Sitting of 9 December 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  HAMPSHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 16 December.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    International Competitiveness
    Mr. Tilleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what level of increase or decrease in money wages would be required over a five year period to restore the United Kingdom's international competitiveness to its level of May 1979, assuming no change in the relative level of the exchange rate.
    Mr. Leightonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect Her Majesty's Government's economic policy has had on the competitiveness of British manufactures since May 1979.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Leon Brittan): I should like to apologise on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his absence today. He is abroad attending one of a regular series of informal meetings of Finance Ministers of five countries.
    The loss of cost competitiveness since May 1979 reflects the fact that United Kingdom unit labour costs have risen more quickly than those of our competitors. The extent of the wage restraint needed to regain this cost competitiveness depends upon wage settlements overseas as well as at home, and also on whether we can improve productivity more quickly than our competitors. The Government's economic policies are designed to encourage increased productivity by removing unnecessary controls from the productive parts of the economy and by exposing the public sector to competition wherever possible.
    Mr. Tilley: Am I right in thinking that there are two ways to increase competitiveness, the first being to reduce the exchange rate and the other to reduce unit labour costs? As the Chancellor and the Government have said that they reject the idea that has been advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends of a substantial devaluation, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Government are unwilling to tell us how many pounds a week that would
    962
    cost simply because they dare not tell the British electorate that they intend, should they get a chance in the next five years, to make people internationally competitive by taking large sums of money out of their weekly wage packets?
    Mr. Brittan: That is wholly incorrect. The hon. Gentleman has completely ignored productivity, which is another major component in competitiveness. He has also ignored the fact that the test of competitiveness is comparative and that what matters is not merely how much British unit labour costs increase but what happens in other countries.
    Mr. Leighton: Is it not astonishing that a Government who continually prate about the need for increased competitiveness have presided over the greatest loss of competitiveness in living memory? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the report of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and the London Business School, which apportions blame for the loss of that competitiveness as being up to 70 per cent. due to Government policy and the exchange rate and nil per cent. to the increase in real wages, as real wages have been decreasing?
    Mr. Brittan: I do not accept that. I should be more impressed by what the hon. Gentleman said were it not for the fact that between the fourth quarter of 1976 and when the Government came to power competitiveness worsened by 28 per cent., and that from then until today it has fallen by 18 per cent.
    Mr. Eggar: Would increased competitiveness as a result of the devaluation of sterling enable British manufacturers to export more competitively if they were unable to control wage costs?
    Mr. Brittan: I do not believe that that is what would happen. Experience of past devaluations has shown that inflationary pressures that are caused by increased costs of imports quickly become apparent and that there is a rapid loss of any short-term benefit that may have been secured.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the Chief Secretary, who is prone to cite the examples of other countries when trying to excuse British unemployment, study the findings of the European management forum, which were published earlier this week and which add up to the
    conclusion that during the past 12 months Britain has slipped back significantly in the OECD league of competitiveness?
    Mr. Brittan: I shall look forward to studying the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend welcome the mention from the Opposition of the level of real wages? Will he emphasise that it is impossible to increase real wages by 5, 8 or 10 per cent. a year, and that the sooner we all settle for far smaller and more realistic pay settlements, the better it will be for all of us?
    Mr. Brittan: It is true that the Opposition seem to be on a learning curve with regard to these matters. They seem to accept in their latest policy document that restraint in pay is necessary. The only difference between us is that they seem to take that for granted and seem, in the same document, to advance policies that are least calculated to achieve it.
    Mr. Shore: First, we hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who informed us that he would not be present today, will have a fruitful discussion with his colleagues.
    Returning to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley), as there is no evidence that productivity is improving relative to other countries—on the contrary, our productivity is slipping—and we have lost about 35 per cent. in cost competitiveness, does the Minister agree that the only way in which the Government can restore competitiveness is by cutting real wages and salaries?
    Mr. Brittan: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's facts or his figures. The loss of competitiveness since the second quarter of 1979 is about 18 per cent., but it is significant that, after a sharp fall, cost competitiveness has improved by about 20 per cent. since the beginning of 1981.

    Inflation
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the current rate of inflation and compare it with the level in May 1979 and with the highest level reached since then.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): The retail prices index for October, which is the most recent figure available, showed an increase of 6·8 per cent. over the previous 12 months. The corresponding figure for May 1979 was 10·3 per cent. and the highest figure reached since then was 21·9 per cent. in May 1980.
    Mr. Ashley: In view of the Government's repeated claims about the benefit derived from reduced inflation, how much of that benefit, if any, will go to old-age pensioners and the millions of people on price index linked social security payments?
    Mr. Hayhoe: All who are on small incomes have a special interest in the defeat of inflation. The Government's increasing success in this will help them as much as others in the community.
    Mr. Whitney: Has the Treasury estimated what would be the effect on the current rate of inflation of implementing the Opposition's policies, including devaluation by 30 per cent.?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Any such consideration would be highly theoretical. Certainly, far from being a programme for economic recovery, the Opposition's policies are contrived and constructed on an unsound base and are potentially disastrous.
    Mr. Horam: Does the Minister find it acceptable that, on average, every 1 per cent. reduction in the retail prices index is bought at the price of more than half a million more people in the dole queue?
    Mr. Hayhoe: That is a grossly misleading non-statistic. Such comparisons cannot be made. Those who understand these matters are all agreed that
    "beating inflation is essential if we are to maintain and increase employment."—[Official Report, 28 February 1978; Vol. 945, c. 223.]
    I say that with authority, using the exact words of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth).

    Industrial Activity
    Mr. Stan Thorneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects his economic policies to result in increased industrial activity.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Manufacturing output has declined slightly this year, but the Industry Act forecast projected an increase of 1 per cent. in 1983. The prospects for activity will be enhanced the more successful we are in improving competitiveness.
    Mr. Thorne: How does the Minister expect that reply to be credible when production has fallen by 15 per cent. in the past four years? What action are the Government taking that is likely to create an upturn?
    Mr. Hayhoe: My reply is credible because it is true. We must continue to improve competitiveness so that we can sell more of our goods and services both at home and abroad. In that way, we shall improve output and job prospects.
    Mr. McCrindle: When the Government consider ways in which to stimulate economic activity, will they weigh carefully the respective benefits of a reduction in personal taxation, which may lead to no more than the purchase of imported goods, and of more direct stimulation such areas of activity as the construction industry?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will bear those very sensible considerations in mind in preparing his next Budget.
    Dr. Bray: As the forecast that the Minister quoted was published before the recent fall in sterling and the Chief Secretary has just claimed that there has been an improvement in competitiveness as a result, will the recent fall in sterling improve the prospects for manufacturing output next year?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Having considered all the factors, we would not wish to resile from the forecasts in the autumn statement. As I believe the hon. Gentleman fully understands, all these matters will be taken into account when the next Treasury forecast is made at about the time of the next Budget.

    Confederation of British Industry
    Mr. Fosterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the Confederation of British Industry.
    Mr. Dobsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next excepts to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the level of demand in the British economy.
    Mr. Brittan: The Chancellor and I will be meeting representatives of the Confederation of British Industry on 14 December, when we shall be able to have a wide-ranging discussion.
    Mr. Foster: When the Chancellor meets the CBI, will he discuss why, although British industry has done everything that the Chancellor asked of it in making itself slimmer and fitter and has sought in every possible way to reduce its costs and to introduce more flexible working practices, it is now 30 per cent. less competitive than when the Government came to power?
    Mr. Brittan: If anybody from the CBI makes that point, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and

    965
    I will wish to correct the figures and to point out that competitiveness has improved by 20 per cent. since the beginning of 1981, while the net fall since the Government came to office has been 18 per cent. In this context I welcome the opportunity to correct the wrong assumption of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) that the gain in competitiveness was caused by the fall in the exchange rate, which is true only to a small extent.
    Mr. Dobson: When the Chancellor meets the leaders of he CBI, will he remind them that they supported the policies on which the Government were elected and that they welcomed the Chancellor's first Budget and the lifting of exchange controls? Will he therefore exhort them to take responsibility, with him and the Prime Minister, for the fact that for the first time in history this country has become a net importer of manufactured goods?
    Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The CBI supported those policies and still does. Indeed, in its reaction to the autumn statement the CBI rightly pointed out that, as a result of my right hon. and learned Friend's announcements, business costs will have been reduced by nearly £900 million by April 1984.
    Mr. McNally: When the Minister meets the CBI, will he ask to see the latest survey by the North-West region CBI, which shows that only 8 per cent. of industry in the North-West expects any improvement in circumstances next year? Will he consider the request from the CBI, the chambers of commerce and local authorities of all political persuasions for investment by the Government in the North-West, without which they believe there is no prospect of industrial recovery for the region?
    Mr. Brittan: I appreciate the difficult conditions in the North-West and, indeed, in the North-East. At the same time, however, I believe that the right course is for the Government, through the various policies and departmental spending programmes, to reflect a proper order of priorities for the country as a whole, which will obviously include giving proper attention to the needs of the North-West.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the CBI of the importance of lower interest rates, as 1 per cent. off interest rates is worth £300 million to industry? Does he agree with the CBI that increased public spending and borrowing tends to put up those interest rates?
    Mr. Brittan: I agree with all those propositions, and I am sure that the CBI will as well.
    Mr. Jay: Is it not now clear that the Chancellor's decision to abolish exchange control is forcing the Government to keep up interest rates, thereby holding back recovery, particularly in the building industry?
    Mr. Brittan: I do not accept that. If the policy suggested by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) and his hon. Friends for reimposing exchange control were introduced, the value of the pound would rise, at least temporarily, which is contrary to another of the Labour Party's major policy objectives, however mistaken that may be.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Minister aware that the latest CBI survey expects even weaker export growth and increased import penetration? Does he still believe his comment that the evidence of recovery is all around us?
    Mr. Brittan: The latest CBI survey reflects the fact, which we have all pointed out and about which there is no mystery, that economic conditions and prospects have been disappointing in the past year. There is no question about that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am astonished that Labour Members should have listened so carelessly the last time I answered questions that what I say on this occasion has caused surprise. Our estimate of what will happen is set out in the autumn statement published last month, which shows the prospect and expectation of a modest increase of output over the coming year. That remains our expectation.

    £ Sterling
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take action to adjust the value of the £ sterling so as to increase competitiveness.
    Mr. James Lamondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present valuation of the £ sterling against the United States dollar; and what was its valuation on 3 May 1979.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne): The value of the pound against the United States dollar this morning was $1·6130. On 3 May 1979 its value was $2·0759. The sterling effective index stood at 85·8 this morning against 86·3 in May 1979. The experience over many years is that the United Kingdom cannot solve its basic problems of competitiveness by depreciation. This must depend on increased productivity, more realistic wage settlements and improving the quality of the goods and services that we produce.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the devaluation of a currency that is over valued a competitive devaluation?
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am not sure that there is much point in arguing about the precise definition of devaluation. If we look back at our experience over many years we find that, for instance, when the Labour Party devalued the currency in 1967, within five years any competitive advantage had disappeared. Between 1973 and 1976 there was a 25 per cent. reduction in the international value of sterling, but no gain for competitiveness.
    Mr. James Lamond: Does the Minister recall the halcyon days when his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister used foolishly to boast that the high value of the pound against the dollar was a measure of the confidence that people abroad had in her Government? Now that there has been a 19 per cent. slippage in that value do we take it that the standing of the right hon. Lady's Government in the United States is as low as it is here?
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The standing of my right hon. Friend's Government in the United States is extremely high, as the hon. Gentleman would know if he ever went near that country. A variety of different influences applies to all internationally traded currencies. With regard to how the pound stands, inevitably expectations about oil prices. for example, are liable to lead to influences on our exchange rate. It is vital that we show, as we do, our

    967
    commitment to the elimination of inflation, which has been the great bugbear of our economy, is unwavering and will be continuously and effectively pursued.
    Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is asking the Chancellor to adjust the exchange rate? Does he further agree that if there were a fear of a Labour Government, the Labour Chancellor would not have to be asked to adjust the devaluation rate, as the pound would plummet?
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Fortunately, that possibility is widely deemed to be so remote that the markets are prepared to discount it.
    Mr. Shore: Is it still the policy of the Government, as the Chancellor informed us in his statement a fortnight ago, to leave the exchange rate of the pound to the market? If that is the Government's policy, can the Minister explain why a week or so ago the Bank of England intervened in the markets to push up the base rate to the banks to 10 per cent? Are we to understand from that behaviour that whenever there are significant movements on the foreign exchanges the Government intend to respond by further increases in the bank base rate?
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has not clearly understood what has been happening in the markets. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has frequently made it clear that we do not have, have never had and would never have an exchange rate target. The performance of the exchange rate is one of the indicators to which we have regard in assessing the relative tightness or laxity of monetary policy.
    Ten days ago the market moves led to a lifting in bank base rates, with which the Bank of England acquiesced. It was not a question of the bank making the movement. If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that, I suggest that he pays closer attention to what happens in the markets.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: In order to assist in a more realistic world-wide value of sterling, will the Treasury ask the public authorities to consider making the earliest possible repayment of their foreign debts, which total more than £11 billion?
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: As the hon. Gentleman knows, since the Government took office we have repaid a great deal of foreign debt on public account, but we have done so wherever it has been profitable so to do. That should be the bench mark by which we operate, not some idea of aiming at a particular figure. The point is that the decision to pay off existing debt or even to incur new debt depends on the profitability of the operation. That is the basis on which we have operated and shall continue to operate.

    European Community Budget
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Economic Community in 1983; and if he will make a statement.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): It is impossible to estimate our gross, let alone our net, contribution for 1983 at this stage.
    Mr. Taylor: Everyone has welcomed the temporary rebates that have been achieved over the past two years, but is it not intolerable that after 10 years we still have not had a permanent change in the unfair rules and that during that time Britain has had to pay over £1 million a day net every day? What options are open to the Government if there is a continued refusal by the EEC to change the rules, which are grossly unfair to the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend that an equitable, long-term solution is highly desirable, and that is what we have been pressing for ever since my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor made a speech at The Hague setting out a possible way to achieve that. However, I think that my hon. Friend will not disagree when I say that we have to negotiate for the next arrangement as hard as we can.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not true that the Government know with accuracy how much membership of the EEC costs but are frightened to tell the British people, because the people wish to come out of the Common Market? If the Government do not know, is it not disgraceful? What kind of Exchequer have we if it does not know these costs? Is not the reality that the British people want to come out of the Community as it is too expensive, is backward and does everything that it should not do?
    Mr. Ridley: The reality is that the hon. Gentleman has not done his homework. He should know that the 1983 budget has not yet been adopted by the European Parliament and, furthermore, that no agreement has so far been negotiated for the refund of British contributions.

    Public Sector Capital Investment
    Mr. Hicksasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the present levels of capital investment in the public sector of the United Kingdom economy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ridley: Public sector capital investment was planned to be £13·8 billion in 1982–83. The Prime Minister has expressed her disappointment that local authorities' and nationalised industries' expenditure is likely to fall well short of these plans. Since these bodies decide their own capital programmes, we cannot ensure that they make full use of the planned provision.
    Mr. Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that a programme of enhanced, but selective, capital investment, particularly for the building and construction industry, would help reverse the unemployment trend and stimulate the economy? Does he further agree that such a programme would not run contrary to the Government's counter-inflation programme but would help the PSBR and stimulate the private sector, as 90 per cent. of such contracts go straight to the private sector?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend should address those remarks, with which I have much sympathy, to the local authorities and the nationalised industries, because they could spend a great deal more during the current financial year without even reaching the ceilings imposed by the Government. It would help if they did so.
    Mr. Skinner: The problem with the local authorities' and nationalised industries' spending that so-called capital allocation is that the Secretary of State for the Environment and other Ministers insist that those bodies

    969
    spend that money only when there are no revenue implications. Yesterday another Minister came to the House and told us that nearly £50 million was to be spent on the Falklands. That will have serious revenue implications for those 1,500 people. Why cannot the rest of Great Britain be treated in the same way? The money would then be spent and the unemployment figures would go down.
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on two counts. First, the revenue implications of increased capital investment by local authorities are taken into account—
    Mr. Skinner: No, they are not.
    Mr. Ridley: —in setting their targets. Secondly, local authorities have received about £1½ billion during the current financial year from the sale of council houses. That money is available without any servicing costs at all.
    Mr. John Townend: Can my hon. Friend understand the surprise of Humberside ratepayers where the Labour council, having spent money like water, increased the rates by 60 per cent. and spent all its capital allocation and receipts, is now being asked by the Government to put forward applications for further allocations? Can he understand why the ratepayers feel that it is a prize for a profligate spender?
    Mr. Ridley: I cannot answer for any local authority which has overspent its revenue account and robbed its capital account to do so. I cannot comment on Humberside.
    Mr. Cook: Is it not pure effrontery to lecture local authorities on failing to invest, after three years during which they and nationalised industries have seen their cash limits screwed down? Is the Minister aware that the combined figure for central and local government investment is half the 1979 level? Those cuts have crippled industries such as construction, which depend on public sector investment. Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the speech last week by Mr. Chetwood, Wimpey's chief executive, when he predicted that it would take the construction industry the next 10 years to recover from the past three years of Conservative Government?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must particularise. There are two ways in which capital expenditure takes place. First, there are those grants made by the Government to local authorities and nationalised industries. Secondly, there is what those bodies spend. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures of what they spend, he will find that his figure is not correct. It is perfectly correct for the Government to draw attention to the shortfall in capital spending by those bodies, since the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), which has great validity, is that they have not spent what they could.

    Family Income
    Mr. Winnickasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far a married man with two children on average and less than average income has benefited from changes in the levels of income tax and national insurance contributions under the present Administration.
    Mr. Ridley: The burden of income tax for those on average earnings has reduced since the Government took
    970
    office. National insurance contributions are higher, because they have had to finance increased benefits. After taking account of increases in child benefit, most married families at all income levels with two children are now better off in real terms than in 1978–79.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it a fact that in written parliamentary answers information has been given that shows that the vast majority of people are now paying considerably more in taxes and national insurance contributions than when the Government took office? Only those people earning five times the national average and above have benefited. As the Government were elected on a promise of tax cuts, is it not obvious that they were elected on a plain lie?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman's question asked how people had benefited. I shall therefore give him answers relating to real after-tax incomes, which. whether people are on half average earnings, average earnings or twice average earnings, have increased between 1 and 5 per cent. in all cases. That assumes that they have had the average rise in earnings.
    Mr. Forman: While the figures that my hon. Friend has given the House represent a step in the right direction, does he agree that a great deal more progress is needed to raise the tax thresholds of those on low incomes?
    Mr. Ridley: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view. I hope that the House will cooperate to help the Government to reduce the level of public spending so that that desirable objective can be brought to fruition.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that he is wilfully misleading the House in the figures that he has just given, having failed to answer the original question? Is he aware that in an answer that he gave me some months ago the figures showed that the burden of income tax and national insurance contributions had risen by £7 in real terms above the level obtaining under the Labour Government in 1978–79? Does he want the figures? I have them here. Why is the Minister seeking to mislead the House We all know that the burden of taxation upon those with average incomes and below has risen and risen again under the Government. How does that square with the pledges given by every Minister at the general election to reduce taxation for all levels of income?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I do not mislead the House, wilfully or otherwise. He does not distinguish between the question I was asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and those that he has asked me previously. The question asked how much certain people have benefited from changes in the level of income tax. The percentage of income tax that they pay is quite different. The hon. Gentleman never takes into account the fact that people have had a few wage increases since we came to power.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: Will my hon. Friend face reality and recognise that the tax burden has increased and that it is vital that the Government take that message on board in order to restore incentives to work? Is he aware that the most important thing the Government should do in the forthcoming Budget is to raise tax thresholds above the supplementary benefit and family income supplement levels?
    Mr. Ridley: I always face reality. I agree with my hon. Friend that the tax burden has increased. I hope that he

    971
    agrees with me that the standard of living for all classes has slightly increased. I agree with him that it would be most desirable to lighten the burden of taxation in any way that we can.

    Long-term Economic Indicators
    Mr. Dormandasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which long-term indicators suggest that the economy is improving.
    Mr. Brittan: Evidence of an improvement in the underlying potential of the economy may be seen in the reduction in inflation, greater realism in wage bargaining and lower interest rates than a year ago. Further evidence is provided by continuing high levels of productivity growth.
    Mr. Dormand: Does the Chief Secretary recall the forecast made a year ago by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself about the upturn in the economy? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now come clean and admit that this was so much moonshine? Will he say what is the difference between those indicators and the ones that he has now presented to the House? Does he not agree that the time has arrived for a fundamental change in policies and that, despite what has been stated from the Government Dispatch Box today, two essential ingredients in a new policy must be a big increase in public expenditure and a complete re-examination of the value of the pound?
    Mr. Brittan: I do not agree with either of the hon. Gentleman's conclusions. I believe that an increase in public spending would inevitably have damaging rather than beneficial consequences. I am proud of the fact that this Government have succeeded, for the first time since 1977, in controlling public expenditure by not increasing it during the course of the review. Next year, it will be going down in real terms. I disagree entirely with the policy of devaluation tendered by the hon. Gentleman. The consequence would be to give another twist to the inflationary spiral and damage the improvement to the underlying potential of the economy.
    Mr. Madel: As a profitable motor industry is essential to long-term economic improvement, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the removal of the unfair 10 per cent. special car tax in the next Budget, which would further help the industry? Is he aware that any loss of revenue will be more than met and made up by increased sales and increased VAT receipts?
    Mr. Brittan: Assistance has been given to the motor industry by the removal of hire purchase controls. This has been beneficial. Representations for the further change suggested by my hon. Friend have been made by others. They will be considered carefully.
    Mr. Shore: The House has heard a succession of the most contorted, if not "riddle", figures during today's exchanges. Will the Chief Secretary, in addressing himself to forecasts or indicators concerning the future of the economy, reflect upon his statement a few minutes ago that there had been an improvement in competitiveness of about 20 per cent. since, I think, February 1981? Does he not agree that the improvement that has taken place—it has to be set against the background of an earlier deterioration
    972
    of about 50 per cent.—has been entirely associated with a downward movement of the exchange rate from the absurd height that it had reached?
    Mr. Brittan: No. I do not accept that. The vast majority of the percentage increase in competitiveness occurred before there had been any change in the exchange rate. I welcome the opportunity to point out that the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) frequently talks about competitiveness but does not tell the House, as I did earlier this afternoon, that, in the period between the fourth quarter of 1976, when his Government were in power and the time when we came to power there was a fall in competitiveness of 28 per cent. compared with a fall of 18 per cent. since then.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Pavittasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to exempt charities from value added tax in respect of those services which are provided through them by local authorities.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The services provided by charities to local authorities are already generally exempt or outside the scope of the tax.
    Mr. Pavitt: How can the Minister justify the fact that the Royal National Institute for the Deaf pays £20,000 VAT on residential accommodation for the deaf and for the psychiatrically disturbed? How does he reconcile what has been put to him by the Spastics Society with statements by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to the effect that he wants greater co-operation between the voluntary bodies and the social services? If his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to take action in the Budget, will he make any proposals retrospective, so that all charities that have been clobbered for VAT on residential accommodation get their money back?
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that my right hon. and learned Friend and all Ministers are deeply indebted to the charities for the services that they provide, especially the sort of services to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. It is a fact that charities have always paid indirect tax. They paid purchase tax in the old days. They also paid petrol tax. We have looked at the matter carefully and continue to examine it. It is extremely difficult to find any satisfactory way of giving exemption from a particular form of indirect taxation. It is something that successive Governments have always found it impossible to offer.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 9 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with Lord Shackleton on his Falklands report.
    Mr. Silvester: Will my right hon. Friend join in the call to all those who are preparing to celebrate a Christian

    973
    festival to urge those who have any knowledge or information about terrorists to put their loyalty to their faith above other loyalties and to help the security forces purge us of this evil?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, although he and I would also say that we do not need Christmas to remind us that terrorism is one of the evils of our age, that it may happen at any time and any day, and that we owe it to everyone to fight terrorism unremittingly every day. We shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Foot: I join the right hon. Lady in saying that the whole House and, I believe, the overwhelming majority of the people of this country, are determined to stamp out the terrorism that constitutes such a great threat to our country. I wish to refer specifically to the exclusion orders that the Home Secretary has imposed. I regret deeply that it appears not to have been possible to deal with the matter in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) recommended to the House on Tuesday. I had thought that the whole House recognised the wisdom of the approach that he suggested at that time.
    However, in the aftermath of the hideous events at Ballykelly, I can also understand that no one, including the Home Secretary, could be sure that lives might not be at risk if the visit went ahead. I fully understand, therefore, the reasons why the Home Secretary made the recommendation. That is also the case that I put most forcefully—[Interruption.]. If the House will permit me half a minute, I will come to the question—and directly to Mr. Livingstone [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]. Yes, because I believed that the paramount necessity was to try to get the invitation called off, particularly after the events that had occurred at Ballykelly. I believe that that was the right approach from the point of view of the whole
    I wish to put to the right hon. Lady this question. I understand the reasons why the Home Secretary has acted in the way that he has done today, but considerable anomalies are left. There are now different laws applying to different people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech"]. Will the right hon. Lady consider how we are to deal with this situation? Does she not agree that the application of different laws in different situations causes a great sense of grievance in Northern Ireland and throughout the country as a whole? Will she examine the whole situation?
    The Prime Minister: No. I do not agree with what I think the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Parliament gave the Home Secretary very clear powers under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. Those powers enable the Home Secretary to exclude certain people from Great Britain and for the Secretary of State to exclude certain people from Northern Ireland. The powers have been used many times. Exclusion orders made by Home Secretaries under that Act and the previous Act amount to 289. Of those, 37 involved the exclusion from the United Kingdom of Irish citizens. The remainder involved exclusions from Great Britain. Since 1976, 24 exclusion orders have been made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, of which seven involved exclusions from Northern Ireland of citizens of the United Kingdom. The remainder were excluded from the United Kingdom. The powers that the Act gives are clear, and it is under that Act that my right hon. Friend has rightly operated. The powers are:
    974
    "If the Secretary of State is satisfied that any person … is or has been concerned whether in Great Britain or elsewhere in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism … the Secretary of State may make an order against that person prohibiting him from being in, or entering, Great Britain."
    The Metropolitan Police applied for orders on the basis of intelligence about the men's involvement in terrorist activity. The Home Secretary was satisfied about their past involvement, and rightly and responsibly, made these orders.
    Mr. Foot: I do not question the nature of the Act, because we know its nature. Indeed, I specifically said that I believed that in the circumstances, after the events of Tuesday, it was natural that the Home Secretary should act in this way. However, it leaves considerable anomalies. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will understand this. If she reads the reports and comments that have come from Northern Ireland on the matter—not only from the mainland—I believe that she will understand that we still need to look at the legislation and see how it is applied, and see whether we shall have the same laws applying to the whole of the United Kingdom.
    The Prime Minister: I do not understand what anomalies the right hon. Gentleman is referring to under this Act. The Act is perfectly clear. What anomalies is the right hon. Gentleman referring to?
    Mr. Foot: The anomaly is—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady asked me a question. The anomaly is—
    Mr. Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Leader of the Opposition to usurp question time to make a series of statements, however incomprehensible they may be?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That point of order was legitimate earlier, but the Leader of the Opposition was asked a question, and I thought that he should give the answer before we moved on.
    Mr. Foot: The anomaly is that under this legislation some people are free to walk about in Belfast but not in London. Surely that is an anomaly. [Interruption.] I ask the right hon. Lady to say that the House of Commons should debate the matter afresh, in view of the circumstances that have arisen.
    The Prime Minister: That is not an anomaly. It is inherent in the Act, which the right hon. Gentleman's Government passed.
    Mr. Edward Gardner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the face of the clear and grave warning by the Metropolitan Police of the consequences of a visit to London by the representatives of Sinn Fein, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had no safe choice other than to ban the visit and to put an end to a deliberate attempt by the leader of the Greater London Council to raise a whirlwind of trouble for London?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary acted under the clear provisions of this Act, which give the power of exclusion from Great Britain. It also gives powers of exclusion from Northern Ireland, and sometimes those orders could operate so that the person is

