridley [pursuant to his reply 28 October 1981]: All such transactions were liable to stamp duty until 1958. After that date, no information is available on the percentage of all purchases of residential property by individuals that were liable. However, the following estimates for England and Wales are available. They relate to the number of properties sold taking (a) all residential property—irrespective of the status of the purchaser—and (b) all purchases by individuals—irrespective of the type of property. Corresponding information for years between 1958 and 1973 is not available.

  Percentage of sales of property liable to stamp duty

  Sales of residential property

  Purchases of all types of property by individuals

  October 1973

  33

  Not available

  October 1974

  13

  Not available

  November 1975

  16

  Not available

  November 1976

  17

  Not available

  November 1977

  23

  Not available

  November 1978

  37

  37

  November 1979

  58

  58

  November 1980

  35

  34

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Technical Assistance (British Personnel)
  Mr. David Steel asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) what will be the number of British teachers under contract with the Overseas Development Agency working in developing countries in 1981–82 compared with 1980–81;
  (2) what will be the number of agricultural and veterinary experts working on technical assistance in developing countries in 1981–82 compared with 1980–81.
  Mr. Neil Marten:
  Figures are not available on a financial year basis. The number of British personnel whose emoluments were paid wholly or partly from ODA technical co-operation funds as at October 1980 and October 1981 in the following disciplines were as follows:

  October

  Number

  Teachers

  1980

  1,023

  1981

  912

  Agriculture

  1980

  173

  1981

  84

  Veterinary

  1980

  137

  1981

  83

  Swaziland (British Teachers)
  Mr. David Steel asked the Lord Privy Seal what reduction is being made in British teachers of English in Swaziland under Overseas Development Agency contracts.
  Mr. Neil Marten:
  The ODA supports two English teachers at secondary schools and five posts at tertiary level institutions. The Swaziland Government will localise the secondary school posts by August 1983. Plans for localising the tertiary level posts at the university college and college of technology are less clear, but, depending upon Swaziland Government priorities, support for some of these posts may continue beyond 1984.

  Cajamarca Project
  Mr. Watson asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the current state of the rural development project at Cajamarca in Peru.
  Mr. Neil Marten:
  British involvement in the project will cease at the end of 1982 and plans for the gradual withdrawal of the British staff are now being implemented.

  Mr. Watson asked the Lord Privy Seal how much British money has to date been spent upon the rural development project at Cajamarca in Peru.

  Mr. Neil Marten:
  About £2.24 million to date.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Michael McNair—Wilson asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the latest figures for immigration from Commonwealth countries and Pakistan to the United Kingdom on a nation-by-nation basis over the past six months.
  Mr. Raison:
  The following table gives a detailed breakdown of the total number of Commonwealth citizens and nationals of Pakistan accepted for settlement on arrival in the first six months of 1981, which was published in table 2 of Home Office Bulletin, Issue No. 19/81 "Control of Immigration Statistics—Second Quarter 1981" issued on 6 September 1981, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Acceptances for settlement on arrival of Commonwealth citizens and nationals of Pakistan accepted by citizenship-nationality, 1 January to 30 June 1981

  Country or territory issuing passport or nationals of

  Number of persons

  Commonwealth citizens

  Australia

  1,000

  Bangladesh

  2,940

  Barbados

  10

  Canada

  190

  Cyprus

  30

  Ghana

  30

  Guyana

  30

  Hong Kong

  330

  India

  1,000

  Jamaica

  140

  Kenya

  120

  Malaysia

  30

  Malta

  30

  Mauritius

  40

  New Zealand

  870

  Nigeria

  20

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  10

  Sri Lanka

  40

  Tanzania

  60

  Trinidad and Tobago

  20

  Uganda

  West Indies Associated States

  10

  Zambia

  10

  Zimbabwe

  40

  United Kingdom passport holders

  1,140

  All other Commonwealth territories

  40

  Nationals of Pakistan

  3,490

  Total

  11,670

  — nil or negligible.

  The numbers have been rounded independently and so components do not add to the total.

  Mr. Greville Janner asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will institute a review of the immigration appeals system.
  407
  Mr. Raison:
  A review is in progress. The Home Office issued a discussion document in April this year and the comments received on it are being considered.

  Mr. Greville Janner asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were admitted to the United Kingdom from the Indian Sub-continent, and how many were refused entry in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Raison:
  In the 12 months ending 30 June 1981, about 300,000 citizens of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were admitted to the United Kingdom and about 2,300 were refused leave to enter.

  Mr. Greville Janner asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many formal complaints of ill treatment by immigration officials were made by Indians seeking to enter the United Kingdom during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Raison:
  In the last 12 months up to 30 September, 10 Indian citizens made a formal complaint of their treatment by immigration officers.

  Mr. Greville Janner asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will review the allocation of special vouchers to India.

  Mr. Raison:
  The allocation of vouchers to particular countries is kept under review. There are no present plans to increase the allocation to India.

  Mr. Greville Janner asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is still the policy of his Department not to publish the allocation of special vouchers to particular countries.

  Mr. Raison:
  Yes.

  Mr. Greville Janner asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now take steps to reduce the waiting time for United Kingdom passport holders to enter the United Kingdom from India.

  Mr. Raison:
  Waiting times could be reduced only by increasing the allocation of vouchers to India. As I indicated in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question today, we have no present plans to do this.

  Mr. Greville Janner asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will transfer those special vouchers allocated to British passport holders in East Africa which are not taken up by applicants in India.

  Mr. Raison:
  We have no present plans to do so.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. George asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that the information contained in the police national computer is available only to authorised personnel; and if he is satisfied that no information has been transmitted for commercial gain.
  Mr. Whitelaw:
  As I said in the answer given on 26 October 1981 to a question by the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson), the police national computer system has electronic, physical and procedural safeguards. I understand that information has been laid before the chief constable, Thames Valley police, alleging that information from the computer has been given corruptly to unauthorised persons. The chief constable has instituted an investigation into the allegations.

  Alcohol Education and Research Council (Chairman)
  Mr. Banks asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to announce the name of the chairman of the Alcohol Education and Research Council.
  Mr. Whitelaw:
  I am pleased to announce that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Windlesham has agreed to accept this appointment and that I have appointed him to serve as the council's first chairman. I hope before long to be in a position to announce the names of the other council members.

  The Licensing (Alcohol Education and Research) Act 1981 came into operation on 1 October. I hope shortly to appoint the liquidator under the Act.

  Taxicabs (Advertisements)
  Mr. Michael Brown asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he has received any representations from public bodies and other organisations relating to advertisements on the outside of London cabs;
  (2) what representations he has received from the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association regarding advertisements on the outside of London cabs;
  (3) what discussions he has had, if any, with the Metropolitan Police regarding advertisements on the outside of London cabs.
  Mr. Raison:
  It is for the Assistant Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis, as the licensing authority, to decide whether advertisements should be permitted on the outside of London cabs. We have received no formal representations on this subject.

  Prisoners (Property)
  Mr. Soley asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total value of prisoners' property that prisoners claimed had been damaged notified to his Department;
  (2) how many prisoners in Hull prison at the time of the riots there and who notified his Department of claim for damage to their property were offered payment; and how many prisoners who (i) did ask and (ii) did not ask were offered ex—gratia compensation;
  (3) how many prisoners in Hull prison at the time of the riots notified the Home Office of claim of damage to their property; how many have accepted ex—gratia payments for damage to their property; and what was the total amount of ex—gratia compensation paid.
  Mr. Mayhew:
  Two hundred prisoners held at Her Majesty's Prison Hull at the time of the riots in 1976 subsequently claimed compensation for property alleged to have been lost or damaged as a result of the disturbances. Ex gratia compensation totalling £3,816.71 was offered to and accepted by 69 inmates. Compensation was not offered to any inmate who had not claimed it. The total value of property claimed to have been lost or damaged is ascertainable only at disproportionate cost.

  Kensington Palace (Security)
  Mr. John Carlisle asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that adequate security is provided for the Royal Family in Kensington Palace.
  Mr. Whitelaw:
  The necessary arrangements are kept under continuing review.

  Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1974
  Mr. Frank R. White asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to amend the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1974 as proposed by the interim action committee so that investment in feature film production can be regarded as relevant expenditure for deduction for the purposes of calculating excess profits tax.
  Mr. Mayhew:
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  British Broadcasting Corporation
  Mrs. Dunwoody asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that, in the light of the British Broadcasting Corporation's plans to establish a subscription television service relying mainly on feature films, the corporation will make a more positive financial contribution to film production in Great Britain.
  Mr. Mayhew:
  The financial contribution which the BBC makes towards film production in this country is a matter for the board of governors of the corporation. It is for them to decide how to allocate their resources in the light of their obligations under the corporation's Royal Charter and licence and agreement.

  The BBC has made arrangements with one of the recently authorised pilot schemes of subscription television by cable to provide programme material for the subscription service. The corporation has also put forward proposals for two services of direct broadcasting by satellite, one of which would be a subscription service. No decisions have yet been taken on the question of direct broadcasting by satellite for the United Kingdom.

  Firearms Offences (Statistics)
  Mr. Woolmer asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many indictable offences connected with firearms were committed in England and Wales in 1980; and what number and percentage involved air weapons.
  Mr. Mayhew:
  The information requested is published in paragraph 3.5 and table 3.3 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1980"—Cmnd. 8376.

  Charitable Status
  Mr. George Cunningham asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the light of the facts stated in articles which have appeared in the Daily Star, he will introduce legislation to alter the criteria on which bodies may be accorded charitable status by the Charity Commission, to prevent the recognition as charities of pseudo—religious cults.
  Mr. Raison:
  There is nothing in the articles which would justify amending the law relating to charitable purposes. If there is evidence of abuse in the case of a registered charity, the Charity Commission has power to take action in certain circumstances. If criminal offences are alleged, they can be dealt with under the criminal law.
  410
  Mr. George Cunningham asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many organisations claiming to be churches or religious orders are currently registered as charities by the Charity Commissioners.

  Mr. Raison:
  This information is not available.

  Air Weapons
  Mr. Woolmer asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many indictable offences were committed by children and young people with air weapons in 1980 in the age categories (a) under 14 years, (b) under 16 years, (c) under 17 years, (d) under 18 years and (e) under 21 years.
  Mr. Mayhew:
  The information available is given in the following table, including offences in which the age of offender was not known.

  Serious offences recorded by the police in which air weapons were reported to have been used, by age of principal suspect

  England and Wales 1980

  Number of offences

  Under 14

  268

  14 and under 16

  527

  16 and under 17

  257

  17 and under 18

  169

  18 and under 21

  239

  21 or over

  221

  Age not known

  3,351

  Total

  5,032

  Civil Disturbances
  Mr. Marlow asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out in the Official Report the following information as at the latest possible date with regard to the disturbances in Brixton, Toxteth and Southall earlier in 1981: (a) the total numbers charged for each location and the numbers charged by offence, (b) the numbers dealt with by the courts, (c) a breakdown of the penalties imposed, as set out in his letter to the hon. Member for Northampton, North of 8 September, and (d) the numbers still to be dealt with by the courts; what charges are involved; and when he anticipates that all cases will be finalised.
  Mr. Mayhew:
  The information requested is not readily available, but I shall reply as soon as possible.

  British Citizenship
  Mr. Marlow asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the child of an Irish citizen born in a British military hospital in Germany while his father was serving in the British Army will be a British citizen (a) after passage of the British Nationality Bill; or (b) if born after passage of the Bill; how this will be affected by (i) the child's present residence, (ii) the date of birth, (iii) the possession by the child of a United Kingdom passport; and (iv) the renunciation or not of United Kingdom nationality by father; and how this differs from the present circumstances.
  Mr. Raison:
  I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  Nuclear Shelters
  Mr. Dobson asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his answer of 26 October to the

  411
  hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South, if he will list the 17 Ministers appointed as sub-regional commissioners who will have places in bunkers in the event of nuclear attack; and how they were chosen.
  Mr. Mayhew:
  Sub-regional commissioners are not appointed in peace time.

  Mr. Ray Powell asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Ogmore, Official Report, 26 October, what criteria have been used to select representatives of key Government Departments; which would be the key Government Departments; who would be the Minister appointed as the sub-regional commissioner; and whether chief executive officers of local authorities, mayors, councillors, hon. Members and other local government officers would be included in the selected representative list.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  Present plans provide for the following Government Departments to be represented at sub-regional headquarters in a war emergency:

  Home Office

  Department of Employment

  Department of Energy

  Department of the Environment

  Department of Health and Social Security

  Department of Industry

  Department of Trade

  Department of Transport

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Central Office of Information.

  Each Department is responsible for nominating, from its staff, officers with the necessary expertise to undertake the duties that would be required of them.

  Sub-regional commissioners are not designated in normal peace time. Local authorities are responsible for manning their own war time headquarters; their members and staff are not nominated for duty at sub—regional headquarters.

  Information about the machinery of regional government in war is contained in Home Office circular ES7/1973, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Summerskill asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department from which Government Departments and which ministerial level the 17 Ministers who will act as sub—regional commissioners in the event of a nuclear attack will be chosen.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  Sub—regional commissioners would be appointed by the Prime Minister at a time of war crisis. They are not designated in normal peace time.

  Assaults on Police
  Mr. Teddy Taylor asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were assaulted in the course of their duties in 1980; and what were the comparable figures in each of the previous 10 years.
  Mr. Mayhew:
  Information in the form requested is not collected centrally, but information on the numbers of persons prosecuted for the offence of assault on a constable is published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales"—offence classification 104 in table S1.1A of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales Supplementary Tables 1980, Vol 1", proceedings in magistrates' courts.

  Drug Addiction
  Mr. Teddy Taylor asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has about the extent of drug addiction in the United Kingdom; whether such addiction is increasing; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Whitelaw:
  Statistics on the misuse of drugs in the United Kingdom for the years 1970 to 1980 are contained in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 15–81, published on 7 July 1981. Reports from a number of sources suggest that the trend of increasing abuse of controlled drugs indicated by those statistics is continuing in 1981.

  The United Kingdom is participating actively in efforts to improve international co-operation to combate drug trafficking under the auspices of the Council of Europe, the International Criminal Police Organisation, the Customs Co—operation Council and the United Nations.

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the police service continue in their efforts to bring to justice those who are engaged in drug trafficking, with considerable success.

  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is currently reviewing the effectiveness of the present arrangements for the treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts.

  Film Production
  Mr. Dormand asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to the reply of the right hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) 29 June, c. 564, Official Report, what contribution his Department has secured from the television industry towards indigenuous film production for the cinema.
  Mr. Mayhew:
  As regards the BBC, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of today's date to a question from the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) and to the description of the BBC's seed money scheme in the fourth report of the Interim Action Committee on the Film Industry—Cmnd. 8227. That report also referred to the increased activity by the ITV companies in film production in recent years. The companies make a contribution to the finances of the National Film School.

  Authorship
  Mr. Freud asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the occasions in the last three years on which members of his Department including the prison department, have been prevented from publishing articles or book reviews under their own names, giving the reason in each case.
  Mr. Whitelaw:
  The information requested is not readily available. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Mr. Freud asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances civil servants from his Department are authorised to prevent their subordinates from contributing articles or book reviews to professional journals.

  Mr. Whitelaw:
  In accordance with general Civil Service rules, no officer of the Home Office may publish any book, article or paragraph touching on the business of

  413
  the Home Office or another Government Department without first obtaining official permission. Applications are dealt with under the terms of paragraph 9911 of the Civil Service Pay and Conditions of Service Code, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Sex Discrimination Act
  Dr. Summerskill asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act suggested to him by the Equal Opportunities Commission; and whether he will make a statement.
  Mr. Raison:
  The proposed amendments, some of which have far—reaching implications, are receiving the careful consideration they deserve. Earlier this year my right hon. Friend discussed them with the commission's chairman, and consultations have taken place between the commission, the Home Office and other Government Departments. I understand that the commission is now giving further consideration to its proposals and consulting other organisations on their implications.

  Cannabis
  Mrs. Renée Short asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further evidence there is that cannabis causes no physical damage or dependency; what action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Whitelaw:
  We expect to receive advice on this matter shortly from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. That advice will be published and will, of course, receive our careful consideration.

  Tougher Regimes Pilot Project
  Mr. Whitney asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the extension of the tougher regimes pilot project to two more detention centers.
  Mr. Whitelaw:
  In the light of experience at New Hall and Send, I announced earlier this year that the tougher regimes pilot project would be extended to two more detention centers. It came into operation at Foston Hall and Haslar detention centers on 7 September. Their regimes are substantially the same as those at New Hall and Send, but slightly more emphasis is placed on the first two weeks of sentence, during which trainees carry out additional drill, parades and inspections and work on closely supervised jobs. Copies of the Department's guidance to staff at Foston Hall and Haslar about the pilot project have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Bailed Persons (Offences)
  Mr. Edward Gardner asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics are available on offences committed while on bail.
  Mr. Whitelaw:
  A study has now been completed of offending by those first bailed by magistrates in the period May to October 1978, the first six fulls months of operation of the Bail Act 1976. This shows that an estimated 7 per cent. were identified as having committed a serious type of offence while on bail awaiting a further appearance at magistrates' courts and an estimated 9 per
  414
  cent. while on bail after committal for trial. The incidence of offending on bail varied according to a number of factors—the age of the person bailed, the charge in respect of which bail was granted, the time spent on bail and the area of the country. Further details of this study are given in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 22/81 published today, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Policy Review (Deed Poll)
  Mr. Stephen Ross asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he initiated a policy review on whether prisoners should be allowed to change their names by deed poll; whether this review has now been completed; and if he will state the results.
  Mr. Mayhew:
  November 1980. The review has not yet been completed.

  Foxhunts
  Miss Maynard asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to public funds in the last year of attendance by police officers carrying out public order duties at meets of foxhounds.
  Mr. Mayhew:
  This information is not available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Miss Maynard asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department who pays for the police who are called out for foxhunts when there are demonstrations by antibloodsport bodies and others.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  Attendance at public demonstrations is a normal police duty funded in the usual way through police grant arrangements.

  Miss Maynard asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the police receive payment for attending foxhunts on the same basis as they do for attending football matches.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  No.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Michael Brown asked the Minister for the Civil Service if she is satisfied with the present rules and regulations governing the use of the Government car service by (a) members of Her Majesty's Government, (b) members of Her Majesty's Opposition and (c) members of the Civil Service.
  Mr. Hayhoe:
  I am not aware of any problems with the present rules and regulations.

  Women (Employment Opportunities)
  Mrs. Renພ Short asked the Minister for the Civil Service, pursuant to her reply to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East on 28 July, Official Report, column 424, if the internal inquiry into employment opportunities for women in the Civil Service has yet been concluded; and if she will make a statement.
  Mr. Hayhoe:
  Not yet. The broad aim of the joint review group on employment opportunities for women in the Civil Service is to complete its work by mid—1982 with the report being published late 1982.

  Statistical Services
  Mr. Alfred Morris asked the Minister for the Civil Service what response has been made by the Equal Opportunities Commission to the White Paper on Government statistical services; what action is being taken; and if she will make a statement.
  Mr. Hayhoe:
  I have received representations from the Equal Opportunities Commission about a number of points arising from Cmnd. 8236. I met the chairman, deputy chairman and some of the commissioners on 5 October. We had a constructive discussion. The commission does, of course, have statutory responsibilities; and its particular needs will be taken into account in the implementation of the measures outlined in the White Paper.

  Civil Servants (Defamation Proceedings)
  Mr. Anderson asked the Minister for the Civil Service in what circumstances civil servants may be assisted from public funds in commencing or defending defamation proceedings.
  Mr. Hayhoe:
  If a civil servant is injured by the wrongful act of a third party, it is open to him to institute proceedings against the third party. If he applies to his Department for financial assistance in taking proceedings, assistance may be given to him if the Department decides, after consultation with its legal advisers, that it is in the Department's interests that proceedings should be instituted. In determining whether or not a civil servant should be allowed financial assistance or legal representation, Departments are required to consider, in consultation with their legal advisers, whether the act in question was committed within the scope of his employment and whether it is in the interests of the Department to grant assistance.

  Mr. Anderson asked the Minister for the Civil Service on how many occasions over the past 10 years civil servants have been assisted from public funds in (a) initiating and (b) defending defamation proceedings.

  Mr. Hayhoe:
  I regret that I am unable to provide the information requested in the time available, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Wardale Report
  Mr. John Garrett asked the Minister for the Civil Service if she will publish the Wardale report on grading in the open structure of the Civil Service and the Government's response to it; and, if she will state the date of publication.
  Mr. Hayhoe:
  Yes; soon.

TRADE

  Shipping Conference (Windsor)
  Mr. Clinton Davis asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the conference which took place at Windsor on 22 and 23 October between the shipping trade unions, the General Council of British Shipping and himself, outlining the topics which were discussed and his reaction thereto; and whether he proposes to take any action arising therefrom to assist the shipping industry to recover from its present condition.
  Mr. Sproat:
  I am very grateful to the representatives of the maritime unions and the General Council of British Shipping who joined me in Windsor on 22 and 23 October for a seminar on some of the problems facing the shipping industry. The principal topics discussed were the factors affecting the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom fleet; why it is in the interests of the United Kingdom fleet and the jobs which depend on it to work to preserve open markets for shipping; and the potential damage to the United Kingdom fleet from the UNCTAD proposals on open registries. The pursuit of competitiveness is for all those who work in the industry. On my part, I shall take account of all the advice I received in continuing to work for the market environment most helpful to trading and job opportunities for our fleet.

  Imports and Exports
  Mr. Teddy Taylor asked the Secretary of State for Trade (1) what were the totals of the United Kingdom's imports and exports in September; and if he will provide separate figures for trade with the European Economic Community and the rest of the world;
  (2) what were the totals of the United Kingdom's imports and exports of manufactured goods in September; and if he will provide separate figures for trade with the European Economic Community and the rest of the world.
  Mr. Peter Rees:
  I shall reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Teddy Taylor asked the Secretary of State for Trade (1) what steps he has taken to improve trading relations with Malaysia;
  (2) if, in view of the benefits to the British economy of the preference traditionally given to the United Kingdom in trade and public purchasing by Malaysia, he will take steps to establish why this preference is now being removed.
  Mr. Peter Rees:
  I shall reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Malaysian Airline (London Flights)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor asked the Secretary of State for Trade what explanation was given to the Federation of Malaysia for rejecting the application from the national airline of Malysia to undertake flights to London; and how this explanation was communicated.
  Mr. Sproat:
  Malaysian Airlines Systems (MAS) currently operates 4 services a week between Kuala Lumpur and London using DC—10 aircraft, but I understand that next year it may wish to change to Boeing 747s which carry more passengers. Within the framework of the air services agreement between the United Kingdom and Malaysia there is provision for British Airways and MAS to discuss capacity increases in the light of traffic on the route. That is what has been happening. No application has yet been received by my Department.

  Trade Policy Research center (Ministerial Statement)
  Mr. Marlow asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether his statement in his speech to the Trade Policy

  417
  Research center on 1 July, that there was no virtue in a trade policy which did not recognise that protection from imports might sometimes be necessary, was intended to apply to imports from the European Economic Community; and what measures he is considering to implement this trade policy.
  Mr. Peter Rees:
  I shall reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Used Cars (Sale)
  Mr. Gordon Wilson asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will implement those recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading contained in its annual report 1980 which deal with the sale of used cars including recommendations regarding the provision of a written statement verifying the car's good condition at the time of sale, the augmented design of the vehicle registration document, the introduction of tamperproof odometers and the provision of statutory mileage information notices to accompany the sale of used cars.
  Mr. Eyre:
  My right hon. Friend is considering these recommendations in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and will make a statement as soon as possible.

  Consumer Education Pack
  Mr. Brinton asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the cost to the taxpayer of the new consumer education pack for schools campaign which was launched recently.
  Mr. Eyre:
  The estimated cost of the pack is £37,000.

  Price Marketing (Bargain Offers) Order 1979
  Mr. David Atkinson asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has yet received the report from the Director General of Fair Trading about the Price Marketing (Bargain Offers) Order 1979, to which he referred in his reply to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East on 18 February; and if he will make a statement.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim:
  Yes. I am very grateful to the Director General for the full review which he has made of the order and for his advice about what changes should be made in the law. The Director General is publishing his report today and I have placed copies in the Library. I shall consider the report urgently and shall, of course, consult interested parties before deciding what action to take. Meanwhile, I hope that those affected by the order will consider and let me have their views on the Director General's recommendations.

  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 [pursuant to his reply, 19 October 1981, c. 38]: Details of the number of accidents to ships on the River Thames and Estuary reported to the Port of London Authority for the years 1979–80 and the first six months of 1981 are not yet available to my Department. Under the Merchant Shipping Act my Department has investigated or called for reports on 32 (1979) and 29 (1980) shipping accidents, one of which was the subject of a preliminary inquiry. Four of these cases, all in 1979, were identified as ships carrying dangerous or pollutant cargoes. Corresponding figures for the first six months of 1981 are not readily available and cannot be produced without disproportionate cost.

  Paraffin (Price)
  Mr. Colvin asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the prices in the retail trade of one gallon of domestic heating paraffin on 1 October for the years 1974 to 1981, inclusive.
  Mr. Gray:
  I have been asked to reply.

  Standard grade and premium kerosene are the products sold as domestic heating paraffin. The retail price of these two products varies between outlets. Estimates of typical delivered prices are shown in the table below.

  Prices for standard grade kerosene are based on the oil marketing companies' schedule prices for a delivery load of 200 gallons in inner zone areas.

  The prices for premium kerosene until October 1978 are based on the statutory controlled maximum retail prices in inner zone areas. No firm consumer price data is available for 1979, 1980 or 1981. A representative range of prices based on a number of informal estimates is therefore shown. At some retail outlets prices may fall outside the range quoted.

  Estimated Retail Price of Kerosenes

  Standard Grade Kerosene Pence/Gallon

  Premium Kerosene Pence/Gallon

  1 October 1974

  21.5

  28.0

  1 October 1975

  23.0

  31.0

  1 October 1976

  31.0

  39.5

  1 October 1977

  39.0

  46.5

  1 October 1978

  39.0

  46.5

  1 October 1979

  56.0

  65—70

  1 October 1980

  70.5

  85—95

  1 October 1981

  93—0

  115—125

EMPLOYMENT

  Manpower Services Commission
  Mr. Charles Irving asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total cost of the Manpower Services Commission for the financial years ended in 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981; and what was the breakdown of expenditure as between professions, skills, work experience and apprentices, region by region in each of those years.
  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  Job Vacancies (Leek)
  Mr. Knox asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of job vacancies in the Leek parliamentary constituency as notified to him by the local jobcenters at the most recent count; and what are the comparable figures for 1975 and 1970.
  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  164 job vacancies were notified to the employment offices and jobcenters of the Manpower Services Commission in the Leek parliamentary constituency in the 4-week period ending 4 September 1981. Comparable figures for 1975 and 1970 were 211 and 180 respectively.

  There are likely to have been a substantial number of vacancies in the area not notified to the employment offices and jobcenters. Nationally, the commission has estimated from a 1977 survey that about a third of vacancies are notified to it.

  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Dr. Roger Thomas asked the Secretary of State for Employment if, in order to ensure that every school leaver is in a job or in a training scheme by the end of 1981, he will make any detailed announcement of extended training on youth opportunities programme schemes as early as possible.
  Mr. Alison:
  The Government have asked the Manpower Services Commission to undertake to offer a suitable opportunity on the youth opportunities programme to all unemployed 1981 school leavers by Christmas 1981. To help meet this target the Government announced on 27 July an increase of £93 million for the programme. In addition, the employment services and the careers service have been asked to give priority to school leavers when placing people on the youth opportunities programme.

  As part of the resulting increased provision which has been created for young people under the programme, the commission has already introduced a number of 12—month training courses, known as work skills courses, designed for the more able young unemployed who have the potential to progress ultimately to semi—skilled levels and above.

  An announcement about the future development of schemes to help the young unemployed will be made in due course.

  Dr. Roger Thomas asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to improve the standard and effectiveness of youth opportunities programme schemes, in particular to improve the proportion of trainees finding permanent employment.

  Mr. Alison:
  The Manpower Services Commission is already taking a wide range of steps to improve the quality of youth opportunities programme schemes including the injection of more training and further education and drawing in the training expertise of industry.

  Dr. Roger Thomas asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to ensure that employers do not use youth training programmes as a source of cheap labour rather than training opportunities.

  Mr. Alison:
  The Manpower Services Commission, which administers the youth opportunities programme, takes a very serious view of any abuse by sponsors of
  420
  schemes. Stringent appraisal and monitoring procedures designed to prevent abuse already exist and are kept under constant review.

  Dr. Roger Thomas asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will consider increasing the youth opportunities training allowance to the figure of £28 as recommended by the Manpower Services Commission, in order to encourage its being taken up by people who at the present allowance are hardly better off after paying travelling expenses than if in receipt of supplementary benefit and remaining idle.

  Mr. Alison:
  Yes. But I understand that over 14,000 young people are currently entering the youth opportunities programme every week and I do not therefore think the allowance is acting as a significant disincentive.

  Mr. McNamara asked the Secretary of State for Employment what communications he has received from young persons on the youth opportunities programme in Hull in relation to their youth opportunities programme allowance; and what reply he has sent.

  Mr. Alison:
  I have received letters from 40 young people in Hull all asking that the youth opportunities programme allowance be raised. My answer is that I am considering the level of allowance in the light of the advice I have received from the Manpower Services Commission and will be making an announcement shortly.

  Mr. Alfred Morris asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations his Department has had in the last three months about abuses of the youth opportunities programme; if he will list the abuses complained of; what action has been taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison:
  No record is kept of allegations of abuse. All such allegations are investigated by the Manpower Services Commission and if abuse is found the scheme is withdrawn unless immediate steps can be taken to remedy it.

  Mr. Pendry asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in view of the fact that more than 2,000 young people are injured each year while working in the youth opportunities programme, measures are now being considered to improve safety regulations on the scheme.

  Mr. Alison:
  The majority of accidents to young people on the youth opportunities programme are of a minor nature. The Manpower Services Commission, which operates the programme, is, however, very concerned to reduce any risks to young people on schemes and is keeping closely in touch with the Health and Safety Executive and other appropriate organisations on further measures to achieve this.

  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Mr. Onslow asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to ensure that staff of the Manpower Services Commission deal promptly and efficiently with all applications for grants under the training opportunities scheme, in the light of the case of a constituent of the hon. Member for Woking, details of which have been sent to him.
  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  Last year the Manpower Services Commission handled over 140,000 applications

  421
  under the training opportunities programme. I have taken up this case with the chairman of the MSC and the staff responsible, who share my regret at the time taken and the failure to keep the applicant informed.

  Construction Workers
  Mrs. Renée Short asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many construction workers at the latest available date were registered as unemployed in (a) the United Kingdom as a whole, (b) Wolverhampton and (c) the West Midlands.
  Mr. Alison:
  At 13 August, the latest date for which an industrial analysis is available, the number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom who last worked in the construction industry was 380,698. The corresponding numbers for the Wolverhampton employment office area and the West Midlands region were 1,551 and 33,130, respectively.

  Short—time Working
  Mrs. Renée Short asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons were on the short—time working compensation scheme in the United Kingdom at the latest available date; and what is the regional breakdown of that number.
  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  The following table shows the figures requested. Information is obtainable for Great Britain only.

  September 1981

  Region

  Number of Potentially Redundant Jobs

  Number of Workers sharing Short Time Working

  Northern

  4,276

  9,711

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  26,482

  45,147

  Midlands

  65,058

  121,337

  North West

  27,279

  44,519

  London

  6,313

  8,720

  South East

  21,947

  36,523

  South West

  5,577

  11,832

  Wales

  8,487

  15,739

  Scotland

  13,245

  25,860

  Total for Great Britain

  178,664

  319,388

  Mrs. Renée Short asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the breakdown by industry of the total number of workers on the short—time working compensation scheme at the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  The following table, for Great Britain, shows the figures requested:

  September 1981

  SIC Order

  Industry

  Number of Potentially Redundant Jobs

  Number of Workers Sharing Short Time

  1

  Agriculture, Foresting, Fishing

  28

  51

  2

  Mining and Quarrying

  144

  402

  3

  Food, Drink and Tobacco

  2,597

  4,810

  4

  Coal and Petroleum Products

  98

  181

  5

  Chemicals and Allied Industries

  3,066

  5,122

  6

  Metal Manufacture

  17,310

  29,663

  7

  Mechanical Engineering

  33,126

  61,788

  8

  Instrument Engineering

  1,979

  2,777

  9

  Electrical Engineering

  15,596

  36,650

  422

  SIC Order

  Industry

  Number of Potentially Redundant Jobs

  Number of Workers Sharing Short Time

  10

  Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering

  945

  1,150

  11

  Vehicles

  24,635

  45,515

  12

  Metal Goods not elsewhere specified

  20,549

  38,664

  13

  Textiles

  13,045

  20,912

  14

  Leather, Leather Goods and Fur

  625

  699

  15

  Clothing and Footwear

  14,223

  18,672

  16

  Bricks, Pottery, Glass, Cement etc

  8,369

  14,963

  17

  Timber, Furniture etc.