    975
    returned to Britain. It is not an anomaly. It is a clearly thought-out Act, and it has been operated correctly over the years. It was operated correctly and responsibly in this case.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins rose—
    Mr. Skinner: Here is the author.
    Mr. Jenkins: As the sponsor of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974—
    Mr. Skinner: It was a temporary Act.
    Mr. Jenkins: —renewed in 1977, with the full support of the Cabinet, including the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), may I say that in my view the Home Secretary was clearly justified in making such an order under the Act, and that on balance he was right so to do? However, may we know whether he was primarily concerned with the prevention of terrorist acts in this country or the preservation of public order, if these two representatives of terrorism were to visit London at this time?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend was concerned to act under the powers of the Act which I read out, which is related to acts of terrorism.
    Mr. Tom Clarkeasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clarke: Is the Prime Minister aware of yesterday's publication in "Social Trends", showing that youth unemployment in this country has reached the staggering figure of 25 per cent? Does she recall that during the Falklands exercise she promised to pursue her views at all costs? Will she apply the same principles, dedication and resources to removing this blight from our society?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there is a big new scheme for youth training, beginning in September of next year. We also have a number of centres up and down the country. Within a year's time there will be 150 such centres for training young people in computer skills and in the skills of information technology. In that sphere there is a growth rate of 8 per cent. a year. There are jobs to be had, and we must make certain that those jobs are found in this country and not overseas.
    Mr. Heddle: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to read The Observer of 21 November 1976, where she will see a report of a Labour Party committee that considered unemployment—whose membership included the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams)—which predicted that unemployment would rise by 100 per cent. to 2·5 million by early 1980? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is politically immoral for the Opposition parties to pretend to make political capital out of a situation which they knew would happen and which their policies helped to create?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Unemployment has risen under both Governments. Under both Governments, because of demographic factors, we have had a large number of school leavers over a period
    976
    of six years. Between 1978 and 1985 there were an extra 1½ million people of working age in this country. So, without a world recession, we should have had to provide many more jobs to keep those people occupied. That is an extra factor, in addition to world recession. Perhaps it is that known factor that gave rise to some of the predictions that my hon. Friend so aptly mentioned.
    Mr. Ashton: Will the right hon. Lady find time today to visit Smithfield market? Is she aware that the most profitable industry in Britain today is agriculture, with profits increased by 20 per cent.? Is that not due to compulsory planning agreements, such as those of the Egg Marketing Board and the Potato Marketing Board? Why does she not attach the same principles to controlling imports of steel as she attaches to imports of food to support the Tory farmers, and thus make the rest of industry just as profitable?
    The Prime Minister: I regret that I cannot go to Smithfield, particularly as some of my family are involved in farming. Every country has its own measures for agriculture. We operate under the common agriculture policy for agriculture. We operate under a Community system for steel, under which there are considerable restrictions on steel imports to the Common Market. The same is true of agriculture.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsendasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Townsend: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the transcript of the Labour Party's last and most misleading party political broadcast on nuclear weapons? Is she aware that the Labour Party is now committed to reducing Britain's defence expenditure in line with that of our European NATO allies, which would mean severe cutbacks in Britain's conventional forces? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that such cutbacks could lead to NATO commanders resorting to tactical nuclear weapons at an earlier stage?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the Opposition's defence policy, which is just not a credible policy. It seems that the answer to the nuclear threat is not unilateralism, which Mr. Andropov called naive, but an intense effort to secure multilateral disarmament.
    Mr. William Hamilton: When?
    The Prime Minister: Regularly, and now in Geneva, if people will come to the negotiating table. If Opposition Members would direct some of their efforts towards influencing the Soviet Union to negotiate, it would be better. I am aware of what my hon. Friend said. It is the Labour Party's policy to reduce the proportion of our gross national product that is spent on defence from the present 5 per cent. down to the European average, which is about 3·5 per cent. That would mean a drop in defence expenditure of £4½ billion, the equivalent of abolishing the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance, about the trend in Prime Minister's Question Time? At least two questions today were about the policies of the Labour Party. However, a number of hon. Members have been waiting

    977
    to ask questions on subjects that are the direct responsibility of the Prime Minister, including foreign affairs. We wanted to ask her about her attitude to, and what action she would take over the disgraceful invasion of Lesotho by the South African military—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not, under the guise of a point of order, go on to raise the point that is concerning him.
    Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not seeking to raise a question under the guise of a point of order, but I wanted to seek your guidance. Are we now to understand that if we go to the Table Office and table questions to the Prime Minister about the policies of the Tory Party or Tory local authorities and councils, those questions will be accepted?
    Mr. Speaker: Such questions have been asked ever since I have been Speaker, under the present Administration as well as the last Administration. People answer for their own policies.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you tell us whether you are setting an interesting precedent by calling Prime Minister's Question 81 before Question 2?
    Mr. Speaker: No, but we have had some other precedents today. I have not yet looked at Question No. 81. I hope that all of us will bear in mind that Question Time—I have now seen question No. 81, tabled by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke). I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

Business of the House
3.33 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 DECEMBER—Private Members' motions until 7 o'clock. Afterwards, remaining stages of the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. Proceedings on the Lands Valuation Amendment (Scotland) Bill.
TUESDAY 14 DECEMBER—Motions on the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 2), on the British National Oil Corporation (Borrowing Powers) Order and on the British Steel Corporation (Reduction of Capital) Order.
WEDNESDAY 15 DECEMBER—Debate On the Liberal—Social Democratic Party motion relating to the statement of changes in immigration rules. Motions on the Films (Suspension of Quota Requirements) Order and on the Companies and Business Names (Amendment) Regulations.
THURSDAY 16 DECEMBER—Motion on the fair wages resolution.
FRIDAY 17 DECEMBER—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY 20 DECEMBER—Motion on the Christmas Adjournment. Remaining stages of the Agricultural Marketing Bill.
It will be for the convenience of the House to know that it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Thursday 23 December until Monday 17 January.
Mr. Foot: I must ask the Leader of the House about a number of matters. May I put it to him as strongly as possible that we in the Opposition object most vehemently to the idea of a proposal for the abolition of the fair wages resolution and to the motion that the Government have tabled on that subject? The passage of that motion could do serious injury to low-paid workers. We ask the Government to withdraw it especially because they have an obligation under the International Labour Organisation convention to have proper consultations before they proceed in that direction. They have not had anything that can possibly be described as consultation with the Trades Union Congress. The Secretary of State for Employment has not discharged that obligation. A curtailed correspondence is not a fulfilment of that obligation. We are opposed to the Government's proposal. I urge the Leader of the House to look afresh at the motion and bring it back to the House, if he must, early in the new year or later. He should withdraw it for next week.
Will the Leader of the House give a definite commitment that there will be a statement on Wednesday on the multi-fibre arrangement negotiations? I understand that a final report will be put to the Council of Ministers on 13 or 14 December. Whether or not it is the final report, it will be crucial and essential that a full statement is made to the House immediately by the Minister for Trade. I am sure that the Leader of the House must be aware that the textile and clothing industries in the United Kingdom have lost 210,000 jobs in the past three years. Therefore, it is essential that we hear the Government's statement on the matter as speedily as possible.
980
We have had many exchanges on steel before. I renew the demand to the Leader of the House that the Government should make a statement on what action they propose to take to sustain the industry. It should be made early next week. I hope that he will give us an idea of the date when the statement will be made by the Secretary of State for Industry.
We have constantly demanded that there should be a fisheries debate. We do not believe that the statement that was made by the Prime Minister on Tuesday should close the matter. The House of Commons should have the right to give its own view on the subject.
Finally, may we have a statement on the teacher training colleges? Can we have a debate on the closing of such colleges and the implications in the regions, and on special training colleges, for example Catholic training colleges. The cuts imposed by the Secretary of State for Education and Science are having a serious effect in some regions. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us satisfaction on that point, too.
Mr. Biffen: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will allow me to comment on the five points that he has put to me in the sequence in which they were presented.
I appreciate at once that the proposal on the fair wages resolution is highly contentious, and understandably so. I must share with the House the fact that the Secretary of State for Employment wrote to the TUC and to other interested parties on 26 May. Representations on the matter were received subsequently. The Secretary of State told Parliament on 28 July that after the recess it was his intention to invite the House to rescind the fair wages resolution. I feel that the House has been kept reasonably involved and that the period of consultation has been reasonable enough. However, I accept at once that for those who take a strong view on the legislation, it is not consultation but the matter itself which is the real issue.
Like the Leader of the Opposition, I hope that the next meeting of the Council of Ministers on the multi-fibre arrangement will come to a conclusion. That would enable my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade to come to the House at once with a comprehensive statement on those discussions. That must depend upon the progress of the Council of Ministers. I assure the House, and hon. Members below the Gangway, that as soon as decisions have been reached they will be presented to the House.
The Leader of the Opposition has expressed his anxiety that there should be a statement on the steel industry before we rise for the Christmas Recess. I can assure him that that is our intention.
There is the prospect of a Council of Ministers meeting in the near future and, given the delicate state of negotiations, it would be more appropriate, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, that we should have a debate on fisheries after that.
I take note of what the Leader of the Opposition says about the teacher training college programme and the possibility of a statement on that. It may be helpful if that matter is dealt with through the usual channels.
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman's answer on the fisheries debate is not at all satisfactory. There have been long discussions on this matter and at this critical stage the House of Commons surely has a right to express its view. Again, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow us a debate on that subject.

981
Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the Government have discharged their obligation to have consultations under the ILO convention by this cursory exchange of letters between the Secretary of State for Employment and the TUC on the fair wages resolution? Even if the Government are determined to proceed with this miserable measure, surely they should fulfil their obligations under the convention.
Mr. Biffen: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman's latter point is a matter for contention. However, it cannot be gainsaid that my right hon. Friend wrote to the TUC in May, some six months ago, and that there has been an exchange of views since then. Whether they were cursory or not does not necessarily reflect upon the way in which my right hon. Friend conducted himself. This matter is well-known to the House and to the interested parties outside.
I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition, bearing the imprint of experience in this post, will acknowledge that the fisheries debate is a matter of some careful judgment when one has a Council of Ministers meeting which it is hoped will resolve what has been a long-standing dispute. The House is properly anxious to pass a judgment on those negotiations and the tactic most conducive to their successful outcome would be a debate after the Council of Ministers meeting.
Mr. Edward du Cann: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to consider afresh, and not close his mind to, the possibility of a future debate on the Civil Service in the context of several important occurrences? There has been a transfer of functions to the Treasury; a report to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee; a significant Government White Paper proposing several innovations; and a number of speeches by distinguished persons, including the permanent secretary to the Treasury. Many right hon. and hon. Members would be pleased to have an opportunity to express a view on those significant matters.
Mr. Biffen: I take note of what my right hon. Friend says. I must give the somewhat restricted reply that I can see no prospect of such a debate in the immediate future, but I shall bear in mind the importance that he attaches to this topic, which I know is shared by many other hon. Members.
Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Leader of the House appreciate that what we need is not a statement on teacher training colleges—we have had that—but a debate, so that we can investigate whether the factual basis on which the Secretary of State has founded his decisions is sound?
Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but he will appreciate that I have suggested the usual channels procedure for this matter and I hope that he will not feel that they are too exclusive. Both the Leader of the Opposition and I have heard his comments.
Mr. Bob Cryer: As we are approaching the season of peace and good-will, can we have a debate on peace and disarmament? The Leader of the House consistently refuses such a debate and the Prime Minister consistently claims that she is in favour of multilateral disarmament while making plans to buy Trident, allowing cruise missiles to be stationed here, and mis-representing the world stockpiles of nuclear warheads which favour
982
America and the NATO countries. We need a debate in order to deploy our arguments and show that the Prime Minister is interested in peace, not warmongering, which is the impression of most people.
Mr. Biffen: I do not accept that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is displaying an interest in warmongering rather than in peace. The hon. Gentleman's comment does not suggest that such a debate would start off in the spirit of peace and goodwill, as was his hope.
The House will shortly have a White Paper on defence which, although specifically in respect of the recent Falklands exercise, will be an opportunity to debate the wider issues which the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is on the Order Paper a series of motions which are essentially on matters of procedure—I refer to my own "Opportunities for Backbench Speakers (No. 2)" merely as an example—which seem to have raised widespread interest among all hon. Members? They imply that some of the less important, but none the less significant, aspects of our procedure deserve examination and even reform. Is there a possibility of at least a half day's debate in which to discuss those matters so that the House might give its general view on the motions that have been tabled?
Mr. Biffen: I recognise the dedication, and indeed, the great knowledge, that my hon. Friend brings to this issue. I hope that he will not think that I am too neanderthal if I say that there is much to be said for the House digesting the fairly considerable reforms that it has recently been called upon to undertake. None the less, I shall consider my hon. Friend's point and I shall be in touch with him.
Mr. David Young: Without expressing any comment on what are considered to be "usual channels", may I reinforce the need for an urgent debate on the closure of colleges in the North-West? My constituents have expressed concern that these closures—for example, that of de la Salle—are mainly examples of religious discrimination and have nothing to do with political policy. Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the fact that last night his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said that it was not in his power to grant a debate and that his decision was irrevocable? In the spirit of religious tolerance which we exercise in Britain, a debate cannot wait any longer for the usual channels but should be concluded before the Christmas Recess.
Mr. Biffen: I recognise the serious constituency import of the problem for the hon. Gentleman. As he is anxious not to rely upon the smooth workings of the usual channels, may I say that there is plenty of scope for him in the Adjournment debates which will take place before the House goes into recess and that I wish him every success in his efforts in that direction?
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Can my right hon. Friend say what progress has been made in the review by Lord Franks of the Falklands operation? Bearing in mind the fact that his study is behind by several months, can my right hon. Friend say when it will be presented to the House?
Mr. Biffen: I have no idea of the commission's progress, but I assure my hon. Friend that as soon as the findings are reported, they will be placed before the House at the earliest appropriate moment.
Mr. Jim Craigen: When the Leader of the House decided that the fair wages resolution should be debated next Thursday, did he know that the Select Committee on Employment had already requested the Secretary of State for Employment to appear before it on Wednesday 15 December, so that the issues at stake could be made known to the House? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the Select Committee should be given the opportunity to report to hon. Members so that debates are better informed? If so, will he agree to postpone next Thursday's debate?
Mr. Biffen: I am certainly anxious to protect and develop the relationship of Select Committees to Government business in general. However, Government business cannot necessarily wait on the processes of Select Committees. The House was informed at the same time as the TUC, six months ago, about the Government's proposals and intentions. There has been plenty of time to consider the matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope to call those who have been standing in their places if questions are brief.
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: In view of what is properly characterised as the prevailing state of uncertainty surrounding Government trading policy as a result of the GATT talks and the recent Common Market summit meeting, and given the importance of trading policy for Britain's political and economic relations with its partners round the world, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate to discuss such issues?
Mr. Biffen: I note that point. Indeed, it echoes what was said in the Chamber two weeks ago about the importance of an early debate. The first step must be to have the report of the Council of Ministers, the decisions made about the MFA and the ministerial statement. We can then consider the other issue in the light of what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade has to say.
Mr. Robert Parry: Will the right hon. Gentleman contact the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for the Environment to have urgent discussions with the leader of Liverpool city council about the proposed closure of the Liverpool welfare rights centre? That centre receives public funding and provides an essential service to pensioners, one-parent families, the sick and disabled and those who are in despair, particularly in the inner areas. That service must be kept open.
Mr. Biffen: I note the hon. Gentleman's points and I shall ensure that they are conveyed to the appropriate Ministers for their consideration.
Mr. Peter Viggers: My right hon. Friend referred to the forthcoming White Paper on defence. He will have seen press comment that it may be published on 15 December. Can he let us know whether there will be a statement and when a debate will take place?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend may care to note that Hansard—unlike the press—tells us that the date is 14
984
December. That was announced in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). Obviously there will have to be a debate and it will be a matter for discussion.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to the important question raised about the Franks commission by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren), does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that in reply to me the Prime Minister said that she hoped that the Franks commission would report within six months of being set up? It is not surprising, given the amount of evidence that I and many others have submitted to the commission, that rumours about delay persist. May I make a constructive suggestion? Two experienced clerks of the House should be added to the staff of the commission. If rumour is right, it is not only the commission's members that are overburdened with work but the staff. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider adding two experienced clerks—for whom there is no problem of secrecy—to the secretariat of the Franks commission? Would not that help?
Mr. Biffen: It would be discourteous to refuse to consider the hon. Gentleman's point and, of course, I shall contact those involved about it. However, I am not sure that the matter falls within my responsibilities. Indeed, there are weighty arguments for letting the commission deliberate without any sort of pressure from Parliament.
Mr. John Ward: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many people are anxiously awaiting the proposals for domestic rating reform. Will he arrange a debate as soon as possible so that we can put further pressure on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to introduce the proposals with all possible speed?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend will recollect that Tuesday's business will be devoted to the rate support grant supplementary report. Therefore, he need not wait long to make the powerful speech that he harbours.
Mr. Stanley Cohen: Given the points made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Young), will the right hon. Gentleman give us an undertaking about the nature of the Government's policy or let us know whether we shall be able to debate the future of Catholic teacher training colleges?
Mr. Biffen: I am fully seized of the importance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to that subject and I hope that his point will be covered by negotiations through the usual channels.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In these hard and testing times, it is difficult for the Treasury Bench to act as Santa Claus and to give the country everything that it wants at this time of year, but does my right hon. Friend understand that many Members of Parliament are young fathers or young grandfathers who have to go on their sleighs to parts of the country that are unknown to, and disregarded by, the metropolis? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that in the last week before the recess, there should be light business?
Mr. Biffen: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to come to the House next week to condemn without qualification an

985
outrage? I refer to the wanton invasion of Maseru, the capital of Lesotho, by South African troops. More than 30 people have been killed, including five women and two children. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the right hon. Lady to undertake urgent discussions with the Government of Lesotho to see how we can provide for the defence of that friendly Commonwealth country, and prevent future aggression?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly ensure that those points are conveyed to the appropriate Ministers.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I press my right hon. Friend about the MFA? Will he go further and say that the Goverment will soon find time for a debate on this vital issue, as the clothing and textile industry is one of our largest employers and further thousands of workers in the industry may find themselves without work during the next few weeks unless there is a satisfactory outcome to the MFA? Will my right hon. Friend also ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make a statement in the House about how someone who is serving a term of imprisonment can apply to undertake a university course and to obtain an accommodation allowance while on day release from prison?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that hy hon. Friend's latter point is of much greater significance than I can immediately grasp, but I shall ensure that the Secretary of State is apprised of it. Two weeks ago, I gave the idea of a debate a pretty fair wind and that remains my position, but a debate would be more appropriate if the MFA talks had been concluded first and if my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade could first return to the House to report on them.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the position after the Secretary of State's statement on the steel industry? Is he aware that, if the BSC had to implement Government decisions and statements before the House had had a chance to debate them, it would be most unsatisfactory?
986
That is particularly so when it is extremely unlikely that the statement will be simple. If it is simple, it will be all the more important to debate it before any action is taken.
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but he must realise that it conflicts with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis). However soon we have the statement, it must be fairly close to the recess. However, I note what the hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Leader of the House will be aware that some time ago I mentioned the need for a statement about the Bank of England's involvement in bailing out the Argentine economy, which will result in some of the money, during the cooling-off period and the rescheduling of the debts, being used to pay for Exocet missiles from France. That shows the hypocrisy of the Government Front Bench.
Is the Leader of the House aware that the Export Credits Guarantee Department is in a terrible mess and that a firm in my constituency, Davis's of Langwith Junction, has a contract with Nigeria, which does not have the money to pay for it because it is one of the 90-odd nations now rescheduling their debts? The result is that the Crown Agents have led that firm to the deal and that the case will soon land on a Minister's desk. If the Government can find time to talk about increasing bus fares, they should make statements about the big money that is going adrift because of world banking arrangements.
Mr. Biffen: If we have a trade debate—I hope that we shall—the operations of the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the difficulties that have arisen, for example in Nigeria, will be germane. As to the hon. Gentleman's other points, I shall ensure that they are referred to the appropriate Minister.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) to make his Standing Order No. 9 application, may I tell the House that I dislike interrupting an hon. Member in full flow, but we must all try to abide by parliamentary language when we express our feelings.

South Wales Miners (Strike Action)
4.1 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The decision by the South Wales National Union of Mineworkers delegate conference yesterday to call for strike action on 17 January due to the National Coal Board's refusal to make available adequate capital investment for the general development and maintenance of the South Wales coalfield."
The matter is specific because the 24,000 members will take strike action on 17 January. The action has been called against a background of deteriorating conditions in numerous pits in South Wales as a direct result of the lack of capital investment, the fear of 18 colliery closures in the short term and the complete devastation of the South Wales coalfield.
The matter is undoubtedly important because of the consequences to other vital industries in Wales. They will be affected by the action caused by the frustration of the months of negotiations between the NUM and the National Coal Board for more investment in the South Wales coalfield, for general development and maintenance, for a new mine at Margam, for recruitment at collieries in desperate need of additional miners and for the opening of new coal faces. It is also important that the Secretary of State for Wales refuses to meet the officers of the South Wales miners to discuss the problems that I have mentioned, which carry the consequential danger of the destruction of industry in South Wales.
The matter is urgent for several reasons. The first is the lack of time for the House to debate the matter before the Christmas Recess. The second is the fact that the strike will take place on the day that the House returns so that we shall have little opportunity to persuade the miners to take alternative action. Thirdly, the threat of the strike will worry business men and many thousands of people during the festive period.
I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that, like me, you are a miner's son, and that, therefore, you will share my
988
concern for the future of the South Wales coalfield and acknowledge the essential need for a debate. I hope that I have shown that the matter is specific, undoubtedly important and essentially urgent and that you, without giving reasons, will be kind enough to grant my request.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The decision by the South Wales National Union of Mineworkers delegate conference yesterday to call for strike action on 17 January due to the National Coal Board's refusal to make available adequate capital investment for the general development and maintenance of the South Wales coalfield."
Before I deal with the application, may I say to the hon. Gentleman, who reminded me that I am a miner's son, that I am very proud of the fact, but it has nothing to do with the application. I must follow the rules of the House and not any emotional ties that I may have. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand it when I tell him that, under Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

South Wales Miners (Strike Action)
  BILL PRESENTED
    SALMON FISHERIES (PROTECTION) (SCOTLAND)
    Sir Marcus Kimball, supported by Mr. Hugh D. Brown, Sir Peter Mills, Mr. Stephen Hastings, Sir Hector Monro, Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke, Mr. David Myles and Mr. Alexander Pollock, presented a Bill to amend the law in regard to the protection of salmon in Scotland and in the River Tweed; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 January 1983 and to be printed. [Bill 39].
Orders of the Day

  National Insurance Surcharge Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

  National Insurance Surcharge Bill
    Clause 1

      REDUCTION OF NATIONAL INSURANCE SURCHARGE
      4.7 pm
      The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out 'In' and insert
      'Subject to subsections (1A) and (2) below, in'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
      Government amendment No. 2.
      Amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 2, at end to add
      'other than contributions payable in respect of direct works departments of local authorities'.
      Government amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Wakeham: Government amendment No. 1 amends the first clause of a short Bill that we debated recently. Perhaps I may summarise its objectives quickly. It provides for a further reduction in the national insurance surcharge to a rate of 1½ per cent. from April 1983. It also provides for the national insurance surcharge payable in the current year, 1982–83, to be reduced by an amount equivalent to approximately ½ per cent. Although it is a short Bill, its benefits are widespread.
      The amendment makes local authorities and some related bodies that are financed partly through the rate support grant liable to pay national insurance surcharge at 2½ per cent. in 1983–84. Subsequently, local authorities must pay the rates applicable to other employers of 1½ per cent. The reduction will be taken into account when settling the rate support grant. The other amendments are consequential. Amendment (a) will be moved by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and I shall not speak to it until after the right hon. Gentleman has spoken.
      During the debate on Second Reading I explained the reason for the amendment. The Government intend that the changes in the national insurance surcharge should be neutral in their effect on the financing of public sector bodies, leaving them neither better nor worse off than before the change. For central Government and nationalised industries this result will be achieved by reducing their cash limits and external financing limits both for 1982–83 and for 1983–84. We have made no secret of the fact that the purpose of the Bill is to help the private sector.
      The effects of the overall action, including the clawback from the public sector, will be to concentrate the benefits of a considerable reduction in the costs of employing labour on the productive private sector. The benefits will be considerable—about £1 billion in 1982–83 and £1½ billion in 1983–84—as a result both of this Bill and
      990
      of the reduction introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the previous measure.
      The precise effects will depend upon how employers choose to use this opportunity. Many employers in domestic markets may choose to pass it on in lower prices. This will benefit consumers and in turn lead to a higher level of consumer demand and more orders for industry. Employers will retain part or all of the benefit and, as a result, they are likely to increase their expenditure, particularly on stock building and employment. Overall, the benefits can be expected to be seen in higher output in employment and in improvement in company profitability.
      4.15 pm
      Local authorities will continue to pay at 3½ per cent. for 1982–83, as happened when the rate was reduced earlier this year. We had originally intended that they should pay at 1½ per cent. for 1983–84 and that the provisional 1983–84 rate support grant settlement, which was based on a 2½ per cent. rate, should be recalculated accordingly. After further consideration and consultation with local authority associations we decided that, rather than disturb those calculations at this late date and to ensure equitable treatment for all local authorities, it would be better to leave the present rate support grant calculations as they stand and to provide for the local authorities to pay for 1983–84 only at a rate of 2½ per cent. This procedure will be identical to that adopted earlier in the year when the rate was reduced.
      The effect of the Bill and the amendments under discussion is that local authorities collectively and individually will be neither better nor worse off as a result of the changes in the surcharge.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: I should like to refer to amendment (a) to amendment No. 2, standing in my name on the Order Paper.
      The Bill introduces a further reduction in the national insurance surcharge from 2½ per cent. to 1½ per cent. from 1983. We note that the national insurance surcharge will be applied differently to local authorities and public industry than to private industry. My amendment deals with the direct labour organisations.
      It is right to examine the way in which the nationalised industries are being treated. The Minister of State, Treasury, in moving the amendment, said that the purpose of the Bill is to help the private sector and to help the "productive private sector". He will be aware that many areas within the nationalised industries are productive. A number of such areas compete with the private sector.
      The differentiation within the productive sector between private and public appears to us iniquitous. We deplore the way the measure has been devised.
      If the Government had accepted the original amendment that we moved on 5 May 1982 this tedious Committee stage debate would have been unnecessary. Had the Government accepted the amendment then, or even the year before on 14 July 1981, we would have saved much time and the Bill would have been unnecessary.
      My amendment deals with the direct labour organisations. At present, they have a 1 per cent. disadvantage. I understand that in 1983 and 1984, the disadvantage will disappear within the totality of the rate support grant. We do not know at this stage—I suppose