  5,030

  8,568

  18

  Paper, Printing and Publishing

  3,112

  4,439

  19

  Other Manfacturing Industries

  4,368

  6,777

  20

  Construction

  2,626

  3,286

  21

  Gas, Electricity and Water

  57

  68

  22

  Transport and Communication

  1,720

  4,060

  23

  Distribution Trades

  3,795

  8,629

  24

  Insurance, Banking Finance and Business Services

  20

  42

  25

  Professional and Scientific Services

  319

  381

  26

  Miscellaneous Services

  1,282

  1,119

  27

  Public Administration and Defence

  Total Great Britain

  178,664

  319,388

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Greville Janner asked the Secretary of State for Employment if, in view of the conclusions of the Home Office research study No. 68 "Ethnic Minorities in Britain", he will now take steps to remedy the high unemployment rates suffered by ethnic minorities and in particular by Asian women.
  Mr. Alison:
  The conclusions of the Home Office research study are based on an analysis of available information brought together from a number of earlier studies and data. Successive Governments have long been aware of evidence from surveys of higher unemployment rates amongst the ethnic minorities. The Government believe that their policy of establishing a sound economy as the basis for sustainable growth is the best course for the ethnic minorities as well as for the country as a whole. Experience has shown that the ethnic minorities have always benefited proportionately more than other workers when the economy has taken a turn for the better.

  The needs of the unemployed from the ethnic minorities are taken fully into account, along with other relevant information, in applying and when reviewing employment policies. Young people from the ethnic minorities are making good use of opportunities available under the Government's special measures to alleviate the worst effects of unemployment and they will of course be benefiting proportionately from the considerable expansion of these measures announced by the Prime Minister on 27 July.

  Professional and Executive Register
  Mr. Craigen asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to give the Manpower Services Commission his initial reactions to its current review of the professional and executive register services.
  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  My right hon. Friend expects to write to the commission about the review shortly.

  Blind Workers (Reader Allowance)
  Mr. Alfred Morris asked the Secretary of State for Employment why there has been no announcement of a date for the introduction of the Manpower Services Commission's projected reader allowance for blind workers; what has been the reason for the delay; and when the allowance is to be introduced.
  Mr. Alison:
  The Manpower Services Commission's document "Developing Employment and Training Services for Disabled People", published in 1978, proposed new forms of help to meet the reading needs of blind workers. That document indicated that a scheme might be introduced in the early 1980s, if resources were available.

  The Manpower Services Commission has had discussions with the Royal National Institute for the Blind about a scheme of this kind. It is unlikely to be possible to introduce a scheme in this financial year, but the commission will be considering whether a scheme can be introduced in the course of next financial year.

  Swansea
  Mr. Anderson asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for male unemployment in the Swansea area; and how this compares with the average for special development areas in (a) Wales and (b) Great Britain.
  Mr. Alison:
  The following is the information at 10 September, the latest date for which figures for special development areas are available:

  Unemployed Number

  males Percentage rate

  Swansea travel—to—work area

  11,810

  19.0

  Special development areas in Wales

  35,308

  19.4

  Special development areas in Great Britain

  361,053

  20.6

  Young Persons (Merseyside)
  Mr. Parry asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of young people under 20 years of age unemployed on Merseyside and in Liverpool, respectively, at the latest available date.
  Mr. Alison:
  At 9 July, the latest date for which the information is available, the numbers of young people under 20 years of age registered as unemployed in the Merseyside special development area and in the Liverpool travel—to—work area were 28,162 and 18,969, respectively.

  The youth opportunities programme has been expanded this year to provide help to over half a million unemployed young people, through courses of work experience and training.

  Liverpool
  Mr. Parry asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of unemployed in the Liverpool, Scotland Exchange constituency at the latest available date.
  Mr. Alison:
  The information is not available for the parliamentary constituency. At 8 October the provisional
  424
  number of people registered as unemployed in the Liverpool employment office area, which is larger than the constituency, was 22,277.

  Male Unemployment
  Mr. Craigen asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many males aged between 60 to 65 years are presently registered as unemployed.
  Mr. Alison:
  At 9 July, the latest date for which the information is available, there were 205,186 males aged 60 to 64 years registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom.

  Equal Pay Act
  Dr. Summerskill asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration he has given to the amendments to the Equal Pay Act suggested to him by the Equal Opportunities Commission; and whether he will make a statement.
  Mr. Alison:
  I understand that, following discussions with my Department, the Equal Opportunities Commission is reviewing its proposals and hopes to complete its review by the end of the year. This is one of the matters which my right hon. Friend will be discussing with the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission when he meets her on 27 November.

  Unemployment Relief Schemes
  Mr. Lawrence asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many adult and young people have been helped by the Government's unemployment relief schemes in (a) Burton on Trent and (b) Uttoxeter in the past year; and what has been the cost of providing this relief.
  Mr. Peter Morrison:
  I shall write to my hon. and learned Friend.

  European Community (Job Creation)
  Mr. Spearing asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report the calculations and assumptions that underlie Her Majesty's Government's estimate quoted in the House by the Lord President of the Council on 19 October that the United Kingdom's membership of the European Economic Community has increased employment by two and a half million; and if he will specify the industries and numbers concerned.
  Mr. Alison [pursuant to his reply, 22 October, 1981, c. 161]: I understand that my right hon. Friend referred to an estimate that about 2½ million jobs now depend on our exports to other countries in the Community. This was an illustration of the benefit we receive from trade with our partners in the Community and hence what we would put at risk if we left. This estimate rests on the reasonable assumption that exports to Europe have the same significance for the United Kingdom employment as for our gross domestic product, due account having been taken of the import content of these exports. It is not possible to be more precise in quantifying the detailed effects on employment which might result from withdrawal.

  West Midlands (Statistics)
  Mrs. Renée Short asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons aged (a) 16 to 18 years, (b) 18 to 25 years, (c) 25 to 40 years and (d) 40 to 65 years were unemployed in (i) Wolverhampton and (ii) the West Midlands at the latest available date.
  Mr. Peter Morrison [pursuant to his reply, 28 October 1981]: The following is the information for the age ranges nearest to those specified. The figures related to 9 July, the latest date for which they are available.

  Age

  Wolverhamp- ton employ- ment office area

  West Midlands re-gion

  Under 18 years

  2,847

  39,607

  18 to 24 years

  5,236

  89,328

  25 to 34 years

  3,364

  67,836

  35 to 44 years

  2,171

  42,580

  45 to 64 years

  4,429

  88,693

  Mrs. Renée Short asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a breakdown of those unemployed in (a) the West Midlands and (b) Wolverhampton by standard industrial classification at the latest convenient date.
  Mr. Peter Morrison [pursuant to his reply, 28 October 1981]: The following is the information at 13 August, the latest date for which an industrial analysis is available. The figures relate to the industries in which the unemployed persons last worked.

  Orders of the Standard Industrial Classification 1968

  West Midlands Region

  Wolverhampton employment office area

  Agriculture, forestry and fishing

  2,951

  57

  Mining and quarrying

  2,536

  15

  Food, drink and tobacco

  6,365

  195

  Coal and petroleum products

  128

  8

  Chemicals and allied industries

  2,295

  104

  Metal manufacture

  15,492

  793

  Mechanical engineering

  14,334

  421

  Instrument engineering

  618

  5

  Electrical engineering

  8,692

  479

  Shipbuilding and marine engineering

  167

  5

  Vehicles

  25,099

  290

  Metal goods not elsewhere specified

  39,572

  3,087

  Textiles

  3,426

  200

  Leather, leather goods and fur

  663

  5

  Clothing and footwear

  3,030

  190

  Bricks, pottery, glass, cement, etc.

  8,502

  43

  Timber, furniture, etc.

  2,512

  145

  Paper, printing and publishing

  2,670

  114

  Other manufacturing industries

  5,845

  465

  Construction

  33,130

  1,551

  Gas, electricity and water

  1,076

  31

  Transport and communication

  8,914

  416

  Distributive trades

  25,987

  1,054

  Insurance, banking, finance and business services

  5,095

  220

  Professional and scientific services

  9,069

  301

  Miscellaneous services

  24,411

  1,077

  Public administration and defence

  8,498

  303

  Not classified by industry (including school leavers)

  81,057

  7,147

  Orders of the Standard Industrial Classification 1968

  West Midlands Region

  Wolverhampton employment office area

  Total

  342,134

  18,721

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Pawsey asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report details of the number of houses sold by those housing associations who hold charitable status and by those without charitable status.
  Mr. Stanley:
  In the first 9 months of 1981 in Great Britain, apart from about 2,350 co-ownership sales, it is estimated there were about 1,000 other sales by housing associations, including improvement for sale, shared ownership sales and sales to sitting tenants. Of the other sales, roughly three-quarters were in categories relevant only to non-charitable associations, while the remainder could be made by either type of association.

  Detailed figures will not be available until housing associations' financial year returns can be analysed.

  Right to Buy (Sales)
  Mr. Pawsey asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority houses have been sold under the right-to-buy legislation; and what are the similar figures for houses owned by housing associations.
  Mr. Stanley:
  To the end of June an estimated 12,700 sales were completed by local authorities and new towns in England and Wales under the right to buy provisions of the Housing Act 1980. Complete figures for right to buy sales by housing associations will not be known until associations annual returns for 1981–82 are available.

  Mr. Wilkinson asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold under the right-to&-buy provisions of the Housing Act 1980.

  Mr. Stanley:
  To the end of June an estimated 12,700 sales were completed by local authorities and new towns in England and Wales under the right-to-buy provisions of the Housing Act 1980.

  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will change the rules governing the discounts which may be offered by local authorities to sitting tenants whose homes were acquired from other public sector bodies.

  Mr. Stanley:
  Yes. There are a number of local authority tenants whose homes were acquired from public bodies such as Government Departments, nationalised industries and statutory undertakers. Under the general consent dated 12 June 1981 for the sale of dwellings at the discretion of local authorities, only periods of tenancy since acquisition of the dwellings by the authority can count for discount purposes. We shall now be prepared, on application, to give authorities special consent to count for discount purposes the period which the purchaser of the dwelling spent in the same dwelling whilst a tenant of the previous public sector landlord, Similar consents will be available to new town development corporations.
  427
  It will be for local authorities and new towns to decide whether they are prepared to grant the additional discounts. There is no change in the statutory discount entitlement of tenants with the right to buy, although these tenants can benefit if the landlord so chooses. We shall be notifying all local authorities and new towns individually of this decision.

  Airey Homes
  Mr. Anderson asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he is offering local authorities on policies of repurchase or compensation in respect of individuals who have purchased Airey homes from the same local authority.
  Mr. Stanley:
  No advice has been offered. The question of statutory compensation depends upon whether the local authority exercises any of its powers for dealing with houses which are unfit for human habitation. Repurchase is a matter for individual local authorities to decide.

  "Beacons" Rent Investigation
  Mr. Frank Allaun asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish his instructions to rent officers heading registration areas and to district valuers to provide information for the "Beacons" investigation of rents;
  (2) if he will make available to hon. Members the results of the "Beacons" investigation of rents;
  (3) why information about landlords' rates of return is being gathered by him.
  Mr. Stanley:
  I refer the hon. member to my Department's supplementary memorandum to the Select Committee on the Environment regarding the Committee's inquiry into the private rented housing sector, a copy of which I have placed in the Library. The memorandum includes the background to, and a description of, the Department's "Beacons" exercise together with the first results.

  Mr. Frank Allaun asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will be ready to consider changes in policy or practice as a result of the "Beacons" investigation of rents.

  Mr. Stanley:
  "Beacons" implies no change in policy or practice by the Department, but contributes towards the background information against which policy is considered.

  Mr. Frank Allaun asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will ensure that the "Beacons" exercise will not provide a basis for (a) increasing the general level of fair rents, (b) encouraging rent officers to adopt criteria in determining fair rents, specifically related to rates of return or (c) achieving consistency between registration areas in rates of return.

  Mr. Stanley:
  As under previous Administrations no advice is given to rent officers about how to fix rents.

  Manod Slate Quarry, North Wales
  Mr. Frank Allaun asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) why two men are at present employed by the Property Services Agency at the disused Manod slate quarry, North Wales;
  428
  (2) why his Department has sought for an extension of the lease at Manod of several times the area of the present site of the quarry.
  Sir George Young:
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Heathrow Airport (Fifth Terminal)
  Mr. Shersby asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he has had any consultations with the Thames water authority; and if any estimate has been made of the costs of providing an alternative site to the Perry Oaks sludge works in the event of a fifth terminal being constructed at London Heathrow airport;

  (2) what estimate he has made of the urbanisation costs that would be involved in constructing a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport; and how these compare with the estimated urbanisation costs at Stansted, with particular regard to the housing needs that would have to be met in the area;

  (3) what consideration has been given by his Department to additional car parking and cargo facilities that would be required in conjunction with the Perry Oaks site in the event of a fifth terminal being constructed thereon as proposed by British Airways; whether any estimate has been made of what landscaping works would be required together with the costs involved; if consideration has been given as to what additional land to the west up to the M25 would be required; how much of this would be in the green belt; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what estimate has been made by his Department of the additional noise that would be generated in the event of a fifth terminal being constructed on the Perry Oaks sludge work site at Heathrow to accommodate an additional 15 million passengers per annum; whether this volume of passengers would breach the ceiling of 275,000 air transport movements form the time the fourth terminal comes into operation in 1985; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what estimate his Department has made of the cost of providing a rail link between Feltham and the proposed terminal 5 at Heathrow Airport;

  (6) what estimate he has made of the number of jobs that would be created by the development of Stansted airport from 1988 onwards.

  Mr. Giles Shaw:
  The planning application made by Uttlesford district council to build a fifth terminal at London Heathrow airport is being considered at a public inquiry being held concurrently with that into the British Airports Authority's planning application relating to development at Stansted airport. The issues raised in these questions are now the subject of examination at that inquiry and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on such matters at this stage.

  Anglia Water Authority
  Mr. Marlow asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it is proposed to refer the Anglia water authority to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
  Mr. King:
  I am considering with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade the need for further water industry references to the commission.

  New Towns (House and Flat Sales)
  Mr. Proctor asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 26 October to the hon. Member for Basildon, how many houses and flats were sold by new town development corporations to sitting tenants between June 1981 and September 1981.
  Sir George Young:
  This information is not yet available; I shall write to the hon. Members when it is.

  Liverpool—Belfast Ferry
  Mr. Parry asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the divisional office of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staff, Liverpool, relating to the effect on his inner city policy of the proposed closure of the Liverpool to Belfast ferry; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. King:
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is the Minister principally concerned with this matter. I have had one letter from the Liverpool Branch of ASTMS dated 3 August; a reply was sent on 24 August. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has discussed the issue both with management and unions and is keeping me informed about developments.

  Disabled Persons Act 1981
  Mr. Wigley asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department will be commencing consultations with interested organisations on section 6 of the Disabled Persons Act; and if he will make a statement.
  Sir George Young:
  The Departments concerned will shortly be issuing a joint circular on the implementation of the Disabled Persons Act 1981. The appropriate consultations can then begin.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Cook asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the respective proportions of low, medium and high level radioactive wastes that have arisen due to (a) civil and (b) military activities in Great Britain.
  Mr. Giles Shaw:
  I regret that it would not be in the national interest to provide this information. However, the amounts of radioactive waste in all three categories arising from military activities are relatively small compared with those arising from civil activities. Figures for civil activities were given in the report of the expert group which reviewed Cmnd. 884 "The Control of Radioactive Wastes", and copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Charles R. Morris asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any evidence that local authority expenditure dealing with the incidence of child abuse has been reduced as a result of cut—backs in national and local Government expenditure; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I have been asked to reply.
  Local authority expenditure on the prevention and treatment of child abuse cannot be separately identified. In 1980–81 total local authority expenditure on the personal social services increased by over 2 per cent. in real terms compared with 1979–80, and expenditure on field social work services rose by nearly 7 per cent. in the same period.

TRANSPORT

  Motorways
  Mr. Prescott asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many accesses there are on each of the motorways; and what is the total number.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke:
  The information is as follows:

  Trunk Road Motorways in England

  Motorway

  Number of Accesses

  M1 (including M10 and M45 spurs)

  39

  M2

  7

  M3

  7

  M4 (including Airport spur)

  21

  M5

  29

  M6

  40

  M 11

  11

  M18

  2

  M20

  11

  M23 (including Airport link)

  4

  M25

  14

  M26

  1

  M27

  12

  M40

  8

  M42

  4

  M50

  4

  M53 (includes former M531)

  11

  M54

  3

  M55

  3

  M56 (including links)

  13

  M58

  4

  M61

  6

  M62

  29

  M63

  9

  M66

  4

  M67

  3

  M69

  4

  M180 (including M181 spur)

  5

  M621

  3

  Al(M)

  28

  A3(M)

  4

  A41(M)

  3

  346

  Local Authority Motorways in England

  M1

  5

  M32

  3

  M41

  1

  M57

  5

  M66

  5

  M275

  2

  M602

  1

  M606

  1

  M621

  3

  A38(M)

  2

  A40(M)

  3

  A57(M)

  5

  A58(M) and A64(M)

  4

  A102(M) East Cross Route Stages 1 and 2

  3

  A102(M) Blackwall Tunnel southern approach

  3

  A329(M)

  3

  A627(M)

  3

  A6127(M)

  4

  431

  Motorway

  Number of Accesses

  56

  Trunk Road and Local Motorways in Scotland

  M8

  30

  M9

  11

  M73

  2

  M74

  6

  M80

  2

  M90

  12

  M876

  2

  65

  Trunk Road Motorways in Wales

  M4

  26

  Motorways in Northern Ireland

  M1

  11

  M2

  9

  M12

  1

  M22

  1

  22

  The total number in the United Kingdom is 515.

  Mr. Prescott asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of motorways there are in the United Kingdom; and what is the total mileage expected by 1985.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke:
  There are 1,719 miles now. The total by the end of 1985 will depend on the progress made on new construction, but I would expect it to exceed 1,900 miles.

  Mr. Prescott asked the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he has estimated the number of toll stations that would be required to enforce a toll regime on the M1; and what would be the estimated building costs, operating costs and possible minimum toll cost;

  (2) what studies and estimates have been made of the installation costs of toll systems on the motorways.

  Mr. David Howell:
  I am considering possible methods of raising extra resources for road construction, but these do not at present include imposing tolls on existing motorways. I have not, therefore, estimated the installation or collection costs of a tolls system on the M1 and my Department has made no recent studies of the installation of toll systems on motorways.

  Denationalisation
  Mr. Meacher asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those State-owned assets for which his Department is responsible which have been already privatised with dates of the sale in each case; how much funding has been raised by their sale or is expected to be raised in future; what further plans he has for privatisation of publicly-owned assets in future; and what sums he expects to raise in each case.
  Mr. David Howell:
  Leases of 29 of the 38 English motorway service areas have so far been sold, raising £42 million. The total proceeds are expected to exceed £48 million.

  I have recently agreed terms for the sale of National Freight Company Ltd. to a consortium of management and
  432
  employees for £53.5 million. The net proceeds, after funding the company's pension deficiencies, will be about £6 million. Completion is expected in Janusry.

  I am proposing to offer to the public as soon as possible shares in the holding company of the reconstituted British Transport Docks Board. The proceeds will depend on market conditions at the time of sale.

  The British Railways Board is taking the lead, through a specifically formed subsidiary company, British Rail Investments Ltd.—BRIL—in the introduction of private capital into some of its operations. Three Scottish hotels owned by British Transport Hotels Ltd. have been put into a new company, Gleneagles Hotels Ltd., which began trading in June. BTH received £10.35 million, part of it in deferred payments, of which £4.5 million was used to purchase loanstock and shares in the new company.

  British Rail Hovercraft Ltd. merged with Hoverlloyd Ltd. on 23 October to form a new operating company, Hoverspeed Ltd.

  Proposals are currently being developed by BRIL for the introduction of private capital into Sealink (UK) Ltd., the rest of British Transport Hotels Ltd. and a portfolio of British Rail property. The proceeds will depend on the timing and form of each disposal.

  I hope to introduce legislation next Session for further privatisation. At this stage, it is not possible to state the likely proceeds which will arise.

  Road Service Licensing (Appeals)
  Mr. Iain Mills asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the attitude he will take on appeals to him against road service licensing decisions by traffic commissioners.
  Mr. David Howell:
  Under the Transport Act 1980 the traffic commissioners, having regard in particular to transport requirements, local authorities' transport policies and plans, and relevant objections or other representations are required to grant applications for road service licences unless they are satisfied that to do so would be against the interests of the public. If an appeal from their decision is made to me, I am bound by the same legislation as the commissioners, and shall decide each case on its own particular merits. There is no overriding principle that will govern my decisions on these issues.

SCOTLAND

  Social and Economic Deprivation (Dundee)
  Mr. Gordon Wilson asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will conduct a social and economic deprivation analysis survey in Mid-Craigie, Dundee, to determine the levels of urban support which might be appropriate; and if to that end he will publish the statistics of unemployment and take up of benefit in the area.
  Mr. Rifkind:
  No. Mid—Craigie is already recognised as suffering from deprivation. Tayside regional council's multiple deprivation working party has made a study of the area's needs and the council has sought and obtained from my right hon. Friend urban programme support for two projects there.

  Less—favoured Areas
  Mr. William Ross asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the survey into the less-favoured areas in Scotland has yet been completed; and when he now expects to put a case to the European Commission for an extension of the United Kingdom less-favoured areas.
  Mr. Younger:
  The land survey work in Scotland has been completed and the supporting economic and demographic data are now being assembled. My right hon. Friends and I hope to be able to put a case for an extension of the less-favoured areas in the United Kingdom to the European Commission at about the end of the year.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Beith asked the Secretary of State for Scotland by what method non-selective schools participating in the assisted places scheme in Scotland choose students for assisted places if more applicants are received than the number of assisted places available.
  Mr. Alexander Fletcher:
  Where there are more applications from eligible pupils than a school's allocation of fee remission grant would extend to, the choice of pupils is at the school's discretion.

  Air Weapons
  Mr. Woolmer asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many indictable offences connected with firearms were committed in Scotland in 1980; and what number and percentage involved air weapons.
  Mr. Rifkind:
  "Crimes" is the Scottish classification broadly equivalent to "indictable offences". There were 838 crimes involving the use of firearms in Scotland in 1980. Of these, 711–85 per cent.—involved the use of air weapons.

  Mr. Woolmer asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many (a) fatal, (b) serious, and (c) slight injuries were caused by air weapons in 1980.

  Mr. Rifkind:
  In crimes involving the use of air weapons in Scotland in 1980 the numbers of fatal, serious and slight injuries were nil, 36 and 154, respectively.

  Mr. Woolmer asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many indictable offences were committed in Scotland by children and young people with air weapons in 1980 in the age categories (a) under 14 years, (b) under 16 years, (c) under 17 years, (d) under 18 years and (e) under 21 years.

  Mr. Rifkind:
  "Crimes" is the Scottish classification broadly equivalent to "indictable offences". The information asked for is set out in the following table.

  Number of crimes involving the use of air weapons, Scotland, 1980

  Age of principal suspect

  Number of crimes

  Under 14

  31

  14—15

  60

  16

  18

  17

  17

  18 to 20

  22

  All ages under 21

  148

  Cancer
  Mr. Craigen asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold discussions with the Greater Glasgow health board and other health boards in the West of Scotland over the lack of facilities for the treatment of cancer patients; and whether he intends to give assistance to the Glasgow board to increase the present availability of beds.
  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  I do not propose to hold discussions with the Greater Glasgow health board and other health boards in the West of Scotland on the facilities for the treatment of cancer patients, since it is for these boards, which have detailed knowledge of the needs of their areas, to decide on their own priorities and how treatment services will be organised within the resources allocated to them. The report by the Cancer Programme Planning Group of the Scottish health Service Planning Council entitled "Cancer Services in Scotland" was issued to all health Boards in Scotland in May this year. The report gave guidance to health boards on the future planning of cancer services and boards were asked to take the report's recommendations into account when considering these services in the light of the general framework for all health services proposed in "Scottish Health Authorities Priorities for the Eighties".

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. David Steel asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest maximum variation in petrol prices between those stations retailing in. Edinburgh and those in the Borders; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Younger:
  The Government do not control petrol prices or keep detailed records of regional variations.

  I recognise the importance of transport costs to many who live and work in the Borders and understand the right hon. Member's concern over petrol price differences between rural and urban areas. These do, however, reflect commercial considerations such as additional delivery costs and low turnover.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. David Steel asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that the current levels relating to the hill livestock compensatory allowances for the hills and uplands will not be diminished; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Younger:
  My right hon. Friends and I are currently reviewing the economic situation in the hills and uplands with a view to determining the rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances to be paid next year. We shall issue a decision as soon as possible.

  Gourock—Dunoon Ferry
  Mr. Dewar asked the Secretary of State for Scotland under what authority he instructed Caledonian MacBrayne to restrict its ferry operation between Gourock and Dunoon to pedestrian traffic.
  Mr. Rifkind:
  My right hon. Friend has given no instruction to Caledonian MacBrayne, which is now considering, and will be reporting on, the best means of providing a passenger service.

  Mr. Dewar asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what annual revenue subsidy he is proposing to make to

  435
  Caledonian MacBrayne as a contribution to the costs of operating a passenger ferry between Gourock and Dunoon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind:
  My right hon. Friend's statement of 12 October made it clear that he was prepared to provide a subsidy, if necessary, for a passenger service between Gourock and Dunoon. Caledonian MacBrayne is now exploring urgently the best means of providing such a service and will be reporting to him. He will then be in a position to consider questions of subsidy.

  Mr. Dewar asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the additional financing requirements of Caledonian MacBrayne attributable to the purchase of a suitable vessel by Caledonian MacBrayne for the carriage of pedestrian traffic; and if he plans to make any contribution.

  Mr. Rifkind:
  Caledonian MacBrayne is now considering how a passenger service might be provided on the Gourock—Dunoon route. My Department will be discussing with the company what financing arrangements will be necessary.

  Mr. Dewar asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Caledonian MacBrayne about the implications for it of the sale of the vessels "Juno" and "Jupiter", and of any consequent redundancies, following his decision to restrict the company to the carriage of pedestrian traffic on the Gourock—Dunoon ferry.

  Mr. Rifkind:
  Discussions are continuing with Caledonian MacBrayne on these issues.

  Rating Review
  Mr. Dewar asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to confirm that the quinquennial rating review due to take place in 1983 will take place and that he will not be postponing or varying this by use of his powers in part 1 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1981.
  Mr. Rifkind:
  No. My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement before long.

  Western Ferries (Argyll) Ltd.
  Mr. Dewar asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, in relation to the draft undertaking between himself and Western Ferries (Argyll) Ltd. approved by the House on 22 July; and in particular if he proposes to agree with the company an undertaking which differs in any respect from the text approved by the House.
  Mr. Rifkind:
  I have nothing to add at this stage to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 12 October. That statement confirmed the intention to make a capital grant to Western Ferries towards the cost of another vessel.

  Sporting Organisations (Rates Relief)
  Mr. Craigen asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from amateur sporting organisations in Scotland concerning rates relief on their premises by means of extending charitable status to such bodies; and if he will review the rating position of these bodies.
  Mr. Rifkind:
  My right hon. Friend has not received any representations from amateur sporting organisations as such. He is reviewing the operation of the provisions under which discretionary rating relief can be granted, following the undertaking to the First Scottish Standing Committee on 22 January 1981, column 137.

  Teachers (Superannuation)
  Mr. Henderson asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to change the administrative arrangements for teachers' superannuation.
  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  The arrangements are kept under review to improve efficiency arid secure staff savings but my right hon. Friend has no plans at present for major changes.

INDUSTRY

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Grylls asked the Secretary of State for Industry what consultations he has had with British Telecom over the Government's proposals for liberalisation of telecommunications supply and for competing networks; and what comments critical of the Government's proposals have been conveyed to him.
  Mr. Wakeham: There were extensive consultations with British Telecom before my hon. friend the Minister for Information Technology made his statement on telecommunications liberalisation on 30 July; and my right hon. Friend has subsequently been in close touch with the chairman of BT on the implementation of this policy. The Government remain fully committed to liberalisation, and my right hon. Friend hopes to announce a detailed timetable for the liberalisation of attachments shortly.

  State—owned Assets (Sale)
  Mr. Meacher asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will list those State—owned assets for which his Department is responsible which have been already privatised with dates of the sale in each case; how much funding has been raised by their sale or is expected to be raised in future; what further plans he has for privatisation of publicly owned assets in future; and what sums he expects to raise in each case.
  Mr. Wakeham: The net proceeds to the Government of the sale of 51 per cent. of the shares of BAe PLC in February 1981 were £43 million.
  The net proceeds to the Government of the sale of just under 50 per cent. of the shares of Cable and Wireless PLC which is currently taking place are expected to be about £183 million.
  In the two financial years ending March 1981 the NEB sold shareholdings in 12 companies for £120 million and proceeds from the sale of assets, including shareholdings, by the other corporations for which my right hon. Friend has responsibility totalled £83 million in the same period.
  It is not practicable to give a forecast of the likely proceeds of any further proposals for privatisation.

  H. Garner and Son
  Mr. Spence asked the Secretary of State for Industry what are the grounds upon which repayment of a regional development grant given to H. Garner and Son, concrete block manufacturers, of Pickhill, Thirsk, North Yorkshire, is now demanded; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. MacGregor: Details of payments and repayments of regional development grants are generally confidential between the Department and the applicant. I have just written to the company in response to its recent representations, and I have also just written to my hon. Friend in response to his separate representations.

  Industry (Financial Aid)
  Mr. Proctor asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the cost to public funds of present Government assistance to industry.
  Mr. Wakeham: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) on 19 October.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Ron Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will give details of the number of firms assisted, and the total amount guaranteed so far, under the Government's loan guarantees for small businesses scheme, for each of the counties respectively in the Northern region and for the other regions in England.
  Mr. MacGregor: The information is not available in respect of each county; figures for the first four months of the scheme's operation, 1 June to 30 September 1981, on the basis of the areas covered by the Department of Industry's regional offices, are:

  Region

  Guarantees Number

  issued Value(£ million)

  Northern

  25

  0.8

  North Western

  88

  3.0

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  64

  2.3

  West Midlands

  86

  2.4

  East Midlands

  57

  1.9

  South Western

  69

  2.4

  South Eastern

  333

  12.4

  Special Steels Industry
  Mr. Hal Miller asked the Secretary of State for Industry what was the outcome of the recent discussions his Department had with the European Commission about the United Kingdom special steels industry.
  Mr. Norman Lamont: The Department, in conjunction with the Bank of England and the British Independent Steels Producers Association, has made representations to the Commission about the difficulties facing special steels producers in the United Kingdom with particular regard to stainless tool and high speed steels.
  The Commission is examining measures to restore prices for special steels to a level which will ensure adequate profitability, and to check rigorously the application of producers' and distributors' price lists in conformity with the provisions of the ECSC Treaty.
  The Commission recognised the need for a reorganisation of the United Kingdom special steels industry. It has undertaken to lend the support of its services with the objective of ensuring a return to normal market conditions as soon as possible.
  I welcome the Commission's positive response to a difficult situation. The measures proposed should provide a breathing space for the industry, to reorganise itself so that it becomes profitable again.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. Gordon Kirby
  19. Mr. Grimond asked the Lord Privy Seal what assistance out of public funds is being given to Mr. Gordon Kirby for the finance of his libel action against Private Eye; and what precedents exist for such assistance.
  Mr. Hurd: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has agreed to help Mr. Kirby from public funds to

  439
  reimburse his reasonable costs as a result of his legal action. The circumstances leading to his action arose from Mr. Kirby's performance of his official duties. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as a good employer, would not wish him to face unaided the very considerable expenses that may be involved. Mr. Kirby's decision to sue Private Eye was his and his alone and no promise of financial help was made to him before he took the decision. Financial help has been given in analagous cases.