      991
      that not even the Minister of State knows at this stage—how that will be taken into account. Therefore, we cannot discuss the matter in detail, but we can make one or two assumptions.
      The disadvantage for 1983–84 will amount to 1 per cent.—as it is now—between the direct labour organisations and those private construction industries that may be tendering for precisely the same type of work. Between January and March 1983 the disadvantage, as a result of clause 1, will increase to 2 per cent. If the national insurance surcharge is abolished in the next Budget without any rate support grant offset, the disadvantage will increase to 2½ per cent. I am discussing not theoretical matters but the tendering by direct labour organisations for precisely the same type of work as outside construction firms, when their premises may be within a few hundred yards of each other. Between January and March the former will be at a 2 per cent. disadvantage. We see no justification for that.
      The Minister of State will have seen representations that we have received from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. It makes the strong point about the unfairness of the disadvantage. It cannot be right that as a result of this measure one tenderer is put at a disadvantage. We have received a further note from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—I understand that the Minister has also received it. The association has not had time to consider all the detail, but it has hinted at what it envisages will be further disadvantages.
      I should like to quote from a letter from Mr. Martin Pilgrim on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. It says:
      "For the whole of 1983–84 local authorities will be paying MS at 2½ per cent. The private sector—with whom DLOs must compete—will be paying 1½ per cent. This extra cost directly depresses the rate of return achieved by the DLO, but the problem goes further than this. DLOs will lose tenders by the amount of the NIS differential. For example"—
      Mr. Pilgrim then gives some of the information which has come to light.
      We can understand that at this early stage there will not be much information, but it will be made available both to the councils concerned and to the Ministers involved over the period up to the next Budget. We shall be even better equipped to continue this confrontation with the Minister in the months ahead than we are now.
      The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has had only a short time to consider the matter. Mr. Pilgrim's letter continues:
      "Two recent cases reported to the Association involve tenders of over £0·5m which were lost by the impact of the present NIS disadvantage since August 1982. If DLOs lose contracts their total viability is threatened. DLOs can operate in a competitive environment but only if that competition is fair. A 1 per cent. NIS differential is not fair competition."
      As the Minister knows, the organisations are under an obligation to compete fairly. It is wrong to place them under a burden and then directly to give the private sector a head start. No one can reasonably object to fair competition, but unfair competition as a consequence of Government legislation is clearly and transparently wrong. I hope that the Minister will make inquiries to discover what is happening to contracts that will go out to tender over the next few months and seek a proper remedy in the next Budget.
      992
      We welcome the national insurance surcharge reduction. It is a pity that the Government did not respond to our earlier demands for a reduction. We shall be pressing them for a further reduction. I may have some further comments to make when the Minister has replied to the issues that I have raised. It may be necessary to debate whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, but that will depend on the Minister's reply.
      Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) asked whether the nationalised industries were being penalised. It is the Government's view that they are not. They will pay the same rate of surcharge as the private sector. The adjustment to their external financing limits is made to leave the industries' underlying financial position unchanged. The limits reflect the Government's assessment of the industries' need for external finance. As the national insurance surcharge cut will increase the industries'internal resources, their need for external resources is correspondingly reduced. It is right that we should reduce the external financing limits. It does not follow that the industries will necessarily be placed at a competitive disadvantage.
      If a private sector firm uses the benefit of the surcharge reduction to reduce its borrowing, and a nationalised industry does the same, they are in precisely the same position. If a nationalised industry has a substantial change in its competitive position, for whatever reason, the Government can make an appropriate change in its external financing limit. It would be a major and unacceptable change in the control exercised by the Government over nationalised industries for the Government to operate in any other way. Nationalised industries are controlled by external financing limits that are settled between them and the Government. It cannot be logical for there to be a change of this sort in the circumstances of a nationalised industry without the Government considering the EFLs.
      If the change had been the other way around, the nationalised industries would have been looking to the Government and suggesting that the EFLs should be adjusted. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's charge in respect of nationalised industries.
      The effect of the Government's amendment is to make local authorities liable to the national insurance surcharge at 2½ per cent. in 1983–84 for all their employees, including those in direct labour organisations. The amendment seeks to reduce the rate for employees in direct labour organisations. The amendment is defective in a substantial way. There is no definition of a direct works department either in the Bill or in any other legislation. Furthermore, no provision is made for employees who work partly in direct works and partly elsewhere.
      I make no criticism of the right hon. Gentleman for not being able to frame a watertight amendment, because we do not see how the difficulties can be overcome. There is no such thing as a direct labour organisation in law that is in any way analogous to a private building or engineering contracting company. A direct labour organisation in law is an organisation that is part of the parent authority, and it has no independent legal personality. That is why it is impossible to separate something called a direct labour organisation from the rest of a local authority and to treat it as a independent entity, which it is not. Nor is there a standard direct labour organisation in the sense of a particular type of direct works organisation.

      993
      Some councils may choose to organise their direct labour work under one unitary organisation covering highways, building and other work. Others may form separate organisations for building, highways and other work. Others may prefer to attach a small direct works group to various service functions such as housing and recreation.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Minister saying that he is not granting a reduction in the national insurance surcharge to direct labour organisations because of the difficulties of defining them?
      Mr. Wakeham: No, that is not the reason. I am explaining why there is extreme difficulty in doing what the right hon. Gentleman seeks to do, even if he can persuade me that it is the right thing to do. I shall not rest my case on the legal difficulties, substantial though they are. We can see no practical way of achieving what the right hon. Gentleman wants.
      Part III of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 says nothing about a direct labour organisation as an organisational entity. The term "direct labour organisation" appears only in the title of part III, which merely defines types of work such as construction or maintenance work and building or engineering work covering areas such as housing, highways and sewerage works. The legislation applies to all authorities which carry out such work by using their own employees, except for local authorities with small direct labour organisations which employed 30 or fewer persons wholly or partly on construction and maintenance work in the previous financial year.
      There is no alternative to tying the legislation to a definition of types of work. It is especially difficult to attach exemptions or special requirements to a direct labour organisation as an entity, because such an entity does not exist. For example, some small council employees spend some of their time on construction and maintenance work and some on activities that are outside the scope of a direct labour organisation. There is no logic in trying to exempt these people from a higher national insurance surcharge when many may spend most of their time working on activities that are outside the legislative requirement of compulsory competition with contractors. Issues such as the higher national insurance surcharge are best tackled by ministerial assurances, and the Department of the Environment has already—
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: It has been brought to my attention that the Liverpool local authority has found a way round the problem by setting up a separate company. Are there not available variables in the form of DLO arrangements which the Minister could use if it were the Government's intention to ensure that local authorities obtained the benefit of the national insurance surcharge reduction?
      Mr. Wakeham: I am glad that I did not say that it was impossible to act. I said that it would be very difficult. The Government would be unable to define such an exemption for direct labour organisations. I have made it clear that I am not resting my case on the definition, although that point is of some substance.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is fair to say that the Minister has destroyed his case.
      Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I have. The most that the hon. Gentleman can say is that Liverpool—and in particular Merseyside—is in a different position from most of the other direct labour organisations in the country.
      Mr. Eric Heifer: I was the chairman of the direct works department. An organisation was established within the corporation. It acted as a company and we endeavoured to keep the finances of the two bodies as separate as possible. There were certain ties from which we were unable to escape, but I fear that when the Conservatives took control of Liverpool they destroyed our efforts.
      Mr. Wakeham: It is not sensible for me to argue about the affairs of Liverpool even if, as I suspect, the duly elected members of the authority at the time were likely to agree with my view as the desirable way forward.
      The substance of the debate is the way in which direct labour organisations are treated by the Government, and not the initial point, which concerns the technical definition.
      The competitive position of direct labour organisations compared with the private sector is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I know that he is having discussions with local authorities, and they have been told that in considering the rate of return achieved by local authorities Ministers will, in 1983–84, as in the current financial year, be prepared to accept explanatory notes concerning direct labour organisation revenue accounts which identify and quantify the effects of higher national insurance surcharges as agreed with the authorities' auditors. Correspondence and discussions are continuing with the local authorities to deal with this matter.
      From information that I have received, I know that local authorities are coping reasonably well with the situation. There are problems and difficulties with some local authorities. These are exactly the points that should be the subject of discussion. My right hon. Friend will have to consider these explanations in looking at the accounts of direct labour organisations. I am sure that they will not be judged unfairly. I feel sure that he will take into account these factors, along with all the others, in making a judgment.
      Mr. John Horam: How can explanations overcome the fundamental commercial fact of direct labour organisations replacing higher costs as a result of Government measures? That is the principle about which we are concerned. The Government should ensure that competition is on a fair basis. It seems extraordinary that some bureaucratic piece of bumf or explanation can override that fundamental fact.
      Mr. Wakeham: I take that point, and it is to deal with it that these discussions are taking place. The Government recognise that some direct labour organisations will be put at a disadvantage. There are many other factors to be taken into account. That is why these items are to be shown in the accounts.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Minister will be aware that at the moment a number of tender documents are being prepared by direct labour organisations to cover the period when the national insurance surcharge will be reduced for their competitors, but not for them. What will he tell those people? It is all very well to ask for the explanatory

      995
      memoranda some time next year, but they should be supplied now, when the documents are being sent out. These decisions will be made long before these explanatory memoranda are even devised, let alone accepted by the Treasury.
      Mr. Wakeham: That is understood by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. He is having discussions with the local authorities to establish the best way forward. I have no doubt that the right way forward is to carry on with the discussions. It would be unreasonable to anticipate the results of those discussions. I am certain that my right hon. Friend is listening and talking in a sympathetic fashion to try to find a solution to the problem that arises under the existing legislation.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would it be in order for the Minister to give an undertaking today that there will be adjustments to the rate support grant to compensate local authorities for the losses derived from uncompetitive tendering?
      Mr. Wakeham: Certainly not. The Government have made it clear that the purpose of this relief is to give additional relief to the private sector. If we reduce the relief to the private sector because we give additional relief to the public sector, even if the unsatisfactory nature of definitions could be overcome, that would reduce the relief to the private sector.
      Mr. Heffer: On the basis of what has been said, is it not clear that this is sheer political prejudice?
      Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. The amendment fails to deal with the problem. To suggest that the problem is one of sheer political prejudice is substantially to understate the nature of the problem. The Government are giving relief to the private sector, but do not intend to give relief to the public sector. They intend to leave the public sector in the same position as it was before—neither advantaged nor disadvantaged. We recognise that where direct labour organisations are in competition with private companies, local authorities envisage a problem. They are in discussion with my right hon. Friend and I very much hope that a satisfactory solution can be worked out.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: In dealing with the European Coal and Steel Community, the Community has set the objective of removing national aid to create conditions of free and fair competition. Does the Minister not accept as a result of this measure he may well be offending the spirit, if not the letter, of some obscure European directive, which up to the present time has not been brought before the House? Can he give an assurance that that is not the case? If it is, he should return with a new measure to reverse what is proposed.
      Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is the greatest expert in obscure pieces of legislation concerning the European treaties. I do not think that I am in a position to answer a hypothetical question.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman's replies have been far from satisfactory. There is no need for these complicated explanatory notes. All that needs to be said is that there are hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of people in direct labour organisations who are paying an unfair and
      996
      unequal rate of national insurance surcharge, which puts them at a disadvantage against the private sector, because of the Government's predilection for private initiative as opposed to excellent, worthy and sustained public initiative.
      That is what it is all about. The long discussions about how the accountants will agree to the footnotes at the bottom of the accounts are unnecessary, because those footnotes merely need to state the number of direct works organisation employees at so much per head.
      I fail to see the necessity for these lengthy discussions. The Minister can surely say now that my version of what the explanatory notes should say will be accepted by the Government. If so, we shall be happy to leave the matter there.
      Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I can say any more than was said in the letter that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services sent to the local authorities. He said that he would be prepared to accept explanatory notes to these accounts, and he has told me that he will take them into consideration. He is confident that local authorities will not be unfairly judged as a result. It is neither possible nor right to go any further than that, except to hope that there will be a satisfactory conclusion to the discussions.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Minister is courteous, listens to what is said and tries to find a solution. I am sorry that he is unable to accept my suggestion, which is the most obvious, simplest and clearest way of giving information so that those who tender from tomorrow morning will be able to do so on the correct basis.
      I am not sure why the Minister is unable to accept that suggestion, because his remarks came close to doing so. At any rate, will he accept it for the period January to March, when direct works organisations will be at a great disadvantage? During that period the tenders that are now in preparation will be put out to offer. By accepting this further suggestion the minds of the tenderers will be put at rest, because they will know that, at least for some of these contracts, the explanations need refer only to the extra national insurance surcharge paid by direct labour organisations in excess of what is paid by private firms.
      Mr. Wakeham: Persuasive as the right hon. Gentleman is, I cannot be drawn any further, but I shall ensure that the attention of my right hon. Friend is drawn to his remarks. The discussions with the local authorities will take place with all possible speed, and those are just the sorts of points that will be taken into account.
      Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment: (a), at end add
      'other than contributions payable in respect of direct works departments of local authorities'.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]
      Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
      Amendment No. 2 agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 3, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'Subsection (1) above has' and insert
      'Subsections (1) and (1A) above have'.—[Mr. Wakeham.]
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Wakeham: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 13, leave out from 'paid' to 'the' in line 14 and insert
      'in the tax year 1982–83'.
      The Chairman: With this we may take Government amendment No. 5.
      Mr. Wakeham: These amendments would allow every employer liable to national insurance surcharge for 1982–83 to have the benefit of the reduction for that year. As the Bill is drafted, eligibility for this reduction is confined to those employers liable to the surcharge for the period 4 January to 5 April 1983. Amendment No. 5 is a consequential drafting amendment.
      As I explained on Second Reading, the reduction was confined in this way to serve the aim of giving the additional help to going concerns, but on further consideration we decided that in certain cases this provision would be too harsh in its impact. For example, where a business continued but there was a change of employer during 1982, the old employer would not qualify for any relief and the new employer could claim relief only on those payments that he had made in the year. There might also be cases where no liability to surcharge arose for the qualifying period of 4 January to 5 April—for example, with a seasonal business. To avoid any risk of withholding the full benefit from deserving cases, we have decided that the simplest and most practical approach is to extend the qualifying period in clause 1(3) so that anyone who paid national insurance surcharge in 1982–83 would qualify for the relief.
      That is the effect of the amendments. I cannot put a figure on the cost of this change, but it will be small and will not alter the estimate of £350 million as the cost of the relief in 1982–83.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Opposition have nothing against the amendments, but it is reasonable to refer to the complications that are unnecessarily involved in these changes, especially when the matter could have been dealt with satisfactorily in the Finance Act at the time of the Budget.
      There are a number of cases where employers change, and, sadly, under the present Government, many firms also go into receivership. That is something that we shall have to look at because of the increasing numbers involved. It is sad that we must make such provisions, but I understand the need for them, and accept them.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 5, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'the tax year 1982–83' and insert 'that tax year'.—[Mr. Wakeham.]
      Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule agreed to.
      Bill reported, with amendments.
      4.50 pm
      Mr. Wakeham: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House. Although it is short, the benefits that will flow from it will be great. The national insurance surcharge is and has always been an unpopular tax because it is a bad tax. It is a tax on jobs and was introduced by the previous Labour Government. They felt that it was necessary when their economic policy was in ruins. We opposed the surcharge when it was introduced and we still do.
      When we came into office, the rate of surcharge was 3½ per cent. In the Finance Act 1982, we cut the rate to
      998
      2½ per cent. The Bill will cut it again, to 1½ per cent. Together, the two measures will reduce the costs of employing labour in the private sector by about £1½ billion in a full year. We have cut the rate of surcharge by as much as is considered prudent.
      The substantial benefits of the cuts depend on their being made within a reasonably acceptable financial framework that ensures that the broad thrust of the Government's economic strategy is maintained. That is the only way to produce sound growth and real jobs. It is a long, hard struggle to clear up many of the problems in the British economy but we are slowly succeeding.
      The Opposition have said that they would have abolished the surcharge. It is easy to say that. One should examine their record. They introduced the surcharge at a rate of 2 per cent. and subsequently increased it to 3½ per cent. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) says that he was reluctant, but the fact remains that he was a member of the Government that introduced it.
      The Opposition have not suggested any ways of making up the lost revenue if the surcharge were abolished. That is not surprising as they are a borrowing party. They would go on borrowing and printing money while inflation sky-rocketed and the economy collapsed. I have no doubt that before long they would be knocking at the IMF's door, asking for more assistance.
      The Bill is an integral part of our economic strategy. It will provide real benefit to industry and commerce. The House will know that the first benefits under the special reduction in surcharge for 1982–83 are due in February. I am most grateful for the help that we have received for the speedy passage of the Bill so that the benefits should not be delayed.
      4.52 pm
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Minister of State referred to the way in which the national insurance surcharge was introduced in April 1977 and increased in October 1978. He will be aware that unemployment has increased by 2 million since then. He must also be aware that a change of such magnitude means that economic policies must now be examined in a slightly different way. We believe that it is necessary to reduce the surcharge because unemployment has increased and production fallen catastrophically.
      The Minister is quite right to say that we intend to increase borrowing. That is prudent when there is so much under-utilisation of capacity. The surcharge is quite separate from the employer's contribution to the national insurance fund. It is now a tax that must be removed as soon as possible. It reduces the competitiveness of British industry in world markets and worsens the balance of payments because it is a charge on exports, not imports. It is especially damaging in the present circumstances. It is a labour cost which, at a time of incredibly serious unemployment, is of special importance. It is a tax on the jobs that we now need in large numbers. It reduces employment by making it more expensive for employers to take on new labour.
      The national insurance surcharge was introduced as a temporary expedient. It was introduced in 1977 but the Government have kept it in force much longer than the Labour Government envisaged. It allowed the

      999
      Government of the day to raise revenue that was then needed, but in the light of reduced output it is no longer required.
      It is essential that a large proportion of the direct benefits of the cut go directly to those industries that need them most. Manufacturing industry pays about half of the tax that is collected by the surcharge and the bulk of the remainder is paid by the construction industry which is also affected by the slump in investment.
      The direct benefits of the cut will be reduced in many cases because the businesses concerned will pass them on to workers in the form of higher wages or to consumers in the form of lower prices. As the CBI has stated clearly, all that will depend on the state of the economy—and that will vary from one business to another. The CBI does not believe that a reduction in the national insurance surcharge will lead to a general increase in wage claims. Still less does it believe that there will be immediate increases in the rates that are negotiated. The CBI made that point and we thought that the Government would listen to it. I thought, therefore, that the Government might accept it.
      Businesses vary greatly in their ability to reduce prices in response to a reduction in national insurance surcharge. At one extreme, many of those businesses that bear the brunt of international competition at home or in the export market have no freedom to charge anything other than the world market price. In those cases, the reduction in the surcharge and, most important, the further reduction that we look forward to in next year's Budget, will have its full effect on the profitability of the business and none on prices. At the other extreme, some businesses might pass on most of the benefit of the reduction in the form of lower price increases.
      We must take those factors into account. That is why the Opposition believe that the abolition of the surcharge would be the best tax measure for the Government to take. That is in line with what the CBI says. We have constantly returned to this subject as it is the most important single measure that could help industry. We attach great importance to it. The Budget earlier this year was to have been a Budget to help jobs and industry. It has helped neither. That is why further action will be required.
      4.59 pm
      Mr. Horam: As the Minister said, the national insurance surcharge is a bad tax. It was introduced by the previous Labour Government and it has done no good.
      The Minister will be aware that the burden of the complaint against the Government is that they could have gone much further than this niggardly reduction. That is not merely the view of the Social Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Labour Party; it is shared by Constrvative Members such as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten). Moreover, industry, the CBI, chambers of commerce and everyone else who has a direct stake in and has his finger on the pulse of industry,
      1000
      has gained the impression from the Government's niggardly approach that they pay more attention to interests in the City of London than to industry, commerce and business in the provinces of Britain.
      The Government have forgone the opportunity to begin the controlled reflation most recently called for by the president of the World Bank. The unemployed and small and large business men will all pay the price for the Government's lack of foresight.
      A second reason why the Government should have taken the opportunity to go further than they have in the Bill has emerged most clearly in the past week or so. It is the international dimension. If the Government maintain the severity of the financial squeeze that they have imposed over the past few years, the ability of Third world countries to repay their indebtedness will be affected. That in turn contributes to the worrying financial instability in all parts of the world. The Chancellor himself cannot be here today because he is taking part in some allegedly secret meeting of the Group of Five and the rest to discuss these very problems, which would be aided by some controlled reflation.
      Moreover, as Third world countries are impoverished by their indebtedness, which is increased by the actions of the developed world, they are less able to purchase goods from this country. They cannot afford to buy many of our industrial and commercial products and services because they are hindered by the regressive policies of major developed countries. Therefore, we are simply cutting off our nose to spite our face.
      As feeling grows throughout the world that we should consider in a more far-sighted way how to control and develop the world economy with a view to getting expansion back into world trade, we should take a less narrowly self-interested view than that adopted by the Government. The day will come when the narrowly restrictive policies pursued by the British Government in the past few years and by President Reagan over a similar period are seen to be extraordinarily damaging to the international economic climate on which we all ultimately depend for the success of our trade and industry. No country is more dependent on this than the United Kingdom, with 30 per cent. of total goods in exports and imports. Countries such as the United States, where only 4 per cent. of the total is represented by exports and imports, can afford to live in a protectionist world with an international climate as gloomy as it now is, but this country cannot. I therefore regret that the Government have not seen the international purpose as well as the narrowly domestic purpose in going further than they have in this case.
      As the right hon. Member for Ashon-under-Lyne (Mr. Shelon) said, there is no doubt that we shall return to this time and again until it is proved yet again that the Government simply cannot see the broad picture in its full amplitude.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  Northern Ireland (Appropriation)
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I remind the House that the Estimates before us are specific Supplementary Estimates and do not extend to the whole subject of Northern Ireland administration, nor to matters of security, which are the subject of motion No. 3.
  Matters not covered by the Estimates cannot be debated. Of the matters covered, the scale of financial provision sought is sufficient to allow a wide debate on agriculture support, economic development and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  Debate on the other matters in the order—agriculture, education, research and development, road services and non-contributory benefit—should be confined to the actual increases being sought beyond the original Estimates.
  5.4 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move,
  That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.
  This order is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
  The purpose of the draft order is to appropriate the 1982–83 autumn Supplementary Estimates of Northern Ireland departments, amounting in total to some £47 million. The 1982–83 Main Estimates, which were approved by the House on 16 July, amounted to £2,472 million. Total public expenditure in the Province this year is, of course, some £3·6 billion, taking into account non-voted expenditure such as that of the national insurance fund, the capital programme of the Housing Executive and expenditure by district councils. The schedule to the draft order describes the purposes of the supplementary provision sought.
  I wish to apologise to the House for an error at sub-head B1 of Class II Vote 6 in the volume where the figure of 345 staff should read 511 staff. I apologise for this error, which was not discovered until after the Estimates had been printed. At this very moment a cheerful witch hunt is going on at the Department of Finance and Personnel to discover the identity of the person responsible.
  Before dealing with the main features of the Supplementary Estimates, I should mention that more detailed information can be found in the Estimates volume, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is present in the Chamber, will attempt to reply to as many points as possible before the end of the debate. If any go unanswered due to lack of time, they will, as usual, be answered in correspondence later. I hope that that is acceptable to right hon. and hon. Members.
  I shall deal with the main features of the draft order one by one. On 1 April, my hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House that a further £16 million of special aid would be made available during 1982–83 to aid Northern Ireland agriculture. In the Appropriation debate in July, my hon. Friend asked the House to note that the necessary provision for the measures would be taken in Supplementary Estimates when the detailed provision had been finalised. It has now been finalised and I think that in its final form it represents a substantial boost for an
  1002
  important industry in Northern Ireland. I shall try to highlight the main ways in which the extra £16 million for agriculture will be spent.
  Some £2·3 million of the £16 million assistance announced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State relates to the existing suckler cow subsidy and will fall, of course, on a United-Kingdom-borne Vote.
  Of the remaining £13·7 million available in aid, some £12·3 million is likely to be taken up and the additional provision required is now sought in these Supplementary Estimates for Class I, Votes 1 and 2. This provision includes £1·9 million for continued measures to develop beef cattle production a very important aspect of the Province's agriculture—mainly through reductions in charges under the Department's artificial insemination service and beef recording and performance testing schemes, through aid for silage production and—not unimportantly, as grass is so important to the Province's agricultural economy—the liming of grassland.
  The aid will also permit the continuation of the liquid milk subsidy, for which £7 million is being provided. This benefits milk producers in the Province by enabling the Northern Ireland milk marketing board to fix a higher wholesale price for milk going for liquid consumption without consumers in the Province having to pay a higher price themselves.
  A total of £2·3 million is required for assistance to the intensive pig and poultry industries, taking the form of payments to operators of pig and poultrymeat processing plants in the Province, as well as egg packing stations. The main aim is to prevent any rundown in the pig, egg and poultry producing sectors of agriculture.
  I listened with great interest last night to speeches of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about the importance to agriculture in the Province of a healthy pig industry, and a well maintained pig herd, and of the great importance of the export of livestock. To help this, and to help cattle and sheep raising, we introduced a new measure in 1982–83, which is a grassland improvement scheme for which £1 million is required.
  The grassland improvement scheme has been introduced to encourage the improvement of grassland productivity. Initially, £2·5 million was allocated for this year but, due to the late introduction of the scheme, it is unfortunately expected that expenditure will not go above £1 million in the current year. However, that does not prevent a substantial quantity of grassland being improved this year. We estimate that about 3,000 hectares will be improved this year, which in the context of Northern Ireland, with its characteristically small field size, is extremely important.
  It is a pleasing thing to fly over the landscape of Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I so often do, and look down on the agricultural landscape below. It is possible to pick out from the air where these agricultural improvements are taking place, and one can almost see the profusion of this new form of improved grassland agriculture spreading across Northern Ireland. One can experience it with the same sort of pleasure, as I know my hon. Friend does, as was experienced by improving agriculturists in the 18th century as they introduced the new agriculture, and the enclosed fields spread across the landscape.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Do the hon. Gentlemen have occasion to cross by air the Mourne area, and notice the new grazing that is being provided by the stoning of fields, a remarkable operation? Will the Minister or his colleagues be able to say whether that operation, which is as spectacular in its results, will come within the ambit of this new scheme?
  Mr. Patten: If I may, I shall leave the details of the answer to my hon. Friend. Unfortunately the flight paths of the various and variegated aircraft do not often take us over the Mourne mountains, although I should like them to. However, as recently as last Monday when I was driving to and from Kilkeel, which is in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, I saw stoning in progress by the side of the road, and saw what an impressive form of activity it is.
  New provision is also being made for a grant in aid to a new body, Seed Potato Promotions (Northern Ireland) Limited, which is replacing the seed potato marketing board. It has been set up to encourage increased efficiency in the seed potato industry.
  I am glad to be able to report that there has been a substantial improvement in the incomes of most farmers in the province in 1981 and 1982. This has resulted from a combination of factors, including a reduction in the rate of cost inflation, lower interest rates, higher prices for most products and the special aid introduced under the scheme brought to the House by the Minister, which has helped to restore confidence a good deal in agriculture in the Province.
  With regard to the administration vote of the new Department of Economic Development Class II, Vote 6, the £2·3 million provision sought by way of supplementary estimate is a consequence of the marriage of previously separate administrative votes that have been brought together on the formation of the new Department. It will not result in any increased public expenditure. The previous Department of Manpower Services Administration Vote, Class II, Vote 7, will be extinguished as the Department has been extinguished following the marriage of the Department of Manpower Services and the Department of Commerce.
  The House will recall from an earlier debate on the Departments (Northern Ireland) No. 2 Order that the Department of Economic Development, which amalgamated the functions of the Departments of Commerce and of Manpower Services was created to improve the capacity of Government comprehensively to respond to the needs of industry in the Province, and to deploy the considerable resources available for industrial development purposes to the best advantage. After the brief experience of this new Department, the Government remain convinced of the need to have an efficient, effective and well co-ordinated machinery of government to deal with industrial questions. This small supplementary provision will facilitate the smooth transition to the new arrangements purely from a financial point of view. I stress that there will be no additional public expenditure.
  The House will also be aware that the Department of Economic Development has as one of its constituent parts the new Industrial Development Board. The board oversees the industrial development functions in the province that were previously the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Development Agency—NIDA—and the Department of Commerce. During the passage of the
  1004
  Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, right hon. and hon. Members were given the opportunity to comment on the new draft guidelines for the new board both here on the Floor of the House and in the Northern Ireland Committee.
  I am pleased to be able to inform hon. Members that a set of definitive guidelines will shortly be issued to the board, and these take into account the wide range of representations that have been received from many interested parties such as the CBI, the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Northern Ireland Economic Council and the board itself. As a result of these representations, the Government are convinced that within the framework of these guidelines the board will bring a positive approach across a broad range of industrial development activity. We recognise that that is greatly needed.
  That is not to say, however, that the Government believe that the creation of the Industrial Development Board by itself is the be-all and-end all of moves towards solving the Province's employment problem, as it is clearly not the sole answer. The Government are also continuing their efforts, through their overall national economic policies and the allocation of total Northern Ireland public expenditure, to ensure the revival of the Northern Ireland economy and to promote a climate more favourable to industry and employment, and to industrial enterprise of all kinds. In particular, the substantial amounts devoted to the industrial development programme of the Industrial Development Board and the local enterprise development unit, will continue to reflect the Government's commitment to tackling Northern Ireland's severe and deep-rooted economic problems.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have already ruled that it would be out of order for anyone taking part in the debate, including a Minister, to range across the whole of the Northern Ireland security problem which will be debated during a later debate when I shall also speak. Without stepping outside the bounds of that order I want to say one thing about the relationship between the security problem and the economic future of the Province. This week the House has heard many views, properly and forcefully made, about security in the Province.
  Those people who commit acts of terrorism in the Province do not just have on their hands the blood of those people whom they have destroyed; they bear also the stain of the guilt of the destruction of hundreds of thousands of potential new jobs which do not go to Northern Ireland as a result of investment from overseas or from this side of the water. They have the livelihoods of the people of the Province on their hands. There are young people on the streets of the Province who do not have jobs because of terrorist activities which have inhibited inward investment in Northern Ireland.
  I shall deal with what this set of Supplementary Estimates does for the infrastructure of Northern Ireland. I believe that the proposals are as good as for any other part of the United Kingdom, particularly for roads. I have listened in earlier debates to the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), who is not present in the Chamber, and to the right hon. Member for Down, South, speaking about the importance of a good and well maintained infrastructure in Northern Ireland to provide the framework for economic revival and rejuvenation which sometimes subsidies alone cannot bring. I believe that the additional provisions made in Class IV, Vote 1, dealing