  Immigration
  Mr. Greville Janner asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects those United Kingdom passport holders who applied for entry to the United Kingdom from India in February 1976 will be called for interview.
  Mr. Luce: We are unable to predict when persons who applied on any particular date will be called for interview. A number of variable factors make it impossible to forecast likely waiting times.
  Mr. Greville Janner asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the possibility of applicants for special vouchers requiring a medical examination before the issue of such vouchers being X—rayed and examined by a local doctor rather than having to travel to Bombay for such an examination.
  Mr. Luce: The appointment of panel doctors in Gujarat has been considered but was found to be unnecessary because applicants travel to Bombay for interview. However, posts are investigating the possibility of reducing the number of journeys to Bombay made by some applicants requiring periodical examinations.
  Mr. Greville Janner asked the Lord Privy Seal how many British passport holders are at present waiting in India to be admitted to the United Kingdom; how many have been waiting during each of the years during which a special voucher scheme has been in operation; and what was in each such year and what is now the waiting period before British passport holders are admitted to the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Luce: At 30 September, 4,782 British passport holders in India had applied for special vouchers and were awaiting interview. A voucher quota was allocated to India in 1972. The number of applications outstanding and the times waited by applicants at the end of that and subsequent years are given in the following tables:

  Year

  Applicants awaiting in-terview

  Waiting time years/months

  1972

  2,405

  4

  1973

  2,844

  3.2

  1974

  4,016

  2.6

  1975

  5,331

  2.2

  1976

  6,419

  2.8

  1977

  5,419

  3.5

  1978

  5,416

  4.1

  1979

  5,375

  4.8>

  1980

  5,144

  5.2

  1981 (September)

  4,782

  5.8

  Mr. Greville Janner asked the Lord Privy Seal when applications were lodged for those special vouchers which were most recently issued.
  Mr. Luce: Special vouchers were issued in September to those who had applied for them in early January 1976.
  Mr. Greville Janner asked the Lord Privy Seal in what exceptional compassionate circumstances the United Kingdom high commission in India considers requests for priority in the issue of special vouchers to enter the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Luce: There are no specific exceptional compassionate circumstances which carry an automatic entitlement to priority in the special voucher queue in India. Each case is considered on its merits. As from 1982, however, a certain measure of priority will be given to applicants aged 70 and over and to widows with children in this country to support them.
  Mr. Greville Janner asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is still the aim of the Government to give an applicant for a special voucher six months' notice of when his or her voucher will be issued.
  Mr. Luce: No. Applicants now receive three months' notice of their interview date.

  Sovereign Base Areas (Cyprus)
  Mr. Christopher Price asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will define the status of the sovereign base areas in Cyprus in view of their categorisation as "colonies" in schedule 6 to the British Nationality Bill now before Parliament; and what relationship they have to the European Communities.
  Mr. Humphrey Atkins: The subheading "Colonies" has been deleted from schedule 6 to the British Nationality Bill. The status of the sovereign base areas is as set out in the Treaty of Establishment, Cmnd. 1252 of 1960. Article 227 of the Treaty of Rome stated that that Treaty does not apply to the sovereign base areas.

  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Mr. Teddy Taylor asked the Lord Privy Seal, pursuant to his reply of 26 October, if Her Majesty's Government will make it their policy not to permit meetings between Foreign Office Ministers and Mr. Arafat of the Palestine Liberation Organisation until such time as the Palestine Liberation Organisation recognises the right of the State of Israel to exist.
  Mr. Hurd: It is the present policy of Her Majesty's Government that Ministers should not hold meetings with the PLO. My right hon. and noble Friend has consistently made it clear that he would meet Mr. Arafat of the PLO only if such a meeting were to contribute to the cause of peace. We continue to urge on the PLO that it should make clear now its willingness to accept Israel's right to live in peace and security once Israel accepts the right of Palestinians to self—determination.

  General Dayan
  Mr. Teddy Taylor asked the Lord Privy Seal why Her Majesty's Government were represented by a consular official at the funeral of the late General Dayan of Israel; and whether, having regard to the fact that France, West Germany and the United States of America were represented by senior Ministers, consideration was given by Her Majesty's Government to being represented by a Minister or by Her Majesty's ambassador.
  Mr. Hurd: The Government had wished to send a Minister to attend General Dayan's funeral, but this was unfortunately not possible to arrange. The British ambassador was absent from Tel Aviv on local leave. During the weekend in question he was out of contact with the embassy, in a remote part of the Southern Sinai. The Government were therefore represented at General Dayan's funeral by the British counsellor and consul—general.

  Israel
  Mr. Teddy Taylor asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps he is taking to improve relations with the State of Israel.
  Mr. Hurd: We are constantly looking for ways to improve our relations with Israel and to show her that we follow a balanced approach to a peace settlement in the Middle East.

  Sinai Peacekeeping Force
  Mr. Teddy Taylor asked the Lord Privy Seal if Her Majesty's Government have been approached by the United States Government about providing armed forces to join the Sinai peacekeeping force provided for in the Camp David agreement; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Hurd: Along with a number of other Western countries we have been asked by the United States Government to provide a contribution to the Sinai peacekeeping force. We have been discussing this request with our European partners in the light of the common Eurpean policy towards the Middle East set out in the Venice declaration and later statements by the Ten. A statement will be made once a final decision has been reached. I hope this will be soon.

  European Democratic Union (Ministerial Statement)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor asked the Lord Privy Seal if, pursuant to his reply of 26 October, Her Majesty's Governmment have advised the Government of Israel that the statements attributed to the Foreign Secretary at the meeting of the European Democratic Union on 3 July are wholly misleading and do not represent the views of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Hurd: No. the report was indeed wholly misleading but we have no reason to believe that the Israeli Government gave any credence to it.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Stanground Comprehensive School, Peterborough
  Mr. Kinnock asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what reply he has sent to Mr. Bernard Barker, head of Stanground comprehensive school, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, who wrote to inform him that he believes that the school is currently in breach of the Education Act 1944 due to failure to provide sufficient materials for teaching.
  Sir Keith Joseph: Mr. Barker's letter is being considered and a reply will be sent as soon as possible. I understand Cambridgeshire local education authority is
  442
  currently assessing the effects of its economy measures on individual schools, so as to be sure that there will be none with insufficient essential materials.

  Social Science Research Council
  Mrs. Renée Short asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what changes have been made in the last year in the membership of the Social Science Research Council; and if he will list the total current membership together with their qualifications.
  Mr. William Shelton: During the last year the terms of office of Professor A. H. Halsey, Professor A. Summerfield and Professor J. Wrigley ended. Professor J. G. Edwards, Mr. N. Johnson and Mr. M. Shock were appointed to fill the ensuing vacancies. (Two further members, who also reached the end of their terms of office in the last year, were re—appointed.)
  The present membership of the Council is as follows: CHAIRMAN
  Mr. M. V. Posner
  Member of the British Railways Board; Educated Balliol College, Oxford; Member of the Standing Committee on Energy and the Environment; Adviser to the Council for Energy Conservations former Economic Adviser Department of Energy (1974–75) and Deputy Chief Economic Adviser to Her Majesty's Treasury (1975–76).
  MEMBERS
  Mr. D. Brooks
  Personnel Consultant; Educated University College Cardiff; Member of the BBC Consultative Group on Social Effects of Television; Former Personnel Officer, Hoover Ltd. (1956–60).
  Professor S. J. Checkland
  Professor of Economic History, University of Glasgow; Educated Birmingham University; Associate Canadian Banker Association; Honorary Vice President of the Economic History Society (1980); Former Lecturer at Liverpool and Cambridge Universities.
  Mr. H. J. D. Cole
  Chief Economic Adviser, Departments of the Environment and Transport; Educated Trinity College Cambridge; Former Director General of Economics and Resources at the Department of the Environment (1972–76).
  Sir James Dunnett
  President, Institute of Manpower Studies; Educated University College Oxford; Former Permanent Secretary Ministry of Transport (1959–62) and at the Ministry of Labour (1962–66), and Permanent Under Secretary of State Ministry of Defence (1966–74).
  Sir Goronwy Daniel
  H.M. Lieutenant for Dyfed; Director Commercial Bank of Wales; Educated University College of Wales, Jesus College Oxford; Former Vice Chancellor of University of Wales; Adviser Council on Energy Conservation (1974–79); Permannt Under Secretary of State at the Welsh Office (1964–69).
  Professor E. Gellner
  Professor of Philosophy, London School of Economics; Educated Balliol College.
  Mr. J. Gestetner
  Joint Chairman, Gestetner Holdings Ltd.; Educated Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Member of Maplin Development Authority (1973–74).
  Professor J. G. Edwards
  Professor of Addiction Behaviour, Institute of Psychiatry; Honorary Consultant at the Bethlem and Maudsley Hospitals; Medical Director Alcohol Education center; Educated Balliol College Oxford; Member of the Department of Environment Committee on Drinking and Driving (1974–75); Adviser to the Home Office Council on the Misuse of Drugs (1972).
  Mr. W. Hayes
  Executive Councillor, Electrical Electronic Telecommunication and Plumbing Union.
  Mr. N. Johnson
  Reader in the Comparative Study of Institutions, Nuffield College Oxford; Educated University College Oxford; Former Lecturer at Nottingham and Warwick Universities.
  Professor J. R. Sargent
  Group Economic Adviser Midland Bank; Honorary Professor of Economics, University of Warwick; Educated Christ Church Oxford; Economic Consultant Her Majesty's Treasury and Department of Economic Affairs (1963–65).
  Lord Sefton of Garston
  Vice Chairman of Warrington and Runcorn Development Corporation; Member of the New Town Commission; Former Chairman and Leader of Merseyside County Council (1974–77).
  Mr. M. Shock
  Vice Chancellor of Leicester University, Chairman of the University Authorities Panel; Educated Balliol College Oxford, St. Antony's College; Former Lecturer in Politics at Christ Church and Trinity Colleges Oxford.
  Professor P. J. Sloane
  Head of Department of Economics and Management, Paisley College; Educated Universities of Sheffield and Strathclyde; Former Economic Adviser, Unit of Manpower Studies, Department of Employment (1973–74); Lecturer at Strathclyde, Aberdeen and Nottingham Universities.
  Dame Ann Springman
  Chairman, National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations (1980–81); Former Councillor, Bracknell District Council and Chairman of their Planning Committee (1968–76).
  Mr. W. B. Utting
  Chief Social Work Officer, DHSS; Educated New College Oxford; Former Director of Social Services, Kensington and Chelsea (1970–76).
  Professor D. E. C. Wedderburn
  Principal Bedford College, London; Educated Girton College Cambridge; Former Head of Department of Social and Economic Studies at Imperial College of Science and Technology (1965–81); Member of Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (1976—to date).
  Mrs. Mary Warnock
  Senior Research Fellow, St. Hugh's College Oxford; Member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution; Educated Lady Margaret Hall Oxford; Chairman on the Committee of Inquiry into Special Education (1974–78).
  Professor M. J. Wise
  Professor of Geography, London School of Economics; President, Royal Geographical Society; Governor of Birkbeck College; Educated University of Birmingham.
  * Departmental members
  Mrs. Renée Short asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether any reorganisation is planned to the internal structure of the Social Science Research Council.
  Mr. William Shelton: A decision to reorganise the Social Science Research Council's committee structure was take n at the July meeting of the council. In early October the council published a document which is partly informative and partly consultative. It sets out the new committee structure and invites discussion on its detailed working methods and procedures. A copy of the document, which is entitled "A Change in Structure for Changing Circumstances", has been sent direct to the hon. Member by the council.

  Polytechnics and Local Authority Higher Education Colleges
  Mrs. Renée Short asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) whether he has any plans to cut the funds payable for the polytechnics and local authority higher education colleges; what reduction in the teaching force this would entail; and if he will make a statement;
  (2) whether he has any plans to cut the funds payable for non—advanced further education in the coming financial year; what reduction in the teaching force this would entail; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The Government's plans for spending by local authorities in 1982–83, which will be embodied in the forthcoming rate support grant settlement, have yet to be settled. They will, however, take into account the announced plans—Cmnd. 8175—for a reduction in provision for higher education, including polytechnics and maintained colleges, as well as the additional £60 million for England—announced by the Prime Minister on 27 July to allow for increased numbers of 16 to 19—year—olds to continue full—time education in school or college. The implications of the final plans for the teaching force will be for discussion with the local authority associations in due course.

  State Education (Fee—paying)
  Mrs Renée Short asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether consideration is being given to the introduction of a system of fee—paying in State education; and if he will make a statement.
  Dr. Boyson: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to introduce charges in maintained schools. Fees are already charged in higher and further education.

  London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine
  Mrs. Renée Short asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the income of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has come from (a) Government funds, (b) student fees and (c) private sources for each of the past five years; if he will give the monetary figures as well; and if he will give the estimated figures for the next financial year.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The school's income during the last five years for which figures are so far available was constituted as follows:

  Total

  Government Funds

  Fees

  Private sources

  Other

  £,000s

  per cent

  £,000s

  per cent

  £,000s

  per cent

  £,000s

  per cent

  1975–76

  1,951

  1,684

  86

  86

  5

  22

  1

  159

  8

  1976–77

  2,216

  1,900

  86

  106

  5

  62 149

  2

  7

  1977–78

  2,383

  1,933

  81

  227

  10

  33

  1

  191

  8

  1978–79

  2,611

  2,092

  80

  256

  10

  36

  1

  227

  9

  1979–80

  3,366

  2,612

  78

  348

  10

  49

  1

  357

  11

  The above figures do not include income from research grants or contracts about which separate information is not readily available.
  The University of London itself decides how to allocate its recurrent grant between its constituent institutions. It is not therefore possible for me to predict the school's future income.
  Mrs Renée Short asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to ensure the future viability of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The Government have earmarked a sum of £3 million in the universities recurrent grant for 1981–82 to help ensure that uncertainty about prospective income from overseas students does not adversely affect selected postgraduate work of particular importance to the country. The University Grants Committee will decide how this money should be distributed to individual universities. The internal allocation of these resources is decided by the universities concerned.

  University Students (Statistics)
  Mr. Christopher Price asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out in the Official Report, for each United Kingdom university, the preliminary returns of student numbers for 1981—82 forwarded on 23 October, together with the target numbers recommended by the University Grants Committee.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The Department has not yet received any figures from the University Grants Committee of student numbers for 1981–82. Preliminary figures will be available shortly. The University Grants Committee has not recommended any target numbers for 1981–82 to universities.

  Higher Education (Student Numbers)
  Mr. Christopher Price asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has made of student numbers in public sector higher education in 1981–82; and how these compare with those hypothecated by the financial limits of the pool.
  Mr. Waldegrave: No estimate is yet available; the size of the 1981–82 advanced further education pool was determined in accordance with the Government's overall expenditure plans. The March 1981 White Paper—Cmnd. 8175—assumed that institutions would admit as many students as they could consistent with their academic judgement.

  Mandatory Grants
  Mr. Christopher Price asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to reply to the Public Accounts Committee's report on reasonable cash limits for mandatory grants; and whether he will lay before Parliament a Green Paper indicating the various means by which this objective could be achieved.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The Treasury minute responding to the Public Accounts Committee's tenth report will issue shortly and will deal with this recommendation.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Christopher Price asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimates he has made about
  446
  the effect on the viability of the School of Tropical Medicines and Hygiene and the School of Oriental and African Studies of the Government's move to full cost overseas student fees.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The Government earmarked a sum of £3 million in the universities' recurrent grant for 1981–82 to help ensure that uncertainty about prospective income from overseas students does not adversely affect selected postgraduate work of particular importance to the country. The University Grants Committee will decide how this money should be distributed to individual universities. The internal allocation of these resources is decided by the universities concerned. It is therefore too early to say what the overall effect on individual institutions of the full—cost student fee policy will be.

  Education Vouchers
  Mr. Michael Brown asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science which organisations have made representations to him regarding the introduction of education vouchers for schools; and if he will make a statement.
  Sir Keith Joseph: No organisation has made representations on this topic recently. The Government have long been committed to doing everything practicable to advance parental choice and parental influence in our school system. The parents' charter promised in our 1979 Manifesto and put on the statute book by the Education Act 1980 takes us a considerable way forward and sets the general scene for the foreseeable future. However, as I said at the recent party conference, I am intellectually attracted to the idea of eventually increasing parental power even further through a voucher system; though there would be great difficulties in making such a system deliver, in a way that could be commended, more choice than is given by the 1980 Act. It is now for the advocates of such a possibility to study these real difficulties to see whether proposals can be developed to cope with them. There would be no question of more than an experiment in a limited area as a first step even if a practicable scheme does eventuate.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Michael Brown asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report which organisations have made representations to him regarding voluntary student unions, and student union financing; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Further Education (Visits)
  Mr. Michael Brown asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has been invited to visit any universities, polytechnics or colleges of further education; which organisations have invited him; and when he plans to visit them.
  Sir Keith Joseph: I have received invitations to visit the University of Durham, School of Education and Cranfield Institute of Technology, which I am considering; and invitations to visit the University of Bradford and University College at Buckingham, which it has not proved possible to accept. I have accepted an invitation to visit Cranfield School of Management in February 1982.

  National Union of Students and Federation of Conservative Students
  Mr. Michael Brown asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met (a) the National Union of Students, and (b) the Federation of Conservative Students; what discussions took place; and if he will make a statement.
  Sir Keith Joseph: I have not met either the National Union of Students or the Federation of Conservative Students.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Broadmoor and Rampton
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons have absconded from Broadmoor and Rampton in the past 12 months; for what offences they were being held; and what disciplinary proceedings followed both for the prisoner and for the staff.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Since 1 October 1980, two patients have absconded from within the secure perimeter of Broadmoor hospital and one patient has absconded whilst on an outside trip. In the same period, two patients have absconded from Rampton hospital whilst on outside trips. All of these patients were detained under section 60 of the Mental Health Act 1959. Patients detained in the special hospitals, including those sent there by the courts under section 60 of the 1959 Act, are in those hospitals for treatment of their mental disorders, not as a punishment for any offence they may have committed. Their status is that of patients, and the question of taking disciplinary proceedings against patients does not therefore arise.
  A working party is studying the circumstances of the two abscondings from within the secure perimeter at Broadmoor hospital. Its proposals for improved security are being put into operation as they arise and the findings and recommendations are expected to be complete by the end of the year. Reports relating to the other abscondings did not indicate any requirement for disciplinary proceedings against members of staff.

  Dental Therapists
  Dr. Roger Thomas asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, in the event of dental therapists ceasing to work in the State—provided dental community health service, whether he is considering allowing dental therapists to work in ordinary dental practice; and what steps he has in mind to encourage dentists to employ such useful expertise, particularly in areas where dental practitioners are in such short supply.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I do not forsee dental therapists ceasing to work in the community dental service. In view of the provisions of the Dentist Act 1957, the General Dental Council's regulations do not permit the employment of dental therapists in general dental practice and there is little prospect of amending the Dentists Act in the immediate future. We shall be considering the future role of the dental therapist grade in the light of comments on the recommendation of the dental strategy review group that the New Cross training school should be closed, but no decision has yet been raised as the period of consultation has not ended.

  Consultants (Contracts)
  Mrs. Dunwoody asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations he has had with the new district health authorities about the decision to lodge consultants' contracts with the regional health authorities.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: As district health authorities have only just come into being in shadow form, consultation with them would have been inappropriate. Extensive consultations did take place with existing health authorities, the National Association of Health Authorities and other health service interests.

  Overseas Visitors (Medical Charges)
  Dr. Roger Thomas asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied that the proceeds from charging overseas patients for treatment will cover the administrative costs involved; and whether, in the event of any net cost, he will reconsider his policy of charging.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Yes, but we are awaiting the report of the working party referred to in my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) on 20 October 1981—[Vol. 10, c. 95–96.]

  "Care in the Community"
  Dr. Roger Thomas asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, following publication of his Department's report "Care in the Community", he will take steps to expand this aspect of medical care, particularly as regards the elderly, the mentally ill and the mentally retarded.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Yes. The importance of developing community care for elderly, mentally ill and mentally handicapped people was emphasised in "Care in Action", our handbook of policies and priorities for health and personal social services; and the consultative document "Care in the Community" suggests ways of encouraging the transfer of patients and resources from hospital to the care of the personal social services. We shall be issuing further advice in due course.

  Unemployment and Health
  Dr. Roger Thomas asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, following his replies on the relationship between unemployment and ill health, Official Report, 20 October, cols. 154–56, he will make financial support available for the related survey to be carried out by North—West Thames regional health authority.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The Department has made inquiries of the North—West Thames regional health authority and it is not clear to what survey the hon. Gentleman is referring. If he would like to write to me with fuller details I will look into the matter.

  Kidney Patients
  Mr. Carter—Jones asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, as a result of his Department's recent report "The Respective Roles of the General Acute

  449
  and Geriatric Sectors in Care of the Elderly Hospital Patient"; he will take steps to encourage wider use of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis for kidney patients; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The use of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis—CAPD—has been growing steadily. The great majority of dialysis centers now make some use of it, and it is estimated that on 1 August 1981 nearly 700 patients in the United Kingdom were being treated in this way. Nevertheless, it has some disadvantages, particularly the risk of peritonitis. Figures compiled by the European Dialysis and Transplant Association for United Kingdom patients treated by CAPD show that only half of them were still receiving this form of treatment a year after starting it. Its role in the long—term treatment of chronic renal failure is therefore still to be determined.
  The choice of treatment for any patient is a clinical matter for decision by the consultant concerned.
  Mr. Carter—Jones asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the number of kidney patients who have died since 1978 because no specialised treatment was made available; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The number of patients developing potentially treatable chronic renal failure in any year has been estimated, on the basis of surveys carried out in the United Kingdom, at about 40 per million total population. This is equivalent to an annual total of about 2,200 for the United Kingdom. The numbers of new patients actually starting treatment were as follows:

  Number of new patients

  Rate per million population

  1978

  1,182

  21.0

  1979

  1,206

  21.6

  1980

  1,373

  24.6

  The difference between these figures and the estimated need is not necessarily a reliable indication of the number of patients who would have survived if they had received specialised treatment. Mortality over two years among patients who have started treatment varies—according to age group—between 20 and 40 per cent. and the likely success of treatment will be one of the factors taken into account by a consultant in deciding whether a patient should be accepted. My hon. Friend referred to the steps being taken by the Government in this field in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 26 October 1981.

  Health Authorities (Confidential Material)
  Mr. Greville Janner asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether, when the reviews by health authorities of the procedures by which they dispose of confidential material are completed, he will institute an inquiry into this matter;
  (2) by what date he has asked health authorities to complete their review of the procedures by which they dispose of confidential material;
  (3) what steps he has taken to ensure that health authorities satisfactorily review procedures for the destruction of confidential material as requested by him.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: We have asked health authorities to review urgently their procedures for the destruction of confidential records, and it is now up to individual authorities to satisfy themselves that proper arrangements are made. I do not think that an inquiry is necessary, nor have I called for reports.

  Blood Supplies (Private Health Care)
  Mrs. Renée Short asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North—East on 28 July, Official Report, columns 435–6, if he will make provision to ensure that those who do not want the blood they have donated to the National Health Service to go to the private sector will have their wishes respected.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Blood is donated to the national blood transfusion service for the benefit of any patient who may require it. It would not be practicable for donors to stipulate the use to which their donations should be put, nor do I believe the majority would wish to do so.
  Mrs. Renée Short asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North—East on 28 July, Official Report, c. 435–6, if he is yet able to report on the discussions he was holding with representatives of the National Health Service and the private sector with a view to introducing charges to cover the handling and processing costs incurred by the National Blood Transfusion Service in supplying blood to private hospitals and clinics.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The Department is currently holding discussions with representatives of the National Health Service. The views of the private sector will be sought shortly.

  Smoking-related Disease
  Mrs. Renée Short asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East on 3 July, Official Report, c. 509, if, in statements about the number of premature deaths per annum from coronry heart disease, lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema caused by smoking, he will in future use the figure of 95,000 calculated by Dr. Wald of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund epidemiology unit, in place of the figure of 50,000 which he has been accustomed to use; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Numbers of premature deaths attributable to smoking cigarettes may be calculated in different ways, and the result will depend on, for example, the age groups reviewed, the extent to which smoking is regarded as the main factor causing death, and which deaths are considered to be "premature." The figure of 50,000 is based on assumptions made by the Royal College of Physicians and takes account only of deaths in the age range 35 to 74. I understand that Dr. Wald's calculations include deaths at age 75 and over, and that there are other differences in the assumptions he makes. I am satisfied that the figure of 50,000 premature deaths each year is a reasonable estimate of the death toll caused by smoking cigarettes.

  Benefits (Refusal)
  Mrs. Renée Short asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether there are any circumstances in which a person can be refused social security benefits on the grounds that they cannot speak English sufficiently; and if he will make a statement.
  Mrs. Chalker: It is not a specific condition of entitlement to any social security benefit that the claimant should be able to speak English.
  However, persons claiming unemployment benefit are required to be available for work. Similarly, under section 5 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 persons claiming that benefit who are of working age—with certain exceptions prescribed by regulations—are required to register and be available for employment. The generality of claimants are not exempted from these requirements solely because their command of English is poor, though under regulation 6(k) of the Supplementary Benefit (Conditions of Entitlement) Regulations, there are special and specific provisions for newly arrived refugees who need to attend classes for more than 15 hours per week in order to learn English so as to fit themselves for employment.
  It is for the independent adjudicating authorities to decide on the facts of each case whether a claimant is or is not available for work, and therefore whether the conditions imposed by this legislation are satisfied. There is a right of appeal to an independent appeal tribunal against any such decision, and a further right of appeal to the social security commissioners against the tribunal's decision.

  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Mr. Alfred Morris asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has had any recent request to use the powers available to him under section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act; and whether he sees any present need to emphasise to local social services authorities that the provisions of the Act apply, wherever appropriate, as much to the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped as to the physically disabled.
  Mr. Rossi: My right hon. Friend has received no such request, nor have we any reason to think that local authorities are unaware that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 applies to mentally handicapped and mentally ill people as well as to those who are physically disabled.

  Widows' Pension
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what weekly pension has been payable to widows of persons who have died as a result of industrial disease, over and above the level of nominal widows pension or retirement pension, in each of the past 12 years; and if he will now take steps to increase payments.
  Mrs. Chalker: Throughout the past 12 years, the weekly pension payable to the widows of men who have died as a result of an industrial disease has exceeded the standard rate of the main scheme widows' pension and retirement pension by 55p.
  The Government will shortly announce their proposals for industrial death benefit resulting from the review of the industrial injuries benefit scheme.

  Disabled Persons (Report)
  Mr. Alfred Morris asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he now expects the report of the committee on restrictions against disabled people to be published.
  Mr. Rossi: My right hon. Friend expects to receive the report of the committee on restrictions against disabled people by the end of this year.

  Earnings—related Supplement (Abolition)
  Miss Richardson asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest estimate of the savings that will be made in a full year as a result of the abolition of the earnings—related supplement.
  Mr. Rossi: It was estimated at the time of the passage of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill 1980 that there would be a saving of £385 million in national insurance benefit expenditure in 1982–83, though there would be some additional expenditure on supplementary benefit. I shall write to the hon. Member when the latest estimates of the savings are available.

  Vibration White Finger.
  Mr. Marks asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take on the recommendations contained in Cmnd. 8350, the report of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on vibration white finger.
  Mr. Rossi: The report is under consideration and the Government's response to its recommendations will be announced as soon as possible.

  Early Retirement (Cost)
  Mr. Craigen asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the cost of giving the option of retirement to those men aged 60 to 65 years who are presently registered as unemployed.
  Mrs. Chalker: On the assumption that the numbers did not change, £200 million at average 1981–82 benefit rates.

  Schedule of Prescribed Diseases
  Mr. Dickens asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has yet received the report of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on its review of the schedule of prescribed diseases and on the possibility of introducing an individual proof system for claims for compensation for occupationally induced diseases; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Rossi: The council's report entitled "Industrial Diseases: a Review of the Schedule and the Question of Individual Proof'—Cmnd. 8393—was published today. We shall be considering the council's recommendations very carefully, and the Government's response will be announced in due course.

  "The Silent Minority"
  Mr. Alexander asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is yet in a position to make a statement following his consideration of the Associated Television documentary "The Silent Minority".
  Mr. Fowler: I have now seen the ATV documentary "The Silent Minority" and considered the reports my predecessor called for from the health authorities concerned. I understand the authorities consulted appropriate members of staff in the preparation of the reports. The film criticised the, care of mentally handicapped residents in St. Lawrence's and Borocourt hospitals and used incidents portrayed in the film to question what was described as the Government's policy towards mentally handicapped people. I have placed in the Library a summary by my Department of the comments received from the health authorities concerned on the detailed incidents portrayed in the film.
  First, I should like to describe the general position. Most mentally handicapped people are cared for in the community—by parents or relatives or in homes or hostels—with the support of the health services, the social services and the voluntary services. The numbers in hospitals are falling and, in particular, the number of children in mental handicap hospitals has fallen from 7,000 in 1971 to 2,800 in 1979. Very few children at all are now being admitted for long—term care. The Government have accepted unequivocally that large mental handicap hospitals do not provide a suitable environment for children to grow up in. Authorities have been urged to ensure that, where the children's handicaps are such that they need continuous health care, this should be provided in small, homely units in the community. In June this year, my Department sponsored a conference at which feasible alternatives to large hospital care were demonstrated and discussed. These included a number of units similar to the one at Beech Tree House shown in the film, which are now being provided by health and local authorities and voluntary organisations in various parts of the country.
  I am glad to say that this conference prompted a number of inquiries from authorities and organisations which are interested in using one or other of the units demonstrated as a model for their own developments. We are arranging for a booklet describing these and other units to be distributed widely later in the autumn. Also, to encourage local initiative, we are offering a scheme to match £1 for £1 funds raised by voluntary organisations to get children out of hospital into suitable provision elsewhere.
  The film concentrated its attention on certain categories of the most severely handicapped in particular circumstances. In doing this, I believe it gave an unrepresentative picture both of the two hospitals and of the care given by National Health Service staff to mentally handicapped people in general. My particular concern must be to see that no programme gives a wrong impression of the nature of mentally handicapped people as a whole which would undermine the efforts of all those, including the Government, concerned to improve services for mentally handicapped people and to enable them to live, as far as possible, normal lives in the community. The summary of comments shows that the authorities concerned have considered the implications of the film very carefully and that they have reacted positively to the experience.
  However, the documentary did show very vividly why the Government's policy is to reduce and replace the large mental handicap hospitals even for people needing a high degree of care. Much smaller units are now being developed in the health and social services. These can more easily provide a homely atmosphere. We have urged
  454
  authorities to give priority to this policy. To help speed the process we issued on 16 July this year a consultative document—"Care in the Community"—which invites comments on a number of possible ways of transferring patients and resources from hospital to community care. This has had a very favourable reception and will, I hope, promote wide and constructive discussion.
  The advisory services of the development team for the mentally handicapped have been sought by most authorities in the country and the team has visited most areas at least once since its inception in 1975. The team visited St. Lawrence's before this programme was transmitted and, as the summary indicates, the health authorities have already started to implement some of the team's recommendations.
  It is necessary to bring the needs of mentally handicapped people more into the public eye. In this respect, the publicity generated by "The Silent Minority" elicited genuine compassion and concern from hundreds of viewers, and I welcome this. But I also want to place on record my recognition of the devoted work of the staff in these two hospitals and, indeed, throughout the National Health Service which has made possible the positive developments that are taking place.

  Blind Persons (Television Licence)
  Mr. Heddle asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what are the entitlements of registered blind people to reductions in the television licence fee;
  (2) what is the current amount in the reduction of the television licence fee for registered blind people.
  Mr. Mayhew:
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to section 2(2) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, as amended by section 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy (Blind Persons) Act 1955. The amount of the reduction is £1.25.

  Mr. Heddle asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many registered blind people have applied for reductions in the television licence fee at the latest available date;

  (2) what was the estimated cost of reductions in the television licence fee for registered blind people over the last five years;

  (3) whether any proposals to increase the amount of the television licence fee allowance for registered blind people are being considered by him.

  Mr. Mayhew:
  I have been asked to reply. I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  Deaf Persons (Television Licence)
  Mr. Heddle asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from organisations representing registered deaf people asking him to look into the possibility of granting a rebate or reducing the television licence fee for registered deaf persons.
  Mr. Mayhew:
  I have been asked to reply. I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  Benefits (Take—up)
  Mr. Skinner asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he intends to make simplifying

  455
  information for claimants on the take—up of benefits; and whether he will ensure they involve no extension of means—testing.
  Mrs Chalker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my replies to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kempton (Mr. Bowden) on 20 October 1981.—[Vol. 10, c. 151—3.]

  Orthopaedic Treatment
  Mr. Rees-Davies asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average waiting time for inpatient orthopaedic treatment in hospitals, particularly for hip surgery in (a) the South-East Thames regional health authority and (b) the Canterbury and Thanet district health authority.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The most recent information available for the South-East Thames regional health authority, based on a 10 per cent. sample, is for 1978, when the mean waiting times for patients resident in the region admitted from waiting lists were 34.7 weeks for all arthroplasty—joint replacement—operations and 23 weeks for all orthopaedic operations. Waiting times for individual operations, such as hip replacements, are not readily available. The information requested for the Canterbury and Thanet health district is not available centrally and my hon. Friend may like to seek it direct from the Kent area health authority.

  Private Supplier's (Contracts)
  Mr. John Garrett asked the Secretary of State for Social Services to what extent the contracting out to private suppliers of health authority services has increased in the last year; and what scrutiny his Department exercises over the pricing policies of such private suppliers.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The identifiable expenditure in England on contract services for the last two years for which figures are available is as follows:

  1979–80

  1980–81

  £

  £

  103,568,103

  135,237,490

  The Department does not scrutinise the pricing policies of the contractors. It is the responsibility of individual health authorities to ensure the cost effectiveness of any contracts into which they enter. The Department's auditors examine the range of services administered by health authorities, including contracts.

  Bowthorpe Maternity Hospital
  Mr. Freud asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will give the full reasons which have caused him to reverse his 1979 decision to keep open the Bowthorpe maternity hospital;
  (2) what criteria in respect of staffing and infant mortality he follows in making a decision to close a maternity hospital; and how far from acceptable the staffing and safety at the Bowthorpe maternity hospital, Wisbech were when he ordered that deliveries and inpatient care be transferred forthwith;
  (3) if, in relation to the problem of the utmost urgency identified in his letter to the chairman of Norfolk area health authority in respect of the Bowthorpe maternity
  456
  hospital, he will indicate the period of time by which he expects there to be no more births or in—patient admissions at the hospital;
  (4) whether he will meet a delegation from Wisbech to discuss his letter to the chairman of Norfolk area health authority in respect of the Bowthorpe maternity hospital.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Perinatal Mortality
  Mr. Clement Freud asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what perinatal mortality rate per thousand births indicates to him an unacceptable level of efficiency in a maternity hospital; and which maternity hospitals or units have higher rates.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Maternity Units (Anaesthetists)
  Mr. Freud asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the maternity units in England and Wales that do not have full-time consultant anaesthetist cover.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Freud asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in respect of which hospitals he has ordered partial or total closure without giving prior information to either the community health council or the hon. Member concerned.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Dementia
  Mr. Carter-Jones asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many health districts have a consultant geriatric psychiatrist for the treatment of elderly people suffering from dementia and other related illnesses.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg [pursuant to his reply, 26 October 1981]: I have obtained information from regional health authorities about districts with a consultant psychiatrist with a special interest in the elderly, and this is shown in the table below. The totals include some districts where less than a whole—time appointment has been made, and the figures should not be taken to imply that the need for consultant cover has been fully met in all the districts.

  Region

  Number of districts

  Number of districts with consultant psychiatrists with a special interest in the elderly

  Northern

  16

  6

  Yorkshire

  17

  11

  Trent

  17

  7

  East Anglia

  7

  3

  North—West Thames

  18

  5

  North—East Thames

  17

  14

  Region

  Number of districts

  Number of districts with consultant psychiatrists with a special interest in the elderly

  South—East Thames

  16

  7

  South—West Thames

  14

  13

  Wessex

  10

  9

  Oxford

  7

  6

  South Western

  10

  9

  West Midlands

  22

  6

  Mersey

  10

  4

  North Western

  18

  5

  England

  199

  105

  In addition, posts in a further nine health districts which at present have no consultant psychiatrist with a special interest in the elderly have recently been advertised or are being advertised, but no appointments have yet been made.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Political Parties (Consultations)
  16. Sir John Biggs-Davison asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he is holding with political parties in Northern Ireland; and with what object.
  Mr. Prior: Since taking office I have met representatives of the four main political parties in Northern Ireland, as well as virtually every other party with any significant following in the Province, to familiarise myself with their different points of view.

  Cross-border Co-operation
  17. Mr. Canavan asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland to discuss cross-border co-operation.
  Mr. Prior: I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney).

  Security
  18. Mr. Bradford asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Prior: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) earlier today.
  Mr. Michael Brown asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present security situation in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Prior: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux).
  Mr. Latham asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the security situation.
  Mr. Prior: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) earlier today.

  De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd.
  Mr. Concannon asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many De Lorean cars have been shipped to the United States so far in the current year; and how many of those cars have been sold.
  Mr. Adam Butler: I am informed by the company that at 26 October 1981 4,343 cars with an export value of $76 million had been shipped to the United States of America. Of these, 2,650 had been sold or were in the hands of dealers at 22 October 1981; the balance were in transit or undergoing customerisation.
  Mr. Concannon asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what would be the estimated cost to the Government of benefit payments to those now employed directly or indirectly by the De Lorean Motor Company if those people were unemployed.
  Mr. Adam Butler: I regret that in this as in any other instance relating to a specific group of workers it is not possible to provide a precise answer without incurring disproportionate cost. The total benefit payable would depend on the personal circumstances of the individuals concerned, marital status, number of dependants and so on. However, a recent sample of unemployed claimants receiving benefit revealed that the average weekly payment throughout Northern Ireland was £41.50, and if it is assumed that each employee of De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd. would receive this sum the weekly cost would be £106,115.
  I regret that it is not possible to estimate to an acceptable degree of accuracy the number of employees of other companies whose jobs depend on the De Lorean enterprise.

  Council for Educational Development
  Mr. Michael Brown asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total cost to public funds per annum of the Northern Ireland Council for Educational Development.
  Mr. Scott: The total cost to public funds for the Northern Ireland Council for Educational Development in the 1981–82 financial year is estimated at £38,000.
  Nurses (Meal Costs)
  Mr. Wm. Ross asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the cost of the same meal for a nurse in Altnagelvin hospital, the Tyrone county hospital and the Erner hospital is the same.
  Mr. John Patten: No. In general, the price of a meal in hospital depends on the local cost of ingredients. It is possible for nurses, however to take advantage of the meals provided for ancillary staff which, following an agreement with the ancillary and general staffs joint council, are provided at a standard price in all three hospitals.

  Maze Prison
  Mr. Michael Brown asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about developments at Her Majesty's prison, Maze since the end of the hunger strikes.
  Mr. Prior: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier today to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross).
  Rev. Ian Paisley asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the effective differences between the concessions made to the IRA prisoners and their five demands which the Government have previously refused to grant; and whether these changes are to be extended to all prisoners.
  Mr. Prior: The changes I announced on 6 October are applicable to all prisoners and confer no special status or privileges on IRA prisoners or people convicted of terrorist offences.
  The government made clear throughout the hunger strike their intention to resume improvements in the prison regime once that element of duress was removed. Allowing prisoners to wear there own clothes is the only respect in which the changes coincide with the demands of the hunger strikers. The restoration of some lost remission to conforming prisoners only and minor changes in association do not compare with the sweeping demands for free association, full remission and freedom not to work which the protesting prisoners made.

  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Mr. Concannon asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young persons in Northern Ireland are currently on placement with the youth opportunities programme.
  Mr. Adam Butler: 8,229 young people had places in schemes under the youth opportunities programme at 25 September 1981, the latest date for which the information is available.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Concannon asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many school leavers are currently registered as unemployed in Northern Ireland; how many were registered as unemployed last October; and what proportion of the total out of work in October 1981 and October 1980 these two figures represent.
  Mr. Adam Butler: The information is as follows:

  October

  Under 18

  Over 18

  Total

  Per cent. of total Un employed

  1981

  11,497

  8,442

  19,939

  17.8

  1980

  8,628

  5,329

  13,957

  15.5

  Mr. Concannon asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young persons who left school last Easter are currently registered as unemployed in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Adam Butler: I regret that this information is not at present available because of changes being made in the method of processing the statistics.

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. Concannon asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many trade union representatives will sit on the new Industrial Development Board in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Adam Butler: Planning of the structure, membership and modus operandi of the Industrial Development Board is still at a formative stage. I shall make an announcement in due course.
  Mr. Concannon asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to lay before Parliament legislative proposals for the new Industrial Development Board in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Adam Butler: I hope to publish a proposal for a draft Industrial Development Board Order early next year, and to lay the draft before Parliament as soon as practicable after that.

  Northern Ireland Office (Staff)
  Mr. Michael Brown asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants at the Northern Ireland Office are on secondment from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; how many are in each administrative and executive grade; and what percentage they represent of the total number of United Kingdom civil servants at the Northern Ireland Office.
  Mr. John Patten: On 1 October 1981 there were six—one grade 3, two grade 4, one grade 8, one grade 9 and one grade S1—representing just under 3 per cent. of the total number of United Kingdom civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office.

  New Jobs (Statistics)
  Mr. Michael Brown asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new jobs have been promoted by the various Government agencies in Northern Ireland over the last five years; and what is the average cost of each job provided.
  Mr. Adam Butler: The number of jobs promoted by Government in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years and the average amount of assistance offered per job was as follows:

  Jobs Promoted

  Average assistance (1979 prices) offered per job promoted

  £

  1976

  3,678

  3,612

  1977

  5,873

  5,274

  1978

  7,634

  9,764

  1979

  6,802

  8,346

  1980

  6,858

  Not available

  Short Brothers Ltd.
  Mr. Michael Brown asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he proposes to sell the Government's holding in Short Brothers Ltd.
  Mr. Adam Butler: The Government have no immediate plans to sell their holding in Short Brothers Ltd., but, consistent with their policy towards publicly owned companies, this matter is kept under constant review.

  Special Political Adviser
  Mr. Michael Brown asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in the Official Report the

  461
  duties and functions of his special political adviser, the terms and conditions of employment and the total cost to public funds per annum.
  Mr. Prior: I have appointed a special adviser to assist me in my responsibilities at the Northern Ireland Office. His terms and conditions of employment are based on those of civil servants and his service will last no longer than my present appointment. It is not possible to provide an estimate of the cost of his appointment to public funds as it is not the practice to publish details of individual salaries.

  Constitution
  Mr. Michael Brown asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the constitutional discussions on Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Prior: To familiarise myself with their different points of view I have had initial meetings with representatives of the four main political parties in Northern Ireland and with virtually every other party with any significant following in the Province. I am considering the position in the light of the views expressed. All that I would say now is that I am convinced of the need to try to encourage the local parties to move forward in the search for practical areas of co—operation.

DEFENCE

  Space Technology
  Mrs. Knight asked the Secretary of State for Defence what measures have been taken to promote the investigation of the military implications of space technology; what consultations have been held in this respect between members of the Atlantic Alliance; and what was their outcome.
  Mr. Pattie: The military implications of space technology are under study in the defence research programme and there is a continuing dialogue between the scientific and military staffs of NATO member countries. The principal applications are seen to be in the field of communications and navigational satellites, on which there has been a substantial degree of co-operation within NATO.

  Armed Forces (Peace Time Role)
  Mrs. Knight asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will endorse Recommendation 365 of the Assembly of West European Union which asks the Council to entrust the International Secretariat of the Standing Armaments Committee with the research necessary for the preparation of a report on the role and contribution of armed forces in the event of natural or other disasters in peace time.
  Mr. Wiggen: The subject does not fall within the competence of the Standing Armaments Committee as defined by the Council of the Western European Union.

  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Mr. Wm. Ross asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the present members of the Ulster Defence Regiment are former Regular soldiers who
  462
  transferred to that regiment's full-time cadre; and, of these, how many there are in each battalion of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
  Mr. Wiggin: The information is not available within the time scale. I shall write to the hon. Member.
  Mr. Wm. Ross asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is his policy to inform the clergyman of the Church to which a murdered member of the Ulster Defence Regiment belonged as soon as possible after the death; and if he is satisfied that such action is always prompt.
  Mr. Wiggin: It is the practice of the Ulster Defence Regiment to inform the next of kin of the death or injury of any member of the Ulster Defence Regiment as soon as possible. it is for the family to decide if, and when, the clergy should be told.

  Plutonium and Enriched Uranium (Export-Import)
  Mr. Cook asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the United Kingdom has been exporting plutonium to the United States of America for use in its weapons programme in exchange for importing highly enriched uranium; under what agreements of what duration such exchanges have taken place; over what duration the exchanges have actually taken place; whether they are currently taking place and what are the plans for the future; what quantities of plutonium and highly enriched uranium have been and are involved; for what purpose the United Kingdom has used, is using and is intending to use the highly enriched uranium; and what is the source of the plutonium involved, whether from Calder Hall and Chapelcross stations or other Magnox stations.
  Mr. Pattie: The 1958 agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States on co-operation on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes provides for transfers of special nuclear materials between the two countries, but it has been the normal practice of successive Governments not to reveal details of such exchanges.

  Cruise Missiles
  Miss Richardson asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether any cruise missiles are already based at RAF Greenham Common; and if so, how many.
  Mr. Wiggin: No. The first cruise missiles are not scheduled to be deployed at RAF Greenham Common until 1983.

  Nuclear Waste (Windscale)
  Mr. Cook asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much spent fuel from nuclear submarines is currently stored at Windscale.
  Mr. Pattie: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 16 July 1981 in response to his general question on nuclear waste arising from military reactors.—[Vol. 8, c. 480.] It would not be in the national interest to provide information on the amount of spent fuel from nuclear submarines which is in storage.

  Lieutenant—Colonel Seward
  Mr. Christopher Price asked the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his reply to the hon. Member for

  463
  Lewisham, West on 26 October, what are the precise terms of the charges to be brought or which have been brought against Lieutenant-Colonel Seward.
  Mr. Wiggin: I have nothing to add at this stage to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 26 October.—[Vol.. 10, c. 232–33.]

  Canadian Officers (Prisoner of War Contributions)
  Mr. David Steel asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will inquire into recent evidence that the 555 Canadian officers who were in Stalag Luft 3 during the war contributed to the communal fund along with British officers and that their contributions have not been refunded; if he will make restitution to the officers concerned; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Wiggin: After the war the Government accepted responsibility for the balances of certain communal funds including the Stalag Luft 3 fund, in so far as they were contributed by United Kingdom personnel. Contributions by personnel of Dominion Forces were not the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government.

  Nuclear Weapons (Rail Transport)
  Mr. Frank Allaun asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that cargoes of nuclear weapons which Her Majesty's Government originate are carried safely by British Rail; and if Her Majesty's Government have had any discussions with British Rail about the inclusion of cargoes of this nature in the British Rail computer system.
  Mr. Pattie: Great care is taken to ensure that all movements of nuclear weapons take place in the safest possible manner. As is well known, however, it is Government policy not to comment on the methods or routes used for the transport of such weapons for obvious security reasons.

  "Invincible" Class Through-deck Cruisers
  Mr. Wilkinson asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement on the future of "Invincible" class through-deck cruisers in Royal Navy service; and say what negotiations and with which foreign Governments have taken place for the acquisition from the United Kingdom of any of these vessels.
  Mr. Wiggin: As stated in Cmnd. 8288, the new carrier "Ark Royal" will be completed as planned, but we intend to keep in service in the long term only two of the three ships of this class. We are discussing with the Australian Government their possible acquisition of one of these ships but no decision has yet been taken.

  Tornado Aircraft
  Mr. Wilkinson asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the production rate of the Tornado aircraft for the Royal Air Force has been slowed down in
  464
  1981 or whether any slowing down of the planned production rate of the aeroplane for the Royal Air Force in 1982 has been approved.
  Mr. Pattie: The production rate of the Tornado aircraft is related to the delivery requirements of all three partner countries in this project—United Kingdom, Germany and Italy. No decision has been taken to slow the production rate for deliveries of the Tornado to the Royal Air Force in 1981 or in 1982.

  Anglo-Italian Anti-submarine Helicopter
  Mr. Wilkinson asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the funding by his Department of the definition of the Anglo-Italian EH 101 anti-submarine helicopter project; and when he expects this process to be completed.
  Mr. Pattie: As Cmnd. 8288 indicates, a joint programme of work is in hand with Italy to explore the possibilities of collaborating on a new helicopter—designated the EH 101—which for the Royal Navy would be a Sea King replacement. The costs of this programme are being shared with Italy. It is not the practice to reveal the sums involved in such work. Results are expected in spring 1982.
  Mr. Wilkinson asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has provided funding for the joint development by Rolls-Royce and Turbomeca of a new engine to power the projected Anglo-Italian EH 101 anti-submarine helicopter.
  Mr. Pattie: The Ministry of Defence is not providing funding for the development of any new engine by the joint company Rolls-Royce-Turbomeca.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Dan Jones asked the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the total costs of defence expenditure from May 1980 to the most recent date for which figures are available.
  Mr. Wiggin: Actual defence expenditure between 1 May 1980 and the end of September 1981 was £16,400 million.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Sheepmeat (Exports)
    Mr. Myles asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheepmeat carcases were exported in the months of July, August and September in 1980 and in 1981 and to what destinations.
    Mr. Buchanan—Smith: The information for 1980 is set out as follows in tonnes equivalent. Directly comparable figures are not yet available for the corresponding period in 1981, but preliminary estimates for September 1981 are available and are given to provide a general indication of trade levels.

    United Kingdom exports of sheepmeat and goatmeat, fresh, chilled or frozen

    Destination

    July 1980

    August 1980

    September 1980

    September 1981

    France

    27

    14

    9

    1,962

    Belgium-Luxembourg

    1,027

    968

    1,348

    545

    Netherlands

    63

    57

    86

    11

    Federal Republic of Germany

    1,171

    1,037

    1,177

    337

    Italy

    13

    132

    261

    45

    Denmark

    80

    1

    —

    —

    Ireland

    —

    —

    —

    13

    TOTAL EC

    2,381

    2,209

    2,881

    2,913

    Norway

    54

    —

    —

    —

    Switzerland

    174

    170

    207

    277

    Romania

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Algeria

    238

    195

    311

    583

    Ghana

    1

    1

    17

    7

    Djibouti

    3

    —

    —

    —

    Bahrain

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Dubai

    8

    12

    —

    —

    Singapore

    1

    —

    —

    Australia

    35

    —

    —

    —

    Malaysia

    —

    —

    16

    —

    Saudi Arabia

    —

    —

    34

    —

    Spain

    —

    4

    7

    1

    Gibraltar

    —

    3

    3

    4

    Niger

    —

    2

    —

    —

    Abu Dhabi

    —

    42

    —

    —

    Nauru

    —

    10

    —

    —

    Antigua

    —

    17

    39

    —

    Nigeria

    —

    —

    7

    —

    Canary Islands

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Ivory Coast

    —

    —

    —

    2

    United Arab Emirates

    —

    —

    —

    7

    TOTAL THIRD COUNTRIES

    516

    456

    643

    882

    TOTAL ALL DESTINATIONS

    2,897

    2,665

    3,524

    3,795

    Notes:

    (i)— signifies zero or less than 500 kg.

    (ii)September 1981 figures are estimates based on advance summary information. They are not directly comparable with the earlier figures and are subject to amendment.

    Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

    Forestry Commission Workers (Rents)
    Mr. Beith asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the average percentage rent increase in houses rented to Forestry Commission workers since May 1979.
    Mrs. Fenner: The average increase to date in the rents paid by those workers occupying Forestry Commission houses is 82 per cent.

    Council of Fisheries Ministers (Meeting)
    Mr. Teddy Taylor asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Council of Fisheries Ministers' meeting in Luxembourg on 22 October; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made in the House earlier today.

    Battery Cage Units and Slaughterhouses
    Mr. David Steel asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what Government aid is currently available for the construction of either battery cage units or slaughterhouses; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There are no grants available for the construction of battery cage units. Grants are paid
    466
    under the redmeat slaughterhouse industry scheme for the improvement and construction of slaughterhouses. This scheme was introduced in 1976 and closed to new applications on 30 November 1980.

    British Aerospace (Coastguarder Aircraft)
    Mr. Wilkinson asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on his Department's recent evaluation of the British Aerospace Coastguarder aircraft for fisheries protection; and whether the Royal Air Force is involved in either the planning or the execution of this trial.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The results of trials of the Coastguarder and other aircraft for fishery protection work are still being evaluated. Royal Air Force personnel have taken part in some of the trials and the Royal Air Force is informed of all flying programmes.

    Milk (Imports)
    Mr. Ray Powell asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what, if any, was the increase of imported ultra-heat treatment milk from 6 October 1980 to 6 October 1981; and what steps he is taking to ensure the imports are monitored.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Detailed import statistics are not yet available for the period referred to by the hon. Member. However, my Department does have arrangements for monitoring imports of milk, and it has also sought, in conjunction with local authorities, to ensure that such imports comply with our public health regulations.

    Meat Regulations
    Dr. Roger Thomas asked the Minister of Agriculture,
    Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the proposed new meat regulations
    will not result in a reduction in the general consumption of home-produced meat
    products and in making the consumer less certain that the food bought is not of
    a generally inferior quality.
    Mrs. Fenner: I am confident that the proposed regulations would not reduce consumption of home
    468
    produced meat products; but all interests affected by the proposal are being
    consulted, and their views will be considered before regulations are laid.

    Fishing Vessels (Support Scheme)
    Mr. Michael Brown asked the Minister of Agriculture,
    Fisheries and Food what was the total cost to public funds of the fishing
    vessels temporary support scheme in 1980 and 1981.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Payments made under the fishing vessels temporary support scheme 1980 amount to £14,198,970. A few payments are still to be made under the 1981 scheme, but the total expenditure is expected to be of the order of £24.7 million.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwell): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

The Orange Badge Scheme
Lord Campbell of Croy: 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 stage they have reached in revising, with local authorities, the orange badge scheme and other arrangements allowing privileged parking for certain categories of disabled people using motor cars.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, a package of measures to improve the Orange Badge Scheme and to eliminate abuse was announced by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport on 30th July. The introduction of a separate offence for misuse of an orange badge by able-bodied people, became operative earlier this week. The other changes include new regulations for the issue and use of badges, and further guidance for local authorities on the administration of the scheme generally. Interested organisations, including those representing the disabled, have recently been consulted on the draft regulations and we are now considering their responses.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that reform is needed?—because the present schemes are being abused when cars, bearing badges, are parked in restricted zones although they are not at the time being used by disabled people. In new arrangements will the Government ensure, first, that the name of the disabled person is on every badge and, secondly, that all badges are easily removable and are only in place on the windscreen of a car when a disabled person is using that car? The interests of severely disabled people are now being damaged by an erosion of confidence in the parking system.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend and I can give him a "Yes" answer to both his questions. First, the name is and will be on the badge; secondly, there is an idea for the future that badges are removable in plastic containers.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl will appreciate that everyone in your Lordships' House welcomes the widest possible use of genuine disablement badges. The noble Earl mentioned that disablement organisations have been consulted about the proposals. Who has been consulted on behalf of those who will have to carry out the duty of preventing abuse?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Minister of Transport has been trying to keep a balanced appreciation of this and, of course, the Ministry of Transport is in contact with local authorities and road users.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, on that same point, has it yet been decided whether police and traffic wardens can take action when they check and find that the person whose name is on the badge is not using the car?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, yes, indeed, they can, and they can at the moment. As a result of the new regulations being drafted at the moment, we hope that this will be even easier for the police and wardens to do.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is disquiet in the country among the able-bodied people? In fact will the badge also carry an expiry date?—because that would catch a great number of people who are using the badges illegally.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I am fairly certain that that will be the case, but I shall check on it and make sure that her remarks are brought to the attention of the proper authority.

The Earl Mountbatten of Burma: Statue
3.5 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lord, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will approve for inscription on the plinth of the proposed statue of the late Earl Mountbatten of Burma the following quotation from his Strasbourg speech of May 1979: "In the event of nuclear war there will be no chances, there will be no survivors—all will be obliterated".
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): No, my Lords. In any case, the quotation, taken out of context, does not accurately reflect the late Lord Mountbatten's view on nuclear deterrence.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that to my knowledge the speech has not, in fact, been printed in full in any newspaper? In order that noble Lords may check for themselves whether or not the quotation accurately represents the speech, I have placed copies of the full text of the speech in the Library.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins—the chairman of the CND—has indeed reprinted the full speech and has placed copies of it in the Library. I would recommend noble Lords to read it. If the House would bear with me for a moment or so on this very important matter, I should like to point out that Lord Mountbatten, as Chief of Defence Staff, fully supported

1117
our policies of nuclear deterrence and of maintaining a nuclear balance.
In his Strasbourg speech in May 1979 he gave his audience all his feelings on the awesome nature of nuclear weapons and, indeed, his repugnance towards war, which I believe we all share in this House. But, having done that, if your Lordships will bear with me—because I believe that this speech has been quoted too often—he then continued:
"But how do we set about achieving practical measures of nuclear arms control and disarmament? To begin with, we are most likely to preserve the peace if there is a military balance of strength between East and West. The real need is for both sides to replace the attempts to maintain a balance through ever-increasing and even more costly nuclear armaments by a balance based on mutual restraint".
That is the Government's objective.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is an historic precedent for this suggestion? Does he know that in 1924 the Minister for Works, Fred Jowett, added to the statue of Nurse Cavell, the heroic woman who was shot by the enemy, these words:
"Patriotism is not enough. I must have no hate or bitterness for anyone"?
The Minister said, "dig deep", and that was done, and those words are on Nurse Cavell's statue today.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, as to the question of any inscription on any public statue, that is a matter not only for the Government but for the family of the statesman concerned and for many others. However, the suggestion as to the terms of the inscription and the request that the Government support them are turned down for the reasons that I have stated.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if statues to the recently dead are to be used as instruments of political propaganda, would it not be more appropriate, in view of the late Lord Mountbatten's lifetime of devoted service in the Armed Forces of the Crown, to use the latin quotation:
"Si vis pacem para bellum"?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that in the speech to which I have referred Lord Mountbatten specifically condemned the exact quotation which the noble Lord has quoted? If noble Lords doubt that, I commend them to the Library where they may see it for themselves.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not quite understand that, but I have nothing to retract. I hope that noble Lords will read the full speech, which shows all the late Lord Mountbatten's horror of these weapons, but that they will also concentrate on what he says when he gets to his practical propositions.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government, the CND and all shades of opinion in between, would be united in endorsing the general drift of the late Lord Mountbatten's famous speech?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I think that this is undoubtedly true. The noble Lord knows well the date of the speech that Lord Mountbatten made, not so very long before he was tragically assassinated. It is a speech of a lifetime of reflections and a repugnance of war. But the recommendations of what to do about it are entirely in accord with the present Government's policies.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the business of making selective quotations from public figures of this stature to support causes which they never themselves supported is somewhat distasteful and questionable? If there is to be a recommendation regarding the inscription on Lord Mountbatten's statue would not the other quotation to which the noble Viscount referred:
"We are most likely to preserve the peace if there is a military balance of strength between East and West"
be a more appropriate memorial to Lord Mountbatten?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, it would be more appropriate. The question of any inscription is covered by one of my previous answers.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the noble Minister give us an undertaking that when statues are erected to the memory of any of us we shall have a voice in deciding what the inscription shall be?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will check with his solicitor what is in his last words on this.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, is it not a fact that Lord Mountbatten would expect this country to survive and win any battle upon which we are engaged? I take completely out of context what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has said.

Nuclear Attack: Emergency Arrangements
3.12 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the United Kingdom Commanders in Chief Committee's new premises near Salisbury are as safe as possible from nuclear attack and whether provision has been made for the Prime Minister and Cabinet at Corsham, near Bath.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, it would not be in the interests of national security for me to comment on matters of this nature, beyond saying that as part of our deterrent policy adequate emergency arrangements do of course exist.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would the noble Viscount agree that it is regrettable that apparently arrangements are being made for the continuation of some form of Government in the event of nuclear war

1119
but no provision whatsoever appears to be being made for the safety of the governed?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I would repeat again that the Government's policy is to prevent war, all war, and to do it through a policy of deterrence, but the credibility of deterrence depends on certain emergency arrangements. But I think it is quite wrong to suggest—and I believe that perhaps this is the purpose of the noble Lord's Question—that, because emergency arrangements are being made, this in any way suggests the Government's belief in the likelihood of a nuclear war. We are determined to prevent all war, and to do that we must have emergency arrangements.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, would the noble Viscount agree that it would help discussion of the very serious problem of our defence and of multilateral disarmament if a deep shelter complex were provided for the leaders of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and if they were invited, for better safety, to occupy it forthwith?
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the Rand Institute of Strategic Studies in California reported that it would take 11 medium nuclear weapons so to destroy this country that it would be incapable of operating as a political unit? Does the noble Viscount agree with that estimate?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, without agreeing with any precise estimate, the absolute horror and severity of nuclear war is what makes us so determined to follow our policy of deterrence, and behind that to work for the mutual reduction of arms, about which I spoke in referring to Lord Mountbatten's views in the last Question.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, has the Minister read the background paper to the inquiry by the British Medical Association into the effects of nuclear war? Has he noted that it says that even in the deepest shelters the occupants would be choked and asphyxiated to death?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am going to give the same answer. The whole point is not to have a war, but the belief of Her Majesty's Government is that if our will to keep the balance were to be weakened by certain movements which are currently advocating a unilateral rather than a multilateral move in relation to disarmament, war is more likely and not less likely.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, on a point of order, may I ask our noble Leader whether the House is dealing with replies to a Question about an inscription on a monument or whether it has engaged in a debate about nuclear war? If so, are we within Standing Orders?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness Young): My Lords, we are on the second Question that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has asked.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, as between (according to estimates) 150,000 and a quarter of a million members, or supporters, of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament gathered in London on Sunday, it might be difficult to accommodate them, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, suggested, in the available shelter which the Government have provided, let alone the 50 million people who are apparently not to be provided for at all? Is he finally and further aware that the purpose of these questions is to make the public aware of the dangers of nuclear war and of the fact that the Government, while themselves preparing to use nuclear weapons, are making no provision whatsoever for the consequences of such use?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has now stated quite clearly that the Government—I think his words were, and I will have to check Hansard— are planning actually to take part in a nuclear war. I suggest that the whole intention of these questions is to try to produce extra fear of these nuclear weapons, and on the back of that to avoid our building up the necessary balance, which must be done as a prelude to disarmament, at the present time. The Government are in sympathy with the vast majority of those who attend CND or any other peace demonstration. They would only say, I think, that perhaps the efforts of the leaders of those movements might be more usefully applied to asking the Russians for permission for a march to Moscow to complain against the 250 modern, three war-headed, reloadable SS20 missiles which are now in position, targeted on Europe, can only be targeted on Europe and cannot reach America, and can reach the whole of Europe whether they are sited in Western Russia or east of the Urals.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, in view of what the noble Viscount has said, and claiming to be a believer in deterrence, does he believe in being deterred, and has he not described being deterred in pretty formidable terms?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, balance appears in this world, as it is, to be necessary and a necessary preliminary to making slow progress towards disarmament and arms control.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, I apologise that in my previous intervention I had not noticed that my noble friend had passed to his second Question, but I think my intervention is equally relevant here. The second Question relates to the safety provision that has been made for the Prime Minister and Cabinet at a particular place near Bath. May I ask whether the debate that is now going on is in order since it appears to be a debate on the merits of various forms of defence and not to relate to this particular Question?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I have answered the original Question, and said that we are not prepared to comment on this matter.