  1005
  with roads services, show the Government's determination to ensure that the Northern Ireland infrastructure, which is so important to its manufacturing and agricultural industries, is well maintained. There is an additional provision of £8·4 million sought for the construction and improvement of roads, bridges and car parks and for the repair of excessive damage to roads which resulted from last winter's severe weather conditions, the operation and maintenance of street lighting and public liability compensation for damage or injury.
  The estimated provision for new construction of roads and bridges is being increased by £2·7 million to allow the completion of the extremely important link between the M1 and the M2 in Belfast and to finance essential roadworks in housing action areas in the Belfast areas of need scheme. It is a critically important area of Government expenditure in west Belfast.
  The protracted periods of abnormally cold weather in the winter of 1981–82 caused severe damage to the structure and fabric of many of the Province's roads. It is considered essential, therefore, that additional funds are spent on making good the worst of the damage and preventing the deterioration of the road base. Accordingly, supplementary provision of £3·8 million is now sought to enable the Department of the Environment to carry out some of those urgent repairs.
  Among other services for which additional provision is being sought in this vote, is the construction and improvement of car parks for which a further £1 million is required to meet existing contractual commitments.
  Approval is being sought also for the application of a further £500,000 of receipts as appropriation-in-aid. The increased receipts which arise mostly from the sale of land will be appropriated in aid because some of the land is dependent on the completion of legal formalities and it is not easy to predict the amount of receipts from such sales at the start of the year. It is intended that that increase in receipts of £500,000 be applied against increases in expenditure on the construction and improvement of roads and bridges.
  In Class X, Vote 2, we find a substantial sum of £22,331,000 for additional provision for social security non-contributory benefits. It is sought mainly for supplementary benefits. It is required because of the increase in the numbers of unemployed, with which all of us in the Chamber are familiar, and the increase in the number of beneficiaries in other categories. The increase in supplementary benefits is offset to some extent by the increase in the amount appropriated in aid of that expenditure and reductions in amounts that will be required for a number of other minor benefits. On information available in December 1982, it is estimated that payments of social security benefits in Northern Ireland during the present financial year, both from moneys provided directly by Parliament and from the national insurance fund, will again be approximately £945 million—just under £1 billion.
  Mr. Clive Soley: Is it not a fact that the reason the Government are having so much trouble with their economic policy here and in Northern Ireland is that they cannot reduce public expenditure in the way that they wanted because they have to keep paying out more and more in unemployment benefit?
  Mr. Patten: I should like to debate, under your benign eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the whole range of economic
  1006
  matters. The hon. Gentleman's question seems to imply that there is a Pandora's box, but I must not go down that road. Social security payments in the Province are made in strict parity with those on this side of the water. Clients who go to social security offices, of which there are 33 in the Province, will have the help of extra staff who have been taken on to ensure that social security payments are made properly. In the past two years 568 extra staff have been taken on in social security offices in the Province. It is not an overall increase in staff in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. We remain on target for the reduction of the civil service over the next 18 months. We hope to arrive at the desired figure of 25,400 civil servants on 1 April 1984. We have been able to make reductions elsewhere in the Civil Service because of increased efficiency. An excellent service is given although there is a large number of people on the register.
  Mr. Soley: The Minister said that benefits in Northern Ireland are in line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Does the Department of Health and Social Services intend to bring in the same form that is being introduced here with so much disfavour?
  Mr. Patten: Which form?
  Mr. Soley: The application form for unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit, which are now linked, which requires answers to about 40 questions.
  Mr. Patten: The Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland is examining the multitudinous variety of forms in the Province and in many aspects the questions differ slightly from those asked on this side of the water although the net effect is the same. In the end everyone gets the same level of benefit.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): Why do the questions differ in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Patten: They differ for historic reasons. We are trying to iron out many of those differences, but it is a large task because of the many thousands of forms that exist. We are working hard.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister referred to the sum of £945 million paid to Northern Ireland. Can he give us a similar breakdown for a comparable area in England, Scotland or Wales?
  Mr. Patten: I must not put words into the hon. Gentleman's mouth, but I suspect that he knows the answer. Financial provision for Northern Ireland is made in a unique way and it is therefore possible to isolate the level of expenditure for Northern Ireland in a way that is not possible for other parts of the United Kingdom. I have never tried and nor has any other Northern Ireland Minister since we have been in office.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister's answer. Does he accept that it is unfair to single out Northern Ireland as if it were getting some special treatment, whereas we prefer to be treated equal to other parts of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Patten: It is precisely because the Government wish to ensure that Northern Ireland is treated like any other part of the United Kingdom that so much money, which I fully support, is spent in Northern Ireland. That is why public expenditure in Northern Ireland amounts to

  1007
  35 per cent. more per head than on this side of the water. I have perhaps been too precise. It is perhaps about one-third higher than on this side of the water.
  Rev. Smyth rose—
  Mr. Patten: I shall, of course, give way, but this is an argument that could run and run.
  Rev. Smyth: We are not comparing like with like. We are taking an across-the-board figure for England which covers deprived areas of the North and the more opulent areas of the South. There is a tendency to sit back and say "Look how well we are treating Northern Ireland. We are giving it more than England". It is an unfair comparison.
  Mr. Patten: I do not seek to bring any element of unfairness into the argument. The figures are available. I use them myself only to demonstrate the care that the Government rightly give to people of an integral part of the United Kingdom. When, in Oxford, constituents of mine ask why the Government are looking after Northern Ireland in this way, I explain that Northern Ireland has special problems and special needs, just like Scotland, Wales and other less-favoured regions of the United Kingdom. We need therefore to spend money there. I use these figures illustratively to show that because so many soldiers are properly in Northern Ireland, so much money is spent there. It is a useful set of figures with which to explain the realities of Northern Ireland and our relationship with Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: When my hon. Friend, in his conversations with constituents, makes the comparison between expenditure per head in Northern Ireland and in England, does he compare the less prosperous regions of England and Scotland and Wales? The tendency is to compare expenditure per capita in Northern Ireland with that in England as a whole.
  Mr. Patten: The figures that I have given showing public expenditure per head a third higher are comparisons with Great Britain as a whole and not with England. The figures have substantial variety built into them. If figures were available for Scotland and for Wales, they would undoubtedly be found convenient by hon. Members representing Scotland and Wales.
  The last item in the draft order concerns the additional provision required for the Northern Ireland Assembly. This is contained in Class XI, Vote 1. The original provision in this Vote was made to cover expenditure on the residual functions of the Northern Ireland Assembly which was in a dissolved state between 1974 and 1982. The Northern Ireland Act 1982 passed on 23 July 1982 provided for the setting up of the new Northern Ireland Assembly. Elections to the Assembly took place on 20 October 1982. The Supplementary Estimate of £1·3 million now required is to fund the initial costs of setting up the Assembly and subsequent running costs during the current financial year.
  The components of the Supplementary Estimate are salaries, allowances and expenses of members, the salaries of the Assembly staff, who number 96, and facilities for the recording of Assembly proceedings. I have read those proceedings with pleasure and find the reports of the
  1008
  proceedings pleasing to the eye. The production of the Official Report is a triumph for those who work in the Assembly.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the hon. Gentleman expressing admiration for the typeface or the content? Has he read the dazzling accounts of Adjournment debates in which the Government and their agencies are criticised when there is no Minister present to defend them?
  Mr. Patten: I was thinking purely of the typography, of the layout and of the quality of the paper. Now that the hon. Gentleman has lured me down this path, I wish also to say that I have read with great interest many of the proceedings of the Assembly. I have read with a certain amount of terror, as I may one day have to face the Assembly, the condemnations rained down on my head, as the Minister responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services, by an hon. Member who is not in his place today.
  I know from the experience of my hon. Friend the Minister of State the value of the meetings that take place between Members of the Assembly and Ministers following his own appearance. Other matters that have to be taken into account are the refurbishing of the accommodation and the general running expenses of the Assembly.
  I do not wish to re-embark upon the argument about comparisons between expenditure in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I can only say that facts are facts. Those facts are before the House. They cannot be wished away. Provided that no attempt is made to use the figures in an unfair manner, it is legitimate to draw them to the attention of the House. They demonstrate yet again the concern of the Government for the Province and the level of commitment that this country shows to the people of Northern Ireland.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I associate my party and myself with the comments made by the Minister about the effects of terror on Northern Ireland. Enough has, I think, been said. Indeed, words are pathetically inadequate on such occasions. It is, however, right for the Minister to say that terror has an effect on the economy and destroys jobs. For some of the paramilitary groups, that is a real and well-thought-out intention. It has to be borne in mind, especially at times such as this, that unemployment provides a rich breeding ground for recruitment into paramilitary organisations. For that reason, hon. Members, when discussing these matters, must never forget the effect of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, in places such as Northern Ireland.
  A significant sum in the appropriation order is to be expended on the Northern Ireland Assembly. I do not wish to dwell for any great length of time on this issue. The Opposition want the money to be used effectively and wish the Assembly to work. We think that it is unlikely to work well without an all-Ireland dimension. We should be happy to see the sum increased to allow the all-Ireland dimension to be present, perhaps through a parliamentary tier. That is one of many ways of winning consent for progress towards a united Ireland which would offer far more political, economic and social security to the people of Northern Ireland. This must be in the forefront of our minds.

  1009
  The news on the economy of Northern Ireland is universally grim. There has been a slight upturn in the forecast for 1983 but it is insufficient to reduce adult unemployment. According to the new figures, compiled recently by the Secretary of State for Employment, unemployment now stands at 20·1 per cent. We have already made our views clear about the way in which the figures are compiled, and we shall watch and compare them with the old method of compiling them to see what the differences are.
  Recently, Mr. Saxone Tate, the chief executive of the Industrial Development Board, said that in Northern Ireland some 60,000 new jobs were needed over the next five years simply to bring Northern Ireland up to the equivalent position of the worst region in the rest of the United Kingdom. In other words, 60,000 jobs are needed in the next five years just to bring the level up to the lowest in Britain. That is the measure of the job.
  So the first and most important question that I put to the Secretary of State is: what is the Government's economic strategy? We must look at each of these Classes of Vote in its own right, and ask what we should do to improve the economy. I do not see any new jobs coming from incoming companies, and with investment going overseas, the outlook is bleak.
  Class II, Vote 6, deals with the Department of Economic Development. It is becoming increasingly clear that the problems of Northern Ireland's economy are linked, and always have been linked, with the problems of the Republic of Ireland. Perhaps I might spend a brief moment on the successes of the Industrial Development Authority in the Republic. If we are to have successful economic development, which I have no doubt the Minister wants, I am sure that we can learn something from the Republic. The structure and incentives offered by that organisation have played a central role in the post-war industrialisation of Ireland, and the strategy—here is the message for the Government, because they do not have an industrial strategy for Northern Ireland, or indeed for the United Kingdom—is to shift Irish industry into products with higher added value, based on good quality and design, and aimed at specialist markets.
  The success has been such that Ireland is one of the top five producers of microelectronic components. Half of all Japanese investment of Europe has been in Ireland. In 1980, industrial production grew there by 1·5 per cent., and the 1981 OECD forecast is 4 per cent. That leads me to conclude that if we are serious about helping the Department of Economic Development to create an effective economy in Northern Ireland, we need to have a similar strategy. I can think of no better way of starting than by working in conjunction with the Republic of Ireland, towards an all-Ireland economic development council. Then we could talk about the items in Class II more realistically than we do now.
  Mr. John Patten: I do not wish to disturb the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the economic welfare of the Republic of Ireland, but might I ask him whether he regards the present levels of inflation, international debt and unemployment in the Republic of Ireland as desirable in Ulster?
  Mr. Soley: No, I do not. That is why I prefaced my remarks with the comment that the positions of Ireland and Northern Ireland were linked, and that it is nonsense to
  1010
  have two separate economic policies competing with each other in the island of Ireland. The way that the economies have been distorted by the existence of the border has been of no benefit to the people of the Republic or of Northern Ireland. It is time that we faced that fact.
  Class I, Vote 2 deals with agriculture. Almost one third of the farms in Northern Ireland had negative incomes last year. The intensive farming sector is suffering as a result of our entry of the European Community. I might ask here, "Who has not?" We have joined an organisation that subsidies inefficient agriculture but not inefficient industry. That has been a problem for the whole of the United Kingdom, but in intensive farming it has produced special problems. The resultant rise in the cost of feedstuffs—the equivalent aid from the EC—was not sufficient to match that.
  I am glad that the Minister confirmed that the £16 million aid per annum will continue. I welcome that, and I know that it will be welcomed in Northern Ireland by the Ulster Farmers Union and others. Can the Minister tell us whether there is anything in this Vote that will increase the amount available for items such as research into food production? That could be a growth area in the economic development of Northern Ireland. It is a classic case where research is needed, and we should like to know whether that is possible.
  The farming community in Northern Ireland is worried about the lack of an integrated regional policy in Northern Ireland. A few moments ago the Minister spoke of the extra subsidy for milk. However, I am not sure whether it means that farmers will get the same subsidy per pint as the British farmer. Before, it was lower, and I am not sure whether, as a result of the Minister's announcement, it will be the same as for a farmer over here.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): My hon. Friend made no new announcements today. He drew attention to the fact that when I made the announcement to the House I said that it would be dealt with financially in these Estimates. Despite this additional money, the returns to the Northern Ireland milk producer are not as good per pint as they are to producers in Great Britain.
  Mr. Soley: I thank the Minister for that information. We shall consider over time the difference that still exists and what can be done about it.
  I understand that there is also anger about the less-favoured areas. I am not sure whether a formal application has been put in. Many farmers assumed that the application had been made, but then discovered that it had not. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will tell us whether the application has been formally launched, and if not, why not and when it will be made. Also, on the less-favoured areas, there has been secrecy about the boundaries which were drawn up some three years ago. I know that a number of people in Northern Ireland hope that that secrecy will be removed. It is bizarre not to know the boundaries, and there would need to be a good reason for not making them known.
  I shall say a word about Class X, Vote 2, the Department of Health and Social Services. Recently, the Northern Ireland branch of Gingerbread, the association for one-parent families, wrote to the Prime Minister on behalf of single parents. About 11 per cent. of all families in Northern Ireland are single-parent families, and of that

  1011
  11 per cent. about 70 per cent. exist at or below the poverty line. So this is a matter of singular importance. In its letter to the Prime Minister, Gingerbread made several specific points. It asked that child benefits and one-parent benefits should not be deducted from supplementary benefits. It also asked for a radical revision of the benefit rate, and said that that revision should be upwards. It also asked that one-parent benefit should take account of the fact that the household costs of the single parent are similar to those of the two-parent family. I stress that problem. I realise that the Minister cannot change it overnight, but it is bizarre to assume that the costs of a one-parent household are less than those of a two-parent household. If anything, the reverse is true. I hope that the Minister will consider that problem.
  I understand that there is also concern about regulations applying to school uniform grants outside the Belfast area. School meals regulations must be changed to allow all those on low incomes to benefit. I hope that the Minister will comment on that—later, if not now. I know that I have asked some specific questions, to which the Prime Minister's office may well be devising the answers, but I am sure that at some stage Gingerbread in Northern Ireland would like to know the Government's views.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: We all receive representations in general terms from these organisations about the level of benefits. Clearly, as the hon. Gentleman said, level of benefit is of crucial importance. However, does he agree with me that in many one-parent families what is often lacking is special attention to the actual circumstances of the particuar case and that these organisations could do more than they do to bring to the attention of those who can offer that special attention the individual cases upon which they build their general submission? It is often difficult to get out of those bodies instances in one own's constituency which one would be only too glad to investigate and follow up.
  Mr. Soley: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. As a constituency Member of Parliament in Northern Ireland, he will have greater knowledge of that matter than I. There are specific areas. One, which I have not yet investigated fully but would like to, and of which he may have some knowledge, is the position of widows with young children, who have a special problem. I will undertake to bring the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of Gingerbread in Northern Ireland. I shall ask for a response to this point, which was fair.
  Mr. John Patten: In his plans to drive an unwilling Province into a united Ireland, is the right hon. Gentleman keen to see the harmonisation of social security payments in the North with the much lower ones obtaining south of the border?
  Mr. Soley: I do not accept for one moment that it would be an unwilling Province. The emphasis is on consent. We stick with that consent. I have no doubt that in my time we can win that consent. I am keen on the process of harmonisation. It must be begun as a sensible, coherent policy. The Government are not going down that road. That is clear to me, although it is not clear to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and some of his colleagues. While the Government of the United
  1012
  Kingdom are responsible for Northern Ireland, it is the duty of all Members of Parliament to see that the people there get no less a performance from the Government and the House than do other people in the United Kingdom. When I have the policies that I want, we shall do things in the way that I have outlined. It will be with consent.
  Will the Minister tell us more about his energy strategy, especially in view of the lignite deposits, which were referred to recently? That is an important part of economic development. I do not expect the Minister to make an announcement on the recently announced finds, but I am struck by the fact that about 90 per cent. of Northern Ireland industry depends on fuel oil for heating, steam raising and process. I gather that a number of firms have made applications to convert their plants from oil to coal. I understand that the Government have an oil-coal conversion grant scheme. The question that is being asked at the moment is whether that scheme can be continued. I gather that it is not to continue at the moment. Is the Minister prepared to introduce a new scheme or, at the least, will he allow the outstanding £50 million, which has not yet been allocated, to be used?
  We must have a clear guidance from the Government on the Lear Fan Company. I do not want to say anything that complicates the matter. There have been rumours in the press about the company. Nothing could be worse than if the rumours were allowed to continue. We need a clear commitment from the Government on their policy for Lear Fan, how much the grants are, how frequently they are given and the control over the use of that money. The Minister should make statements on those matters frequently. I gather that the finance is running at about £1 million a month. If there is undue secrecy about the finance or use of the finance, that will inevitably feed rumours. As we know from the experience of other companies that have been regarded as leaders in the economy, there could be real difficulties, which we would not want and which would not be necessary.
  We are far from satisfied that the Government have a coherent economic strategy for the development of Northern Ireland. I am far from satisfied that they have one for the United Kingdom as a whole. The position in Northern Ireland is so desperate that the time is long overdue for the Government to come forward with an industrial strategy that will do something about unemployment. However much we have our own views about political solutions, at the end of the day the economic solutions are also of great importance to the political and social stability of that area.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I regret that I rise to take part in the debate in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who was at the service of the House until a late hour last night and who I know has a contribution to make to the debate on a subject which is of common interest in his constituency and mine and which was referred to by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley)—the delimitation of the less-favoured areas.
  I think that I ought to tell the House that my hon. Friend left London early today to attend the funerals of his constituents who had been killed in the late outrage. It will be his endeavour to participate, if physically possible, in the debate, but the House should understand that his absence and the absence of one or two other of my

  1013
  colleagues from these Benches derives indirectly from political events and political causes that have engaged us in other contexts and other debates.
  I want to avail myself of your indication, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the provision under Class XI for expenditure on the Northern Ireland Assembly enables us to refer at large—that was your expression—to that ill-fated constitutional experiment which has been imposed upon the Province. I do not intend to do so, however, at great length because the House will have an opportunity during the whole of tomorrow's sitting, if it needs so long, to consider that matter on the basis of a motion which I hope to move shortly after 9.30 tomorrow morning.
  I will restrict myself to the effect of that constitutional enormity upon the House itself, for when the House passed the Northern Ireland Act 1982 it not only did a mischief to the Province but it did violence to the very principles by which the House itself is guided in its procedures and in the discharge of its responsibilities—that is to say, the link between the representative responsibility of Members of the House and the responsibility of Ministers to the House and through the House to the electorate.
  I can avail myself as a starting point of the text of a letter which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wrote to the Presiding Officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It was published in the Official Report of that body for 30 November and a transcript was inserted at my request in yesterday's Official Report. As the Under-Secretary of State pointed out, I benefited from the clear typeface. That reminds me of the celebrated observation of the Emperor Napoleon on Mark Twain's map of Paris:
  "It is nice large print".
  The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Following devolution of powers to the Assembly, political heads of Northern Ireland Departments become answerable to the Assembly, as in 1974, but"—
  here follow the important words—
  "until then accountability for all aspects of Northern Ireland affairs will lie to Parliament"
  That, of course, is indefeasible constitutional logic. The principle is indisputable. It was good that the Secretary of State stated it so candidly to the Assembly that he created. But of course the mere statement of that principle raises a number of grave questions, one of which is perhaps irremediable so long as that Assembly exists in its present irresponsible—I use the word in a literal and not amoral sense—and ineffective form. However, some other consequences may be, and I hope are, remediable by the action of the Government.
  I come first to the most general. It is the one to which the Secretary of State addressed himself in his communication. He said:
  "The closer the Assembly seeks to model itself on Westminster as regards Parliamentary questions, adjournment debates and so forth, the more difficult it will be for me and my Ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to reconcile the constitutional obligation to Westminster with our wish to cooperate with the Assembly."
  He went on:
  "I therefore hope that more flexible arrangements can be devised which, while recognising that the Assembly will seek to hear Ministers regularly, will also take account of our prior"—
  that was not, I think, a pun—
  "and overriding responsibilities to Parliament."
  I think that the Secretary of State is deceiving himself and, in the course of it, perhaps unintentionally deceiving the recipients of his communication. Of course it is an absurdity for an elected Assembly to have no
  1014
  responsibilities to its constituents and to find itself debating their affairs, and the matters which concern them, in a vacuum, but then they have been told that from time to time—there was a conspicuous example a few days ago—the Ministers will descend from their Olympus and actually be "heard" by the Members of the Assembly. They might even condescend to answer questions which might be put to them by Members of the Assembly.
  What will be the status of those colloquies`" Are the Ministers addressing that body as they address a body to which they are responsible? Clearly not. Are they, as Ministers do and ought to do, in this House, going to shape and adjust their actions and administration to what is said to them by the Members of that body? If so, there is an immediate and direct breach of the constitutional relationship between Members of the Government and Members of this House, because that relationship requires that it shall be to us, and to us alone, as elected representatives that explanation and justification of the Government's policies are offered and account taken of our representations in the manner in which Government proceeds. Indeed, it is a contradiction of the whole nature of debate that elected persons should debate in the hearing of those who have declared specifically, and correctly, that they have no responsibility to them. It is a breach and an affront to responsible debate as we know it in this House.
  The Secretary of State must not be surprised if he finds that the frustration which was predicted in the truncated course of proceedings upon the Northern Ireland Bill is already felt by Members of that Assembly. They have been put in an impossible position. They have been invited to stand and have stood for an election as representatives. When they arrive as representatives they find themselves confronted by those who rightly say to them "We are not responsible to you. We are not responsible through you to your constituents. We are prepared to give you occasional talks, but responsibility to your constituents you cannot carry because we have no responsibility through you to your constituents."
  That is an illustration of the working out of inherent contradictions and absurdities of that ill-fated experiment. It is perhaps a good thing that it has come early on in the life of that body.
  It will not be remedied or altered if, by any chance, that body should get as far as setting up any Committees. I suppose that it might be possible for officials to respond to Committees set up by the Assembly; but we in this House should be very jealous of any such arrangement. When officials appear before Committees of this House, as indeed they must, they appear on behalf of their Ministers. They appear because those Ministers are responsible to the House and therefore owe an answer to those Committees. Officials who appear before Committees of the Assembly are in no such position. Therefore, those who are responsible as officials to Ministers—Ministers solely accountable "for all aspects of Northern Ireland affairs" to Parliament and to this House—will be placing themselves in communication on behalf of the Government with those in whom no such responsibility vests.
  There is no precedent or justification or wisdom in any such arrangement. The only result will be to convey to the Province and to those who have taken part in the Assembly that they have been the subject of an experiment which is essentially in the nature of a trick, a hocus-pocus, giving the appearance of representation without the reality.