Schoolchildren: Future Prospects
3.20 p.m.
Baroness David: 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 action they propose to take about those 16-year-olds who have failed to find a place this autumn in a school or further education establishment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, there is as yet no firm evidence that 16-year-olds in England and Wales wishing to continue in full-time education have not been able to do so, though some will not have been able to gain entry to their first choice of course or institution. To help local education authorities cater for the growing demand for full-time education from 16 to 19-year-olds, the Government are providing for an additional £60 million of public expenditure in Great Britain in 1982–83 and for further expenditure in the following two years. For those young people who do not wish to remain in education or do not get a place at school or college, and become unemployed, the Youth Opportunities Programme, which provides courses of work experience and training, has been expanded to 550,000 places in the current year.
Baroness David: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that my Question refers to this autumn, so that the £60 million for 1982–83 is really not relevant, although of course we are pleased to have it? Is the noble Lord aware that while he may not have evidence of 16-year-olds not getting places, I have such evidence applying all over the country where technical colleges or colleges of further education have had to reject students? I will name a few: Hampshire, 400; Cumbria, 150; Kent, Thanet Technical College, 224; Sheffield, Granville College of Further Education, 437; Liverpool, Collquitt College, 422; Clwyd, 180; and I have details of many more all over the country. Is the Minister aware that these young people have applied for specific courses and that while the YOP programmes may be very good, these young people wish to do some particular thing, and that therefore it seems a great waste that either they should have to wait for YOP programmes or their particular abilities and desires cannot be met, and they are left unemployed?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the unknown factor in the details which the noble Baroness gave is how far those students obtain a place elsewhere or on another course in the same institution; at present, from the figures, we do not know. However, it is highly relevant that this very substantial increase in funds is being made available for the future.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend in her Question, may I ask the Minister whether it would not be true to say that, in view of the sad facts, the Government are not only hardhearted but are a thoroughly philistine Government?
Lord Belstead: The noble Baroness is habitually fair, my Lords, and when I remind her that earlier this year the Government, together with the local education authorities, sat down and then published a major review entitled Education for 16-19 Year Olds, and then have provided the funds to match those plans for the future, I think the noble Baroness will perhaps take a rather more charitable view of the Government's activities.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of Ruskin's famous axiom that there is no wealth but life? The most important life is our young. Consequently, is the Minister aware that, in the micro-electronic age in which we are now to live, whatever party is in power will have a problem of creating employment in the new kind of electronic society? Is the noble Lord therefore aware that these 16-year-olds should be having a chance to get further training? As 14 per cent. of teachers who qualified last year are still out of work and as 25 per cent. of that 14 per cent. are qualified for higher education and further educational activities, is the Minister aware that the nation would be doing a blessing for itself if it saw to it that those kids and teachers got to work in the type of teaching that is needed for the future?
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord calls for further training, my Lords. There is nothing between the Government and the noble Lord in that, for substantial additional resources have been added to the training programme. In addition, the new Young Workers' Scheme, as it is called, will certainly stimulate youth employment.
Baroness David: If I may ask a final supplementary question, my Lords, may I ask whether the Minister would agree that senior pupils as defined in Section 114 of the 1944 Act—that is, pupils from 12 to 19—have a right under Sections 8(b) and 41 of that Act to education either at a school or further education establishment?
Lord Belstead: That is precisely why we are making additional resources available, my Lords.

Police Searches in Brixton
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Belstead will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on police searches in Brixton.

Humberside Bill [H.L.]: Commons Message
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
My Lords, this is another in the series of Motions to carry on a Bill through into the next Session. In this case, the Humberside Bill is in another place and your Lordships' consent is required to enable it to proceed in the new Session.
Moved, That this House do concur with the orders made by the Commons set out in their Message of Tuesday last.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

British Nationality Bill
3.26 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and Reason be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and Reason be now considered.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References to the Bill are to Bill (203]
[The Commons Amendments and Reason are printed in italics]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 6, page 8, line 36, at end insert—
"(5A) If in the special circumstances of any particular case the Secretary of State thinks fit, he may treat subsection (1) as if the reference to five years after commencement were a reference to eight years after commencement, but shall not do so unless the person to whom the application relates would have been entitled to be registered under that subsection on an application made immediately before the end of the five years after commencement."
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments:
2 Line 4, at beginning insert ("(a)")
3 Line 5, after ("commencement") insert ("or
(b) where subsection (5B) applies, as if the reference to five years front the date on which the person to whom the application relates attains full age were a reference to eight years from that date")
4 Line 5, after ("so") insert ("in the case of an application based on paragraph (b) of subsection (1)")
5 Line 7, after ("application") insert ("so based")
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 en bloc to the Lords Amendment No.1, and with permission I will speak also to the following amendments: Nos. 7, 8, 107 and 108. It will be recalled that your Lordships' amendment was agreed to by this House on Report, but it did not take account of the changes to Clause 6(1)(a) made by your Lordships on Third Reading. Those amendments provide that people who are minors at commencement but otherwise eligible for registration under Clause 6(1)(a) will be entitled to registration once they come of full age and will hold this entitlement for five years thereafter.
Your Lordships' amendment would, however, restrict the discretion of the Secretary of State to accept late applications. It is clearly desirable that those who are minors at commencement, and who cannot apply under Clause 6(1)(a) until they are of full age, should be able to benefit from the discretion in your Lord-
1124
ships' amendment on the same terms as applicants who are adults at commencement. There should be discretion to accept late applications from them too, especially where they come of full age near the end of the five-year period. One objective of the amendments we seek to move is to give the Secretary of State such a discretion. The Commons have therefore gone even a little further than the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, did on Third Reading in this House, although I would be the first to recognise that the move in this direction was entirely due to the arguments which Lord Pitt put forward.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments to the Lords amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I thank the Government for accepting our amendment, for keeping to it and in effect for improving it; I think the Commons amendment to my amendment is an improvement and I therefore hope the House will accept it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
6 Clause 6, page 8, line 36, at end insert—
"(5B) In the case of any person who is a minor at commencement, the reference to five years after commencement in subsection (1) above shall be treated as a reference to five years after the date on which he attains the age of majority".
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments:
7 Clause 6, page 8, Line 4, leave out front ("years") to end of line 5 and insert ("from the date on which he attains full age")
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7 to the Lords Amendment No. 6. I spoke to this on the last series of amendments.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment to the Lords amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
8Clause 18, page 19, line 29, at end insert—
("(1A) In the case of any person who is a minor at commencement, the reference to five years after commencement in subsection (1) shall be treated as a reference to five years from the date on which he attains full age.")
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. I have already spoken to this amendment in my earlier remarks.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
9 After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause A—
"Right to registration by virtue of United Kingdom nationality for European Community purposes.
A. A person who is a United Kingdom national for European Community purposes by virtue of the operation of any of the pre-Accession Treaties listed in Part I

1125
of Schedule 1 to the European Communities Act 1972 shall be entitled, notwithstanding the provisions of Part 11 of this Act, on application, to be registered as a British citizen."
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof:
10 After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
("Acquisition by registration: nationals for purposes of the Community Treaties
. A British Dependent Territories' citizen who falls to be treated us a national of the United Kindgom for the purposes of the Community Treaties shall be entitled to be registered as a British citizen if an application is made for his registration as such a citizen.".)
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. The Commons decided not to oppose the principle that people from Gibraltar should have an unqualified entitlement to British citizenship. But I regret that, despite the efforts of my noble friend Lord Bethell, the amendment which left this House, though probably workable, was in the Government's view still deficient from a drafting point of view in various respects. It provided that an unqualified entitlement to British citizenship should be held by a person who is a United Kingdom national for European Community purposes by virtue of the operation of any of the pre-accession treaties listed in Part I of Schedule 1 to the European Communities Act 1972. But in fact no one is a United Kingdom national for European Community purposes by virtue of any of those treaties.
What was I think in my noble friend's mind was that the entitlement should be held by all those who are United Kingdom nationals for the purposes of those treaties. But it is not just people from Gibraltar who are United Kingdom nationals for that purpose. People connected in various ways with this country are nationals for that purpose. In most cases such people will automatically become British citizens on commencement of the Bill and consequently do not need the benefit of the entitlement in this amendment. The other cases are British subjects under the Bill who have the right of abode here, but have no connection with Gibraltar. The amendment thus went wider than I think my noble friend intended.
Accordingly another place have agreed a provision which, while it secures the essential objectives of your Lordships' amendment, will benefit solely those whom that amendment was intended to help. The new provision confers an unqualified entitlement on those British dependent territories' citizens who are United Kingdom nationals for the purposes of the Community treaties. British dependent territories' citizens who derive that status from their links with Gibraltar are the only category of such citizens who fall to be United Kingdom nationals for the purposes of the Community treaties, and therefore they alone will be able to benefit from this provision. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed, but agree to Amendment No. 10 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, what happens if the Community treaties are altered, as they might be in
1126
the case of Cyprus being admitted to the EEC? I ask this with reference to the special territories under British control in Cyprus.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I should like to say how glad I was to hear of the decision of his right honourable friend which my noble friend has just announced and the acceptance by the Government of the special position of the people of Gibraltar and the securing for them of that entitlement to British citizenship which, as your Lordships know, means so much to them. This seems a very wise and sensible decision, and I know that it was a hard one for Her Majesty's Government to make, because to some extent it damages the tidiness and the pattern of the Bill. But tidiness is not the most important thing in legislation. We are dealing here with human beings, and I have already heard from Gibraltar what pleasure has been caused among these loyal people at the announcement that Parliament in its combined wisdom is now securing to them this citizenship.
As your Lordships know, the people of Gibraltar have been, and are still being, subjected to pressure and to hardship by the Spanish Government in pursuit of what many others regard as an insolent claim. Therefore it will be a particular encouragement to them that the Parliament and the Government of this country have decided to accord to them this special treatment, this special acknowledgment of their close links with this country, and I would wish, as I know my noble friend Lord Bethell would very much wish, to thank Her Majesty's Government for this wise and prudent decision, and to thank my noble friend Lord Belstead in particular for the considerable part which I suspect he played in it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive an attire which has been enforced upon me. I think that the House will agree with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in realising that the Government, if I may say so, have graciously bowed to the will of this House. It was the will of this House in regard to the brave people of Gibraltar which was secured with the support of the Opposition. I put that on record merely in order that it will be abundantly clear as to those who fought gallantly for a very gallant lot of people in Gibraltar, and on this occasion it was not a question of political division, but rather a matter of goodwill from all parts of the House.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I should like to say that I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has said and with what my noble friend has said. What must be taken into consideration is that no one can in any way detract from my admiration for the people of Gibraltar. When in another place I was, with others now in your Lordships' House, constant in my vigilance on behalf of Gibraltarians, as on this particular issue. But the fact of the matter is that I do not believe that at this stage we can ignore the fact that later on, in examining some of these amendments, precisely the same argument of honour and contribution to Great Britain can be advanced in the case of many other millions of people who could be affected unless we change the Bill substantially.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his generous words. I should like to welcome back to your Lordships' House the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Though I I am not sure that I should be entirely happy to see his head if we go through the Division Lobby, I should like to assure him that his presence here is very welcome and that we have missed him. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn asked me a direct question about the sovereign base areas. At the moment this is most certainly a hypothetical question. If Cyprus joined the European Community, a decision would have to be taken on the sovereign base areas, but before the people involved could benefit from Amendment No. 10 they would have to be declared to be United Kingdom nationals for European Community purposes. I am afraid that at this stage I cannot say whether or not that would happen.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police Searches in Brixton
3.38 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be convenient to the House if I were now to repeat a Statement being made in another place. If that is your Lordships' wish, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, with permission I should like to report to the House on the inquiry ordered by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis into the conduct of the police operation which took place on 15th July in Railton Road, Brixton.
"The House will recall that the raid took place at a time of serious public disorders in which petrol bombs had been used. Acting on information that petrol bombs had been stored somewhere on the premises, police officers entered a number of houses to execute search warrants. Offences under the Licensing Act were also suspected. Allegations were subsequently made that the police caused unnecessary damage to property and personal effects. The commissioner immediately ordered a full inquiry.
"The inquiry was carried out on the commissioner's behalf by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Dear. I have now received a copy of his report which is both detailed and frank. I have placed in the Library a memorandum summarising his description of what took place and his main conclusions.
"He says that the information about petrol bombs came from a proven source and he concludes that the decision to mount a search operation was justified. He considers it significant that although no petrol bombs were found in the houses, a crate of bottles, with evidence of preparation for use as bombs, was subsequently found on waste ground beside one of the houses.
"Mr. Dear criticises some aspects of the execution of the raid, including the choice of a rendezvous point too close to Railton Road and the slowness of the
1128
build-up of the large force of officers involved, which undermined the secrecy of the operation. He also criticises some of the detailed arrangements for briefing the officers who took part.
"Damage was shown to have been caused by the police in gaining entry to and searching the premises. Mr. Dear found that for the most part this damage was unavoidable. In relation to two properties, complaints were made which have been investigated under Section 49 of the Police Act 1964. Reports of these investigations have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
"During the course of the inquiry there were a number of claims for compensation. A good many of these have already been settled. Some, however, were in Mr. Dear's view grossly exaggerated, and in two cases prosecutions for criminal deception have been started.
"It is important to appreciate the difficulties which the police had to face in Brixton, particularly at the time of this operation. During a period when riots were taking place it would have been wrong not to follow up information about petrol bombs; and we must recognise that if bombs had been found at the time reaction to the raid would have been different. In these circumstances I do not question the judgment of the police that a search should be made. Nevertheless, important lessons have been learned from the execution of the operation and the commissioner has assured me that these will be taken fully into account in the future."
That, my Lords, is the end of the Statement.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, this House is grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. The Statement relates to a very grave matter and it will not be possible at this stage to pass definitive opinions on the commissioner's report, until we have actually read through the document. My instructions are that up to 15 minutes ago, at any rate, the report was still not available, and so we shall have to examine it when it is.
We on this side of the House fully appreciate the difficulties which the police had to face in Brixton. I believe we are on common ground on all sides of the House, that far and away the greater part of the police force carry out their very difficult duties with complete legality and well within those rules and customs which prevail in the police forces throughout the United Kingdom.
This Statement, which reflects and is meant to reflect the attitude of the Government towards the report they have received, is, I find, a little alarming. The real allegation was originally that police caused unnecessary damage to property and personal effects. On listening to the Statement, we find that Mr. Dear criticised some aspects of the execution of the raid, including the choice of a rendevous point. He also criticised the detailed arrangements for briefing. But when it comes to the damage, the Government's Statement—and I will put it no higher—is a little odd. Instead of saying that part of the damage was in fact avoidable, the Statement shelters behind the claim that, for the most part, the damage was unavoidable;

1129
a rather quaint way of actually failing to be quite straightforward about the fact that some avoidable damage was in fact incurred. Nor does the Government Statement give any indication of the extent to which avoidable damage was incurred. The Statement says that "a good many" of the claims already made have been settled. How many does "a good many" mean? And what amounts in compensation have in fact been paid, that will enable this House to arrive at some conclusion as to the extent of the damage—and in particular, of the avoidable damage?
The Statement continued that, in Mr. Dear's view, some of the claims were "grossly exaggerated". How many claims were "grossly exaggerated", and how many claims were found to be supported by the facts? It is this kind of attitude towards the incident that fills us with a certain amount of unease. The Statement concluded by saying that "important lessons have been learned". My Lords, they can say that again! Would it not have been better, since this Statement reflects the Government's attitude, for some expression of regret to have come from the Government; that avoidable damage was caused, that in some cases (we do not know how many) there was a completely unjustifiable and violent intrusion into the private lives of individuals and families? And would it not have been better to have expressed some regret for that? There is nothing in the Government's Statement which expresses the Government's attitude, which contains any expression of regret.
I believe two lessons are important, aside from the lessons to which I have referred indirectly. The first is, that there is a need for the establishment of an independent complaints procedure. The second lesson to be learned is, that urgent attention ought to be paid by the Government to Part I of the Royal Commission's Report on Criminal Procedures. The whole House will expect that. I suspect that when the full import of the report is taken into account, and when the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, is published so that all can see it, public interest will have to be allayed, because public interest will be intense.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, can answer three questions arising from this report? First, as it is impossible to ask meaningful questions on the conclusions reached by Mr Dear without reading his report, could not the noble Lord arrange for a copy of the full report, rather than a summary, to be placed in the Library? Secondly, can he assure the House that all the evidence considered by Mr Dear was made available to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, when he conducted his inquiry in a wider context? Thirdly, was Mr Dear's report made available to Lord Scarman before he completed his report? Does the noble Lord not appreciate that it is important that this report is available when the Scarman Report is published (and no doubt this House will wish to debate the matter) and that Mr Dear's report should also be available?
3.50 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I first reply to the two noble Lords who have responded to the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, expressed
1130
concern about the matter of damage and asked a series of questions which, I quite openly admit to the noble Lord, are not to be read in the Statement. This is because I think the answers to the noble Lord will be found in the memorandum which is being placed in the Library. Indeed, I think the noble Lord and all your Lordships will there find all the details which one would expect to find about the question of damage, because, firstly, in the memorandum the operation is itemised property by property. All the 11 properties which were searched are itemised in the memorandum, and there is a report there of the damage to each of those properties.
The noble Lord asked me how much damage there was, what was the position about compensation and for more information about the statement that many claims were grossly exaggerated. Contrary to reports that much more extensive damage was done by the police, Mr Dear's inquiry has revealed that the amount claimed for structural damage at all 11 houses was under £8,500, and most of these claims have already been settled for about half the amount claimed. In other cases the police are still trying to reach agreement, and where agreement is not possible claimants have been advised of their right to pursue their claims in court.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, asked me questions about the publication of Mr. Dear's report and about its relevance to the forthcoming report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. The report from Mr. Dear will not be published in full. It is well established that such reports, containing information that might be prejudicial to individuals, should remain confidential; and I know my right honourable friend hopes that both Houses will take the view that not only the Statement but the very full memorandum being placed in both Libraries will provide a great deal of information to Members of both Houses. Of course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, visited Railton Road in July of this year. However, the operation as such was not within his terms of reference. As to what evidence he has taken regarding this particular matter, that is for the noble and learned Lord and his own discretion.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, may I revert to the question of damage and ask the noble Lord whether the full report contains any pictures of this damage about which so much criticism has been made, or, if there are no pictures in the report, whether his right honourable friend has seen any pictures? Will he not agree with me that while some damage is unavoidable when breaking into premises, when speed is the essence of the question and there are cupboards and doors to be broken down in quick time, it is extremely easy for young men with the adrenalin running, and realising that somebody may get hurt in the short time that they have to do the job, to do excessive damage? This, surely, could much best be now judged if photographs had been taken immediately. Perhaps this is one of the lessons that he says the police learned from the operation. Some effort might well be made to have a photographic unit included in a sensitive major operation of this kind in future.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think the simple factual answer to my noble friend is that I am not aware that

1131
photographs were included in Mr. Dear's report, but I certainly take on board the importance of what my noble friend says.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us recognise that, with the suggestion that petrol bombs were being manufactured at a time such as that which existed a few months ago in Brixton, it was perfectly understandable that immediate action was called for from the police? But is he also aware that a number of us would prefer to reserve comment on this whole range of issues until the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, which will, I think, give us a much better opportunity to pronounce on this whole question? Lastly, we are of course in the difficulty of not having had the opportunity of looking at this memorandum, and we will presumably have that opportunity later this afternoon.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his understanding of the need for the raid which, as the Statement of my right honourable friend says, was in Mr. Dear's view justified, and in my right honourable friend's view justified. So far as concerns the forthcoming report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, of course this still has to be completed and the time for comment will be when the report is published.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any indication has been given anywhere as to the nature of the lessons that have been learned? Further, can he say whether any disciplinary action has followed from the report?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there was a slow build-up of a very large number of men close to Railton Road. The slowness was largely the result of other police commitments at this very difficult time from a public order point of view; but it may well have given warning to the occupants of the premises and thus reduced the chances of finding evidence. The size of the task-force also accentuated the public impact when in the event no petrol bombs were found. Mr. Dear also refers to "confusion" over the briefing of officers. The commissioner accepts that there are lessons to be drawn from all these matters, and he has already taken action on them.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, could the noble Lord please tell the House what was the basis or the origins of the authority that allowed or permitted the police to act in the way they did?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as the Statement of my right honourable friend says, the information came from what Mr. Dear considers was a proven source.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has misunderstood what I meant. Under what authority did they act? For example, were there magistrates' warrants issued which permitted the police to break in; or on what other authority did they act in this way?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, on the authority of warrants, and the position about warrants is fully described in the memorandum which is in the Library.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he will beg his right honourable friend at least to express some regret that people's homes were vandalised in the way we saw in the pictures that appeared in the press? I am amazed, sitting here, that we have had a Statement about this matter but at no stage have we had an apology to the people who had their homes vandalised in this way. Because, my Lords, even if it was in the case of only one property that it was done in that way, unlawfully, that is still something about which the Home Secretary should apologise.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, both my right honourable friend and I, and indeed the police, of course, would very much regret any unnecessary damage, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, would like perhaps to read again the Statement, and certainly to read the memorandum, before jumping to conclusions.

British Nationality Bill
3.58 p.m.
Consideration of Commons amendments and Reason resumed.

LORDS AMENDMENT
11 Clause 13, page 14, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) he is a British citizen by virtue of registration under section A; or"
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof:
12 Clause 13, Page 14, line 9, at end insert—
("(bbb) he is a British citizen by virtue of registration under section (Acquisition by registration: nationals for purposes of the Community Treaties); or")
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is a second amendment related to Gibraltar, and I beg to move that this House agrees with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. The broad effect of this amendment is the same as that of an amendment which we passed in your Lordships' House seeking to ensure that those registered under what we have come to know as the Gibraltar amendment are British citizens by descent. However, it is intended that the Gibraltar provision, as amended by the Commons, should appear after Clause 4 of the Bill instead of after Clause 9, as originally proposed. This change will, I understand, be made by the Public Bill Office.
This has affected Lords Amendment No. 29 (that is the amendment which we made on Report) in two ways. First, its place in Clause 13 has to be changed, since the subsections of that clause follow the sequence of the clauses in the Bill to which they relate. Secondly, the reference to the Gibraltar amendment in Lords Amendment No. 29 has to be altered so that it refers to that provision as amended in another place. My Lords, this really is an entirely technical matter. It does not in any way change the second Gibraltar amendment which we made in our proceedings. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 11, to which the Commons have disagreed, but agrees to Amendment No. 12 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof. (Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
13 Clause 14, page 15, line 5, leave out "citizen of the British Dependent Territories" and insert "British Dependent Territories' citizen"
The Commons agreed to the above amendment and have made the following consequential amendments to the Bill:
14 Clause 4, page 6, line 1, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
15 Clause 14, page 15, line 7, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
16 Clause 14, page 15, line 15, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
17 Clause 14, page 15, line 18, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
18 Clause 14, page 15, line 26, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
19 Clause 14, page 15, line 28, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
20 Clause 14, page 15, line 35, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
21 Clause 14, page 15, line 37, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
22 Clause 14, page 15, line 39, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
23 Clause 15, page 15, line 42, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
24 Clause 16, page 16, line 19, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
25 Clause 16, page 18, line 5, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
26 Clause 16, page 18, line 9, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
27 Clause 16, page 18, line 23, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
28 Clause 17, page 19, line 1, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
29 Clause 17, page 19, line 7, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
30 Clause 18, page 19, line 21, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
31 Clause 19, page 19, line 33, leave out ("citizen of the British, Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Terrtories' citizen").
32 Clause 19, page 19, line 34, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
33 Clause 19, page 19, line 41, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
34 Clause 19, page 20, line 2, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
35 Clause 19, page 20, line 13, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
36 Clause 19, page 20, line 16, leave out ("citizen of the British, Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
37 Clause 19, page 20, line 29, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
38 Clause 19, page 20, line 33, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
39 Clause 20, page 20, line 40, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
40 Clause 20, page 21, line 3, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
41 Clause 20, page 21, line 9, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
42 Clause 21, page 21, line 12, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
43 Clause 22, page 21, line 34, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
44 Clause 22, page 22, line 10, leave out ("citizen of (lie British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
45 Clause 22, page 22, line 13, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
46 Clause 22, page 22, line 29, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
47 Clause 22, page 23, line 1, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent 7erritories' citizen").
48 Clause 22, page 22, line 18, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
49 Clause 23, page 23, line 36, leave out ("citizens of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizens").
50 Clause 23, page 23, line 36, leave out ("citizenship of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizenship").
51 Clause 24, page 24, line 2, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
52 Clause 24, page 24, line 6 leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
53 Clause 24, page 24, line 12, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
54 Clause 24, page 24, line 26, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
55 Clause 24, page 24, line 28, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
56 Clause 24, page 24, line 33, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
57 Clause 24, page 24, line 36, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
58 Clause 24, page 24, line 41, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
59 Clause 24, page 24, line 44, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
60 Clause 24, page 25, Clause 24, page 24, line 1, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen")
61 Clause 24, page 24, line 5, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories 'citizen").
62 Clause 24, page 24, line 8, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
63 Clause25, page 23, line 23, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories")and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
64 Clause 26, page 25, line 41, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
65 Clause 36, page 29, line 6, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
66 Clause 39, page 34, line 6, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
67 Clause 39, page 34, line 7, leave out ("citizenship of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependant Territories' citizenship").
68 Clause 40, page 34, line 44, leave out ("citizens of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
69 Clause 41, page 37, line 6, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
70 Clause 41, page 37, line 15, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen")
71 Clause 41, page 37, line 20, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
72 Clause 42, page 37, line 30, leave out ("citizens of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependant Territories' citizens").
73 Clause 42, page 37, line 31, leave out ("citizenship of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizenship").
74 Clause 42, page 37, line 36, leave out ("citizenship of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Teritories' citizenship").
75 Clause 49, page 45, line 14, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
76 Clause 50, page 46, line, 41 leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
77 Clause 50, page 47, line 3, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
78 Schedule 1, page 52, line 12, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
79 Schedule 1, page 52, line 23, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
80 Schedule 1, page 53, line 31, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
81 Schedule 2, page 55, line 44, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
82 Schedule 1, page 56, line 45, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
83 Schedule 1, page 57, line 36, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
84 Schedule 4, page 59, line 35, leave out ("citizens of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizens").
85 Schedule 4, page 59, line 49, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
86 Schedule 5, page 60, line 25, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
87 Schedule 7, page 62, line 34, leave out ("citizens of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizens").
88 Schedule 7, page 63, line 7, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
89 Schedule 7, page 63, line 16, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
90 Schedule 7, page 63, line 32, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
91 Schedule 7, page 64, line 19, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
92 Schedule 7, page 64, line 27, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
93 Schedule 7, page 64, line 35, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
94 Schedule 7, page 65, line 2, leave out ("citizenship of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizenship").
95 Schedule 7, page 65, line 10, leave out ("citizenship of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizenship").
96 Schedule 7, page 65, line 18, leave out ("citizenship of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizenship").
97 Schedule 7, page 66, line 2, leave out ("citizenship of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizenship").
98 Schedule 7, page 65, line 17, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
4 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14 and their consequential amendments and, if I may speak to them, Amendments Nos. 15 to 105, Nos. 109 to 117, No. 120, No. 121 and No. 122. All these amendments follow from the amendment which was moved by my noble friend Lord Geddes on Third Reading to change one of the references to citizenship of the British dependent territories in the Bill to "British Dependent Territories' citizenship". Once that amendment had been agreed by your Lordships' House— and it was agreed—it was clearly desirable to change all other references to citizens or citizenship of the British dependent territories in the Bill to bring them into line.
Your Lordships will recall that I had my doubts about the feasibility of this course at so late a stage of the Bill. Accordingly, I suggested that it might be necessary to insert a provision which would have ensured that the term "citizen of the British dependent territories" and "British dependent territories' citizen" were interchangeable. I cannot say that I was thanked for that particular suggestion or, perhaps to put it in parliamentary language, many of your Lordships expressed concern about it.
I am very glad to be able to say that on looking at this again, we have found it feasible to change all the references and that is what these amendments do. I think I had better end on that and then, if I may stand up again, there is the question of apostrophes which come in. I should like to collect my thoughts.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendments Nos. 14 to 98.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we on this side of the House warmly welcome what has been done by the Government and the industry which must necessarily have been applied; although I remember the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, saying that he had it already prepared. In any event, it is the case that the proposal

1137
that the Act should contain a provision of alternate meanings to the same word throughout reminds me of the writings in 1066 And All That where I think it read "for 'pheasant' read 'peasant' throughout", and it would not have been wholly acceptable. It was a suggestion met with praising with faint damns. I think it is a very useful thing to have been done and we approve of it.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before going further on this I must inform the House that there is a series of misprints on the Marshalled List in this series of amendments moved by my noble friend. They are Amendments Nos. 50, 67, 73, 74, 94, 95, 96, 97 and 98. Only half of these amendments have been printed and all should read "leave out 'citizenship of the British Dependent Territories' and insert 'British Dependent Territories' citizenship '.". I must apologise for this omission not only from the Marshalled List but from our presentation of the case.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Belstead and the Government for finding their way to bring in the necessary 98 consequential amendments. I know from the reports I have received how well that has been received in the dependent territories and how much they appreciate the effort that the Government have gone to. I should like to point out that Amendment No. 98 on the Marshalled List appears still to be defective.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, on his initiative and persistence and I think everyone agrees that the result achieved is far better than in the original Bill. It was sensible for these amendments to be incorporated in all the places where reference is made to British dependent territories rather than simply leaving it, as was originally suggested by the Government, as a substitution in one place.
If I may ask the noble Lord the Minister to give me his attention, I asked what was intended to be a serious question on the last occasion when we were talking about Lord Geddes' amendment when, although the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said that he had done the donkey work in going through every clause where this phrase occurs and that he was in a position to hand the Minister a list of them, the noble Lord clearly did not wish to rely entirely on Lord Geddes' industry but had to have it checked himself. I can understand that this was necessary; but I asked the noble Lord whether the Government did not have available to them the services of word processors. This was not meant to be frivolous. If such devices were available, it would be simple to go through the text of the Bill and to find every reference to this particular phrase and to replace it with an alternative phrase such as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. As this is not the last occasion when your Lordships will wish to put in an amendment which occurs in several places in a Bill (although perhaps not on quite so large a scale) my question would be of great interest so that we can know in the future whether to accept a Minister's rejection of amendments at a late stage as being impracticable or whether we know that there are modern devices
1138
available to them to enable them to do the sort of thing suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will have noticed from the consultations that were taking place on the Front Bench that we have not brought our word processor with us into this House. I must say although I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Geddes on this alteration that he has successfully made to the Bill, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will not be correct and that there will not be several occasions in the future when we shall make a hundred or so amendments all at one go to a Bill. May I confirm to my noble friend that he is right in the point he put to me and that the point which he put will be correctly included as Amendment No. 98 in the corrections to which my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale referred.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I hesitate to add another voice from the Liberal Benches in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, on the amendment that he has had accepted. As I come from a small nation, I should like to support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said in regard to this matter because I was in Hong Kong in the early summer when these matters were discussed and I was asked to address the Reform Club of Hong Kong with its 25,000 members. When they met on their Annual General Meeting and I was invited to that meeting, I was surprised that there was a dinner party with over 1,000 Cantonese present. I was asked to speak. I followed a number of erudite people; my task was merely to propose a vote of thanks to the chairman and I did not know in what language I should speak. I spoke in Welsh and encouraged a thousand Cantonese to follow me in saying: "Jechid dda"—"Good health" in Welsh—to the chairman. In relation to the association between this area of Hong Kong and our country the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, has made a great contribution.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, may I also add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and concur entirely with what has been said because there is no doubt that what I may call his brilliant stroke of genius, his very happy thought, will confirm to all concerned—to all the citizens of these territories—that they are British and bring it far more to their minds and keep it before their minds, which is what we believe they want.
May I also congratulate the Government on not only accepting this but in performing their task—perhaps not without blemish, but very nearly so. I have never seen an Order Paper such as the one we have today. It seems to me that my noble friend Lord Geddes has set the Government 100 lines! It is practically a 100 repetitions of the same correction. The Government have delivered their task on time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.12 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
99 Clause 14, page 15, line 40, at end insert—
"( ) Where an order in consequence of which any

1139
person became a citizen of the British Dependent Territories by virtue of subsection (5) ceases to have effect, whether on annulment or otherwise, the cesser shall not affect the status of that person as such a citizen.".
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:
100 Line 2, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment to your Lordships' Amendment No. 35. This is consequential on my noble friend Lord Geddes' original amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
101 Clause 16, page 16, line 22, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
"(2) A person born outside the dependent territories shall be entitled, on an application for his registration as a citizen of the British Dependent Territories made within the period of twelve months from the date of the birth, to be registered as such a citizen if the requirements specified in subsection (3) or, in the case of a person born stateless, the requirements specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection, are fulfilled in the case of either that person's father or his mother ("the parent in question").
(3) The requirements referred to in subsection (2) are—

(a) that the parent in question was a citizen of the British Dependent Territories by descent at the time of the birth; and

(b) that the father or mother of the parent in question—

(i) was a citizen of the British Dependent Territories otherwise than by descent at the time of the birth of the parent in question; or

(ii) became a citizen of the British Dependent Territories otherwise than by descent at commencement, or would have become such a citizen otherwise than by descent at commencement but for his or her death; and

(c) that, as regards some period of three years ending with a date not later than the date of the birth—

(i) the parent in question was in a dependent territory at the beginning of that period: and

(ii) the number of days on which the parent in question was absent from that territory in that period does not exceed 270.

(4) If in the special circumstances of any particular case the Secretary of State thinks fit, he may treat subsection (2) as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six years.".
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments:
102 Line 4, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
103 Line 12, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
104 Line 16, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
105 Line 19, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendments to your Lordships' Amendment No. 37. These are also consequential on Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(LordBelstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
106 Clause 18, page 19, line 29, at end insert—
"(2) If in the special circumstances of any particular case the Secretary of State thinks fit, he may treat subsection (1) as if the reference to five years after commencement were a reference to eight years after commencement, but shall not do so unless the person to whom the application relates would have been entitled to be registered under that subsection on an application made immediately before the end of the five years after commencement."
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments:
107 Line 3, after ("if") insert ("(a)")
108 Line 5, leave out from ("commencement") to end of line 8 and insert ("; or
(b) where subsection (1A) applies, as if the reference to five years from the date on which the person to whom the application relates attains full age were a reference to eight years from that date.").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendments to your Lordships' Amendment No. 43. It is consequential on Amendment No. 2, the amendment which dealt with Clause 6 in which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, put an amendment into the Bill. I have already spoken to them.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
109 Clause 21, page 21, line 21, at end insert—
"(1A) On an application for his registration as a citizen of the British Dependent Territories made by a person of full capacity who had before commencement ceased to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a result of a declaration of renunciation, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, cause that person to be registered as a citizen of the British Dependent Territories if that person—

(a) has an appropriate qualifying connection with a dependent territory; or

(b) if a woman, has been married to a person who has, or would if living have, such a connection."

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments:
110 Line 2, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
111 Line 7, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendments to your Lordships' Amendment No. 47. These are consequential on Amendment No. 114. They are again "British Dependent Territories' citizen" amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
112 Clause 24, page 24, line 23, at end insert—
"(bb) he is a citizen of the British Dependent Territories by virtue of registrations under section 16(1) and either—

(i) his father or mother was a citizen of the

1141
British Dependent Territories at the time of the birth; or

(ii) his father or mother was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at that time and became a citizen of the British Dependent Territories at commencement, or would have done so but for his or her death; or"

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments:
113 Line 2, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
114 Line 4, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
115 Line 8, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendments to your Lordships' Amendment No. 49. These are similarly consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
116 Clause 24, page 24, line 35, at end insert—
"(dd) subject to subsection (2), being a woman born outside the dependent territories before commencement, she is a citizen of the British Dependent Territories as a result of her registration as such a citizen under section 19 by virtue of being or having been married to a man who at commencement became such a citizen by descent or would have done so but for his having died or ceased to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a result of a declaration of renunciation; or"
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:
117 Line 4, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment to your Lordships' Amendment No. 53. These are similarly consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
118 Clause 43, page 38, line 8, at beginning insert—
("subject to subsection (1) herein,").
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
119 Because discretionary decisions under the Act should not be subject to appeal to, or review in, the courts.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 118. The Commons have, as your Lordships will know, disagreed with this amendment for the reasons which are given on the Marshalled List. Of the 90 amendments which your Lordships sent to the Commons, this is the only one with which the Commons have disagreed in principle. I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind the acceptance by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary of all the other amendments, many important, which the House has made during the long
1142
stages of this Bill. Your Lordships may therefore wonder why my right honourable friend was not able to recommend acceptance of this amendment, and why another place disagreed with the amendment by a margin of 56 votes.
The reason given by the Commons on the Marshalled List for its disagreement goes to the heart of our objections. This amendment is intended to make the Secretary of State's discretionary decisions under this Bill subject to the courts whenever an unsuccessful applicant alleges that he has been discriminated against on grounds of race, colour or religion. The grounds for the Secretary of State's decision in sensitive naturalisation cases could thus be open to public scrunity whenever an applicant chose to allege discrimination.
In the national interest I really do think that this would be highly undesirable, particularly as there are other ways of taking forward allegations of discrimination. By far the most significant area where the Secretary of State is to exercise discretion under this Bill is naturalisation. The provisions for naturalisation set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill have been agreed by both Houses. They include good character, which needs to be assessed not on objective criteria, because that has not been the habit in this country, but on the basis of all relevant factors known to the Home Secretary. Now, my Lords, if the courts were to review a decision which it had been alleged had been taken on grounds of race, colour or religion, they might well find in certain cases that they were cases involving bad character, or even security.
As many of your Lordships, with your experience, will be very well aware, there would be particular difficulties where the Secretary of State proposed to refuse an applicant on security grounds. He would have to reckon with the possibility that the aggrieved applicant might allege discrimination, take his case to the courts, and try to secure there an investigation in public into the reasons for the decision. Even if such a case was heard in camera, the mere request for such a hearing would make the aggrieved applicant aware of the circumstances surrounding the refusal. Also, even in camera proceedings based on affidavits would be open to criticism unless the other side was aware of the Home Secretary's case. Thus security details would inevitably become known publicly. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this would not be in the national interest.
For these reasons, my Lords, the Government share the views of the Commons that discretionary decisions under the Bill should not be subject to appeal or review in the court. This amendment, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, moved into the Bill in previous stages of the deliberations which we had, represents an incomplete appeals system which would nevertheless be very damaging indeed in naturalisation cases, although may I say I accept immediately that that was not in any way the intention of the noble and learned Lord.
May I go on to say that the Government understand full well the concern which prompted the noble and learned Lord to move the amendment, and the concern which lies behind the amendment. We accept that an applicant for citizenship at discretion, who believes that he or she has been discriminated against on grounds of race, colour or religion, should have some

1143
means of redress. But there are other avenues which we believe will meet the needs of those concerned. Such people will be able to take the matter up with Members of Parliament or with a Member of your Lordships' House. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is responsible to Parliament in the exercise of his discretion under the Bill. He and his successors and those who work for them would be bound to take most seriously representations made to them by Members of Parliament to the effect that a particular decision had been taken on discriminatory grounds. It also seems inconceivable that an allegation that discretion had been exercised in a discriminatory way would not amount to a complaint of most serious maladministration. It would be alleged in effect that the Secretary of State, in exercising his discretion, had breached the very important principles set out in Clause 43 (1). In such circumstances, Parliament has its Commissioner for Administration (the Ombudsman) to investigate if the case is referred to him: and a very good thing too.
We consider therefore that there are already real remedies which are available to the unsuccessful applicant who considers that he or she has been the victim of discrimination. These remedies do not risk causing the considerable harm which we believe could flow from the power to review the Secretary of State's discretion in naturalisation cases which in our view would very probably result from this amendment.
My Lords, I hope your Lordships will agree that the Government had good reasons for asking the Commons to disagree with this amendment—alone out of the 90 which your Lordships made. We would not have taken so drastic a step at this late stage in the Session unless we really felt that there was very real cause for concern. I have attempted to set out those reasons today. I urge your Lordships in the strongest possible terms not to insist on your amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 118, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 119.—(Lord Betstead.)
4.22 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in one sense, as the lawyers would say, this is res adjudicata. It was decided by the House in Committee stage by a majority of 94 votes to 70 that this precise amendment should be introduced into the Bill. It was introduced and carried. The amendment was supported on all sides of the Committee and by distinguished lawyers in different parts of the House on the Conservative and Liberal Benches—I will not mention the Labour Benches lest I be thought guilty of immodesty. It received the approval of the Committee to a substantial degree. All the matters that have been raised by the noble Lord were then canvassed and considered, and considered responsibly. Therefore, I greatly hope that, as we are now dealing with precisely the same amendment, those who supported it previously will be inclined to maintain consistency in their approach.
It does of course raise important considerations. There are two subsections to Clause 43, as the House will know. The first subsection reads:
1144
"Any discretion vested by or under this Act in the Secretary of State, a Governor or a Lieutenant-Governor shall be exercised without regard to the race, colour or religion of any person who may be affected by its exercise.".
That subsection was introduced in another place by the Government and it was introduced—so said the Minister of State, Mr. Raison, and I quote:
"to allay the fears of the minority communities".
There were such fears and I am afraid there are still such fears, and presumably therefore the Government intend and intended the clause to be effective, to have a purpose, to give to a person complaining that his application, say for naturalisation or registration—these discretionary powers run through the Bill—was dealt with with regard to his race and that there were racial factors affecting the determination of his application.
The second subsection provides that—
"The Secretary of State, a Governor or a Lieutenant-Governor … shall not be required to assign any reason for the grant or refusal of any application under this Act the decision on which is at his discretion;"—
so he does not have to give reasons: and then it goes on—
"… and the decision of the Secretary of State or a Governor or Lieutenant-Governor on any such application shall not be subject to appeal to, or review in, any court.".
So you have in the first subsection a solemn pronouncement that these discretionary powers shall be exercised in a certain way—that is to say without regard to race, et cetera—and in the second subsection a complete blockage on any attempt to challenge when in a given case an applicant can bring before the court evidence that there has been a racialist element in the discretion. The occasions on which that would be done would be very few and far between; I cannot imagine it happening under the present Home Secretary. But of course this is legislation for the future as well.
My submission is that as the clause would stand without the amendment in the second subsection inserting there
"subject to subsection (1) herein"—
the famous pronouncement that the power shall be exercised
"without regard to race, colour or religion"
is of merely cosmetic effect. Some of the most oppressive regimes in the world have great declarations of principles and rights, with no remedies and no redress. They are useless—indeed they are a mockery. I would not go so far as to say that this is a mockery, because of course the mere declaration has a certain limited value in itself. But, as they stand, subsections (1) and (2), as I see them and as others saw them in our earlier debates, are in conflict, and the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that subsection (1) should be made to prevail over subsection (2).
There could be a case where facts could be proved that there was an exercise of racial discrimination. On a very exceptional case somebody might be able to say that a future Secretary of State said: "Mr. X—that notorious black man? We could not have him naturalised or have the claim of his son registered." What is to happen there? Is all that is suggested is that he should raise it in the House of Commons?

1145
Unfortunately, admirable though Parliament is as an institution and admirable as is the Commons, where most of these complaints would apparently go, the parliamentary remedies are no real substitute for access to a court of law. It is very difficult publicly to give parliamentary answers and have debates about matters relating specifically to the position of individuals. There is no opportunity for cross-examination. Recourse to the Parliamentary Commissioner involves a complication, and again it is no substitute for the right of legal redress in an appropriate case.
Courts have a sense of public responsibility. They have the means in their procedures to protect state secrets. I have appeared in many cases, in the Old Bailey and elsewhere, where matters of enormous importance to the security of this country were involved and had to be ventilated in closed court. I have no record of any leakage or damage having been done to the security of the state, as a result of that procedure and that necessity.
During the debate in Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville—and I hope he does not mind my quoting from him; I am sure he is unlikely to—said at column 696 of Hansard:
"I do not see any reason why the Government wish to object—if there is the rare and conceivable case where you have actual evidence that a discretionary decision has been taken to the detriment of somebody because of his race, colour or religion—that that matter should be precluded from being appealed.—"[28/7/81.]
I entirely agree and I venture to think that it was thinking on those lines that led the Committee to carry the amendment.
If anything, the need for the amendment to remain in the clause is possibly greater now than it was at the Committee stage, because we had not at that stage had the rejection by the Government of the attempt by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, to place modest limits on Clause 44(2), the ouster clause. His amendment did not over-ride the Secretary of State's ultimate discretion. It proposed a modest but useful limitation on unfettered discretion in the Secretary of State, and gave a right of appeal for the benefit of applicants for naturalisation, who were turned down because they failed to meet the requirements of residence, sufficient knowledge of language and a future intention to reside.
It gave a right of appeal to a committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of a judge, similar to that provided for in another part of the Bill and, indeed, similar to that which has functioned in immigration matters since 1948. But it was rejected by the Government. They have taken an absolute position of refusal to limit, even in clearly justiciable matters, the absolute ipse dixit of the Secretary of State. In this day and age when, increasingly, the court has been enabled to intervene in matters of natural justice, in matters of civil liberty, it is indeed dismaying that the Home Office should be taking this total, obstructive position in regard to this matter.
I ask the noble Lord: What remedy does subsection (1) provide? Does it give any access to the courts? If it does give some means of access, why object to the inclusion of the amendment in subsection (2)? If it shuts the doors of the courts on the complainant, what real use is it? In my submission, this is an occasion when this noble House can show to the British public
1146
that civil liberty and racial equality are matters of concern in this House.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister said that there were reasons given by the Commons for disagreeing with the amendment, but in fact there is only one reason, and one reason only, and as he said, it is an important reason of principle. But it is here set out on the Marshalled List, because the Government believe and, as the noble Lord said, another place by a majority, believes, that discretionary decisions under the Act should not be subject to appeal to, or review in, the courts. That is a fundamental matter of principle, which now has to be resolved in the light of the arguments which have been put to us by the Minister.
The Minister has said that applicants can go to the courts at any time, if the words that your Lordships inserted are retained, because they will be able to allege discrimination even if there are no grounds for believing that that is the case. But we have heard two very distinguished legal authorities, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, this afternoon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, at Report stage, saying that they believe that these cases would be rare and that evidence would have to be adduced sufficient to enable the courts to take into consideration such an application.
I make the point in passing that, if a person were to seek to go to the courts on legal aid to challenge the Secretary of State's discretion in a matter of this kind, he would presumably have to obtain an opinion of learned counsel that there were sufficient grounds for doing so and this would not be given lightly. So I think that the picture that was given by the Minister, of many people frivolously taking cases to the courts on alleged grounds of discrimination, is a false one and should not be allowed to remain in the minds of your Lordships when we come to make a decision on this matter.
Secondly, I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that, if we had to consider only the attitude of the present Secretary of State, there would be no grounds for anxiety. But we are not legislating in this Bill only for future Secretaries of State. In this clause, we are also dealing with discretions which are exercised by governors or lieutenant-governors and I suggest that we really need some restriction on an unfettered right of discretion, which may be exercised by dozens of people of varying merit across the world. No doubt, most of the governors or lieutenant-governors who are appointed to these eminent positions are persons of the highest possible character, who would not dream of discriminating against an applicant on these grounds, but the possibility must be entertained that they might do so and the person concerned should have some remedy.
The noble Lord said that people already have a remedy; they can take their case to an MP or to a Peer who will, no doubt, raise it with the Home Office Minister. But do we need subsection (1) to enable the MP or the Peer to do that? Would they not find it part of their duty, whether or not such a clause was in the Bill, and does not the existence of subsection (1) imply something additional to the normal procedures

1147
which are adopted by Members of both Houses, in the case of complaints made to them by constituents or by any citizens?
The noble Lord said that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration would be entitled to take into consideration an allegation of discrimination on grounds of race, colour or religion. Would the Parliamentary Commissioner have information available to him which is not granted to the courts? The noble Lord said that he does not think it would be sensible for the courts to have to look at information regarding character, and certainly not security. But are there not procedures in the courts which would enable sensitive information of this nature to be taken into consideration without its being given in public?
There was the recent case of Williams v. Home Office, where documents were disclosed to the courts and, for reasons of which your Lordships are aware, one of the solicitors acting in that case divulged those documents to a newspaper and was very heavily criticised for having done so. Therefore, do the courts not have sufficient protection, if information of this character is given to them, to prevent it from reaching newspapers or the general public, if the Secretary of State thinks that it is information of a nature which should not be divulged? No, my Lords, these are matters of very great importance and principle, and I think that, if the reassurance which the honourable gentleman, Mr. Timothy Raison said was provided in subsection (1) is to mean anything, it must be qualified in this way. I hope your Lordships will agree to retain the words which your Lordships put in so recently and which we have heard no reasons for taking out this afternoon.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, I wish to add to the debate only my feeling that the Government in their opposition to the amendment which we passed have lost all touch with reality. If the amendment which we passed can stay in this Bill, there really will not be any kind of embarrassment for Governments by claims being brought which have no merit in them. It is possible at the moment to bring an action against a Minister who has made a discretionary decision and it is possible to bring it if that decision has been made on discriminatory grounds in most areas of the law, but it is very, very difficult indeed to obtain proof or to mount such an action unless there are very solid grounds for the allegations which are being made.
You do not even get over the first hurdle if you simply come to court crying "racial discrimination". If you go for a declaration, you will have to give particulars of the facts which you rely on in support of your allegations. If not, you will be struck out. If you go for a judicial review, you have to put in your affidavit the basis of your claim. If there is no basis, you will not get leave from the court to bring the action. Therefore, the only actions which could be brought against an allegedly discriminatory exercise of a Government's or Minister's discretion are those which can be shown to have a prima facie foundation. Whether it is private money or legal aid money, no such action would be brought unless the advisers had the material upon which to make at least a prima facie case.
1148
So there is no cause for alarm. The cause for alarm is the other way round: that if in the very rare case a prima facie case could be brought, the bitterness that would be felt by the person concerned and the whole of the minority community involved if action to the court were excluded would be intense and would be a mockery of the proud declaration that is in the first subsection of this clause.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, as one who spoke in support of the noble and learned Lord when he moved this amendment and as five Members of these Benches voted with the majority of this House in passing it. I must express my own regret that the Government are unwilling to sustain the decision of this House or to do what they have done in one or two other instances: to provide alternative amendments to meet the concern which has been expressed here.
We on these Benches supported this amendment because of our continuing concern throughout all the discussions about the anxieties and uncertainties which the Bill has caused among certain groups of our fellow citizens. We believe that this amendment would do much to reassure many of them that there would be a right of appeal on grounds of race, colour and religion. I feel that this amendment is still important. For that reason, I feel bound to join with those who wish to see it retained.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have done much heart-searching over this amendment, partly because it is natural to uphold the rights of people to appeal against a decision affecting them and partly because, as always, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has a magical and eloquent way of advancing his arguments—also because I hate having constantly to stand up and talk against the Lord Bishops. But speak against them I shall.
I have been struck by the seriousness of the remarks of my noble friend the Minister, and in supporting and I fear repeating a few of his words I am merely stating my reason for disagreeing with this amendment, for practical and security reasons. Both of the last speakers referred to the meaning of Clause 1 without Clause 2. Surely Clause 1 concerns the procedures leading up to the reaching of a decision whether to grant citizenship while Clause 2 consists of a challenge to that decision.
If somebody said that the Home Secretary had discriminated against him on grounds of colour, race or religion, the obvious reaction of the court would be to ask why he had been refused. In some cases it might of course he possible to give the reasons. In others it would surely be most inadvisable. I for one am not so naive as to believe that a person of bad character would be deterred by a refusal to grant him British nationality. I would argue that the more devious a person is the more plausible would be the case he would bring before any possible appeals court.
Then again, unless all those persons, be they judges or laymen, who might serve on the courts were required to sign the Official Secrets Act—and even then a slip of the tongue in public is certainly not unknown to me—the work of the Home Office could be greatly hindered,

1149
and unless those courts were in possession of classified information they would in certain cases be powerless and useless.
Persons who feel aggrieved by the Home Secretary's decision against their becoming British citizens by naturalisation have, as my noble friend the Minister said, the right to appeal to Members of Parliament. Indeed, they do so now. If there is a question of maladministration, a case can of course be brought for investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—in other words, the ombudsman. In either case publicity would arise out of people bringing their cases to those persons. So it would not be unknown for a person's case to be argued in private. Therefore, the avenues of appeal are not closed. Furthermore, in immigration matters there are extensive appeal rights and these, too, are often complemented by the large numbers of those who appeal to Ministers and to Members of Parliament.
Finally, if your Lordships did accept this amendment it would not enlarge the grounds of appeal. It will not enable any dissatisfied applicant to appeal against the decision because, unless the statute requires that the Minister states his reasons and goes on to say that those reasons will automatically be the subject of judicial review, there is nothing in the amendment that extends the grounds of appeal. I therefore earnestly hope that your Lordships will support the Government and will, if the House divides, vote against this amendment.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, may I suggest that the reasons given by the other place make very odd reading when set alongside the argument put forward by the noble Lord the Minister this afternoon? The other place put as their case against the amendment which your Lordships approved that discretionary decisions should not be subject to review in the courts. The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, this afternoon is that that is of no consequence because a discretionary decision under the Acts can be reviewed by the Parliamentary Commissioner.
Might I ask the noble Lord what it is that the Parliamentary Commissioner has which the courts have not? Why is the Parliamentary Commissioner regarded as a superior tribunal for investigating these matters compared with Her Majesty's judges sitting in camera? I suspect that there is very little answer to that question. The real answer is one which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, might be a little reluctant to give, and it is this. He knows, I would suspect, perfectly well that under this section if your Lordships' amendment were removed there would, for practical purposes, be no right whatever of appeal to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
The reason for that is very simple. Throughout this Bill there is no obligation upon the Secretary of State, or a governor, or a lieutenant governor to give any reasons for any decision. And if there is no obligation to give such reasons, there is no way in which an aggrieved person could get an application on its feet in front of the Parliamentary Commissioner. He would turn down every application out of hand. I venture to suggest that talk about that alternative
1150
remedy is really talk about a subject which one appreciates would be totally ineffective.
The other alternative remedy the noble Lord puts forward is to say, "Well, of course, an aggrieved person can always go to his Member of Parliament". So he can; but it does rather postulate—does it not?—the existence of 650 Members of another place all passionately concerned with the rights of people aggrieved under this Bill. I think that is perhaps a trifle fanciful in the world of reality. I would suggest that without this amendment there is really no alternative and that this amendment is the only way of making enforceable Clause 43(1). Unless we insist on this amendment, Clause 43(1) will be nothing but a pious platitude; it would be totally unenforceable and ought to have no place whatever in any Act of Parliament.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I ought to be in Antigua at the moment, but when I discovered what the other place had done, I thought my place should be here. Whatever may have been the Government's intention, the effect of this Bill will be discriminatory. There are three types of citizenship, of which only one carries the right of abode in any territory; that is British citizenship, which carries the right of abode in the United Kingdom. British dependent territory citizenship does not carry the right of abode in any territory; that right will depend on the immigration laws in that territory. British overseas citizenship carries no right of abode anywhere and is hardly what one would rightly call citizenship. The vast majority of the people who become British citizens will be white. Some of them will be people who do not live in this country, have never lived here and have no intention of living here. The vast majority of people with the two other citizenships will be black or brown. The Government claim that they are guided by the question of close connection with this country. It is right that a connection by descent should be regarded as a form of close connection, but it is wrong that an ancestral connection should be regarded as having a stronger claim than other kinds of close connection, which is really what is done in this Bill.
The abolition of jus soli and its replacement by a requirement that the person should have a parent who is a British citizen or settled in the United Kingdom will cause uncertainty among the black community, because they know that when they apply for a passport they will need to show that their parents were settled here when they were born or that they had registered as British citizens. And they also know from experience that they will be subjected to very strict examination before their right is conceded. The Home Secretary has discretion to register minors, reduce the period required for qualification or extend the period allowed for application for registration within certain limits, register women who are widowed or divorced, allow a person to renounce citizenship or to claim it again. He also has the power to deprive them of citizenship. Except for the deprivation, the Home Secretary need give no reason for any of his decisions. His discretion, his decision, shall not be subject to appeal to or review in any court. That is Clause 43(2). Commonwealth citizens who previously had, and some of whom still have, the right to register as British citizens will, after

1151
a period, lose that right. We lost that battle. They will need to apply for naturalisation. Naturalisation can be granted or rejected by the Home Secretary, without any right of appeal.
My Lords, I will confess that one of the reasons why I fought so hard to get safeguarded the youngsters' entitlement to registration is that some black youngsters have been convicted of being suspected persons, and there was always the danger of their being regarded as not having a good character when they applied for naturalisation. Your Lordships will appreciate what impact that would have. It was a serious matter, even though, as your Lordships know, people convicted of sus need not have committed any crime and may never have committed any crime. I was thinking not only of youngsters who would have no difficulty in regard to naturalisation: I was also thinking of those for whom there could be this handicap.
This is how the black community saw this Bill. Then we had the declaration in what is now Clause 43(1), which stated that the discretion shall be exercised without regard to the race, colour or religion of persons who may be affected by its exercise. That seemed to indicate that the Government were prepared to reassure the black community of their intentions, and we were all grateful. Then, in this House, we made that declaration meaningful by tying subsection (1) to subsection (2) and making subsection (2) subject to subsection (1). As I saw it, that meant—and my noble friend Lord Gifford has confirmed me in my point of view, because I am not a lawyer—that if someone felt that refusal of naturalisation was due to his race, colour or religion he could appeal to the court. Again, as I see it, he will have to prove the fact or establish a prima facie case before the Home Secretary will be called upon to answer. What he will have is the right to appeal to the court if he has evidence to suggest that he was discriminated against on grounds of race, colour or religion. I have never thought that anyone could sustain an appeal merely by saying "I am black". He would have to show that his race, colour or religion were the main ground or the only ground on which his naturalisation was refused.
I hope your Lordships will insist on retaining this amendment, because whatever good the Government did by inserting subsection (1) into the Bill, they are busily undermining it by their rejection of our amendment, because all they are doing is restoring all the fears that existed. In fact, it is worse than that. If we accept the decision of the Commons, the black community will believe that the Government intend the Home Secretary to be free to discriminate. That is what they will believe. I hope the Government understand what that would mean. Under the Immigration Act 1976 discrimination on grounds of race or colour is illegal already. The Government may well find themselves having to defend themselves before the courts under that Act, and may well discover that they have stirred up a hornet's nest by their refusal to accept this amendment.
I hope the Home Office is not unaware of its present problem with the Commission for Racial Equality over the alleged practice of racial discrimination in the immigration service. I can assure your Lordships that
1152
if the Government persist in their attitude there will be lots of challenges of that sort, because in effect the black community will be convinced that the reason why the Government and Parliament will not accept this amendment is because Parliament intends to agree that the Home Secretary should discriminate. They will therefore have to take appropriate action. Our amendment is of great value to the community, but it is also of great value to the Home Secretary, and I hope the Home Secretary and his advisers will understand that. My Lords, I implore you to stand firm.
5 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, will forgive me if I do not follow him down those somewhat broad paths although I know he speaks with the utmost sincerity and conviction upon this matter. I should like to address the House for a moment because both my voice and my vote have been quoted on the Committee stage and I think I should explain why I am not going to be able to support my noble friends on the Front Bench this evening, although in fact I shall go away.
When I supported the noble and learned Lord and his amendment at the Committee stage the House will remember that, both then and on Report, I had tabled further amendments which were attempting to deal with the whole range of appealability of discretionary decisions by the Home Secretary and by the equivalent authorities in the islands and the dependent territories. I had hoped that the amendment we are now discussing was going to be the first in a series of amendments that would open up for the first time these discretionary decisions to some sort of appropriate type of appeal. It turned out that I was wrong because your Lordships rejected what I still maintain—and I am glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has said so again—was a modest compromise provision which I introduced at the Report stage.
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am bitterly sorry that my noble friends on the Front Bench have not taken this opportunity of making appealable one area of government out of a very large number—one area of government which is comparatively isolated in being now still without any remedy in any form of court or tribunal against the whole tendency of legislative practice over the past 20 or 30 years. But I have one very considerable reservation about leaving this amendment in the Bill, and this alone.
I am interested to hear that my noble friend Lord Belstead is so sure that the way in which the courts would interpret Clause 43 (as it is for these purposes, with the amendment in it) is to provide the courts with the ability to look at cases where there was evidence of discrimination, and I am delighted to know that the Government are so sure that they know the way in which the courts are going to interpret this Bill. I believe I am not alone in your Lordships' House in thinking that there is by no means that clarity about the way in which the courts are going to interpret this provision—and indeed the provisions about the entitlement parts of the Home Secretary's jurisdiction.
If my noble friend is right, and that with this

1153
amendment the courts are to be able to review cases of discrimination, then I should have thought that it was almost inevitable that they would have to decide that even if the Secretary of State had acted in total excess of his jurisdiction, the ouster clause, as it would then stand, would make it quite impossible for him to look at any of the other reasons for the failure to grant a naturalisation on some grounds, such as residence or one of the factual matters that I raised in my amendment. I think that would be a mistake.
If we are going to leave this without any very evident jurisdiction for the courts to look at discretionary matters, let us leave it at large. Do not let us provide the courts with one method of review on a narrow ground (important though that may be) if, by doing so, we then remove from them any possibility of interpreting the Bill (difficult though it might be) so that they could also review the discretionary decision on other grounds as well. For the purposes of creating a muddle I would rather leave this amendment out so that the courts may look at the Bill without being directed in this direction on discrimination and against any power to look at the other reasons which went into a discretionary decision. Therefore I would prefer not to support directly my noble friends on this. With respect to them, I do not think that they have properly clarified what the courts are going to do, or should do, and what Parliament intended the courts to do.
I leave the subject with this: If subsection (1) is to mean anything at all it would have to be given some effect; if it is to be given some effect then the only effect that it can possibly be given by way of law—and it is part of the law—is to suggest that there may be some remedy in the courts, and if there is a suggestion that there may be some remedy in the courts because of that and upon those grounds, then there may be a broader remedy also. For those reasons I should prefer not to pinpoint the discrimination grounds as being the only ones upon which the court may intervene. I therefore find myself in a position in which I am bound to abstain.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House always has the greatest admiration for the speeches of the noble Viscount who has just sat down, not only because he has such a clear way of expressing his views but also (if I may say this as a humble colleague) of the way in which his expertise in the law is provided for the benefit of this House. Therefore, I find myself in difficulty in saying, in regard to the speech that he has just made, that for this House, with all its responsibility, to be invited to object to the amendment of my noble and learned friend, purely on the grounds presumably that the courts will not know which way to turn when it comes to the courts being asked to consider the provisions of this Bill, leaves me with the feeling that that is a view that will not find favour in this revising Chamber.
There is not the slightest doubt; there is the utmost confusion on the Government Benches as well here as in another place. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships in regard to this very serious matter what happened at the Committee stage in this House. There was a question put with his usual directness by
1154
the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. In a very brief intervention, he asked this question:
"Is it clear beyond peradventure that some person who, rightly or wrongly, has had the Home Secretary's discretion exercised against an application of his and who alleges that there is here an element of discrimination on grounds of colour, race Or religion, could take this appeal to the court?"—(Official Report, 28/7/81; col. 696.)
There could not be a clearer question and it appears in the report of the Committee stage of this Bill in this House. Answering for the Government the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate answered in this way:
"My answer to that is that to some extent it must depend upon the circumstances. But in an application to the court to have the question determined, I should expect it to be argued in court that the protection afforded by the latter part of Clause 43(2) cannot apply to prevent review where it is suggested that the discretion which has been exercised is not a discretion which the Bill contemplates but something completely different."
In other words, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was saying that he felt that such a review by the courts was by no means barred in a case where the applicant was saying that, indeed, he had been discriminated against on the ground of race, religion, or colour.
When this matter came before another place—and I am looking now at col. 788 of the House of Commons Official Report of 27th October—the Minister, the right honourable gentleman Mr. Raison, said:
"I am afraid that the amendment would still remain unacceptable to us. As I understand it, the intention, if not the effect, of the amendment is to ensure that an applicant who believes that he has been discriminated against on grounds of race, colour or religion, should not be barred from taking the matter up with the courts by the general bar on access to the courts in discretionary cases set out in Clause 43(2). But such a provision would, in our view, have serious drawbacks. It would mean that everyone whose application is refused would be able to challenge the Secretary of State's decision in the courts merely by alleging that he had been discriminated against on grounds of race, colour or religion ".
The two interpretations of the Bill as unamended by your Lordships' House are completely and absolutely different from the respective Front Benches in this House and in another place. Dare we leave this to the remarks of learned judges that Parliament, in the exercise of its wisdom in two Houses, has left this Bill in a state where one cannot even get help, as those who are advocating certain revisions of the interpretation of our laws have asked for, by looking at the Official Reports of this House and of another place when the Bill in question was being debated? If I may say so, we would leave ourselves in a position of ridicule at the hands of the Judiciary because we, as a legislature, have been lazy, indolent or muddle-minded.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will forgive me if I look at her for one moment with eyes of admiration as always, and say that she really must fall under the spell of my noble and learned friend, because on the last occasion he spoke last in this matter and she thereupon followed him into the Division Lobby and supported him on precisely this amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that I might be allowed to reply on that point. I did begin by saying that I had thought long and hard about this whole matter. I think that that maybe explains