  1015
  During the passage of the Bill we told the Secretary of State that that was what would happen. Indeed, I remember telling him myself that if persons were elected and turned up at Stormont he could not restrict what they would talk about. They will talk about what they please; but they will talk about it irresponsibly, not because they want to do so, but because they have been placed in an inherently irresponsible position. That position could not have been more classically stated than it was by the Secretary of State in the letter to the Members of the Assembly from which I have just quoted.
  The impasse is irresolvable unless the Members of the Assembly, who were elected on the basis that they would not conform with the conditions in the Bill for taking over administrative responsibility, break their election pledges to their constituents or unless the Assembly ceases to exist.
  I move from that impasse, which is irremediable unless and until that happens, to two particular but very sensitive ways in which the House is at present being affronted by the arrangements for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  Those hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies recently received a communication from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. I shall not trouble the House with the full letter which was appended, but perhaps I might read Mr. Kernohan's covering letter. It states:
  "Under my Act as amended or affected by subsequent legislation the responsibility for submission to me of complaints against Northern Ireland Government Departments is now transferred to Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly."
  The second paragraph of the letter continues:
  "My predecessor wrote to you shortly after your election as a Member of the House of Commons giving information about the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I have now written a letter to all Members of the Assembly giving them similar information and I enclose a copy of it for your information."
  If I may say so, this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, concerns the Chair in more than the formal sense in which all matters in this House concern the Chair; for this is an affront to the House as well as to individual Members. I am told by the Secretary of State that on all aspects of Northern Ireland affairs the Government are accountable to me—to the House. Therefore I am responsible to my constituents on all aspects of Northern Ireland affairs that are within the scope of Government. With the exception of the exiguous matters that are within the powers of the district councils, for everything else within the purview of Government that affects my constituents, I am responsible to them. According to the Secretary of State, I alone in Down, South, as the elected representative am responsible.
  Whether rightly or wrongly, I am now told by the Parliamentary Commissioner that his services are no longer at my disposal. He kindly said that he would finish a couple of cases that I had submitted to him before 20 October, and I was most obliged to him for that. However, I have received from him not merely that general letter, but an intimation directed to me personally that he would no longer accept—as the Parliamentary Commissioner in Great Britain must accept from hon. Members if their submissions are within his terms of reference—submissions that I make to him, when I judge that the best way to make Government accountable to mé and to secure redress for my constituents to whom I am responsible.
  1016
  We should be given an explanation. I believe that the Parliamentary Commissioner is legally qualified. I assume he has investigated the effect of the Northern Ireland Act 1982, read in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Act 1973 and the Act under which the Parliamentary Commissioner operates. If so, by legislation the House has deprived those hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies of access to a Parliamentary Commissioner in discharge of responsibilities that are uniquely and exclusively those of Members of Parliament, in order that they can be transferred to persons to whom the Secretary of State says that he is not accountable.
  We truncated our proceedings on the Bill. My point illustrates how unwise it is for the House to hurry or botch its business. If the Parliamentary Commissioner has interpreted the statutes rightly, we would not have dreamt of enacting a Bill with that effect, if we had known.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I am in a different and even more ludicrous position than my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), because I have been working on two cases with the co-operation of the Minister responsible in Northern Ireland for the Department of the Environment. I was conducting the correspondence as a Member of Parliament. I was then requested to lay the complaints before the Parliamentary Commissioner. However, to do that I must don the hat of a Member of the Assembly and use notepaper headed, not House of Commons, London SW 1, but Northern Ireland Assembly, Parliament Buildings, Stormont. In that way I can lay the complaint before the Parliamentary Commissioner, who is, after all, responsible to this House.
  Mr. Powell: I almost regret that I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). During the past 12 years there has rarely, if ever, been any cause for animosity between us; but I am jealous to find that when my hon. Friend—like a few more of my hon. Friends—is confronted by the same problems as myself, he can do what I am apparently prevented from doing by law. I am apparently not allowed to engage the services of the. Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Therefore, either the Parliamentary Commissioner is mistaken about the law—in which case he must be sharply told on behalf of the Government that that is so—or if, as I suspect, we botched our work because we hurried it, we must have the situation rectified, even if that means introducing a Bill.
  I hesitate to embark upon the dark waters of inquiring whether an Order in Council would be capable of remedying that defect in primary legislation. I suspect it would not be. However, the Secretary of State cannot possibly justify what he has done. He can only say that the Bill had to be guillotined because the debate on it showed up too many of its weaknesses, and that, because of the guillotine, the defect was not brought to his atttention, but remained unnoticed in the other place and received the Royal Assent.
  The Government cannot refuse a remedy for this grievance. They cannot say that they are satisfied, when hon. Members are denied access to a Parliamentary Commissioner on matters on which Ministers are uniquely responsible to them, as Members of Parliament. I hope that that matter will be dealt with, and I am certain that the whole House is with me in my demand.
  Mr. Harold McCusker: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Members of the Assembly to whom the power has been transferred do not have any means of getting the Minister responsible to form a judgment? He is not answerable to them. They cannot use the normal parliamentary procedures to make him accountable. That is another aspect of the matter.
  Mr. Powell: As my hon. Friend has pointed out, when Members of the Assembly receive their reports from the Parliamentary Commissioner, they do not have the means that we have to bring pressure to bear on the Administration. Indeed, my hon. Friend has reminded me how the absurdities of this constitutional monstrosity pile upon one. They come like birds returning to roost. They are not the birds of those who opposed the legislation, but they are coming home to roost. There are other absurdities—
  Mr. John Dunlop: I am inferior to the right hon. Gentleman, in that I am not a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  Mr. Powell: Neither am I.
  Mr. Dunlop: We are assembled in what is known as the "High Court of Parliament" although it is thinly attended at present. What am I to do? Will I have to delegate the requests that have been made to me to the Reverend William McCrea, or, better still, to Mr. Danny Morrison, who was elected for my constituency? I am sure that the latter could deal most expeditiously with some of the complaints that apply to the Commissioner. I should like some help from the Government and from Parliament.
  Mr. Powell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support, because, like me, he is now a second-class citizen here.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: This is news to me. However, I can see another danger. The Parliamentary Commissioner in Northern Ireland will certainly demand an increase, because he will have to cope with 78 men, instead of 12.
  Mr. Powell: I was reminded of an additional, incremental absurdity by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). In each of the constituencies, corresponding to the parliamentary constituencies there are anything between four and 10 members of the Assembly. Any constituent of any hon. Member has therefore not only a choice of either/or, but a cumulative choice of between four and 10 people to approach if he wishes to engage the services of the Parliamentary Commissioner.
  One of the beauties is that a Member of the Assembly will not know that another Member of the Assembly has been approached, and the Member of Parliament will not know—unless he is also the Member of the Assembly. Wherever one looks there is nonsense; for it is a characteristic of good clotted nonsense that the longer one examines it, the more nonsense appears. Nonsense generates nonsense and the absurdity that the House committed in passing the 1982 Act will continue to generate nonsense for as long as it exists.
  Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: Would the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) care to speculate on how long this ridiculous nonsense will continue?
  Mr. Powell: That is a matter for prayer rather than speculation, but I hope that the price already being paid for it by people in the Province will not mount indefinitely. There is another matter which is remediable and should be remedied whereby the House, its Members and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as its representatives, are affronted by the proceedings instituted by the Government in relation to the Assembly. The Government have told Members of the Assembly that Ministers stand ready to receive from them representations on behalf of individual constituents. This matter just managed to be debated before the guillotine fell and some of its consequences were ventilated during the debate; but they were brushed aside by the Government.
  Let us examine what can happen when a constituent of mine learns that the Secretary of State has enjoined on his Ministers to keep an ever-ready and attentive ear to the plaints of constituents forwarded to him by Members of the Assembly. Let us suppose that my constituent takes a problem that is within the sphere of the Government to an Assembly Member. What happens? Does the Minister address his mind to the case, as I would expect had I put it before him? Does the Minister reconsider his decision and arrive at the same conclusion, unsatisfactory though it was to my constituent?
  If that happens, what will my constituent do? He will write to me. He is not likely to mention the fact that he has pursued the case through the Member of the Assembly, unless the Member happens to be one of my hon. Friends, who, obeying the convention of the House, would have passed the case to me, as they do invariably and I to them—[Interruption.]—particularly between my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh and myself, owing to certain geographical peculiarities in that area.
  The constituent has a perfect right to turn to me. Having examined the Secretary of State's letter, he says, "Ministers are accountable to you for all aspects of Northern Ireland affairs. As your constituent, therefore, I ask you to take up my case and obtain for me what I consider to be fair treatment and justice."
  If I then approach the Minister, as I do today, what is his position? Does he clear from his mind all that passed between him and the Assembly Member and begin to consider the problem de novo, as he would if the first submission had come from me? That is not human nature. It is impossible, with the best will in the world—I attribute that best will to all the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office who sit in the House—for a Minister to deal with a case put to him by an hon. Member conscientiously, properly and with an open mind if he has already dealt with it when a Member of the Assembly has approached him, as they are instructed they may do on behalf of what are called their constituents.
  My constituent has lost out. He has not had the benefit of my being able to put before the Minister the considerations that appear to me to be relevant to his case. The matter has been a res judicata for the Minister by the time that it comes to me. My constituent has thus been deceived. He has been told that he can obtain a remedy through the Assembly Member; but, when he rightly comes afterwards to me as his Member of Parliament and says, "I have not had justice and I want it from you", l cannot open the case and discuss it de novo with the Minister without the Minister's judgment upon the subject being pre-empted. It is intolerable that those to whom

  1019
  Ministers are not responsible should be permitted, let alone encouraged, to be a channel for grievances to be submitted to Ministers responsible to the House.
  Of course, from time to time Ministers do correspond with members of the public. My constituent has the right to write directly to a Minister: he need not not seek my services. I am also aware that Northern Ireland Ministers correspond, sometimes on individual matters, with elected members of district councils. In that case there is no misapprehension about where the responsibility lies. If my constituent goes to a district councillor, who then writes to the Minister, there is no dubiety about the limits between the responsibilities of the district councillor and my responsibilities as a member of the House. I am sure that in such cases, however many members of the public have approached the Minister, I shall obtain the fair and unprejudiced hearing that I have come to expect.
  There is no precedent for this intolerable position, which has been created deliberately by the Secretary of State in order, to use his expression, "to make the Assembly work"—in order to keep his charade going and to recruit good will and support for his charade.
  Two days ago the Belfast Newsletter carried a letter, not from one of my constituents, but from a constituent of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), which is perhaps poetic justice. The gentleman had approached the Minister through an Assembly Member for Down, North. The Minister wrote to him saying that he had started an investigation and would discuss its outcome with that Assembly Member. What is the position of a Member of Parliament when such a transaction takes place between a Minister and a person without responsibility, to whom the Minister has no responsibility? It is an intolerable position for the House and a contradiction of the constitutional relationship between the Government and the House of Commons.
  However, this matter can be put right, for there is no obligation upon Ministers to play this game with Members of the Assembly. They are not merely within their rights, but they have a constitutional duty, to say to an Assembly Member "This complaint should come to us through the Member of Parliament for the constituency", if there is a Member of Parliament and if he is functioning. Of course, if there is no such Member of Parliament, the constituent has no remedy.
  I believe I shall have the support of the House when I ask the Government to ensure that this matter is dealt with and that the rights of constituents and, therefore, of Members of Parliament vis-a-vis the Government, as they exist in the rest of the United Kingdom, are preserved in Northern Ireland.
  I now propose to adjourn further consideration of the Assembly, its causes, its iniquities and its consequences until 9.30 tomorrow morning.
  6.30 pm
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: Ministers of the Crown who serve in the Northern Ireland Office always treat this House with great consideration except when, on brief occasions, they become over-excited. I should like at once to acknowledge the courtesy of Ministers who write to us in advance of such debates asking what matters we intend to raise, so that more useful replies can be prepared.
  1020
  I informed the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), that I proposed to refer, subject to the ruling of the Chair, first, to the administration of car parks in the Province and, secondly, to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the expenses of which loom large in this Appropriation.
  Before proceeding to either topic, may I say something to show that not all is blood and gloom in Northern Ireland? First—I say "first" because agriculture comes first in Ulster—it was good to hear from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who opened the debate that farmers' incomes have improved when compared with the previous year.
  With regard to Class II, Vote 6, expenditure by the Department of Economic Development, the House may wish to convey to the Industrial Development Board, now in business, its good wishes for the important work ahead. I understand that the Industrial Development Board is working out a detailed scheme for encouraging investment from outside the Province, as well as reviving industry already there. In November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State went to the United States. I hope that their efforts there will bear fruit in due season and that they will keep us informed.
  The local enterprise development unit, which has survived the concentration of Government agencies in this area, has promoted more than a thousand jobs in the current financial year. That is not a negligible number. It looks forward to achieving 1,900 jobs in the next financial year.
  Energy costs are a central factor in the economic progress of the Province. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), who opened the debate for the Opposition, referred to the lignite reserves near Lough Neagh. We saw some reference to it in the press, but then the whole matter disappeared. It is an important issue. I should be grateful if we could hear more about it because if more energy can be provided from the Province it will be possible to reduce industrial costs. Energy was discussed yesterday in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister of State was present. The issue of North Sea versus Kinsale was discussed.
  I shall refer later in my speech to the relationship between the House and the Assembly, which was discussed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It is an important matter. My hon. Friend the Minister of State addressed the Assembly before he addressed the House. I mention this not to complain about the conduct of my hon. Friend, but to mention it as an example of the difficulties that have already arisen, and will arise, between Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): A question about Kinsale gas was on the Order Paper at the most recent Northern Ireland Question Time. The question was not reached, but a full answer was given in response to a question from one of my hon. Friends.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, but he will appreciate that that may not always be the case. This difficulty will present itself again and again.
  In Committee on the Northern Ireland Bill, on 8 June 1982, I referred to functions which I thought might well

  1021
  be discharged by local authorities in Northern Ireland. I mentioned the planning powers which are now exercised by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell). I referred in that speech to the management of Northern Ireland's excellent road system by the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, for which my hon. Friend is responsible. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten) mentioned the MI and the M2. This may be considered a trivial point, but I have sometimes wondered why, as we are one United Kingdom, and as the numbering of motorways throughout Great Britain is consecutive, we have to start with MI and M2 when we cross that narrow strip of water into Northern Ireland. I should be grateful for an answer.
  Under Class IV, Vote 1, there is a revised provision of £2,180,000 for new construction and improvement of parking facilities. I should like to ask about the policy governing that increase. During the Second Reading debate on the Northern Ireland Bill on 8 June I said:
  "One might have thought that even in Northern Ireland local authorities would be allowed to deal with car parks."—[Official Report, 8 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 43.]
  That is not a criticism of any one party because there is a long history of this matter. In that speech I criticised in a most friendly manner my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) who was a Minister at the Northern Ireland Office when I engaged in correspondence. I engaged in correspondence with Ministers before him about who should run car parks in Northern Ireland. Last June I received a letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Basingstoke—now in charge of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment—in which he discussed my suggestion that car parks might, if not privatised—that would be a terrible suggestion—be transferred to district councils. My hon. Friend wrote:
  "My officials advise me that a couple of years ago, at the instigation of my predecessor"—
  I think that I had something to do with that—
  "a study was carried out to determine the feasibility of asking district councils to operate car parks. It was concluded then that this would not be a viable proposition."
  I wonder why. Are there military considerations? Perhaps it might be necessary at some moment of even graver emergency than that which obtains at present for car parks to be taken over by the Armed Forces and therefore it might be better if they are in the hands of Government of Northern Ireland rather than under a Republican district council. I should accept that. If there are convincing considerations, I should be glad to hear them.
  Mr. Molyneaux: Has this confusion arisen because certain local authorities both here and in our part of Ireland have declared themselves nuclear-free zones? Might that have some connection?
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: There might be some sectarian considerations. That is always in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he considers the dangers of entrusting district councils with powers.
  When we consider whether district councils or local authorities are fit to be entrusted with powers in the United Kingdom, one has only to look across the river to wonder whether powers should be entrusted to local authorities in Great Britain. I must not be diverted.
  1022
  I shall proceed with the letter from my hon. Friend. Having told me that it would not be a viable proposition to transfer the car parks to district councils, he created a diversion. He wrote:
  "However, with my encouragement the Department is at present considering bids from private developers for the construction and operation of a multi-storey car park (with ancillary commercial facilities) in the centre of Belfast and also seeking bids for a second site. My intention is that the Government should be relieved of the costs of provision and should secure worthwhile remuneration from a long lease but for the present retain a measure of control over charging, in view of its current traffic management responsibilities."
  My hon. Friend concluded;
  "I have recently put in hand a review of the conclusion reached in Philip's time"—
  "Philip" is my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), then an Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—
  "as to the feasibility of transferring car parking to District Councils and I am further instituting an examination of the pros and cons of transferring traffic management to District Councils."
  I hope that we shall be given a date for the publication of the results of that review.
  Thursday night is "Yes Minister" night and that may explain the rather thin attendance in the Chamber. The series might remove to Northern Ireland to dramatise the tenacious defence of these outposts of the empire of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment.
  The estimated annual running cost of the Northern Ireland Assembly is currently £2,680,000, including £760,000 for the salaries and allowances of the Officers of the Assembly and £1,115,000 for the salaries and allowances of Assembly Members, these figures being calculated on the basis that all Members take their seats.
  I think that I should be out of order if I gave notice of moving the enlargement of the emoluments of the occupants of the Chair in this House, but something might be needed to keep them slightly above the level of the emoluments of the occupants of the Chair in Northern Ireland. I have the greatest respect—I count him as a friend—for the Presiding Officer. I think that that is the correct term, although he has become the Speaker. The right hon. Member for Down, South called him the President. He is really the Presiding Officer but he calls himself the Speaker. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) is a bit of a poacher turned gamekeeper.
  I shall quote what the self-styled Speaker of the Assembly said about the Assembly over which he presides with such dignity and enthusiasm. During the debate on the White Paper, which underlay the legislation which brought the Assembly into being, he said:
  "The only argument advanced by any Ulster politician in favour of the White Paper is that it will give the Ulster people the opportunity to express their opinion in an election. We have had election after election in Northern Ireland. We even had a constitutional Assembly that sent its majority report to this House. What did the House do with it? It threw it out. What, therefore, is the point of another election and another Assembly if all it does is to add to the bitterness already in the Province, leading to greater division at a time when the Ulster people need some hope of coming together and of seeing an end to the violence that is gnawing at their vitals?"
  The hon. Gentleman might have added "and at a time when the Ulster people should be concentrating on some of the economic and social problems", about which the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) spoke so eloquently.
  The self-styled Mr. Speaker added:

  1023
  "Despite the unsatisfactory situation of unbridled bureaucracy in the government of the Province, I believe that the White Paper proposals would only create a worse state of affairs … the proposed Assembly will not create the conditions of confidence essential to economic recovery. Most important of all, the Assembly will not make any contribution to the defeat of terrorism."
  Mr. McCusker: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that even he might be tempted for an extra £25,000 a year to overcome some of the reservations that he was expressing in April?
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: I never define my response to temptation until it arrives. Everyone knows that no one wishes to be a Speaker and that the person who becomes Speaker is dragged to the Chair. No cardinal wishes to be a Pope. I believe that there was a Pope—was it a Borgia?—who said "We have the papacy, let us enjoy it". I dare say that my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North, who is not in his place, takes the view "We have the Chair, let us enjoy it".
  In the same speech the self-styled Mr. Speaker said:
  "Even the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) found no virtue in the proposals except that he saw the Assembly as a place where, day in and day out, there would be opportunities to give expression to Ulster anger."—[Official Report, 28 April 1982; Vol. 22, c. 908–9.]
  It is deplorable that the representatives of the Democratic Unionist Party are absent from this debate. It is one of the most important Northern Ireland debates that we have. This brings home the difficulties that will arise from the Assembly. There are Members of the Assembly who are Members of this place. They are trying to serve two masters. I submit that the first duty of a Member of Parliament is to the House of Commons and that the representatives of the Democratic Unionist Party should be present, especially as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)
  "found no virtue in the proposals except that he saw the Assembly as a place where, day in and day out, there would be opportunities to give expression to Ulster anger."
  The other Member of the Democratic Unionist Party, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), said on 15 June:
  "The Assembly would certainly have the initial functions … but it would never under the terms enunciated by the Secretary of State get full devolved powers and executive functions."
  I have disagreed many times with the hon. Members for Belfast, East and for Antrim, North. However, the hon. Member for Belfast, East went on to say something which I think is wise. He added:
  "Some of us have always argued that district councils should have additional powers only provided it was consistent with having a devolved Government and Parliament in Northern Ireland. But if under the Bill, as intimated by the Secretary of State in his intervention, the Assembly can have only the initial functions of a scrutinising, consultative or deliberative role, some hon. Members might say that it would be better for local government immediately to have additional powers because on the present basis additional powers will not come to the Assembly."—[Official Report, 15 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 775–77.]
  Those are wise words.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South drew attention to the difficulties, the delicacy and the infelicities of the relations between this House and the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Committees of the House, notably the Northern Ireland Committee and the Assembly. I was
  1024
  shocked—I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends were too—to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about the Parliamentary Commissioner. It came as a particular blow to us, because we have not been favoured by a sight of the communication. As I listened to the right hon. Gentleman I wondered whether the announcement by the Parliamentary Commissioner to Members of the Assembly was consonant with the legislation that set him up. I hope that we shall have a clear answer to that when the Minister replies to the debate.
  Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends were deeply concerned when such important statements about the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the RUC Reserve and the financing were made first to the Northern Ireland Assembly and not to this House. We have resolved the difficulty about the other place. Statements are made simultaneously in both places, but no statement was made in the House of Commons on that subject.
  It is clear that the relations between Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have not been properly thought out and worked out. As the Northern Ireland Assembly stands at present, it is a constitutional monstrosity, with an increasing potential to oust the position of this House and its Ulster Members in relation to the Province.
  6.51 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: As a comparative newcomer to the House, I again appreciate the opportunity to speak. On other occasions when I have spoken, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have treated me with gentleness. Having now experienced a robust speaker, I deeply appreciate your kindness.
  Some hon. Members have spoken about the irresponsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but it has at least acted in a responsible manner in relation to Class XI, Vote 1 which allocates finance for the Assembly. This House has legislated that Assembly Members who do not attend can draw their back salaries as long as they sign on sooner or later.
  With cross-community and all-party support in the Assembly, the view was expressed that, as in this Parliament, any back pay should be limited to six months. Therefore, when considering the appropriation of finance, the House should also consider amending the Act under which the Assembly works.
  The Minister referred to the care that the nation has for Northern Ireland. As part of that nation, Northern Ireland likewise cares for the rest of the nation. We take exception to those who use figures to imply that Northern Ireland is being treated in a financially different way from the rest of the nation. I underscore that fact. We have shared in the nation's sorrow and poverty. We believe we should share in the nation's joy and riches. It is in that context that we are debating the order.
  I was sorry that the Minister was unable to be present on Monday night during the debate on health inequalities, otherwise he would have heard me speak in similar terms to the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) about Gingerbread and the concern of that section of the Ulster community. I trust that the Minister, who is concerned with this aspect of policy in Northern Ireland, will read that debate, listen to what the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North said tonight and give us a helpful answer.
  We are told that the increase in supplementary benefit in Class X, Vote 2 is because of the number of