1155
the line that I have taken today. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether I am right in thinking that there is no right of appeal at the moment. Can the noble Lord answer that point before he sits down?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not want to continue a debate with the noble Baroness. I merely say that I thought she saw the light on the road to Damascus last time; I think that she may have been blinded on another road on this occasion.
I want to end upon the following note. Not only, as I have said, would we be throwing confusion and, if I may say so, indignity into our deliberations if this amendment were not, in fact, supported once again by this House, but—and this is my plea to the House—we would be doing something serious to damage the image that we managed to get on the last occasion by saying to those who have alleged, rightly or wrongly, that this Bill is discriminatory from a racial point of view, that that is not so; that "The Lords in its wisdom put a right of appeal there where anything was being done which in your view was contrary to your interests in regard to nationality and citizenship, where you could properly allege and substantiate a case in the courts on the ground that you had been discriminated against on race, religion or colour". We have an opportunity of restoring confidence. Do not let us lose it by cowardice or mere party allegiance.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I did not intend to speak, but I now find myself impelled to do so because there is great feeling among the Roman Catholic community about this matter. I should like to say very simply and with great respect to the noble and learned Lord and also to the noble Lord who spoke for the Liberals, that I see this as quite a simple problem. Subsection (1) says that there shall be no discrimination on grounds of race, colour or religion. That is a fact and it is laid down. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, who is my great friend and a fellow Roman Catholic, has said that, if we do not agree to this amendment to Clause 43(2), we are allowing discrimination to take place. We are not. When the Secretary of State or a Governor applies this law he must be bound by subsection (1). All that I am doing if I support the Government—which I shall do—is saying, "I trust the Government, the Secretary of State, to abide by subsection (1) and I do not need to have the additional check that there can be an appeal in the courts about it". The Government do not wish to have endless appeals in the courts because of the general implementation of all these matters. But in no way by going into the Lobby on behalf of the Government (if there is a Division) am I believing that there is any intention on the part of the Government to discriminate because this amendment is not inserted in subsection (2). I hope that my noble friend Lord Belstead will spell this out when he replies. I think that it is quite extraordinary that the noble Lord should be twisting it in this way.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, did not the noble Duke support the amendment in July when all these matters were canvassed and considered?
The Duke of Norfolk: That is absolutely true, my
1156
Lords, I did, as the noble and learned Lord has said, do that in July. However, now it has been back to the other place and I see from what the Minister said there—and he was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—that there are reasons that would mean that the whole matter would be opened up over and over again. I am prepared to trust the Secretary of State to administer the law of the land—Clause 43(1)—without having to have an appeal to the courts. If there is any question that the situation could go badly wrong, then we could always look at it again in this free country of ours.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Salmon: My Lords, I had no intention to speak at all. However, it seems to me that Clause 43(1) states that discretion is vested in the Secretary of State so that he may exercise it against an applicant; but cannot do so on account of applicants' race, colour or religion. Why are those latter words put there? Obviously we all know that the present Secretary of State would never exercise his discretion with prejudice to race, colour or religion. But Parliament, when it passed subsection (1) must have foreseen that, human nature being what it is, it is possible that at some time in the future a Secretary of State may well, unless he is forbidden by the Act to do so, allow himself to exercise his discretion because of the race, colour and religion of the person who is applying for naturalisation.
The last three lines of subsection (2) say:
"… the decision of the Secretary of State … on any such application shall not be subject to appeal, or review in, any court".
This seems to me to be absurd. I cannot understand that in effect to knock out those words can do any harm at all. Nobody can appeal against or ask a court to review the way in which the discretion has been exercised. All that any man or woman could do is to bring substantial evidence before the court that the then Secretary of State, in action that he has taken, relied on his dislike of the race, colour or religion of the applicant. Unless the applicant has strong evidence, he would never have a chance of appealing or of getting a review in court. If he came to the court without strong evidence, the court would tell him to go away in no uncertain manner.
One day we may have a Secretary of State who is prejudiced and who accordingly refuses the applicant because of his colour, race or religion. It seems to me however that if the applicant had no strong evidence of the Home Secretary's prejudice the court would rightly throw out the applicant, without any loss in doing so. When an Act gives power—and this very strong power—to a Minister who abuses it, the court will support the appellant; and this has generally occurred during the last 20 or 30 years. If what I have suggested is correct, can we be doing any harm by eliminating the last three lines in subsection (2)? To my mind it would be a very sound thing to do.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would give way for one moment. I do not think that the House now has power to make any further amendments to the Bill. We are confined to discussing the precise question of

1157
whether the previous Lords amendment should stay, and, I fear, nothing else.
Lord Salmon: My Lords, I am perfectly prepared to put it that way, but it is not so easy. It seems to me shocking that a Bill should be passed in this way so that, however unfair a Secretary of State might be and however prejudiced he might be against the applicant, the applicant has to put up with it and the Secretary of State can do what he likes. It seems to me quite monstrous that if the applicant can bring strong evidence to show that the Minister has acted entirely on his dislike of the applicant's race, colour or religion and has therefore refused the application and the Minister has dismissed the applicant's appeal, this would be a shocking and most serious denial of justice.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I sought to make clear at the beginning of this afternoon's debate, the Government would be very concerned if your Lordships insisted on Amendment No. 118. I think that it is fair to claim, at the end of what must have seemed to many of your Lordships immensely long proceedings on this very lengthy Bill, that my right honourable friend has shown an open mind on the many amendments which your Lordships' House has proposed over the last three months or so. Indeed, noble Lords have been most generous—not least the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones in recognising, that constructive attitude of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Therefore, before this afternoon's debate your Lordships must have wondered why it is that the Government have felt unable to accept this amendment. The reasons are straightforward and they are simple. The provision that discretionary decisions in this Bill should be exercised without regard to race, colour or religion was put into the Bill in Committee in another place by the Government, incidentally supported by the votes of the Opposition in that Committee.
Lord Mishcon: Of course, my Lords.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, on that occasion it was explained quite clearly, so that there was no misunderstanding, that this Bill was meant to be simply a declaration, but a declaration which would have very great advantages.
First and foremost—and I say this particularly to my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, who I felt wanted the advantages spelt out by the Government—this declaration would give to those people coming to this country a symbol of reassurance, and it would remind all of us of the innate sense of fairness, which I hope that our country will always retain. My honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Raison, gave an assurance on that occasion that this statement would be embodied in the instructions which were given to officials handling cases in the Home Office. The declaration would be a signpost which would guide both the Parliamentary Commissioner, when he might inquire into cases, and Members of both Houses when they take up cases; of course, if either the Ombudsman or a Member of either House were to be concerned and it became evident that a decision
1158
had been taken contrary to this declaration, the matter would, of course, be pursued on behalf of the applicant.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked why the Parliamentary Commissioner was better in these particular circumstances than a court of law. It is because the Parliamentary Commissioner is the servant of Parliament. He would have access—as, indeed, he showed not all that long ago in a naturalisation case—to the Home Secretary's reasons and be able to delve, but in a way which would avoid undesirable public disclosure. This is not, so I understand, to say that our law is so inflexible—which is the impression I rather have this afternoon speaking as a layman—that if a decision is blatantly discriminatory it cannot be reviewed by the court. I understand—
Lord Avebury: My Lords, may I—
Lord Belstead: I think I have listened long this afternoon. Let me give way in a moment. This is not to say that if a decision was blatantly discriminatory it could not be reviewed by the court, and I understand there are precedents for this. But this is different from Lord Elwyn-Jones's amendment, which seems to envisage applicants being able to take allegations which could be wholly unsubstantiated to the courts in the hope that in what could be very sensitive security cases, or character cases, all the reasons would be reviewed.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord again refers to the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner. Does he mean that in spite of the fact that Clause 43(2) says:
"The Secretary of State … shall not be required to assign any reason for the grant or refusal of any application …".
that nevertheless, when the Parliamentary Commissioner looks into a complaint, that the Secretary of State will in fact give him the reasons for any refusal notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 43(2)?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I would have thought that the noble Lord, who takes such an interest in these matters, would have noticed the last case in which the Parliamentary Commissioner looked precisely into a naturalisation case. The Parliamentary Commissioner in that particular case made it quite clear that the reasons of the Home Office had been explained to him, and in the light of that report and other evidence available to the Home Office the Parliamentary Commissioner said, "I consider that they were reasons which the Home Office was entitled to take into account". I think that that is an effective remedy, but it is an effective remedy because we have the ombudsman and because he is a servant of Parliament.
I was also interested in the intervention of my noble friend Lord Colville. My noble friend, with characteristic honesty, resiled in no way from the consistent and honourable position which he has taken up throughout this Bill in favour of appeals generally. Indeed, we have gone some way, I like to think, to try to meet the points my noble friend has clearly made. But this afternoon, as I understood my noble friend, he argued that by pinpointing discrimination in this particular way under this amendment the courts would be inhibited

1159
possibly from looking at other cases. That may, or may not be. As a mere layman I certainly do not know. All I can do is listen to my noble friend. All I can do is to read the proceedings which went on in another place. There I noticed that the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Peter Archer, a former law officer, delivered himself of the view that the courts would be able to go into the real reasons for refusals in discretionary cases, but it might be necessary to hear them in camera.
Another distinguished lawyer, Mr. Greville Janner, from the Opposition Benches, simply welcomed the prospect of the courts being able to review real reasons for decisions without making any mention at all of them being in camera, if Lord Elwyn-Jones's amendment was to stay. Finally, the honourable gentleman, Mr. Douglas Hogg, delivered himself of the view that Lord Elwyn-Jones's amendment would not have any effect at all. If the noble and learned Lord will forgive me saying so, the effect of this particular amendment is obscure, but we believe on the Government Front Bench that the effect will be that it could be very damaging so far as naturalisation cases are concerned.
If I may, I shall finish by explaining why. The question of whether discretionary decisions in this Bill should be subject to appeal is a matter which was debated and decided in another place, and then was debated twice by your Lordships' House, both times on amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Colville. On the second occasion your Lordships decided that it would not be wise to make discretionary cases appealable. The reason for your Lordships' decision lay in the nature of naturalisation.
Throughout our proceedings on this Bill your Lordships have shown great concern about the rights of people to have their cases heard by the courts, and the Government really have done their best to respond. Through amendments which we have made on report we have made it as clear as we possibly can that where a person claims an entitlement under this Bill that claim should be reviewed by a court. We cut out references to the Secretary of State being satisfied, and we put in subsection (3) of this clause which says:
"Nothing in this section affects the jurisdiction of any court to entertain proceedings of any description concerning the rights of any person under any provision of this Act".
But when we came to naturalisation your Lordships agreed that the traditional practice of the Home Secretary having to be ultimately responsible was the right one in the national interest.
Having listened to your Lordships' debates, I realise that this is not the way that some people would have it. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has consistently made clear his wish to have objective criteria which would be fought out in court: not a thing which has been done in this country for 140 years so far as naturalisation is concerned. In another place the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Hattersley, put it even more starkly.
"The new Nationality Act which must be introduced in the future,"
the right honourable gentleman said, in another place on Tuesday,
"must include an appeals system preceded by an explanation of why an application has been refused".
1160
That expression of view, and this amendment, would lead directly towards that result in naturalisation cases.
My right honourable friend has given an assurance in another place that wherever possible reasons will be given if naturalisation has to be refused, not least to help an applicant who may have a second and a successful opportunity to apply, but to open up all naturalisation cases, including character and security cases, to judicial review I think would be absolutely disastrous. This could well be the consequence of this amendment, for on an allegation that a decision had been taken by discriminating on grounds of race, colour or religion, all the circumstances could have to be argued in open court. Surely that cannot be the intention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, but it could be the effect of this amendment. I ask your Lordships to beware of going down this road, and on this occasion not to insist on this amendment.
5.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 118 to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason numbered 119?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 96.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Greenway, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gridley, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Avon, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Bagot, L.

Bellhaven and Stenton, L.

Hankey, L.

Bellwin, L.

Henley, L.

Beloff, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Holderness, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Boardman, L.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Boothby, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Brownlow, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Loudoun, C.

Cathcart, E

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cockfield, L.

Lyell, L.

Coleraine, L.

McFadzean, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Marley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mottistone, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Daventry, V.

Northchurch, B.

Davidson, V.

Norwich, Bp.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Nunburnholme, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Orkney, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Pender, L.

Eccles, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elton, L.

Portland, D.

Faithfull, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Foley, L.

Reigate, L.

Fortescue, E.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Richardson, L.

Geddes, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gisborough, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Rugby, L.

Gormanston, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

1161

Saint Brides, L.

Taylor, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Terrington, L.

Seebohm, L.

Teviot, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Sherfield, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Trenchard, V.

Spens, L.

Trumpington, B.

Stamp, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Vivian, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Strathspey, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Swansea, L.

Young, B.

Swinfen, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jacques, L.

Amherst, E.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Avebury, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kaldor, L.

Balogh, L.

Kennet, L.

Banks, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Barrington, V.

Lawrence, L.

Bernstein, L.

Leatherland, L.

Beswick, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bishopston, L.

McNair, L.

Blease, L.

Mayhew, L.

Blyton, L.

Mersey, V.

Brockway, L.

Milner of Leeds L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Byers, L.

Molloy L.

Carlisle, Bp.

Morris L.

Chitnis, L.

Mountevans L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Oram L.

Collison, L.

Pargiter L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Peart L.

Craigavon, V.

Phillips, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cudlipp L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Rochester, L.

Denington, B.

Salmon, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Shinwell, L.

Eldon, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stone, L.

Foot, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Strauss, L.

Galpern, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gifford, L.

Tordoff, L.

Gosford, E.

Underhill, L.

Gregson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Grey, E.

Walston, L.

Hale, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hall, V.

Whaddon, L.

Hayter, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Willis, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Jacobson, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
5.47 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
120 Schedule 7, page 66, line 21, at end insert—
("DEEP SEA MINING (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1981 (c. 53)
1. In section 1 (prohibition of unlicensed deep sea mining)—

(a) in subsection (4), for "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" substitute "United Kingdom national";

1162

(b) in subsection (5)(a), for "citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies" and "such citizens" substitute respectively "United Kingdom nationals" and "such nationals"; and

(c) in subsection (6), for the words from "and references" onwards substitute—

""United Kingdom national" means—

(a) a British citizen, a citizen of the British Dependent Territories or a British Overseas citizen;

(b) a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 is a British subject; or

(c) a British protected person (within the meaning of that Act).".

2. In section 14(3) (persons who may be guilty of offences under regulations), for "a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" substitute" a British citizen, a citizen of the British Dependent Territories or a British Overseas citizen".".
The Commons agreed to the above amenhnent with the following amendments:
121 Line 14, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
122 Line 23, leave out ("citizen of the British Dependent Territories") and insert ("British Dependent Territories' citizen").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 to the Lords Amendment No. 120. Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 are consequential on No. 14.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said amendments to the Lords amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Protected Shorthold Tenancies (Rent Registration) Order 1981
5.48 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order is made under Section 52(4) of the Housing Act 1980. Its effect is to lift compulsory rent registration for all short-hold tenancies granted after 1st December 1981 in all rent registration areas in England and Wales other than those in Greater London. In accordance with Section 151(2) of the Act, this order is subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses.
I do not need to remind your Lordships that the manifesto on which this Government won the election in 1979 contained a commitment to do everything possible to revive the private rented sector. That is still our policy, and one of the important means by which we are trying to do it is through the introduction of shorthold, as foreshadowed in the manifesto. The shorthold provisions were an important part of the Housing Act passed last Session and are contained in Section 51 to 55 of the Housing Act 1980. They came into effect on 28th November last year. Short-hold makes it possible for any non-resident landlord to let to a new tenant for a fixed term of between one and five years with the certainty of being able to regain possession at the end of the fixed term if he so wishes.
It is our firm view that the Labour Rent Acts, by conferring lifetime security of tenure on tenants, have deterred landlords from letting because they are not prepared to give up possession of their property for the rest of their lifetime. Nor do we believe that lifetime security helps the sort of young, mobile people who are now looking to the private rented sector for their accommodation; and we illustrate this from the findings of the National Dwellings and Housing Survey commissioned by the last Labour Government. That showed that at the end of 1977 half a million lettings in England, that is, over 20 per cent. of the whole of the private rented sector, had been made within the previous year. It is therefore essential to ensure that there is an adequate supply of short-term accommodation, and that is what shorthold is designed to achieve.
The lack of lifetime security is unlikely to worry those tenants looking for this sort of short-term rented accommodation. They neither want, nor expect, to stay in the private rented sector for the whole of their lives. That is why we hoped that the Opposition would be able to agree with us that shorthold could make a useful contribution to meeting housing need, particularly for these young, mobile people. In formulating our shorthold proposals we were very anxious to do all we could to secure a bipartisan approach. We recognised that it would be in the national housing interest if private landlords could be encouraged to let in the sure knowledge that the shorthold provisions would survive beyond the life of this Parliament. That is why we tried so hard to secure the agreement of the Labour Party to our proposals.
But during the passage of the Bill it became clear that the safeguards that the Labour Party were asking for were not designed to help tenants within the framework of a workable shorthold scheme, but were intended to prevent shorthold from ever getting off the ground. Indeed, astonishing though most people would think, during the passage of the Bill in the other place Mr. Kaufman made it quite clear that he would actually prefer properties to stand empty rather than be let on shorthold. The Environment Select Committee's Report on the Sale of Council Houses took a rather different view. It made the point, with which I would have hoped your Lordships could all agree, that vacant properties are not benefiting anyone.
I am afraid that I have to tell your Lordships that the passage of time does not seem to have made the Labour Party more reasonable. In the debate on this order in another place on Monday night, the Opposition repeated their threat to repeal the shorthold provisions of the 1980 Act if they are returned to power after the next general election and to give tenants on shorthold at that time security of tenure. It is their clear and openly expressed intention, as part of their campaign against the private landlord, to undermine confidence in shorthold and to deter landlords from letting on shorthold. Yet there is a clear need for short-term accommodation, which simply cannot be met solely by the public sector. Furthermore, no one benefits if landlords are deterred from letting, least of all tenants who are looking for accommodation.
So, in view of the consistently negative attitude of the Labour Party and their far-fetched claims, I think it
1164
vital that once again I should stress the important safeguards for tenants that are contained in the short-hold proposals. First, we have made it impossible for a tenant who is already a fully protected tenant to have his tenancy converted to a shorthold. This means that there can be absolutely no question of shorthold taking away security of tenure from existing tenants. Secondly, we have made it an essential precondition for the creation of a shorthold tenancy that the landlord must serve a special prescribed notice on the tenant before the start of the tenancy, so that the tenant is fully aware of his rights under shorthold, including the fact that the landlord has the right to reclaim possession at the end of the shorthold term. Thirdly, since the introduction of shorthold last year, the registration of a fair rent has been compulsory for a letting to qualify as a shorthold. This requirement goes further than any Rent Act introduced by the Labour Party has ever gone.
The mandatory possession cases introduced by the Labour Party, for returning owner-occupiers and the owners of retirement homes, where the tenant has similar security to that under shorthold, have never had a requirement for compulsory rent registration, and, unlike with shorthold, there is no provision in the legislation which would make it possible for rent registration to be made compulsory. However, it seemed right to us that we should include such a provision in our shorthold proposals. It also seemed right that, at least initially, compulsory rent registration should be a requirement for shorthold in the whole of England and Wales. As I have made clear, we had hoped that by making such a central feature of the Labour Party's Rent Acts as the registration of a fair rent an integral part of the new form of shorthold tenure, we might achieve the support of the Labour Party in this important new development in the private rented sector. Indeed, we went even further than that during the passage of the Bill to meet the Labour Party's worries, not only by requiring the registration of a fair rent, but by making provision, by an adaptation of the certificate of fair rent procedure, to ensure that no more than the registered rent could be charged from the very start of the tenancy.
Shorthold, with compulsory rent registration, has been in operation for nearly a year. The department's monitoring through rent registration statistics now gives information about shortholds up to the middle of August. The figures show that by then there were nearly 3,500 rent registrations in England and Wales where the letting was identified as shorthold. I should stress that those figures do not represent the total number of shorthold lettings taking place—only those known to the department. But, even so, frankly we regard it as disappointing that the number of shorthold lettings is not higher. In our view the main reason for this is the irresponsible attitude of the Labour Party, whose threat to repeal shorthold has inevitably discouraged landlords from making accommodation available on shorthold to would-be tenants, who would be perfectly happy with the terms that shorthold offers.
But, apart from that, we are bound to recognise the force of the argument put to us by, among others, the British Property Federation, that the requirement for the compulsory registration of a fair rent has deterred some landlords. Had the inclusion of the requirement succeeded in making shorthold acceptable

1165
to the Labour Party, I think that landlords might have seen it as a price worth paying for the benefits that would spring from a bipartisan approach. But that was not to be. It therefore seems right that we should make use of the power which is included in the Act to lift the requirement for compulsory rent registration.
In view of the comments made in another place on Monday, let me emphasise that the power to lift the compulsory registration requirement was in the Housing Bill from the time that it was introduced. As I and my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction made clear during the passage of the Bill, it would never have been there if we had not envisaged that it might be used.
If approved, the order will lift the requirement for compulsory rent registration for all areas in England and Wales outside Greater London. I hope that this will have the effect of encouraging landlords who would be prepared to let on shorthold if they could agree with their tenants the rent to be charged, but who have been deterred by the involvement of the rent officer.
I should like to make clear that I would not accept that, because the order is designed to encourage landlords to make accommodation available, it must therefore be against the interests of tenants. It is in nobody's interest if accommodation is kept empty. There has to be a balance between encouraging landlords to make accommodation available and providing safeguards for tenants, which, however desirable they may seem in theory from the tenant's point of view, lead to a drying up of the supply of rented accommodation. I believe that so as to help those looking for accommodation, landlords must be encouraged to take advantage of the shorthold provisions. But I cannot stress too strongly that even in areas where compulsory rent registration has been lifted, shorthold tenants and landlords will retain the voluntary right, as with any other regulated tenancy, to apply to the rent officer at any time for the registration of a fair rent. Nor will the lifting of compulsory rent registration for new shorthold tenants affect in any way fair rent registrations for shorthold tenancies that have been made before the order comes into operation.
One of the concerns that have been expressed in the past by the Opposition about the effect of lifting compulsory rent registration for shorthold is that tenants will be afraid to apply to have a rent registered because they will be worried about not being allowed to stay on beyond the end of the shorthold term. I entirely refute that argument. In the first place, we have never denied that it is a central feature of shorthold that the landlord can regain possession at the end of the fixed term, and no tenant can therefore expect to rely on being able to stay beyond the fixed term, which may be anything from one to five years. Secondly, if a tenant does apply to have a fair rent registered, there is no advantage to a landlord who wants to go on letting to seek repossession, because the fair rent already registered will apply in just the same way to any new tenant. Thirdly, I would remind the Opposition that if they are really concerned about the problems of tenants whose landlords are worried about letting them stay on beyond the fixed term, it is in their power to eliminate the biggest threat deterring this; namely, the Labour Party's commitment to repeal shorthold.
This order does not affect Greater London, where
1166
we are retaining the requirement for compulsory rent registration. This is because we recognise, as I am sure all your Lordships do, that there are special considerations in London. The competition for private rented accommodation, much of it from people who are staying only for short periods and who do not need the protection of the Rent Acts, has had its effect on the level of rents. We therefore feel that in the special circumstances which exist in London, tenants under shorthold still need the added protection of compulsory rent registration. This order does not, therefore, apply to any rent registration areas in Greater London. In London, it will continue to be a requirement for shorthold to have a fair rent registered in the way that has applied everywhere up to now. The fundamental belief that encouraged us to introduce shorthold was the conviction that the private rented sector can play an important and continuing part in helping to meet housing needs. We have introduced this order because we believe that the removal of the requirement for compulsory rent registration outside London would enable shorthold to make a greater contribution. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved.—(Lord Bellwin.)
6.2 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I have the feeling that the noble Lord the Minister, with whom I have had a number of friendly tussles across the Chamber, is not quite as relaxed and at his usual affable ease tonight as he is usually. The reason for that is quite simple. The poor man is having to argue an absolutely impossible and awful case. It is very unlike him, if he wants a political punch up, and so let us get rid of that idea first before discussing what has really happened and what is happening now.
The noble Lord referred to my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Kaufman, and his threats that the Opposition would repeal shortholds when they came back into power. What was said at that time, through the passage of the Bill which became the Housing Act 1980, was that if the safeguards which were asked for regarding shorthold were given by the Government and kept, then this would certainly be a very strong consideration. It was also pointed out then—and pointed out the other night—that the Government incorporated only a few of the safeguards which were in the original Private Members' Bill which Sir Brandon Rhys Williams and other Conservative MPs supported. The Government went even further and did not put the man who was the father of this infant, which is now being strangled at birth, on the Select Committee which was considering this matter in another place.
It is really quite extraordinary—I say this quite seriously—to base the case for this order and for taking what are really draconian powers, which I agree were inserted in the original Act, on blaming the Labour Party and the Opposition for the failure of landlords to take up shorthold. If it were not so ludicrous it would be quite sad. We are reminded on many occasions that, unfortunately, we have been in a state of internecine warfare for some time. One of the "beefs" which many of us in the party have is that not enough time has been spent on dealing with

1167
exactly the policy measures which the Minister is talking about. So let us just get that out of the way.
I am sure that some of my colleagues will feel amazed, and perhaps even a little puffed up with pride, to feel that what the Labour Party says in Opposition can really lead to something like this order being put before us tonight. I should like to take noble Lords back for a moment to what really did happen. They may remember that we had a long struggle over short-holds in this House. Indeed, when I moved that the relevant clause should not stand part of the Bill (at that time it was Clause 51 and now it is Section 2) the voting, I am sure the Minister will remember, was 99 in favour of the clause and 91 against. There was a minute majority of eight in favour of including shortholds in the Bill. The disquiet expressed on all sides of the House was quite tremendous. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said that he faced a tremendous dichotomy over this. In the end he abstained on the basis that he thought that the Government would find some way of introducing even further security into shortholds. One of the reasons why shorthold was accepted, even by this very small majority, was that an amendment was introduced earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. This all took place on 2nd July 1980.
If I may remind the noble Lord, when he introduced the amendment to make fair rents registration compulsory he said, and I quote from the Official Report (col. 351):
"This amendment ensures that the fair rent will apply from the onset of the tenancy".
He went on to say:
"At present the Bill requires that the registration of a fair rent is applied for within 28 days of the tenancy commencing. Although this in itself is a unique protection for the tenant, the point has been made in another place that there will be no fair rent until the rent is registreed by the rent officer—perhaps three months after the tenant moves in. Our amendment bridges this gap".
This enabled the Minister to say on the same day, during the debate over whether the clause should stand part, when referring to the considerable amount of alarmist talk about shorthold, that there were important shortholds safeguards and that:
"A fair rent must be registered for a letting to be a shorthold. Compulsory rent registration has never been a feature of any previous Rent Act legislation, and thus the proposal provides an entirely new safeguard for tenants … the Bill now ensures that the tenant will pay no more than the fair rent right from the start of the shorthold".
In view of what the Minister has said when he pointed to the Rent Acts when this was not introduced, perhaps I may point out that he was referring to the fact that there, security was built in, but here we are dealing with shortholds where there is not complete and entire security for the tenant. Grave anxiety was also expressed in this House about reserve powers given to the Secretary of State to alter this rule. Indeed, because of pressure not only from the Opposition, but also from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, as well as from my own noble friends the Government came back at Report stage and made the order subject to affirmative rather than negative resolution. Now less than a year after the introduction of shortholds the Government have swept away not only the compulsory fair rent registra-
1168
tion but also the requirement that registration of a fair rent is applied for within 28 days of commencement of tenancy—although the Minister had described this as "a unique protection for the tenant". Circumstances have not changed. Why did the Government include compulsion in the first place but discard it now when obviously it was included as a necessary safeguard for the tenant? No reason has been given except that the Labour Party has spoilt it all for the Government.
The Government have an overall majority in the other place. The Government are running local authorities with the most severe draconian powers. The Government pride themselves on being a very tough, inflexible and rigid Government when it comes to the economy and almost everything else. Yet here the Government are so frightened by the Labour Opposition, and goodness knows that we have enough problems of our own, that they say, "This is the end of shorthold. This is what is stopping the landlords coming forward".
There has been no proper research, and no evidence has been brought forward. It really is (I am trying to find a polite word that will not upset the bishop) a disgrace and, in fact, an insult to this House and to Parliament. No reason has been given, apart from those I have mentioned, which were just nonsensical, except that the Government have a hunch that more shortholds will come on the market as the landlords' ante is put up. What a way to legislate; what a disgraceful U-turn; what contemptuous use of the reserve powers, and what a way to treat this House!
The reluctance of the House as expressed in the vote was concern for tenants. How, then, can we be expected to throw that concern out of the parliamentary window when the Government assured us so strongly and so often in both Houses that the tenant was amply protected and was going to remain protected? It is absolutely disgraceful that a Government should break their word so irresponsibly without any viable reason. The phoney explanation that this will not really affect tenants' rights just does not stand up. If the reason is to persuade landlords to let on shorthold, the incentive must therefore be that there will not be a fair rent. If it does not have an effect on tenants' rights, as the Government protest—and they protest much too hard about this—then where is the incentive to the landlords?
This is not to mean that landlords are all bad. Of course they are not; it would be ridiculous to say that. I am merely pre-empting the Minister, so that when he comes to reply he does not say that I am only against the landlords. But what the Government have done is to give landlords power over their tenants. Not all landlords are good, any more than all tenants are good. Also, landlords are human, as other people are, and many landlords, if offered the chance to "make a quick back", will take it, as people will in other spheres or in things with which they are connected.
So what this means in practice is that the landlord has now been given the power of blackmail over the tenant. First of all, if the tenant comes in, as he will have to now, without a rent being registered, he can say this to the tenant. I understand that it can take up to six months, in fact, to get a rent registered, so the landlord will be able to say to the tenant—otherwise, there

1169
does not seem to be much purpose in doing this—"We will agree a rent". It may be higher than the tenant wants, but if you are homeless you really have to afford almost anything to get a roof over your head, which is the first necessity for human beings. Then the landlord will be able to say, "If you continue to pay that rent, then at the end of the year", which is the first point at which the landlord can give notice to the tenant, "you can stay on. But if you start going round and getting a fair rent registered, then I do not want to see you again after the end of the year". In addition to having to pay over the odds, perhaps, in many cases, the tenant will also have to pay a deposit, which, of course, would be much higher than the deposit if a fair rent was registered.
The Minister made great play about empty properties, and, of course, it is absolutely true that no one wants to see properties kept empty. It upsets me just as much as it does the Minister when I see houses boarded up, whether they are boarded up and kept empty by local authorities or by private landlords. There is, however, no way of knowing that the properties that are being used are from this source or from other sources. All I would say is that the trends show that wherever it is possible a landlord would prefer to sell his property rather than to let it on shorthold, or use it in any other way. The figure for empty properties that was floated around at one point of about half a million is quite nonsense. It is a very wide margin, I know, but it has been estimated that the number of empty properties ranges between 8,000 and 50,000.
The decline in the private rented sector is historic, as the Minister knows well. It has been declining (even when the controls were lifted at one point) almost since the beginning of this century. Short-holds increase the incentive to sell through more frequent opportunities; and, again, there is no reason why people should not buy their own homes. In fact, I am absolutely in favour of it if they can; but what is needed is a long-term housing strategy. We all know—and it would be stupid to deny this—that the future of rented property, particularly for lower-income groups, must lie with housing associations and with local authorities, with proper security. With local authority "starts" likely to be not even 27,000 this year but around 20,000, and with the construction industry in one of the deepest depressions it has ever been in, with higher unemployment than in any other industry, it does not look a very rosy housing future for those who are in need of a home.
The myth that shortholds would help young, single people has also now been exploded, and, again, that was something which was pressed upon us. I would say immediately that anything that would help the young singles to find somewhere to live, as well as families, is very important. Although they might not have had security beyond a year before this order was laid before us, they would have had a fair rent registered for that time. But now they are in a position, which has been set out by the National Union of Students (I am sure the Minister has seen it as well as I have), where there is not only difficulty in getting accommodation but where, even if they were fortnuate enough to get a shorthold, they would find that the rent was probably far beyond their means and certainly beyond the grant,
1170
or even a rent allowance if they were entitled to it.
Then there is the problem of rent allowances. The DHSS allows only up to fair rent levels. There can be exceptions in some cases—assured tenancies and one or two other cases—but the shorthold is not one of these; and one sees a completely non-political body like the Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux desperately worried about this because they see, as all of us do, the delay between the date of application and the date of registration which will result from this order, and the fear of the termination of a tenancy at the end of the minimum period of shorthold. They are very concerned about homelessness among the people who come regularly to see them, and they really have their ears and eyes to the ground and know what is going on in these areas of want.
Increased homelessness will add more to waiting-lists and also to human misery. The organisations most concerned with housing are extremely worried. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the AMA, are worried because of the effect on local authorities. They can see that people who may have had a chance to take a shorthold when the fair rent had to be registered, because that was some security or safeguard to them, will now be descending on the local authorities, who are having their money cut anyhow by the Government and whose housing programmes have been cut as well. The Association of District Councils has not yet discussed this; and all the voluntary housing organisations like Shelter, CHAR, SHAC, are horrified by this. So far as I can gather, there has been no consultation or indication of previous intention given to them about it, except that they knew of the Secretary of State's reserved powers in the Bill.
At the moment this does not apply to London. In the debate in another place the Member for Paddington, Mr. John Wheeler, said in his speech that he supported the Government very reluctantly even when the situation being discussed was outside London, but he gave notice that he certainly would not be able to support the Government as a good Tory Member if in fact this happened in London. I should like the Minister to give an assurance that London will not be mopped up in the reserve power; alternatively, to let me know why London was left out; or to tell me what the position is with regard to London. I should like him also to tell me whether this is the start of a complete erosion of fair rents and the introduction of a glorious free-for-all. This is complete decontrol across the board, but it is not glorious for those who cannot afford it. This is so squalid that I find it difficult to find words to describe it.
I must be more naive than I thought, but, quite honestly, in July 1980 when that safeguard was put into the Bill in this House and when the Minister reiterated it in the debate on shorthold I was convinced that the Government meant what they said. The idea did not occur to me that in barely less than a year an order of this kind would be brought forward. I innocently thought—and this is the way in which it was described in another place by Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg—that it might be possible when circumstances change to lift the compulsion; but this was all seen and understood in the context of security for tenants and probably an increase in housing generally.