  1025
  unemployed. The Minister is aware of the concern in Northern Ireland—I dare say in other parts of the United Kingdom, too—about the way the Act is being enforced. I know of a person aged 19 who for the last two years has been seeking to improve his job opportunities in a world where there are few of them by going into part-time education rather than hanging around corners, knocking in windows or joining mobs of vandals. Not only has he been unable to benefit during the past two years because of the strict interpretation of the Act, but he has been unable to benefit this year either. The anomaly is that, had he done nothing for three months, he would have fulfilled the terms of the Act and would have been entitled to draw supplementary benefit.
  In debating this matter, we must look, not only at the amount of money allocated, but at the undoubted anomalies, especially those involving young people who are prepared to try to do something purposeful in their leisure time. It seems that the State continues to finance idleness rather than support those who are acting in a positive manner.
  I am happy to hear that steps have been taken to reduce the number of civil servants by drafting them into other employment. During July, August and September, especially in my constituency, pressure is placed upon social security offices. In a nation where it is recognised that there are insufficient job opportunities, would it not be wiser to consider paying full-time students on a quarterly basis rather than their signing on, as many of them do, thereby cluttering up the social security offices? I suspect that considerable savings may be made by the implementation of such a system.
  As to Class 2, Vote 6, I pay tribute to the work that has been done. I disagree with the simplistic position put forward by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North, who spoke of the need to link the two economies. He spoke of consent, but the consent of the people of Northern Ireland has been regularly ignored, because they have consented by democratic process to be within the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman and his friends across the river seek to shunt us out of the United Kingdom into the Republic of Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman would do it by fair means whereas others would do it by foul means.
  There is a strong case for tying the economy of Northern Ireland to that of Great Britain. In that context we pay tribute to those who seek to attract new investment, quite often under great handicaps. Perhaps we shall be able to debate that later this evening. Alternatively, perhaps the Minister will assure us that this point is already covered and does not need to be included in the Supplementary Estimates.
  Greater attention should be paid to marketing. A new approach to world-wide marketing must be co-ordinated for smaller Northern Ireland firms so that they can sell their goods abroad rather than manufacture for the home market. I would have been happier had there been a reference in the order to marketing, to which more attention should be given.
  Some Northern Ireland officials charged with the promotion of new industrial development would do well not to look over their shoulders at the spectre of De Lorean and think that everyone is out to extort money from the Government. Some people might be genuine and should not be grilled in any interrogations.
  1026
  Industrialists who seek investment opportunities in Northern Ireland often arrive at Aldergrove airport and must depend on a taxi to take them to Stormont or elsewhere. Usually the civil servants are aware of their arrival, and they should put out the welcoming mat and seek to make strangers from abroad welcome. Perhaps the Minister will examine this matter and try to improve the situation.
  Class IV, Vote 1 increases finance for the Department of the Environment, especially:
  "on roads and certain associated services including lighting".
  I welcome the recent announcements of new road works and the completion of schemes that were put on a long finger as a result of the cutbacks in 1980. Housing is particularly affected by the delay in the commencement of these new road schemes, and I am happy that they will now be going ahead.
  I have already paid tribute in the House to the industry and concern of the Minister responsible for environment matters in Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), who has cared for the people of Northern Ireland in exemplary fashion. However, I should like the Department to examine in greater depth the co-ordination of roads and lighting services with the housing programme.
  The Minister today spoke about the housing and road needs of west Belfast. I am not entirely a city man, and I appreciate the needs of the rest of the Province, but it would be wrong to think that the need for roads, housing and lighting is confined to west Belfast. Areas of north Belfast, east Belfast and south Belfast are also in great need. One of the tragedies is that, although new housing development is taking place, no lighting is provided. As a result, old-age pensioners must find their way home in total darkness. There seems to be confusion among the Departments responsible for these services.
  I have become increasingly convinced that the removal of that responsibility from the Northern Ireland electricity service to the Department of the Environment has hampered rather than improved the situation.
  We must ensure that these finances are used purposefully and for the good of the community as a whole.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Julian Amery: We had protracted if truncated discussions about the situation in Northern Ireland during the passage of the Northern Ireland Act 1982, but this is the first occasion since then on which the House has been able to debate the situation in Northern Ireland in any way.
  I appreciate that other engagements may have kept the Secretary of State away from the Chamber—perhaps he will arrive later for the debate on security—but I intervene now in the hope that he will be present tomorrow. We have not yet heard from him about how he sees the situation, both since the elections and since we debated these matters in July.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to the constitutional difficulties that are already bristling around the Assembly about the shape that it is taking. Last Tuesday, the Secretary of State made a statement on security to the Assembly, but no parallel statement was made here.
  Today, the Minister talked about the valuable contacts that Ministers were developing with the Assembly. I

  1027
  understand the desire of those who wish to see devolved government in the Province—I am not among them—to use the Assembly as a sounding board, but until powers are devolved it must be made absolutely clear that ministerial responsibility is to this House. It is the elected United Kingdom representatives who enjoy authority and responsibility to whom they are accountable. Therefore, while I would be the last to criticise the Government for taking the opportunity to sound opinion in the Assembly, that should never be done at the expense of taking the opinion of the House of Commons.
  Any statements made in Northern Ireland should have a parallel statement in this House, just as we do in our relations with the other place. After all, the other place still enjoys a certain amount of responsibility and authority, whereas as yet the Northern Ireland Assembly has no responsibility of any kind. It is unacceptable that it should be in a more privileged position than Members of this House, because it is to this House and its Northern Ireland committees that Ministers are accountable and responsible. We shall need a clear statement on this subject tomorrow.
  Mr. Molyneaux: The right hon. Gentleman may understand the extent of the difficulty if I tell him that that was the only positive point in the right hon. Gentleman's speech when he went to the Assembly in a vain attempt to defend the Government's security policy. Had it not been for that opportunity—which was forced upon him—he would in all probability have made that statement in the debate on the emergency provisions order.
  Mr. Amery: That is an extremely valid point. We have had experience of consultative assemblies in the past. The consultative assembly of the Council of Europe was a sounding board, but its members were not elected. They were delegations from different parliaments.
  I remember when I was Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when we still had a Colonial Office, there was some purely consultative legislatures but they consulted only on matters over which the governor had full power. Therefore, what they discussed would not have been brought in the ordinary way before the House of Commons.
  Here, we are in danger of arriving at a duplication of responsibility between this House which is still, in its totality, responsible for everything that happens in Northern Ireland, except for district councils, and the Assembly, which has no responsibility of any sort. We must get the matter cleared up as soon as possible. We must insist that the Assembly in Belfast is not treated as though it were already what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would like it to be at the expense of what is the reality today. It is this House, with the Northern Ireland Members in it, which has responsibility.
  I do not wish to go back over the debate about the Assembly that we had in the summer, but it is no good saying that the past is past. Unless one understands the past, one is unlikely to understand the future. It remains a fact that my right hon. Friend embarked on the Assembly and pushed it through the House with the help of a guillotine motion although there was no substantial body of support for it in Belfast, or Dublin, or, in any positive sense, in the Conservative Party. I rather doubt that there
  1028
  was full support for it in the Cabinet. There was tolerance for it from the Opposition but only because they have been moving increasingly towards support for a united Ireland.
  It is early days yet but it seems to me that the Assembly is a still-born child. It still appears to have no support but there is a risk that I am sure my right hon. Friend will have in mind. If one calls an assembly into being and it is fairly elected and represents the majority of opinion in the Province, it will not be all that easy to say no to it if it makes demands that are inconsistent with opinion in this House. That could be the prelude to the type of constitutional conflict that we experienced in the 17th century.
  We shall also find that the Assembly will complicate our relations with the Republic. We all want the closest of relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic but we shall not get them in the context of devolution. If the door was firmly closed on devolution, the matter would be between Dublin and London. There could be a parliamentary tier in which this House, including its Northern Ireland Members, would be represented. But the moment one tries to extend that to a devolved assembly—if it ever became a responsible body or if the Government were ever foolish enough to try to draw it into an Irish dimensional debate before it had responsibility—one is opening the door to giving Dublin power sharing with Britain in Belfast. That would be unacceptable to the Province, unacceptable here and most certainly unacceptable to the Conservative Party.
  The risk—I do not know whether the Government want to do this but it could well be the result of what they are doing—is that the Government will institutionalise power sharing in Belfast between Dublin and London. We cannot accept that.
  The Assembly is still-born. How long is the dead foetus to lie about on the table? I quite understand that it would be extremely awkward for the Government to admit to failure at this stage. It is conceivable that they have not yet completely failed in their purpose although it is clear to most of us that they have. Some of us who are their friends and support them on the broad measures upon which they are embarked want to help them to get off the hook. We want to get them out of the embarrassing, awkward and painful situation into which they have got themselves. I am sure that they went into it with good intentions, but we must face the fact that, even if we cannot admit it today, we have got close to the state when we can say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's Irish policy is in ruins.
  The Government do not have much choice. They could convert the Assembly into a top tier of local government. I understand that my right hon. Friend is not prepared to consider that. In my judgment, it is the wisest and most constructive way in which the matter can be approached. They could revert to direct rule—not today or tomorrow, but they could lay down a time when they will do so. That would give the other potential members of the Assembly a deadline by which they must either draw in and take part, or by which time the whole thing must be wound up. I do not know when that time will be but if we go on for more than three months with this dead corpse on the table, it will go rotten and create far worse circumstances in the Province than have existed hitherto.
  My views will not be altogether surprising to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I have spoken this evening in the hope that my right hon. Friend the

  1029
  Secretary of State will make it his business tomorrow to come to the House and make a full statement on an extremely serious situation, not only in this debate but in our next debate this evening on security.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: The most important part of this little appropriation order should be Class II, Vote 6, which relates to expenditure by the Department of Economic Development. I am sure that every hon. Member who represents a Northern Ireland constituency would be able to delay the House for many hours by recounting what is happening in his constituency with regard to the appalling number of unemployed.
  I listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). He feels as despairing as I do. However one juggles them, the statistics show that about 130,000 people are now unemployed in Northern Ireland. The true number is much higher than that. The level of poverty in Northern Ireland far exceeds that of any other part of the United Kingdom. My constituency is more poverty-stricken and socially underprivileged than any other in Western Europe. I think that the Minister would agree.
  As representatives, we come here—I do—not simply to tell the Minister how bad the unemployment figures are. He is only too well aware of them. He has seen them for himself. We come here to ask him whether there is any light at the end of the tunnel. Does he see any prospects for attacking the intolerable level of unemployment?
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. M. Smyth) was inclined to exonerate Ministers and to suggest that, as there is unemployment in other parts of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, as a loyal part of the kingdom, should accept that, too. There may be some truth in that from the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but whatever the unemployment figures in any other part of the United Kingdom, they do not remotely approach those with which we have to live in Northern Ireland. Unemployment there is the highest that it has been since the creation of Northern Ireland, and I cannot see the Minister bringing forward any proposals that will alleviate it.
  We have read and heard from the Dispatch Box reports of a succession of Ministers in both Labour and Conservative Governments visiting the United States in the hope of attracting American investment. I cannot see any investment coming from the United States to Northern Ireland.
  Earlier this week I had a long discussion with officials of the American consulate in Belfast. In answer to specific questions, they stated clearly that they could not undertake to attract investment to Northern Ireland in the foreseeable future. I know that Ministers are well intentioned and that they have tried hard during their visits to the United States, but in view of the world-wide recession and especially of the troubles in Northern Ireland it is understandable that no outside investor is anxious to set up any industrial project in Northern Ireland.
  In the absence of outside investment, the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) was right to say that it must be the responsibility of the Government to try to create employment, and to create State employment if there is no possibility of private employment.
  One could spend a great deal of time describing the enormity of the problem, but that is unnecessary, as the
  1030
  Minister is well aware of it. I hope that before the end of the debate he will be able to produce a little ray of hope in the all-pervading darkness of the Northern Ireland economy.
  I reinforce the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast, South about housing, roads and lighting developments in west Belfast, but he was wrong in suggesting that my constituency should not be thought of as worse than any other. It is indeed worse than any other constituency in Northern Ireland. Certainly, in north, east and south Belfast the problem is not of the same magnitude as it is in west Belfast. The Minister has recently received deputations about the appalling housing conditions on some estates that were built in the past 20 years but are now almost literally falling apart. As a representative of that area, I must appeal to the Minister almost to disregard the other constituencies, such is the state of housing in my area.
  The war that began during the proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill seems to be continuing. In refusing to accept the existence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Right-wing Tory Members find themselves with very strange allies. The Provisional Sinn Fein, about which the same hon. Members were arguing yesterday, finds itself in the same bed as the Right wing of the Conservative Party in attempting to bring the Assembly to an end.
  I am less pessimistic. I believe that the Assembly should be given a chance. I do not think that its success can be guaranteed, but nor do I believe that it can be brought to an end in three months. I am sure that 59 elected Members, all in receipt of salaries, will not readily acquiesce to the ending of the Assembly. I am fully convinced that the Assembly will last until the end of this Parliament. Indeed, I hope that it will continue after the election of a new Parliament here, because I believe that only within the confines of Northern Ireland political structures can the two communities try to get to know each other, and that is the only way towards peace in Northern Ireland.
  I have experience of the old Stormont Parliament, the Assembly and the power-sharing Executive. I am utterly convinced that the first five months of 1974, when there was a power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland comprising the Unionist Party, the Alliance Party and the SDLP, saw the most helpful political development since the creation of Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, it ended after only five months. Nevertheless, from the contacts that I made then, when I was Deputy Chief Executive, I believe that the majority of the population in Northern Ireland would have accepted—albeit reluctantly and with great suspicion—the concept and principles of power sharing, but they were frightened by the Council of Ireland proposals.
  I believe that the suspicion that the Council of Ireland proposals attracted was the beginning of the end of the power-sharing Executive. If, by whatever means—whether through Committee chairmanships or through an Executive—a power-sharing Assembly with cross-community support can be created and allowed to continue for whatever period of months or years may be appropriate, the people involved will begin to work together.
  Northern Ireland is a small place with only 1½ million people. All the representatives will face the same problems of bad housing and unemployment in their constituencies. Once they begin to work together to alleviate some of

  1031
  those evils, they will build up confidence in themselves. One may then begin to consider Council of Ireland proposals. First, however, trust must be built up within the Northern Ireland community so that we may attack the real, everyday problems that so urgently need to be dealt with on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland.
  The House will recall that I was the only hon. Member from a Northern Ireland constituency who voted for the legislation setting up the Assembly. I did so for the reasons that I have given. I believe that there must be a Northern Ireland political forum. Until I heard the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) today, however, I was entirely unaware that Members of the House of Commons would be denied powers that they previously had, such as the power to approach the parliamentary commissioner or Ombudsman, because those powers would go to the Assembly Members. I do not know whether consideration of that part of the measure was truncated by the guillotine, but I certainly did not know that. Had I been aware of it, I should have opposed vehemently any diminution of the powers of Members of this House.
  In Northern Ireland, and especially in west Belfast, it would be possible to have a constituency with four representatives, none of whom attended the Assembly. In west Belfast now, two of the four representatives—one from Sinn Fein and one from the SDLP—have said that they will not go to the Assembly. Whether we like it or not, there are people in Northern Ireland who do not like to meet political opponents from a party against which they have voted all their lives. To put it crudely, and I hesitate to be sectarian in this respect, it is part and parcel of the history of Northern Ireland.
  I am certain that in west Belfast there are Catholics who would go to the Sinn Fein or SDLP Assemblyman if they were attending the Assembly. However, in the absence of such a representative, the Catholics will not go to the Unionist or Alliance man. That is not an attack on the Alliance Party, for which I have respect, but it is part of Northern Ireland's history that one does not go for help to a political opponent or someone for whom one has not voted.
  There is a theoretical possibility that there may be a constituency where all the representatives are not attending the Assembly. To whom then does the aggrieved constituent go? I wonder what the legislation would be? For example, we have been told that the powers taken away from the elected representative of the House are given to the Assemblyman. If the Assemblyman is not attending is he at liberty to take the case given to him by an aggrieved constituent, and would the parliamentary commissioner accept it from that man? Does his attendance or non-attendance of the Assembly enter into this, or does he have to be signed on as an Assembly Member before the parliamentary commissioner can receive his complaints?
  I know that the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Department are talking to Assemblymen who have not yet signed the register or the roll, and are not attending the Assembly, but this should be clarified. This is not a question of a Member of Parliament trying to feel superior to an Assembly Member. I should feel badly done by if, at this late stage in my parliamentary career, after seventeen years as a Member—there may be other hon.
  1032
  Members who have been here longer—I were to receive a complaint from one of my constituents and forward it to the Minister to be told that it had to be referred back to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government and the Minister should find a means around this problem.
  There are those, and I am one of them, who wish every success to the Assembly. I do not want it to end, but it is not right that after so many years we should be denied the right to put our case before the parliamentary commissioner.
  Mr. John Patten: Notwithstanding everything that the hon. Gentleman has said about relations with the Assembly and the constitutional issues that have been discussed today, does the hon. Member not recognise that already for a long time under direct rule, the proprieties of the exact constitutional relationship between an individual constituency Member of Parliament and a Ministry have been broken? All around the Province, for sectarian reasons, people do not choose to approach their own Member of Parliament, but write to another. I regularly receive letters which even I, with my imperfect knowledge of the geography of Northern Ireland, recognise as not being in the relevant Member's constituency—for example that of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) or Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). However, in order that a democratically elected Government is seen to work in the Province, we have to breach the conventions that govern the rest of the country on this side of the water.
  Mr. Fitt: The Minister reinforces my argument. He will be aware of some cases that I have forwarded to him over many years of people who live miles from my constituency, in Fermanagh, Tyrone and even North Antrim. To put it crudely again, there are Catholics who would not under any circumstances go to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). That is not a reflection on the hon. Gentleman because I understand that if an approach were made to him, he would represent his constituent. However, it is a fact of life in Northern Ireland.
  However, although we have had to breach all parliamentary conventions, this is a most serious breach. It is unique when powers of representation that we had as Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland are suddenly taken away. I think that the Minister, on reflection, will realise that that is not right and proper.
  I wish to ask the Minister a question in the absence of some other hon. Members whom I should have thought would be here to ask it for themselves. We have read about this matter in the Sunday newspapers, such as The Sunday Times, and again in our local newspapers during the week. Can the Minister give me any information regarding the state of play of the inquiry into the Kincora affair? There are many disquiting rumours in Belfast, which have been reported in the press, that the police inquiries have ended, the DPP has the papers and the Government are sitting back.
  I remember that in the early part of this year, when the controversy in the Kincora affair arose, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gave an undertaking that as soon as the police had completed their inquiries there would be a major inquiry into the whole affair. During the course of that debate I asked which people would be allowed or

  1033
  forced to attend to give evidence. It is some months now since the whole affair was brought before the House, but it remains in Northern Ireland and it will not go away.
  It appears—some people are referring to it in this way—that there is some conflict between the security forces, the Army and the police, and some competition between them, with names mentioned as having been involved. There is still a great deal of uncertainty about the inquiry, and I should like it to be held as quickly as possible.
  Mr. John Patten: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that speed is of the essence because there is so much uncertainty and loose talk in the Province. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stated on 29 November this year that the investigations into the Kincora affair "are nearing completion." The results have not been received, but when they are,
  "the decision of the DPP for Northern Ireland as to whether any further charges are to be made must be awaited before we can come to the House with any proposals for an independent judicial inquiry."—[Official Report, 29 November 1982; Vol. 19, c. 65.]
  In other words the report has to be received and forwarded to the DPP, who has to decide whether charges are to be made. Those must be disposed of before my right hon. Friend can come to the House with propositions for a judicial inquiry.
  Mr. Fitt: The Minister has said, and I think that he understands, that there is still some urgency about the affair. It would appear from press reports that the investigations that have been carried out by the police have been completed and await the verdict of the DPP. I hope that the Minister will draw the remarks made in the debate to the attention of the DPP in the hope that he will come to a quick conclusion.
  Mr. John Patten: While the report being prepared by Sir George Terry, the chief constable of the Sussex constabulary, is awaited, the RUC is, quite properly and in parallel to the preparation of the report, conducting its own investigation into certain allegations against certain persons. These allegations may be sent to the DPP for Northern Ireland.
  Secondly, parallel to these criminal investigations, a thorough and searching investigation was conducted by officials seconded to Northern Ireland by the DHSS in London. This was conducted into the affairs of children's homes in the Province, and that report has been made public and has received a broad and wide welcome. The general public and the parents and relatives of children in care, all other things being equal, should have nothing to fear following the publication of the report.
  Mr. Fitt: I have read the report into the welfare and the conditions in the homes, and that has been an impartial and well conducted report that can only bring good to the welfare homes.
  An inquest was held this week into the death of Mr. McKeague during which someone speaking on behalf of the relatives drew the coroner's attention to the fact that a report had appeared in The Sunday Times last week in which Mr. McKeague's name had been mentioned. The coroner adjourned the inquest until further inquiries had been made into the Kincora affair. Those two matters overlap, and there is a great deal of misquiet about them
  1034
  in Northern Ireland. It would be in the interests of the House and the Northern Ireland community if the matter were brought to an end.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks about the Kincora home, but concentrate on unemployment, which he mentioned earlier in his speech.
  I shall keep my comments within Class 2 and Class 10 of the Appropriations. During the passage of the Northern Ireland Bill 1982 through the House last summer a great deal of emphasis was placed on the belief that if there were a new political initiative in the Province it would bring stability, which would enhance possibilities for the economy and investment.
  I was never convinced that that argument was as valid as it sounded. I am still not sure that terrorism is the reason why investment is slow in coming to the Province or that the new Assembly will create the political stability that will persuade investors to think differently about Northern Ireland.
  That view was reinforced in a speech during the summer by Mr. John Simpson, a lecturer at Queen's university, whom the Belfast Telegraph described as a leading economist. He told the CBI conference in Belfast that he could find no evidence that the troubles had been a major factor in the closure of existing businesses in Northern Ireland. He said:
  "The troubles may have been a factor at particular times, and they may have been the reason why new industries did not come."
  The newspaper report added:
  "He said the troubles were only one of three reasons—equally balanced—why the Province had lost 65,000 jobs in the past 10 years. The others were the general United Kingdom economic decline and our inability to be competitive."
  Mr. Simpson went on to say:
  "Competitiveness was hit by rising fuel and transport costs, and the cost of raw materials.
  We must look at our cost structures and those costs within our control such as labour costs per unit of output.
  We cannot attempt to change the unchangeable such as our distance from markets, fuel costs and lack of raw materials, but we must look at our efficiency."
  Mr. Simpson may have been rather closer to the mark in those comments than the simple view that Northern Ireland's limping economy owes its lameness to the terrorist dimension.
  Mr. John Patten: Does my hon. Friend recognise that Mr. John Simpson, who is an extremely distinguished economist of Queen's university of Belfast, and whose views I respect, was talking about the loss of existing jobs and the effect that terrorism, together with all the other factors that my hon. Friend has mentioned, might have had on the loss of those jobs? He was not talking about terrorism inhibiting inward investment from countries as far apart as Japan, the United States of America and the mainland of Great Britain. Does my hon. Friend recognise that opinion surveys in the United States of America have demonstrated, all too clearly, that business men perceive Northern Ireland as a place in which it is not safe to invest?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I believe that my hon. Friend will find that he has intervened too early in my speech. I recognise the force of some of his comments, but Mr. Simpson was saying that "we must look at our efficiency", and I propose to develop that theme.

  1035
  The cost of investment in industry in Northern Ireland has been brought forcefully home to me as the result of the experience of a company in my constituency which is currently having one of its products manufactured in Northern Ireland, but which is now questioning the cost of having work done in the Province in a way that I have not heard questioned before. I have not heard the point referred to adequately by the Front Bench of this or any other Government while I have been a Member of Parliament.
  The tax concessions and financial benefits available to companies setting up in Northern Ireland are on a par with, or possibly better than, any inducements available anywhere in the United Kingdom, and are certainly on a par with anything available in Southern Ireland. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) shakes his head, but I have been assured of that on a number of occasions. If he wishes to make the point that that is not so, I shall listen to his intervention.
  Mr. Soley: The committee that looked into this matter recommended in a recent report that benefits should be increased to the level existing in the Republic of Ireland.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the answer that I received on the Floor of the House during Northern Ireland Question Time, when I was assured that the tax benefits available in Northern Ireland are on a par with or are better than those available in the South? If what the hon. Gentleman said is correct, the Minister who answered my question should return to his Department and ask it to give him something akin to an apology, because I think that he is in danger of having misled the House. We believe the inducements to be great and we have all accepted that they would be looked at against the background of the times.
  The Minister is convinced that, at least in North America, the troubles dominate the thinking of business men who might be encouraged to invest in the Province. It has been argued that if we are to have investment we may have to take high-risk investment such as De Lorean, because if the high-risk investment is not picked up there will be no investment. There is the outside chance that high-risk projects will work, and if they do there is new industry, employment and prosperity. It is an attractive argument.
  I wonder whether we should look at the high-risk investment and see whether the benefits currently being offered are going in the right direction. The company is my constituency, Gowrings Mobility International, has invented an extremely clever device whereby a disabled person using a wheelchair can get into any car on the market if the device is fitted into the car. That person, who otherwise would not be able to travel as a passenger, can even be the driver. I have seen the device and I know that it works. It was developed with a Government grant, initially on this side of the Irish Sea, but when Gowrings was looking at production it looked round our country's manufacturing industries and discovered that in its opinion C.P. Trim—a subsidiary of De Lorean—could probably manufacture the device better and more efficiently than any other company.
  In consequence, it has signed a contract with C.P. Trim to make the device, which is called Freelancer. having accepted that C.P. Trim could make this device more
  1036
  efficiently than anyone else, and having assumed that by going to Northern Ireland it would get a very good deal, the company now finds itself forced to examine the continuing cost of manufacturing in Northern Ireland. In a letter to me, the managing director of Gowrings Mobility International said:
  "The cost areas involved are raw materials transportation to Northern Ireland, finished goods transportation from Northern Ireland to their destination, and excess costs of people in crossing the Irish Sea including both lost hours and travelling costs. All these are in excess of equivalent manufacturing for companies established in England. Based on our target market, one year's costs alone would be as follows: transportation costs of raw materials to Northern Ireland, £61,425; finished goods transportation from Northern Ireland to their destination, £65,120; excess cost of people in crossing the Irish Sea, £6,600; a total of £132,965 or 9·07 per cent."
  Everyone knows that an extra 9 per cent. on costs in the present competitive economic climate makes a product uncompetitive. My suggestion to the Government is that, instead of giving so much assistance to those who set up factories in Northern Ireland, we should be asking whether the grant is being given in the right direction. We should be asking whether the subsidising of transport costs across the Irish Sea might not make Northern Ireland a more attractive manufacturing area than it is.
  That brings me back to Mr. Simpson's remarks about efficiency and the need to keep down costs. We should not consider his comments in terms of the past, but should view them in terms of today and the future. I remind the Minister of some words of Sir Matthew Slattery, the chairman of Short Brothers and Harland in the 1950s, when I worked in that company. Sir Matthew told me that Northern Ireland should concentrate on building ships and aircraft because both had their transport costs built in. The point was good. Sadly, however, Northern Ireland cannot concentrate exclusively on those two products. Transport costs therefore seem to become a much more important factor. It is an issue that deserves a great deal of consideration by the Government and all those involved in trying to encourage industry to come to Northern Ireland.
  Sir Matthew Slattery referred to aircraft as one of the products on which Northern Ireland should concentrate. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North referred to Lear Fan. Only yesterday I received a very full parliamentary answer—for which I am grateful—from my hon. Friend the Minister of State to some questions that I had put about the financing of Lear Fan and the amount of public money being committed to the project. In his reply to my questions about the company's financial structure my hon. Friend said that the original grants and loans made to the company would not be recovered. His reply was:
  "The new agreement concluded on 14 September 1982 has various elements. It provides that no recovery of the original grants will be sought, while the original loan is in effect converted into a per capita employment grant".
  My hon. Friend is saying, if I understand his answer correctly, that £16·25 million is being written off. I must not get the Minister muddled. In the first part of his answer he refers to a grant of £7·02 million. He describes a loan of £9·23 million and then refers to a subsequent loan of £9·07 million. Is he, in effect, saying that the write-off at this stage is £25·32 million, or is he referring only to the first grant and the first loan?
  My hon. Friend then explains to me that although this money may have been written off, under the new structure of the company and assuming that it produces production

  1037
  aircraft, the Government stand to receive $35·75 million on sales of aircraft. It is not unreasonable, I suppose, to translate the figure into pounds and to say that we are talking of £15 million to £16 million. My hon. Friend seems to be saying that although we have written off £25 million, we might get £15 million back. I should like him to clarify that. He does not say how many aircraft have to be sold before we get the £15 million, nor does he tell me whether there are any further royalties on aircraft made over and above the figure that produces that sum. If it is not possible for my hon. Friend to give an answer tonight, I should appreciate a letter in the near future.
  I am asking these questions because I have already referred to high-risk investments in Northern Ireland. As the first hon. Member to raise a question about the De Lorean project on the Floor of the House, I suppose that I have a certain uneasy feeling that another high-risk project is not being described to the House in quite the detail that it should be. Without those facts, all sorts of other doubts are bound to be created.
  I wish to press my hon. Friend a little further. He says that the Government have agreed to extend the bank guarantee to 31 December 1986. What is he talking about? Is he talking about the $15 million bank guarantee on which the business started, or is he referring to a much larger figure? My hon. Friend went on to say that the Government had agreed
  "to provide further public funds up to a maximum of $30m in a pre-determined ratio with private sector money which will ensure that by far the greater part of the new funding is met from the private sector. Her Majesty's Government's share of this funding will be contributed as a secured loan".—[Official Report, 8 December 1982; Vol. 33, c. 537.]
  I should like to know by whom it will be secured and on what?
  Lastly, will my hon. Friend tell us more about the Saudi Arabian consortium, of which the Government now appear to be a minority partner. I am sure that my hon. Friend has seen the exposé—or whatever one likes to call it—in the article in the Belfast Telegraph of 30 November. The writer is not sure who the Saudia Arabian prince is who heads the consortium. If so much public money is flying on the back of this aircraft, and if there are financial problems of the kind that my hon. Friend described in his answer, now that the business has been refinanced and restructured, could he tell me and the House of Commons who is in the consortium, how much finance the Government have put up, and whether the 5 per cent. stake in the company which the Government apparently have will produce any worthwhile return? In particular, how soon does he expect the Government to show a profit on their initial investment?
  I am well aware that to aeronautical engineers the Lear Fan is an exciting project, but so was De Lorean to some motor engineers. I should like to think that Lear Fart will have a bright future, but as we have already had to write off £25 million of public money, I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for having the doubts that I am expressing this evening.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: This debate has ranged between the economic sphere and the political sphere. I shall say a few words about both and ask one or two questions.
  The general economic tone of the debate has been fairly pessimistic. There is no doubt that Northern Ireland has
  1038
  suffered, like the rest of the United Kingdom, from the general world economic slump and from what some of us strongly believe are the wrong and false economic policies of this Government. There is no doubt that there is equality of treatment—perhaps some of us would say equality of mistreatment. We are in a vicious circle, as was said earlier. There is no doubt that terrorism and acts of terrorism prevent investment—or some investment—coming into the Province, thus increasing unemployment. On the other hand, unemployment, particularly among young people, provides a fertile breeding ground for the various terrorist organisations. Somehow we have to break out of the circle.
  I am convinced that one—not the only, not even the major, but an important—solution to the problems in Northern Ireland would be to overcome unemployment. It would not solve everything, but it would help substantially.
  I should like to ask some questions about the Industrial Development Board. Under Class II, Vote 6 there is £420,000 for the salaries and fees of five representatives and 13 locally employed staff in overseas countries. Can the Minister give us more details about that? In which countries are these people? Is it the board's intention to increase the number of staff working overseas? Is it the board's intention actively to have staff in the various countries seeking new orders? Is there any part of the world which the board thinks is particularly fruitful?
  In that context, I should like to say a word about aid to industry in Northern Ireland that could come from the European Community's regional fund. One reason why the United Kingdom does not do as well out of the EC regional fund is the insistence by successive Governments on the principle of additionality. The European Community is keen on giving regional aid, not as a substitute for money spent by national Governments, but as an addition to it. This issue is one of the few matters on which there is agreement among the three elected Members of the European Parliament from Northern Ireland. I understand that the three Members—one from the DUP, one Unionist, and one SDLP—have worked together closely out there in this connection.
  I hope that the Minster will answer today the question raised by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) about the relative tax benefits in the Republic and Northern Ireland. I understand—this is what the Select Committee report said—that there are better tax benefits in the Republic. That is one reason why the Republic has been more successful than Northern Ireland in attracting overseas investment. Will the Minister clarify that? If, as the hon. Member for Newbury said, there is no difference in the tax benefits, we should look at the matter again, but I understand that there are substantial tax benefits.
  I shall say a brief word about the political side. Until the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) spoke, I was becoming increasingly depressed. It seems to me that there are people in this Chamber now who legitimately opposed the setting up of the Assembly and who are now quite determined to make sure that it does not work.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: We do not have to.
  Mr. Mitchell: That is the politics of pessimism. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, "For God's sake, give it a chance." It has only been in operation for two months, yet it has been condemned by people, just to prove that They

  1039
  were right in opposing it in the first place. May I say, iń parenthesis, that every time the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) stresses the all-Irish dimension, he makes it far less likely. As the hon. Member for Belfast, West said, in 1974 power-sharing might have succeeded—it did succeed for a short time—but it was destroyed because of the insistence on the all-Irish dimension.
  I want to ask one or two detailed questions about the expenses and salaries of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I think I am right in saying that Members of the Assembly will be paid and receive secretarial expenses and travelling expenses, even if they do not attend. Will Sinn Fein Members or SDLP Members who say that they will not participate be entitled to those benefits?
  Mr. McCusker: When those Members sign on, they will be paid. They will be paid from the commencement of the Assembly, so that if they choose to arrive there on the last day and sign the chit, they can obtain their £5,000 or £6,000.
  Mr. Mitchell: I ask the Minister to clarify that. The hon. Gentleman was talking about salaries. I am not sure whether the same applies to secretarial and other expenses.
  I understand that someone who is a Member of this House and also a Member of the Assembly receives two salaries. That is a little odd. Why do we not have the same rules as for hon. Members who serve in both the European Parliament and the House?
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Because that would interfere with the process of bribery, which was to be the motive force behind getting the Assembly set up.
  Mr. Mitchell: I do not know how to answer that. That is the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. There seems to be no reason why the same arrangement that applies to Members of the European Parliament and Members of the House should not apply to hon. Members and Members of the Assembly.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. The former Secretary of State from the hon. Gentleman's party said to me on one occasion that my idea of a regional council was sound and perfectly workable, but that it had one defect: one could not find an excuse for paying the blighters.
  Mr. Mitchell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has my party right. That is his point of view.
  After the statement on Tuesday, I asked the Under-Secretary how he saw his relationship with elected members of the Assembly who have declared that they will not attend. I asked whether he would be prepared to meet them. As I said that, I heard the right hon. Member for Down, South mutter that he must do so because they are elected Members.
  How does the Minister see the constitutional position? If a Member wanted to see the Minister about a constituency case, that is one thing, but if a member of Sinn Fein wanted to discuss policy with the Minister, that is another. One can divide the local constituency interests from policy matters.
  I do not blame the Under-Secretary for not answering me on Tuesday. He was thrown into the deep end, when the Secretary of State could not make the statement. He
  1040
  had not been briefed on that point. Perhaps the Minister of State could give an answer now. I hope that the Assembly will work.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman hopes that his party will get a majority at the next election.
  Mr. Mitchell: I hope that my party gets a majority at the next election. I have no idea whether my hopes will be realised. All that I will say to those who seem determined to break the Assembly, as they have been determined to break other institutions and initiatives taken by other Governments is: "Give it a chance." Many of us would rather hope, even if our hopes are not fully realised. As a member of the Social Democratic Party, I would rather hope than take the pessimistic line of those who always want to say: "I told you so."
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Harold McCusker: I tell the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) that against all my better judgment, for six months I hoped. I listened to substantial arguments by Opposition Members and Conservative Members, which were sound enough to convince me that the Assembly was unworkable. I refused to believe it. During the debate, I participated only once to say that I had some hope, but otherwise I sat back and stayed silent.
  I have had four or five weeks experience of the Assembly. Unless the legislation is changed substantially and the parameters governing it are changed, and unless the structure can be radically altered, there is not the slightest possibility of it being of any value. I started from the premise that the hon. Gentleman suggested, hoping against hope that the Assembly was a means of helping the people of Northern Ireland. If I go on hoping, all I am doing is offering the people hopelessness. Ultimately, the Assembly will come down around our ears in disaster and disaffection and the people will lose more faith in the democratic process.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Would the hon. Gentleman have more hope or less hope if the SDLP could be persuaded to take part in the Assembly?
  Mr. McCusker: If the real opposition in Northern Ireland, the SDLP, was in the Assembly, that would give the Assembly the appearance of a more democratic structure. However, if one has to pay a price to get it there, which has been shown time and again to be unacceptable to the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives, we shall not get further.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman outline the changes that he would like?
  Mr. McCusker: I should not be drawn down that path, but 12 months ago at Hillsborough Castle the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told me in the presence of two others that he believed that power sharing was dead and that it was incompatible with the democratic process. I remembered that during all the debates and arguments and during all the attempts to camouflage and confuse. At the back of my mind was the belief that if the Secretary of State worked on that premise, we could construct something at Stormont that would build a substantial role for a minority without converting them into a majority—a more substantial role than has been envisaged for any

  1041
  minority in the House, an important role that gave them the exercise of power and control over the exercise of power by others, which would never be envisaged here.
  However, at the end of the day, as has been proved at Northern Ireland Question Time, the Secretary of State is as firmly on the hook of compulsory power sharing with the SDLP, if not with Sinn Fein, if one extends the argument, as any of his predecessors were. Smaller technicalities could be eased if one had the opportunity, but one cannot overcome that major hurdle.
  I shall raise under Class II, Vote 6 a matter that I have raised time and again over the past six years, which is the future of the Northern Ireland gas industry. During the past two weeks my commitment to the Northern Ireland Assembly and here have conflicted with meetings that I might have had with the Minister. A fortnight ago, the Northern Ireland Gas Employers Board arranged a meeting with the Minister. I declare an interest as chairman of the board. I receive no remuneration for that. My interest is purely for the betterment of gas consumers and the industry in the Province. I could not see the Minister with my colleagues, as we were preparing to confront the Secretary of State at the Assembly. Yesterday the Minister made some interesting comments about gas in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but my responsibilities ensured that I was here. Therefore, I am taking this opportunity to try to obtain some information on this' subject from the Minister.
  The Minister understands my deep commitment to the matter for six years. For four years, month on month, along with others from Northern Ireland and those interested in its affairs, I have raised the matter on the Floor of the House and in Committee. We have discussed it inside out. The Northern Ireland Economic Council became involved and commissioned reports. The Northern Ireland Gas Employers Board raised a great deal of money and commissioned high-powered reports. We considered and analysed those. We ripped them apart. We considered all the alternatives. We did everything but take the matter on to the streets of Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] The trade unions took the matter on to the streets. There are 1,200 jobs at stake and we were grateful for their support. It would take a great deal of money to generate 1,200 secure jobs in Northern Ireland.
  I am anxious to ensure that Northern Ireland consumers have the same breadth of choice in energy as their fellow citizens on the mainland. I am also anxious that we should attempt to reduce the burden of energy costs, not only on the domestic consumer but on the industrial and commercial consumers as well.
  After all that, a little less than three years ago the Government announced that they had come to the conclusion that the Northern Ireland gas industry could not survive and said that they would introduce legislation to bring the industry to a speedy end. Compensation would be offered to domestic, industrial and commercial consumers to assist them to convert to other fuels, and so on.
  Only then, after years of asking for our share of the nation's North Sea natural gas resources, was I left with no alternative. If I could not get an east-west interconnector to bring natural gas from the North Sea, there was a possibility that the Northern Ireland gas industry might survive if we could establish a north-south interconnector. I use those terms deliberately because I do not want to consider any political implications. We
  1042
  originally wanted an east-west interconnector but if we could not have that we would have settled for a north-south interconnector.
  At considerable political risk to myself I spoke to the Minister for Energy in the Dublin Government. I asked him two simple questions—"Have you enough gas to sell to us and are you prepared to sell it?" The answer to both those questions was yes. As a result of that, and with pressure from a variety of sources, the Government said that they would reconsider their decision.
  I am sure that part of the pressure on them was political. They had just launched the London-Dublin talks. Some practical achievement had to come from them and this appeared one way of showing that there was some value in London-Dublin co-operation. I did not object to that if it was to have a lasting benefit for my constituents and the gas consumers in Northern Ireland, so long as no political overtones or consideration was applied. I was prepared to justify that.
  If other people wanted to say that it had political overtones, that was a matter for them. We can discard such suggestions—just as there are no political overtones to a bottle of Guinness, or to the fact that the territory of Northern Ireland is invaded four times a day by CIE trains running on the line from the border to Belfast. There are no political overtones to the ebb and flow of commerce across the international frontier on the island of Ireland.
  I was happy to see progress being made in that way because I was told that the charge to the public purse would be substantially less. It could be justified and could become an economic proposition. Then the Minister sent my board a paper for consideration which says:
  "The proposal to bring to Northern Ireland a supply of natural gas from the Kinsale field rests upon a series of assumptions—
  (a) That a capital investment of some £150 million may be carried out successfully and that the facility created may be managed efficiently."
  One hundred and fifty million pounds is substantially above any figure that was ever mentioned for the east-west interconnector. If the Minister wishes, I can produce the figures and I hope that we shall be able to discuss them in detail at some time. One hundred and fifty million pounds strikes me as about twice the original price of the east-west interconnector.
  Mr. Adam Butler: If one were to deliver gas to Northern Ireland, one would first have to assess the cost of getting it there. Therefore, if it is assumed that the internal costs must be the same for each option, one is talking about getting gas to the border from the South—whether a contribution to that is necessary—contrasted with the immense cost of bringing a pipeline under the sea. That is the difference.
  Mr. McCusker: I hope that the Minister is not entering into an agreement whereby we pay for a pipeline on the territory of a foreign country. When he and I have discussed this on other occasions it has been obvious that the Republic would get a return for its pipeline investment by building in an increment to the price per therm of gas that would eventually be sold to us. It would be an extremely dangerous precedent for us to invest our money in a pipeline over the territory of the Republic, particularly when that pipeline would be used by them, naturally, to supply the substantial development north of Dublin, Drogheda and Dundalk and probably several other places as well.

  1043
  I am assuming that £150 million is the cost of a land pipeline from the border to Belfast for the cost of a much smaller diameter distribution network throughout Northern Ireland—whatever parts of the Province would be served by natural gas—and the continuing capital costs which would be associated with establishing a natural gas industry.
  I must compare that cost with the cost of bringing the pipeline across parts of Scotland, where we could have expected a contribution towards its cost from the mainland expenditure, and the cost of the pipeline under the sea. The distribution and capital costs then remain the same. One hundred and fifty million pounds does not come within a hound's gowl of the price that we were talking about at that time.
  Experts thought that if one were seeking a contract to lay a gas pipeline now, as compared with four or five years ago, there is a chance that whereas the pipe would naturally cost more, the cost of laying it might be proportionately less, because there is no longer the boom in pipeline laying. There is now competition within companies for such contracts, which places one in a much more advantageous position.
  The Minister will have to convince me—it is a point that he tried to make when he addressed the Assembly—that if we save these jobs and the industry and give gas to the consumers in Northern Ireland at a reasonable cost that is not a political decision to spend this money because it happens to be coming from the Republic instead of from an east-west interconnector. I say that because, while the Minister referred in his statement to the Assembly to United Kingdom reserves, there seems to be a good gas field off Kinsale head. All the evidence shows that.
  However there is only one tap from that field. That one well will supply the Republic's industry, will service the whole of Dublin and, if the project is carried through, will eventually service the gas industry of the island of Ireland.
  Apparently, a derogation was obtained some years ago from the EC by the Government of the Irish Republic to the effect that the gas could be used to generate electricity. If my information is correct, a substantial amount of electricity is now being generated from that gas. One platform disaster, one undersea disaster or one accident along the pipeline would put the whole island of Ireland at risk. That is why professionals in the Republic, and even some politicians in the Republic—although they dare not say so publicly—are as keen about an east-west interconnector as a north-south interconnector. They are very conscious of the vulnerability of their industry and electricity generation. In the same way, we shall be vulnerable at the end of the pipeline if there is no east-west interconnector.
  Will the £150 million be the investment that I want it to be? Might it not be in the interests of the island of Ireland, of future co-operation and good neighbourliness— which, after all, is what we want—to invest the money in bringing reserves of natural gas to Northern Ireland from the North Sea? The Minister must accept that the citizens of Northern Ireland are entitled to their share of natural gas from the North Sea. Although reserves may not be high at present, negotiations are going on about the gas-gathering scheme in the North Sea and United Kingdom reserves should be increased.
  1044
  Negotiations are taking place with Norway to contract for more gas to take us, perhaps, into the next century. There is also a possibility that gas from Siberia will eventually find its way to these shores. Just as I am sure that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) does not think that there are any political overtones in bringing red gas to our shores, there are no political overtones in bringing green gas to Northern Ireland.
  The people of Northern Ireland want to ensure that if £150 million is available for the project, it is used on the right interconnector. They want to ensure that the north-south interconnector is more cost-effective than the east-west interconnector. Yesterday, the Minister had no doubt about it. He said that it was simply a matter of cost.
  Will the Minister give us the breakdown? Will he convince me that it takes £150 million to run a pipeline from the border of Belfast, to distribute gas in a limited area of Northern Ireland and to build the right infrastructure? If not, I shall start campaigning on the east-west axis once again. The only justification for the other direction is that of cost, but the cost that was mentioned to us was much smaller than £150 million.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. John Dunlop: Under the heading of Class IV, Vote 1 on expenditure on roads by the Department of the Environment, I wish to return once more to the hoary problem of the Strabane bypass. I am sure that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), and the Minister responsible for the environment in Northern Ireland will have noticed that the Secretary of State for the Environment recently urged local councils to go ahead with building bypasses in the many parts of the mainland where they were needed to ease urban traffic problems.
  In March 1983, it will be four years since a public inquiry came down in favour of a bypass for Strabane. That bypass is much needed. I attended the inquiry and was a witness to it on three consecutive days. What progress has been made in implementing the inquiry's findings? Some may ask whether I am weary of bringing up this issue at every opportunity. I am weary not of bringing it up, but of trying to get from the south of Strabane to the north, which I do about once a month. It takes about half an hour to do one-quarter of a mile because of the horrendous traffic conditions.
  I have exhausted my vocabulary in describing the situation. Has anything been done? Is the Strabane bypass included in the £8·5 million subvention for roads? Will something practical and urgent be done to implement that much needed project? As well as raising this subject at every opportunity, I have stressed the need to find work for those living in the worst unemployment area in the United Kingdom. I have said time and again that factories to the south of the town have been vacated by multinational companies that have left Northern Ireland after the tax and rates honeymoon. There is a great need for something practical to be done for the area.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) highlighted the problem of poverty in his constituency. I know the conditions in Strabane because I see them regularly. Something must be done very quickly for the town and for the whole area.
  Several hon. Members have pointed out the absence from the Northern Ireland Assembly of the SDLP, which

  1045
  is about the third largest party elected to it. We have heard their fatuous and sulking excuses as to why they will not take part in the Assembly's deliberations.
  Last Monday morning, I was invited to the Ulster polytechnic for a seminar on unemployment and the economy of Northern Ireland. Much to my surprise, two members of the SDLP were among those who attended the debate. They made effectual contributions. I expressed surprise in my speech at the monumental anomaly that they were prepared to attend, just on invitation, a seminar on the major and composite problem of unemployment and the economy. They contributed to that debate and yet they refuse to attend the forum where they could most purposively and practicably contribute.
  One of those Members sat opposite to me in the former Assembly and made effective and useful contributions. Why could not he and his colleagues attend the Assembly? They should be there. They were elected by the people to go there and they are failing to represent them. I am surprised that they should go to one seminar and yet refuse to attend the Assembly, to which they were elected by many Northern Irish people.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) dealt convincingly with the urgent need for a re-think by the Government of their attitude towards the supply of natural gas. In addition to the valid arguments that he put forward, I have doubts about the advisability of embarking on the Kinsale gas scheme. Forecasts from authoritative circles in Dublin suggest that the life of the gas field may be reduced from 30 to 15 years because of the excessive extraction rate. I am sure that the Minister will take that consideration into account when he contemplates the cross-capital expenditure that is likely to be incurred on the soil of a sovereign independent Republic.
  In clause 10, we are asked to authorise the expenditure by the Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Department of a large sum. I wish to see part of that sum, at least, devoted to re-starting work on building the much-needed new area hospital in Antrim, but as that expenditure comes under the heading of expenditure on non-contributory benefits, I shall leave that thought with the Minister of State, and no doubt he will convey it to the Under-Secretary. I leave with the Minister my promise—he may interpret it as a threat —to return to the subject in the near future, because Antrim cannot continue to be pushed back year after year. The site has already been purchased, the site works are almost finished and all that remains is for a courageous Minister to give the go-ahead for the building.
  The Under-Secretary complained earlier that his Department was neglected when it came to tabling Northern Ireland questions. Whatever substance his allegations have, he can scarcely claim that the same applies to his postbag of problems and complaints about benefits distributed by his Department. I pay tribute to the Minister for his increasingly determined efforts to disentangle the many regulations that govern entitlement to benefit under various headings. Confusion arises, especially with the benefits and allowances designed to assist the young. The Minister is only too well aware of my representations on behalf of my constituents, and I assume that right hon. and hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies have been similarly
  1046
  engaged. I assume that they have become aware of the frustration of those youngsters, who were led to expect that they had some entitlement, only to be given contradictory answers.
  I suspect that much of the confusion arises from the introduction of a series of schemes with accompanying regulations that are not understood clearly by those charged with the task of administering the schemes. I do not criticise the hard-pressed staff in the social security offices, who are doing their level best, but they are not always given the guidance that they need. I know about the burdens imposed upon comparatively junior staff. Will the Under-Secretary of State consider the provision of much clearer guidance to his staff, especially junior staff, who man the offices?
  Although we welcome the merger—it was referred to earlier as the marriage—of the manpower services and commerce Departments, we wish to be assured that the confusion and overlap that we see all too often in Whitehall when such an operation is attempted, will not be repeated in Northern Ireland when the new structure takes final shape. The new structure will comprise the Department of Economic Development and its offshoot, the Industrial Development Board.
  I know that the Minister of State is as anxious as hon. Members to ensure that the new board does not become another layer to be penetrated by enterprising business men and industrialists. I hope that those who have accepted the task and the responsibility of manning the new board will see their function as one of removing obstacles and slashing red tape. I hope that they will not sit around and wait until they are approached by enterprising business men and industrialists, but that they will go out and seek those who have proved in the past that they are willing to have a go and who feel that they have something to contribute to the economy of Northern Ireland.
  8.43 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): As is the custom in such debates, we have ranged far and wide and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have allowed us extra latitude on some subjects. That latitude has been fairly taken. The debate has split into two parts—the economy, and the aspects of the Assembly's proceedings that relate to the appropriation order.
  I start by refuting, as I so frequently have to do, the charge by the spokesman for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), that we have no industrial strategy. Either he has failed to read what has been said or prepared on this subject, or he has failed to listen to what I have said to him in the House on a number of occasions or, if he has done so, he will not accept that there is that strong and positive policy. Et is based on a worked out and a worked through approach to industrial promotion. It is backed by machinery which has been specially and recently reorganised to give us the best back-up on promotion and administration. It is also supported by a most generous package of financial incentives.
  I must also reject the Labour Party's policy on Northern Ireland, which can be summed up as one of voluntary compulsion towards unity with the South. The hon. Gentleman says, and accents, that it will be by consent, but he then goes on to say, "We will achieve this." I say to the hon. Gentleman and to his party that they have no

  1047
  right to tell the people of Northern Ireland what their future shall be. That decision should be taken by them and with the consent of this House. The Labour Party's policy in that respect is wrong.
  I reject another point that the hon. Gentleman made in his speech. I rejected it recently at Question Time. I do not believe that his idea of an all-Ireland economic development council would have any hope of success.
  Some useful suggestions have been made about industrial development. Some of the questions and points have been raised before. I thank my hon. Friend for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) for his remarks about the Industrial Development Board. He was correct when he said that it had got off to a good start. It is only a few months since it came into being, and so far we like what we see. We have the benefit of those recruited from industry as employees of the board. We also have the benefit of a professionally and commercially experienced board. The not easy relationships between the board, the Civil Service and the Minister are starting to settle down. Those relationships are vital to the success of the Industrial Development Board.
  In the context of industrial development, hon. Members found it possible to talk about energy. I am sure that they had industrial costs very much in mind; otherwise a discussion on energy might not have been appropriate to our debate today. It is right that we should consider energy costs in the Province. At the moment, if electricity were not subsidised it would cost much more—£60 million is provided to keep tariffs down to the highest obtaining in particular board areas in Great Britain.
  How can we reduce those costs still further? It is conceivable that we could do so through the development of lignite. The lignite deposits look extremely promising. The quantities being discussed amount to 100 million tonnes, and possible more. I am told that it could easily be mined, because it would be open-cast, and if one put a power station on site, cheaper power, relatively speaking, would result. This is a possible source of energy of the greatest significance to the Province, but we are in the early days. It is being questioned whether it should be used for electricity generation or for gasification. I believe that it has an important bearing on industrial costs.
  The greater part of natural gas would go to domestic usage. Industry would benefit from a supply of natural gas if it were cheaper than that obtainable through other sources. It appears from the costings that have been carried out that Kinsale gas should be available at prices that will be about 25 per cent. below the present level. The present price of town gas is subsidised by 50 per cent. If we are seeking to provide energy at the cheapest price to Northern Ireland industry, it cannot make sense to add to costs.
  I did not seem to get myself across to the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) in my intervention. The possibility of a supply from the mainland—probably from Scotland —was turned down because of the cost of the undersea pipeline. For the costing of the internal distribution network it does not matter where the gas reaches Northern Ireland, generally speaking. Therefore, one has to compare the costs of getting the gas to the border and to the coast.
  The hon. Member for Armagh said that there should be some recognition in the price of gas of the cost of getting it to the border from the South. That can be paid as so
  1048
  much per therm, as a lump sum, or as a mixture of both. However, the hon. Gentleman recognises the need for that additionality. It is my firm claim that it must cost substantially more to bring gas through a pipeline under the sea to Northern Ireland than to take it some relatively few miles to the border from, for example, Dublin or some point of that source.
  Mr. McCusker: In the British Gas Corporation's report of 1976 or 1977, and in the updated report produced by Coopers and Lybrand in 1978 or 1979, the global figure was £75 million to £80 million. I want to know how a supply which I am now supposed to accept as being cheaper has reached a global sum of £150 million.
  Mr. Butler: The global figure would include the wholesaling network and the distribution. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the costs have been calculated with some care and that the global sum is in the right area. He must accept my argument—I shall repeat it only once more—that if the gas were to originate from the mainland there would be an additional cost in getting it to the coast before it would be possible to start comparing costs. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I will have to enter this argument separately, or the House will wonder whether I intend to refer to any other subjects.
  I am sorry that I did not hear the whole of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). He drew on the example of a particular company when he referred to difficulties over transport costs. He was wondering whether it would help the industrial development effort if there were a subsidy to help meet transport costs. This is an incentive which the Government have considered from time to time. The package of incentives that we offer—I think of the automatic assistance, for instance, on capital expenditure of 30 per cent. as the standard capital grant and other measures—is probably the best way of providing help. For certain products where raw materials have to be brought in, and where the finished product may be expensive to transport, transport costs are an important element.
  The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell)—I hope that I am right in welcoming him as the SDP spokesman for this debate—wondered whether we were doing all that we should in terms of overseas development work. I am able to let him have details of the numbers in post.
  The hon. Gentleman asked in which countries we particularly concentrated. Historically, America has been our main source of investment, apart from Great Britain. We have people operating in most of the European countries, and we have also made a particular effort in Japan. We need investment from Japan, but we have not yet achieved this.
  Our industrial development effort is as well directed as it can be at present. It is as well supported as it can be by the financial package to which I have referred. At the moment I do not believe that money is a constraint. Others have tried to seek investment from America and elsewhere, but those countries are just as affected by the recession as the United Kingdom. On my most recent visit to America I detected little immediate change in the situation there, but I came away somewhat more encouraged by the attitude of American companies towards investment in Northern Ireland. The recession will disappear and recovery will return to both the United