1171
I can only say, finally, that I hope that by 1984, or preferably before, we shall see the end of this Government's shorthold.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, may I intervene briefly in what for a time, during the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, sounded like a private quarrel between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party about the virtues of private landlords. I should remind the House that we are not debating the wholly academic question of what a future, hypothetical Labour Government would or would not do about the Housing Act and shorthold tenancies.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, began his speech by talking about this; but this is not what we are discussing. What we are discussing is an order which puts at nought an amendment to the Housing Act moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, himself, and carried in this House—an amendment which Lord Bellwin commended to us in the most glowing terms, terms which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has repeated. He said that this amendment provided another important safeguard for the tenant under the Government's shorthold proposals. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, quoted more of the noble Lord's words about this amendment. Never have I seen anybody swallow his words with such apparent satisfaction and, as a doctor, I feel that by now the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, ought to be showing some signs of indigestion; because here was an amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, told us provided vital and important new safeguards with regard to shorthold tenancies. This House carried that amendment and now we have an order which virtually puts that amendment at nought.
I am bound to say that I do not wholly take the same view as noble Lords on the Opposition Benches with regard to shorthold tenancies. I do not take the view—and I know that the noble Baroness does not take that view either—that it is better to have places empty than to have them let on shorthold tenancies. My noble friends and I on these Benches believe that if there are ways of facilitating shorthold tenancies, that is undoubtedly to the benefit of many homeless people, provided that there are certain safeguards. The amendment which this House brought in in July 1980 provided one of those important safeguards. The order that we are now asked to approve removes that safeguard, a safeguard whereby, before a shorthold tenancy comences, the tenancy had to be registered and a fair rent fixed.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will tell us that after the passing of this order, if this order is passed, there will be nothing to prevent the tenant from going forward at a later stage to the rent officer and having a fair rent fixed. There is nothing to prevent that and he will be able to do it. But when one considers tenancies in general, the only real protection for a tenant who is in dispute with a landlord about rent is security of tenure; and security of tenure is precisely what the shorthold tenant, by definition, does not have. Therefore, the shorthold tenant will not go along at a later stage to have a fair rent fixed;
1172
he will merely leave things.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, asked what possible advantage there could be to the landlord to terminate a tenancy at an earlier stage, say, at the end of 12 months; because the rent would be registered and it would have to be the same rent for a new tenant. That is not the case; because the tenant will not have taken those steps and the rent will not have been registered. The whole business will have been neutralised by the uncertainty which surrounds shorthold tenancies. I feel it regrettable that we are asked to pass an order which virtually negatives a very helpful amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, commended to us when he introduced it previously.
He will also tell us, I know, that we are leaving out London, for necessary and obvious reasons; but the reasons which apply to London surely apply to Merseyside and perhaps to Greater Manchester. I know we are not dealing with many shorthold tenancies, but 92 per cent. of them are outside London and yet London is being excluded. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, went into detail about the various parties concerned.
Before I sit down, I, personally, would merely say that I am concerned about one category of people who could potentially benefit from shorthold tenancies, if the holding of those shorthold tenancies is facilitated by the Housing Act in the way we had in mind when we passed that amendment. I refer to students. I am concerned about the situation of students, not just in London, but in many universities and many cities. Many are in desperate difficulties with regard to tenancies in multiple occupation for very high rents. I do not believe that students are the people who are going to go forward at a later date to have a fair rent registered. If we had this provision which this House so wisely inserted into the Act, whereby a fair rent would be registered at the commencement of the tenancy, then I think that that would have improved things. Now we are leaving a group of people, perhaps not of the type that are necessarily going to take active steps at an early stage of their tenancy, when they feel very insecure by the nature of their circumstances, to register a fair rent. I think that they will leave things as they were. Therefore, many objections which many noble Lords in the Labour Party have towards shorthold tenancies as a whole become intensified and more real with the passing of this order than they would have done had we left the Act as amended by this House.
It is extremely unusual for the noble Lords here to vote against an order. I think that, in general, we believe it to be inappropriate, when an order is laid, that we should vote against it. But in this case, when the order has the effect of putting at nought an important amendment to the Housing Act which was carried in this House, and carried with various undertakings given by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who is now asking us to pass this order, I am bound to say that had the noble Baroness decided that she would ask her cohorts to go into the Lobbies to vote against this order, then I myself would have done my best to persuade my noble friends to follow her.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that the reason why I did not ask my noble friends to go into the Lobbies was not because

1173
I was convinced by what the Minister had said, but because of the arrangements existing in this House. Reluctantly, I have had to accept the pressure on me. I am sad about that and I detest it.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I had intended asking a question of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, before she sat down. However, unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is a much fitter parliamentarian than I am and he beat me to the "draw" and was on his feet very much faster. As the noble Baroness is not in a position to reply to my question, I shall address it instead in a slightly different form to my noble friend Lord Bellwin. Would be confirm that a tenant who is aggrieved at the amount of rent on a property is able himself to apply for a fair rent to be registered? Would he also confirm—
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, would my noble friend repeat the question, if he would not mind?
Lord Swinfen: I am sorry, I did not hear the noble Lord.
Lord Bellwin: Would my noble friend repeat the question?
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my question is: Would my noble friend confirm that where a tenant is not satisfied with the rent that he is paying or has to pay, that the tenant is in a position to apply for a fair rent to be registered? Would he further confirm that from the time of an application for the registration of a fair rent the normal period is about eight weeks and not the six months, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk?
The noble Baroness also mentioned that higher rents would put up the size of deposit that tenants would have to pay. It has always been my understanding that any deposit paid towards rent counts as rent paid in advance and therefore a tenant can take that into account when making future payments. The size of deposit would only be towards any damage or something of this kind to a property. I wonder whether my noble friend could confirm that this is also the case? Otherwise I feel that the position may be slightly misleading.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, I feel angry tonight, not only at the content of the measure that is before us, but at the means which is being used to put it through. This is an order being put through at the "fag end" of a parliamentary Session in a virtually empty House, with no possibility of our being able to amend it, with very little notice and precious little opportunity for public debate. The content of the measure that we are debating is in practical terms in the nature of its effect nothing less than the effective de-control of rents in the private rented sector outside London.
Let me make that argument good by reference to the kinds of situation which will happen after the passing of this order. The vast majority of people who will answer advertisements and who will take up tenancies
1174
in the future will be those who are looking for a long term or an indefinite term residence. There is we know, a desperate shortage of housing, not only in London but in many cities. No landlord in his economic senses from now on will offer anything but a shorthold and he will offer one at the so-called market rent with all the scarcity element included in that, which will be rents which people will find enormous difficulty in affording. Those will be the terms on which one-year shortholds will be agreed.
The person who needs to live in that property for a long term or an indefinite term will of course not apply to a rent officer to register the rent because that person will thereby forfeit any hope of a renewal of the shorthold. Most landlords who let property want to let it for so long as they can get a rent which satisfies their economic demands. In the majority of cases these are not houses which are only being let for a short term; they are being let for so long as an exorbitant rent can be obtained from them. Therefore, the situation will appertain that used to appertain in the furnished rented sector; that is, although there was in theory a provision for the fixing of a rent which would he a reasonable rent—it was not quite the fair rent system but was in practice equivalent—it was hardly ever used because the people who were advised that they could use it were also advised that there could then be a notice to quit served with a six months' extension of security at the most and they would probably be out of their property within about nine months, which is exactly the kind of time scale we are thinking of with a one-year shorthold tenancy.
That is why I say that in practice there will be very few applications for fair rents. In practice, all new lettings, whether to short-term or long-term occupants, will in fact be unprotected shortholds. Some people of course actually only want a one year letting, although they will be very few in number. Even in their case the protection of a fair rent is of very limited value because of course in the Housing Act, against fierce opposition from these and the Liberal Benches, a change was made which meant that the registered rent would only become effective from the date of registration and not as previously happened from the date of application.
I am quite sure that if we had been told last year that the Government was set on a system of shortholds without the protection of a previously registered rent, and there was no way of changing that intention, we would have at least fought tooth and nail to get an amendment which said: if there was an application for a fair rent it would be effective from the date of application. As it will be, the person wanting a year's letting who applies for a fair rent in the first months will then enter a protracted war with his landlord—the landlord seeking by all means to defer the registration of the rent for so long as possible and the tenant seeking to accelerate it. We have been informed I think by the Association of Municipal Authorities that the time spent can be up to six months and then an astute landlord, wanting to have adjournments and take points of law, could extend that for a longer period still.
Whether it is a short term or longer term affair there will be no benefit from the notional theoretical residual protection of the Rent Acts which the noble

1175
Lord is relying on. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will probably rejoin that there is a housing shortage and that there are disincentives to let properties and there are empty houses unlet. There are all sorts of ways of dealing with properties that remain unlet. We have debated them in the past and we can debate them in the future. The one answer not to provide for the problem of unlet properties is to provide a charter for the exploitation of tenants.
The position of someone at the bottom end of the economic scale, one of the many millions of people who are on supplementary benefit, will be even the most precarious of all. Those on supplementary benefit who are going to be in a shorthold paying a market rent will be told on the one hand in effect by the landlord that if they register the rent they will not get a renewal of their shorthold; on the other hand, they will be told by the supplementary benefits office that if they do not register the rent they will not get the full rent allowance provided by the supplementary benefits scheme. That kind of dilemma will be one which will be bitter and which will be impoverishing and which has not been thought of by the Government when they think of introducing a scheme like this at a time of great unemployment and economic recession.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I think that it is time that somebody other than the Minister rose to welcome this order. This I gladly do. However, what a tragedy from the point of view of those who have been looking for accommodation over the past 12 months that the Government did not listen to those with experience in property and those with knowledge of the laws of economics and get things right in the first place! However, better late than never.
As for the Opposition—and by this I mean both the Labour and Liberal Opposition—really, words fail me. How can such intelligent and talented people be so economically illiterate? Do they not understand the laws of supply and demand Do they not realise that there are many, many house and flat-owners who would dearly love to let their property rather than sell it, but that in some parts of the country fair rents are fixed at a level which gives a return of less than one-half of 1 per cent. on the vacant possession value of the property' Do they not realise that by their opposition to the whole concept of shorthold they are acting against the wellbeing of students, of young couples saving up to buy their first house, of people who have lost their jobs and are trying to move to another part of the country to find work and who need rented accommodation? Do they not realise they are acting against the best interests of these people? It seems, my Lords, impossible to get this through. I have tried to make this point to the Opposition on several earlier occasions. All I can do is to conclude by saying that I do welcome this order.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I was about to ask the noble Lord whether he would give way so that I could put a question. How is the student who has not got a large sum of money behind him going to be able to pay the rent of a flat or house, or whatever it is, if there is no sort of control at all? What is the evidence
1176
the noble Lord can bring forward to show that there are going to come into the rented market all these hundreds of buildings, when we have seen a decline over the years even when there was no control?
Lord Monson: My Lords, I would gladly answer that question. If landlords had the assurance that there was no political sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, they would put their properties on the market if they could get a decent return. In many parts of the country the market rent is only 20 per cent. or so above the so-called fair rent; so I do not think it would be impossible for students to afford it—and the more property that comes on to the market, the more quickly rents will settle down at a reasonable level.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in addition to the very cogent point put by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I see this as part of a bigger and wider strategy which the noble Baroness just does not seem to see. For years —
Baroness Birk: My Lords, with respect, I do not think the noble Lord was here when I spoke.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I heard the noble Baroness ask her question. That is what I am referring to, and I have no doubt, knowing, her well, that she puts the whole of her argument into one question when she really tries. But she put a question to my noble friend, asking how certain people would be able to afford it and she is viewing this in the narrow, short term. Looking at it from that point of view there is a certain logic in the point she makes, but I am asking the noble Baroness, and indeed my noble friends, to look upon this as part of the bigger strategy. Those others who have tried to deal with housing matters in both Houses have recognised for years that the private sector has not been making the contribution it could make to provide houses for rent, and the reason is because they have been "clobbered" on every hand and it literally has not been worth their while to think in terms of such an investment. I am hoping—this is the point I should like to put to my noble friend—that this is only a beginning. I hope this is getting the toe in the door and really recognising that a great contribution can be made in regard to the housing shortage, which is the real problem—not the one about students and others. There is a housing shortage which is—
Baroness Birk: I said that.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls:—which is being kept as part of our problem because we have not given the encouragement that the private houseowner and landlord are entitled to have, and which they did have for years until it was taken away.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will do me and also the rest of the House a favour, and go away and read my speech? Because a lot of the things he said—really, I do take exception to somebody who comes in in the middle of a debate and attacks me, not having even been here to hear my speech. I think it is discourteous, to say the least.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Baroness, who is one of my pin-ups, I think I must say to her that she really must not be touchy, because the object of Parliament is to share minds on these matters; and whether one has been in at the beginning of a debate or at the end, if there is a contribution to be made it should be made, and if there is a good point to be made then it should be made. One has not to think of the susceptibilities of the noble Baroness or of anybody else. I hope that we are going to have the beginning of a real housing development, one where the private sector will be able to make a real contribution.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, in the light of what he has said just now, could he tell us why it was that he supported the amendment which this order now seeks to vary?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, nobody knows better than the noble Lord, because he and I sat in another place, that there are many ways of reaching the object. Indeed, it was explained to me very clearly once by Sir Robert Menzies, who I suppose, along with Sir Winston Churchill, was one of the outstanding parliamentarians of all time. When he was explaining the sort of problem which the noble Lord has put to me, he said: "People who do not understand Parliament do not understand that if you want to get from one point to another you cannot go in a straight line. Realising the parliamentary problems, you go forward two steps, back one, chassé to the left, and go forward three"—but as long as you get to the point in the end, the noble Lord and I both know that is the only way you usually achieve what you are after.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, perhaps I may now join in: I have been waiting to do so for a while. The noble Baroness said at the beginning that she thought I was not in my usual affable mood. Perhaps some subjects make us a little more or less affable than others. May I begin by saying that, frankly, the whole point of what this is all about is being missed. The whole point is about accommodation being available. This is what we said right at the beginning when we introduced shortholds. And may I remind the noble Baroness that the opposition to shorthold which was shown by the Labour Party when we first brought it in was as fierce as it is today, and it was no less fierce before or after we proposed the introduction of this particular measure about registering the rent initially.
Therefore, I would have to come back to what this is all about, and that is the fact that for years and years, and in particular since the introduction of the Rent Acts, the rate of decline of private accommodation has been one of the great phenomena of the whole of the housing scene. Everybody said: "Why does nobody want to rent? What has happened to the private sector?" Do we really want to see the kind of scene pianted by the noble Baroness, where we have municipal council housing and some housing association housing on the one hand and, on the other hand, home ownership? These would then be two polarised situations. Is that really what we want to see? It is not what I
1178
want to see and it is not what people on the Labour side with whom I used to discuss housing years and years ago ever wanted to see—because what we really want is a mix of housing tenure so that we should not be able to distinguish between the various levels.
But if the private rented sector goes on declining, certain types of accommodation will no longer be available. You can forget all about your short-term accommodation and the issue of whether you will have a registered rent or any other kind of rent: it simply does not apply. The fact is that the Opposition have been happy to see the private rented sector declining at this rate for years. When we came along with something new it was at least an attempt—and I said all along when I introduced it that there was no guarantee that the objective would be achieved, but at least it was an attempt—to do something, whereas for so many years nobody was willing to do anything except deplore the decline in the private rented sector. When the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, talks to me about people being able to afford what the rents will be, I say they will not have to be concerned about what the rents will be, because there is nothing to afford—the accommodation just is not there.
When the Francis Committee, of which I was privileged to be a member, pointed out what would happen when you introduced total security for furnished accommodation, the Labour Government took not the the slightest notice; yet every word we spoke has been proven to be true. The decline of the private rented sector has continued, and will go on until someone is prepared to find some solution that will make this kind of specialised accommodation—because that is what it is—available. That is what shorthold is about.
It is because we are so concerned that it is not being taken up at the rate we had hoped, that we looked to another possible measure and took safeguards in the Bill to use that, if we had to. No one could deny that we did. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, asking why was I concentrating on the Labour Party's objections to this. It is because of their avowed intention, whether we like it or not, should they ever come to power again. It is not totally impossible, though unlikely, certainly.
The fact is that there are landlords who say that it is not just something that we can take a chance about. We are talking about giving security for the whole of a lifetime, and who in this House would give security knowing full well that it is for the whole of a lifetime? I wonder how many of your Lordships would do it. Yet private landlords are expected to do it, and I am leaving out completely the issue of what should be the levels of rents.
I can pick up all the various points that have been made such as the one about London, and I shall do so because it is time that I said something in answer to some of them. If we lose sight of what we are really talking about, which is an attempt, at last, by someone to do something to encourage people to rent their accommodation, then we are missing the whole point. The noble Baroness said that tenants will have to pay higher deposits, but I just do not consider that that is so at all. The whole point of shorthold is that it is for a fixed term and, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, there is an option to go and get a rent registered. All this is saying is that you do not

1179
eat up the time of the initial shorthold tenancy being established. As to the fact that you can go the next week, I should have thought noble Lords would have used that as an argument and would have asked: why do it at all? But they did not, because they were more concerned with the principles, and perhaps that is right.
The point of consultation should be obvious. If you start by consulting with somebody about the possibility of doing this kind of thing, you put into immediate limbo the likelihood of any shorthold tenancy being made until the matter is resolved and brought out. As to why London is left out, I thought everyone would have recognised that London is a special situation. The very fact that such a small percentage of shortholds taken up so far have been in London emphasises the need to look at ways and means of doing even more. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls asked what more will we do and whether this is a beginning. Would that I could say to him "Yes, it is and I have other things in mind". If he, or anybody else, has any bright ideas about what we can do to bring more private rented accommodation on to the market, I shall be very interested to hear about them, because they are very necessary.
I was interested when the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said she did not think it was necessarily a good thing that private property should be empty. She is flying in the face of what her colleagues have said in another place. They are on the record—and if she wants, I will turn up the quotations—as saying and repeating, "Rather empty than shorthold". What an indictment of anybody who professes to be concerned about housing to say "Rather empty than shorthold"! If that is not blatant dogma, then I do not know what is. I do not think it is incumbent upon the party opposite to berate us for what we are trying to do, when they are prepared to take that kind of attitude to the whole of the housing scene. I think that that supersedes everything else that has been said.
However, to try to pick up one or two at least of the points made, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that shorthold tenants need compulsory rent registration, because they have no security of tenure. I should like to remind him that shorthold is one of 10 mandatory possession cases in which a tenant does not have full security. We can talk about that at length, if needs be. But I was pleased to hear him say—and he made no bones about it—that he does not want to see properties stand empty—
Baroness Birk: Neither do I.
Lord Bellwin: If the noble Baroness is now saying that neither does she, I am absolutely delighted to hear her say so, and I hope she will tell her friends in another place that she does not approve of what they are saying. As to the point about students, they will be in the same position as any other tenant, with the same right to apply to rent officers. I take note, and not without some appreciation, of what was said about the fact that they will be reluctant to go along afterwards. That is a point of view. I am not sure that I agree with it, but I recognise and understand it.
1180
My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked me to confirm—and I gladly do confirm—that when tenants are not satisfied they can apply to the rent officer; that it is eight weeks and not six weeks that we are talking about and that the deposit can be applied in the way that he suggested. I am glad to confirm that to him. At this hour, I am not sure as to what extent I should pick up all the other details. I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said, because he and I have not only crossed swords about housing in the past, but have found quite a measure of agreement on a number of aspects, such as fair rents and so on.
He said that tenants could fear that they might not get a renewal of shorthold, and he was darned right that they might not get it, because shorthold is exactly what it says. It is a shorthold. It is a tenancy for a fixed term. When you are granted a shorthold tenancy, you are not by any means being granted an automatic right of renewal. That is what it is about, and that is the inducement to the landlord to bring forward accommodation which was not available before. So, yes, he is right and there will not be any guarantee of renewal. On the other hand, there may be. It will be a matter for negotiation when the time comes.
I entirely disagreed with him when he said that what this does is effectively to decontrol rents in the private sector outside London. I would say that that is nonsense, were it not for the fact that I do not want to use the same emotive terms as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was using earlier, and because I want to return to the affability that she accused me of not adopting earlier—
Lord Gifford: My Lords, will the noble Lord address himself to the point I made?—which is that the empty properties that he is talking about are not the house which is free for a year, but properties which the owners desire to let as a business at the highest rent they can over a substantial period. Is that not why the fear of non-renewal is a real one?
Lord Bellwin: No, my Lords. I do not take that point at all. The noble Lord is referring to some kind of accommodation. We are saying that there is in this country a vast area of accommodation that could be made available for short-term lettings, if only the landlords were able to be sure of getting it back. That is what shorthold is. Some would go even further, like the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who said that if it were not for the fair rents that will still have to apply, there would be a whole flood of accommodation becoming available. That is quite possible, but it is another issue entirely.
The hour is late and I do not want to go on any longer. I finish, as I have finished more than once in my winding-up remarks, by saying that we are firmly committed to trying to do anything that will bring more accommodation on to the market. It must be right to try to do that, and we must try to avoid anything that will prevent it. That is what we are doing by this order—
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sorry to delay the noble Lord. I know he wants to get off and I appreciate that, but he has not answered the basic point. If the Government felt as he has expressed himself

1181
tonight, why did they move that amendment in July 1980 to make fair rents compulsory? The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is, at least, consistent. He never agreed with it and said that the Government should not have done it. Why on earth did they do that, and then bring in this draft order a year afterwards?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the real answer is twofold. First, the fact that we have it in the Bill, and that we retain the right to do what we are doing by this order, shows quite clearly that there is no stop and start, begin and end. The fact that, at the time we did that, we were endeavouring to do what we could to be helpful and to give the maximum encouragement to people is one thing. At the same time, we made the alternative quite clear, and have done all along, if we saw that shorthold was failing. But I am not saying that it is, by any means, because some would say that 3,500 or 5,000 so far is very good. There are now 5,000 families in accommodation that they would not have had were it not for shorthold. So how far one can say whether or not it is succeeding is one thing, but in my view the number is disappointing so far. This is because of what the Labour Party are saying to the landlords. We are not alone in our view. We are told by the landlords' associations that this is so. We have to listen to what they say and we have to be willing to do anything we can within the powers which the Act gives us to improve the situation. This is what we are doing and that is why we are doing it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Acquisition of Land Bill [H.L.]
  Betting and Gaming Duties Bill [H.L.]

    New Towns Bill [H.L.]
    7 p.m.
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with amendments: The said amendments to be printed.

Betting and Gaming Duties Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be considered forthwith.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill [175] as printed for the Commons.]
1 Clause 1, page 2, leave out ("7½") and insert ("8").
2 Clause 17, page 13, line 28, leave out ("7½") and insert ("10").
3 Clause 17, page 13, line 31, leave out ("three thirty-sevenths") and insert ("one-ninth").
4 Clause 17, page 13, line 33, leave out ("7½") and insert ("10").
5 Clause 23, page 17, line 13, leave out ("£20") and insert ("£25").
6 Clause 23, page 17, line 15, leave out ("£25") and insert ("£60").
7 Clause 23, page 17, line 16, leave out ("£25 plus £100") and insert ("£60 plus £120").
8 Clause 23, page 17, line 16, leave out lines 19 to 27 and insert—
1182

Description of machines authorised by the licence

Duty on whole-year licence

Chargeable at the lower rate.

£75 per machine.

Chargeable at the higher rate.

£200 per machine.

Chargeable at the peak rate.

£400 per machine.

9 Clause 35, page 25, line 32, leave out subsection (3).
10 Schedule 7, page 56, line 19, leave out ("Section 2") and insert ("Section 2(2)").
11 Schedule 7, page 56, line 29, leave out ("7(1) and 8") and insert ("and 7(1)").
12 Schedule 7, page 56, line 32, leave out ("Section 9") and insert ("In section 9, in subsection (1) the words from "section 1(2)(b)" to "and", subsections (2), (3), (4), (5), (7) and in subsection (8) the words from "subsections (2)" "subsections (5)".").
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 12 en bloc. I should first say that I very much regret that as a result of a misunderstanding these amendments were only shown to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, as the chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation, at a very late stage last night. We should like to apologise to him most sincerely for that and also to thank him most sincerely for spending one and a half hours or so looking over the amendments both to this Bill and to the other two Consolidation Bills to which I shall refer your Lordships later. I understand from him that as a result of that examination he has no objection to put forward on behalf of the Joint Committee to these amendments.
The amendments which your Lordships are concerned with, Amendments Nos. 1 to 12 to this Bill, are necessary as a result of the amendments made to the Finance Bill at the Report stage raising the rates at which the betting and gaming duties are charged. The Consolidation Bill was introduced after the Finance Bill and took account of the provisions of the Finance Bill relating to the betting and gaming duties which were in the Bill as introduced. The changes in the rates of the duties were made at the Report stage of the Finance Bill as a means of recouping the hydro-carbon oils duty lost as a result of the amendments to that duty at the Committee stage. It is to accommodate these that these amendments are made. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Acquisition of Land Bill [H.L.]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments to the Acquisition of Land Bill be considered forthwith.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill [191] as printed for the Commons.]
1 Clause 7, page 4, line 30, leave out ("county").
2 Clause 7, page 5, line 9, at end insert ("by statutory instrument").
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. These are drafting amendments. What I said about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, applies here also. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

New Towns Bill [H.L.]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be considered forthwith.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill [192] as printed for the Commons.]
1 Schedule 11, page 97, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 98.
2 Schedule 12, page 99, line 28, at end insert—
("Housing Act 1974 c. 44
13. In the Housing Act 1974—

(a) in section 5(3)(d),

(b) in section 84, and

(c) in section 99(2)(e),

for "New Towns Act 1965" substitute "New Towns Act 1981".").
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. The first amendment removes from the Bill a Provision made unnecessary because of the appointment of a day under the British Telecommunications Act 1981, for the transfer of the Post Office as to telecommunications and data processing to British Telecommunications. The second amendment makes certain drafting changes of references in the Housing Act 1974 consequent upon the Consolidation Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the Lords amendments in lieu of a Commons amendment agreed to; with the Lords amendments to certain other Commons amendments agreed to; with the Lords consequential amendment to the Bill agreed to; and with the Commons disagreement to the Lords amendments not insisted on.
  POLICE OFFICERS: PREMATURE RETIREMENT
  POLICE OFFICERS: PREMATURE RETIREMENT
  ALCOHOL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH COUNCIL: CHAIRMAN
  ALCOHOL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH COUNCIL: CHAIRMAN
  EXTERNAL TRADE GUARANTEES
  EXTERNAL TRADE GUARANTEES
  GNP AND PHYSICAL QUALITY OF LIFE COMPARISONS
  GNP AND PHYSICAL QUALITY OF LIFE COMPARISONS
  THE UNEMPLOYED: BICYCLES
  THE UNEMPLOYED: BICYCLES
  ALBANIA: GOLD
  ALBANIA: GOLD
  IMMIGRATION CONTROL: CONSULTATION WITH RADIOLOGISTS
  IMMIGRATION CONTROL: CONSULTATION WITH RADIOLOGISTS
  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT: CLAIMANTS WITH LANGUAGE DISADVANTAGE
  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT: CLAIMANTS WITH LANGUAGE DISADVANTAGE
  BRITISH CITIZENS IN OVERSEAS PRISONS
  BRITISH CITIZENS IN OVERSEAS PRISONS
  BRITISH SUBJECTS DETAINED IN GAOL OVERSEAS
  BRITISH SUBJECTS DETAINED IN GAOL OVERSEAS
  ELIZABETH GARRETT ANDERSON HOSPITAL
  ELIZABETH GARRETT ANDERSON HOSPITAL
  HEALTH CARE FOR UK CITIZENS IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  HEALTH CARE FOR UK CITIZENS IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  SINAI: MEMBERSHIP OF PEACE-KEEPING FORCE
  SINAI: MEMBERSHIP OF PEACE-KEEPING FORCE
  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT DISREGARD LEVELS
  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT DISREGARD LEVELS
  HESTON MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA
  HESTON MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA
  HOUSING IN RURAL AREAS
  HOUSING IN RURAL AREAS
  ORGANO-CHLORINES: IMPORTS
  ORGANO-CHLORINES: IMPORTS
  ORGANO-CHLORINES: AGRICULTURAL USAGE
  ORGANO-CHLORINES: AGRICULTURAL USAGE
  DDE LEVELS IN SPARROWHAWKS AND KESTRELS
  DDE LEVELS IN SPARROWHAWKS AND KESTRELS
  CHLORDANE: CONTROL OF EARTHWORMS
  CHLORDANE: CONTROL OF EARTHWORMS
  AGRICULTURAL GRANT AID: SSSIs
  AGRICULTURAL GRANT AID: SSSIs