  1049
  Kingdom and the world economy. I see no reason why we should be unable to return to the levels of investment that existed in the late 1970s. Indeed, I hope we can do better than that.
  I reiterate the point that the millstone still around our necks is the image of Northern Ireland in the minds of would-be investors. The damage done to jobs in the Province by tragic occurrances such as those at Ballykelly cannot be overstated.
  The Lear Fan issue was raised particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. If I were to answer all the questions that he posed I should keep the House up all night. If he agrees, I shall write to him and, as far as I can, answer all the specific points that he raised.
  My hon. Friend raised a doubt in the mind of the House about whether we had another De Lorean on our hands. Since De Lorean got into difficulties I have been doing my best to remove that doubt, because we are in a different ball game. I do not doubt that this is a high-risk project. It is in a different area of technology, but it is not a completely novel concept. The major difference—I emphasise this—is that the majority of funding is of a private nature as a result of the new financial arrangement. This is not straightforward issue. The ratio of private to public funding is about 2:1. People who are motivated by commercial instincts are prepared to provide the vast bulk of the funding to enable this project to succeed. They have confidence in the project, as we do. It must achieve certification. Doubtless it will not always be plain sailing, but as the test of private participation and private commercial judgment has been passed, we should have faith in it and not be worried that it is another De Lorean.
  Mr. Soley: I am still anxious. Everyone wants this project to succeed, but certain things have been said in the press and they cannot be ignored. It is all very well to stress the private involvement, but at the end of the day we must know whether the company is properly and effectively run. We must be told that the rumours are untrue. The Minister will not help if he simply writes to his hon. Friend. A clear answer must be given to the House, or the rumours will continue and no one will regret it more than the Opposition if those rumours damage the company.
  Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that monitoring must be carried out. Financial monitoring is being carried out on a regular basis. The Civil Aviation Authority is also monitoring the project at a technical level. That should reassure the hon. Gentleman.
  I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman's worry about the management derives. When there is financial restructuring of the sort that has taken place, there is frequently a change of management. The consortium required that a new man with a reputation for tough management be put in at the top. That is the sort of management the project needs. It needs someone who is highly realistic in his approach to business. I therefore hope that there will be no anxieties on that score.
  Mr. Molyneaux: Apart from the sounder financial structure, does the Minister agree that there are grounds for confidence, especially in view of the sound management that has done so much to establish this comparatively new technology in Northern Ireland? Does
  1050
  he also agree that the skills and standard of workmanship are extremely high and, most importantly, than there is proven demand for the product?
  Mr. Butler: I confirm that orders for the plane have been remarkable and at present stand at 270. The first prototype and the first pre-production model have flown and have met their specifications. The technology is not novel. The carbon fibre composite material has been used in various aircraft parts, but this is the first time that it has been used for an entire aircraft.
  Agriculture features strongly in the Estimates. I confirm what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said about the welcome improvement in this industry. In the event, 1980 was a disastrous year, but income figures improved sharply last year and there is every sign that they will be significantly higher this year. That is a welcome state of affairs.
  This is Northern Ireland's largest industry. A great deal depends on it, and Ministers intend that there should be continuity in the industry and support as necessary, taking into account the condition of the market, the prices that are obtaining and the overall availability of funds. Although my hon. Friend did not say that special aid would continue, I should like to think that we can at least find some moneys, as we have done in the past. However, this is still under consideration as part of the public expenditure survey for Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the need for food processing. One part of our industrial development strategy is to target on that sector. It must make sense to add value to one of our raw materials.
  I was asked about the circumstances of less-favoured areas. Discussions with the Commission were opened on 8 September this year. Those discussions are continuing with a view to proposals going before the Council of Ministers. I repeat, as I have done before, that if those proposals are accepted there is no commitment at this stage from the Government that the same type of benefits should apply. Indeed, there is no commitment to make extra money available to the extended areas.
  Several points about health and social security have been made. Perhaps it will be best if I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten) to what was said by the hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for Antrim, South (Mr.
  Molyneaux). I am sure that my hon. Friend will give an appropriate response.
  Perhaps I might say the same with regard to Department of Environment issues—those involving expenditure on roads and related matters. The point must be a good one. It is important that there should be co-ordination between road planning, lighting and house building. I am sure that my hon. Friend will reply as appropriate.
  These debates would be incomplete if the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) did not take part and give of his wisdom. That would be especially so if he did not refer to the Strabane bypass.
  I hope that there will be a plaque which commemorates his name when that bypass is finally built. I mean that almost seriously. He has persevered and fought hard on behalf of his constituents. We all know that Strabane needs help. After similar debates I have often discussed the project with my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell). He is in touch with the council. It knows—at least I hope that it does—that the bypass will

  1051
  be built. The planning and the agreed route must be approved. Nevertheless, the bypass will be built when finance is available.
  Mr. Soley: I recognise that I cannot expect a full reply at such short notice, but I am anxious that the Minister should undertake to consider the conditions of single-parent families and the coal-oil conversion grant scheme that I mentioned.
  Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the first matter is not my immediate responsibility. I shall ask my hon. Friend to reply to that point. With regard to the second, there is a scheme in operation.
  I shall now deal with what may be called the second part of the debate—matters arising out of that part of the draft order which deals with the Assembly.
  Mr. Amery: Before my hon. Friend deals with weighty constitutional points, will he comment on what my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) said about car parks? Although my hon. Friend seems to have treated the subject lightheartedly, it goes to the core of the argument that some of us have had with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Are we not being a little unduly restrictive in the powers that local government can be allowed to exercise?
  Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend is right. I hope that some powers will be transferred to local councils. My right hon. Friend will not lead me into the trap into which he would like me to fall, which is to support the overall line with regard to local councils which I believe him to espouse. If there are particular points about car parks—I am no expert on the subject—I am sure that the Minister will deal with them as appropriate. I was simply amused at the manner in which the difficulty was presented.
  Much of what was said about the Assembly-related area of the appropriate order was a re-run of the debates on the Bill, in which I did not take part. In considering how far to go in my reply I am reminded that there is a motion on tomorrow's Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). As the right hon. Gentleman said, some of his remarks were part of that debate and, to use his own term, he was adjourning his remarks against tomorrow's debate. Nevertheless, I shall come to some of the points that he raised today.
  I should tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be taking part in the debate on the next order—indeed, he is already in the Chamber—and in the debate on the right hon. Gentleman's motion tomorrow.
  The points that were raised are not easy. I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that mischief is being done to Northern Ireland and to our basic constitutional practice. Nevertheless, the points that he raised are immensely serious. A balance must be achieved —there is, as it were, a divide—between accountability and what has been described as hearing things from the Assembly or using it as a sounding box.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South surely gave the answer when he quoted the letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Presiding Officer of the Assembly referring to the prior and overriding commitment to Parliament. That must surely be so. I
  1052
  firmly believe that it is right and proper for Ministers and the Executive in Northern Ireland to consult those who have been democratically elected, but that the dominance of Parliament and the accountability of Ministers to Parliament must be observed. My right hon. Friend's letter confirmed what he has said many times.
  We are dealing with what I hope will be a transitional stage. I hope very much that Members of the Assembly will take the opportunities that the Act provides and will find ways to take back power, whether partial or total. In that circumstance, as my right hon. Friend's letter made clear, the situation would change. I cannot agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South that the Assembly Members have put themselves in an impossible position and are frustrated by that position. When they stood for election, they knew the kind of Assembly into which they would go, at least on day 1. They knew that they would not have legislative powers or an Executive accountable to them. They knew all those things, so there should be no question of their being in an impossible position. They have to find the way forward.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked two specific questions. The first related to the constitutional role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Northern Ireland. The other, which was not exactly a constitutional point, related to the position of citizens in Northern Ireland who are the constituents of both an Assembly Member and a Member of this House.
  To take the second point first, I do not believe that if a case were put to an Assemblyman and then came to a Member of Parliament it would be prejudiced, as the right hon. Member made out it would. The point that matters is whether the rights of the constituents have been changed. It was the right hon. Gentleman who said that the rights of constituents throughout the United Kingdom should be the same. The answer is that they are the same in today's circumstances of Northern Ireland, because those constituents can go through the Westminster Parliament in the approved and traditional way. That is not altered in any circumstances.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If the case has been considered by the Minister at the request of behest of a Member of the Assembly, how can it be said that the consideration of the application by the Minister has not been prejudiced?
  Mr. Butler: I hope that if a case came to the Minister for a second time—the instance of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks—it would be reviewed, because that would be proper, and dealt with on its merits. I do not see that it would be prejudiced as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
  The parliamentary commissioner issue is complex.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Who would sign the decision letter to the Assembly Member? The Minister will realise that if a decision letter on a representation on behalf of a constituent is signed by a Minister, it will be extremely difficult, in all human practicability, for a different conclusion to be reached.
  Mr. Butler: This hypothetical case, which has gone through the Assembly Member to the Minister, has been dealt with and the Minister has signed the letter. If it were brought back to him by the Westminster Member of Parliament, it would land on the Minister's desk and, because it had come back, he would look at all the

  1053
  circumstances and judge the case on its merits. He might give exactly the same answer as has been given in the first place, but new circumstances and emphasis might be brought to his attention. I see no difficulty, because there are instances where cases are brought back to the attention of Ministers for a second look because an hon. Member does not accept what has been said in respect of his constituent. For a Minister to take a second bite at a constituent's case is not difficult.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am obliged to the Minister for his patience, but can he not see the difference between a Minister coming to a conclusion on a submission made to him in other ways and a submission made to him by an elected representative to whom, as a Member of the House, he is responsible? Surely our whole manner of dealing on behalf of our constituents depends upon the fact that the Minister approaches a case de novo and with an open mind when it comes to him from a Member of Parliament. We cannot do that if the Minister has already done that drill for a Member of the Assembly. If the Minister will not do that for a Member of the Assembly, he is insincere towards the Member of the Assembly.
  Mr. Butler: Technically, the Minister cannot look at it de novo, if I understand the expression correctly. He might be able to look at it in secondo, but with an open mind. The very fact that an hon. Member had returned a case to him—certainly if it were the right hon. Member for Down, South—would mean that the Minister concerned would look closely for the second time to see whether there was any particular piece of evidence that he had failed to observe. Hypothetically, it could be that the case made by the hon. Member was a better one, or that he presented it in a different way. The Minister will have to look as freshly as he can at the case for the second time. I may not have reassured the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Down, South on that matter, but I do not think that we shall get any further.
  The other matter about which I can perhaps be fairly positive is complex, and I should be happy to write more fully to the right hon. Member for Down, South. The important point is that under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, which established the office of Parliamentary Commissioner for Northern Ireland, the power to transmit complaints to him rested first on Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament and then with Members of the Assembly elected in 1973. That power was transferred to Members of this House only when the Assembly was dissolved. Otherwise there would have been no channel for complaints to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
  Now that the new Assembly has been elected, the power has reverted to Assembly Members. The resumption of that arrangement is consistent with the long tradition of separate administrative arrangements for Northern Ireland. It is valid to make the point that in this case there is no ministerial accountability, because the Minister is not involved. The parliamentary commissioner is independent, and individual constituents can use the Assemblyman, the Member of Parliament, or, at local level, his councillor as a channel, or make a direct approach to the Commissioner for Complaints. It is a reversion to the position that obtained before. It is not the case, as the right hon. Member for Down, South was trying to make out, that a long-sacred right of Westminster Members is being taken away.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend saying that the present Assembly inherits all the powers of the previous Assembly? Did we legislate for that in one of the guillotined clauses and, if so, can my hon. Friend refer me to the appropriate section of the Northern Ire Land Act 1982?
  Mr. Butler: I shall be delighted to refer my hon. Friend to all the relevant sections. As regards the powers of the Assembly, we debated the Bill for a long time, and he is aware of what power the Act bestowed on the Assembly and its Members.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister must appreciate that the previous bodies, which had the sole right of reference to the parliamentary commissioner, were the bodies which were responsible for the administration of those subjects on which they made the reference to the parliamentary commissioner. It is confirmed now that the House, and therefore hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, remain responsible for all aspects of Northern Ireland government. What is happening is that we are being deprived of a right to secure the services of the parliamentary commissioner, who exists for the purpose, to investigate cases which we believe ought to be investigated in that way.
  There is no comparison in this respect between previous Assemblies which had responsibilities and ours. If the Minister likes to compare it with the Convention and tell us that the Convention could send cases to the parliamentary commissioner, let him do so.
  Mr. Butler: I cannot add to what I said. It is a return to the position that obtained previously. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest asked what provision there was in law, and the answer is that the Act was passed with a substantial majority.
  Mr. Molyneaux: It may be of some help to the Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if I recount my experience when I became a Member of the House. Stormont was still in existence and I could not table a question on any transferred matter in Northern Ireland. For the brief period of the power-sharing Executive, of which the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was a Deputy Chief Executive, I was prevented again from tabling questions on housing, roads, or any other transferred matter in Northern Ireland. A practical way out of the difficulty would be for the parliamentary commissioner to be tied to rulings similar to those of the Table Office.
  Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman refers to matters for which the Minister was accountable to this House. In this instance ministerial accountability does not arise, It is a question of which elected representative should be responsible for this small but important matter of judging whether a case should go to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Northern Ireland. The Act states that it should be the man or woman who is elected to the Assembly rather than the person elected to this House.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Of course Ministers are not responsible for making a reference to the parliamentary commissioner, against themselves. The point is that they are responsible for that administration, the rightness or otherwise of which is referred by hon. Members to the parliamentary commissioner. We are therefore in an area of ministerial responsibility, and we are depriving hon.

  1055
  Members of the power to serve their constituents by using that channel to bring home the ministerial responsibility for administration to the Minister where it lies.
  Mr. Butler: I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's feelings. It is one role which he and his predecessors have practised since 1969, apart from the period of the previous Assembly. Before 1969 there was no parliamentary commissioner. It is as short-lived as that and, as I say, a reversion to previous practice. It is a transfer of one role. That is what the House decided and that is where it stands.
  Mr. Amery: I feel that there is a difficulty here. I apologise for pressing my hon. Friend too hard. By what provision in the 1982 Act did the responsibility return to the Assembly as distinct from hon. Members of this House?
  Mr. Butler: I do not want to mislead the House by giving a wrong answer. I gather that it was one of the schedules. I shall have to write to those hon. Members who have raised this point. It matters where it appears in the legislation. What matters more, however, is that the legislation has been passed by the House. The practice is now as originally referred to and described by myself.
  Mr. Molyneaux: When the Minister studies the papers, before writing to right hon. and hon. Members will he examine the position of the parliamentary commissioner during the period in 1973 after the Assembly had been elected but before the power-sharing Executive was formed? That is the appropriate period.
  Mr. Butler: I have said that it is a complex matter. We shall look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised and seek to clarify some of the issues that have been mentioned. I have to fall back on the case that the legislation was passed by the House.
  1056
  The order allows for moneys to be provided in respect of various Assembly matters. The House has rightly found it appropriate to examine the Assembly's future. I echo what was stated by the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and for Itchen in saying "Give it a chance." This House set up the Assembly. Although certain of my right hon. and hon. Friends and others were opposed to it, the legislation was passed by a substantial majority.
  Even my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), with his strong feelings on the subject, but with his usual fairness, suggested that it was conceivable that the Assembly had not totally failed. I can tell him, from the limited amount that I have seen of its activities, that I believe that there is a chance of success. I do not believe that it is great, but the chance is there. The steps are open to be taken by the Assembly and its Members, given some compromise, a great deal of patience and a little encouragement from the House.
  There is no question but that politics, security and industrial development in Northern Ireland are all interrelated. Unless we can overcome the violence, we will not get industrial development. Unless we can overcome the poverty of unemployment, we will not remove the temptation and the breeding ground for criminal activity. Unless we can get political stability in the Province, we shall not have a chance either of finally overcoming terrorism or of getting the inward investment and the satisfactory industrial climate that we need. Therefore, there is a great deal to be done by all those involved in these matters. I believe that there is an opportunity to move forward.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 17 November, be approved.

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)
  9.31 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.
  I invite the House to renew the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. I do so at a time when all are particularly aware of the scourge of terrorism in Northern Ireland and of the misery that it is capable of inflicting. The incident at Ballykelly was ruthless mass murder. It has been condemned by people from all parts of Northern Ireland and well beyond.
  Hon. Members might find it convenient if I briefly said where matters stand following the bombing at Ballykelly. I am glad to say that since my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made his statement on Tuesday afternoon, no more lives have been lost, although some people remain seriously ill. Thirty-nine people remain in hospital—25 of them members of the security forces, and 14 civilians. The Chief Constable has set up a team of some 40 detectives under a detective chief superintendent to investigate the incident, and I can assure hon. Members that no effort will be spared to identify and arrest the perpetrators. Our shock and our sympathy are none the less for the passage of two days, but the tasks now are to provide comfort for those who are grieving and the best possible care for the injured and to do everything possible to bring the guilty to justice. I know that all hon. Members will join me in giving our support to the people on whom those tasks primarily lie.
  Despite our strong feelings about this outrage and other terrorist incidents, the question of the renewal of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act is a serious one to be addressed carefully, as it is every six months. Hon. Members will be in no doubt about the strength of feeling in the Province, and in Great Britain, about the activities of terrorists. The results of those activities are plain for all to see. No one who has witnessed the consequences of terrorist action—as I did earlier this week—can forget them. Terrorism shows contempt for everybody. It has affected both Catholic and Protestant communities in Northern Ireland alike, and is felt within communities as well as between them. It offers nothing but death and destruction. It is vital that unremitting pressure be maintained on terrorists of every kind. I believe that Parliament should pay the closest attention to the needs of the Province, and to the requirements of an effective security policy there, of which this act is still an essential facet.
  The challenge of the terrorist is first and foremost to the rule of law, to which we are unshakeably committed. The law must be applied impartially and fairly in Northern Ireland, as in every other part of the United Kingdom. No one understands what this implies better than the Chief Constable and the GOC. Terrorist outrages are crimes. However, clearly, terrorism is a complex phenomenon. If there were measures that could bring terrorism instantly to an end, I would take them—as Governments and Secretaries of State before me would have done. There are no straightforward panaceas, although it is wholly understandable that people should look for a short cut. We
  1058
  must seek to create the conditions for a long-lasting end to violence in the Province. A temporary hiatus created by blanket security measures that are indiscriminate, and thus ultimately counter-productive, would do no good. We must not allow ourselves to be goaded into what the terrorist wishes to provoke of us. To be successful, security policy must have the support of the community as a whole, because the first weapon against terrorism lies in the co-operation of the public and in the provision of evidence which can secure convictions before the courts.
  We have also to face the fact that terrorism feeds on divisions in the community. For these divisions to be healed, political movement and economic development are needed, but equally needed is constructive, evenhanded and sensitive maintenance of the law. I have no doubt that we can be deeply proud of the security forces in this regard. We owe them a great debt for their unremitting, patient and skilled work on many fronts. I know that the House will join me in paying tribute to the example of courage and sacrifice which they set, and to the unswerving devotion to the law and to duty which they display.
  I want again to place on record our abiding sympathy for the relatives and friends of those who have died or who have been wounded in the performance of their duty. I am thinking here not only of what faces the regular Army, the UDR, the RUC and their reserves while they are on duty, but also the shadow cast over them while off duty. This week's outrage at Ballykelly is another—particularly horrific—example of an attack on members of the security forces off duty. We must not forget the number and quality of men and women from Northern Ireland and from Great Britain who have devoted themselves to the community's cause in Northern Ireland, particularly those volunteers who go about their ordinary jobs and are in some danger the whole time from terrorist attack.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: As my right hon. Friend rightly says, and as I think we all accept in this House, there is no panacea whatever in the fight against terrorism, but is it not just possible that the introduction of the death penalty for terrorism over an experimental short period might be shown to have some effect on the perpetrators of these devilish crimes, because so far nothing seems to be able to stop them?
  Mr. Prior: I do not think so. In any case, I do not believe that the legislation would get through this House. I do not think so, because men who are prepared to fast themselves to death are unlikely to be deterred from committing capital crimes by the thought of capital punishment. I am faced with this problem, and many people in Northern Ireland put this problem to me. In my opinion, that proposal would have a disastrous effect. It would lead to the demonstrations and problems which always start the process of violence all over again. There would be a spiralling effect. It would be 10 times worse than the funerals of the hunger strikers last year and all that that meant in terms of public order and getting away from the normality which, to a great extent, is the normal daily routine in Northern Ireland, as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Although I am in favour of the death penalty, I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would not be appropriate by itself. However, surely it must be clear by now that a great many

  1059
  perpetrators of these crimes are guilty of treason. Is it not time that we considered implementing the law of treason because that carries the death penalty—it is merely part of the raison d'etre of that crime? It does seem clear that many such people are guilty of treason and that it could be established. This is an area which I would invite my right hon. Friend to investigate with more care, to see whether in the present circumstances we have reached the position where we should introduce this penalty for those who perpetrate clear acts of treason against Her Majesty.
  Mr. Prior: My hon. and learned Friend could be right. I understand that treason is still subject to the death penalty. Yet having told me that he is not in favour of the death penalty for the reasons that I have given, he now invites me to seek convictions for treason which would have that effect. That would not get us anywhere at all.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not obvious to all hon. Members that if the death penalty were applied to a terrorist from either side his own side would immediately reciprocate by killing somebody? If it is not, it is a sad reflection on the stage that we are now at. That is the harsh reality that we must face. Both sides can do that. Therefore, it would merely deepen and intensify the terrible problem that confronts us. The death penalty might give satisfaction to some people, but that is all that it would do.
  Mr. Prior: The death penalty would not have the desired effect, although one must understand the strong emotions that it arouses among the people of Northern Ireland who have been affected so long by terrorist activity. I do not believe that it would solve the problem in any way. It would make the problem more difficult. Without wishing to dismiss in a cavalier manner what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) said, I shall write to him on this point.
  The prevailing security position is a further factor against which we must regularly consider the need for this legislation. This week's incident, taken with recent intersectarian murders and attacks on the security forces, means that killings this year are sadly higher than in any comparable period in 1978 and 1980, although the number still remains below that for 1979 and 1981.
  The number of other incidents is also lower this year than last. In the period up to the end of November this year, there were 361 shooting incidents in the Province and 201 bomb explosions. That compares with 784 shootings and 382 explosions in the same period last year. Physical injuries have been 506 compared with 1,244 last year.
  There is also the other side—the fruits of the efforts of the security forces. To the end of October 1981, 450 were convicted of scheduled offences on indictment. In the same period this year there have been 617 such convictions.
  I do not point to those figures of violence with even the slightest degree of complacency. How could anybody be complacent in such a week as this? Nor can there be a level at which violence somehow becomes acceptable or tolerable. For all of us one death or maiming is one too many. However, we do no justice to the fortitude of the people in Northern Ireland by imagining that the overall position is much worse than it is, any more than we would be deluding ourselves about the character of the terrorist and of his continuing activities.
  1060
  None of the achievements of the security forces is without financial cost. Indeed, I have recently secured resources to provide for an increase of 800 in the strength of the RUC and the full-time reserve. It has also been possible to budget for an increase of 336 civilians in supporting jobs. I regard this as evidence of the firmest possible commitment to provide the chief constable with the resources he needs to do his job.
  I must tell the House that I do not believe that the situation in Northern Ireland is such that it could be said that the emergency measures of this Act are no longer required. Indeed, for the present, I have again to tell the House that the security situation does not allow me to recommend that any elements of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act should be allowed to lapse; and hon. Members will know that when we are renewing the Act the question of amendment cannot arise.
  It may be helpful to hon. Members if I briefly outline one or two of the provisions. The three most significant elements of the legislation have been the introduction of non-jury courts to try terrorist cases; the powers of arrest and detention of suspected terrorists which are conferred on the security forces; and the proscription of organisations involved in terrorism.
  I shall go into a little detail, because I know that there are Opposition Members who think that these powers should be withdrawn, and I want to explain why I believe that we must keep them. The introduction of non-jury courts reflects the view of Lord Diplock that it was not possible to be sure that jurors could be free from the influences of intimidation or the fear of it. Sadly, that is still the situation, but whereas because of the risk of intimidation the courts continue to need to try terrorists in the absence of juries for "scheduled" offences, the central principles of justice are maintained. The onus remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and witnesses may be called and cross-examined. Defendants have a right to legal aid, to take legal advice and to be represented by a lawyer, and there are safeguards in the operation of Diplock courts, especially the unfettered right of appeal against conviction or sentence.
  The legislation provides powers to proscribe organisations concerned in terrorism. It also makes it an offence to belong to such an organisation, or to solicit support for or to recruit for one. But no bona fide political organisation is or can be proscribed. It is not an offence to hold a political belief, whatever it is, nor is it an offence to express that belief provided that expression will not itself cause a breach of the peace. But if organisations openly declare their terrorist aims or demonstrate that the sole purpose of their existence is terrorist violence, those belonging to these organisations must expect to be punished.
  There has been much comment and justified criticism in the past few days about the invitation to two members of Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland to visit London. The House well knows the Government's views about this, and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has signed orders under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act excluding Gerald Adams, Daniel Morrison and Martin McGuinness. The decision was his, following an application from the police. But there has been a good deal of misunderstanding and I should like to set the position clear. These people were not excluded because they were members of Sinn Fein or because of the views that they hold. Nor were they excluded because of

  1061
  the strength of public feeling which has been expressed in the past few days. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is quite clear. Persons may be excluded either from the United Kingdom as a whole, if they are not United Kingdom citizens, or from Great Britain if their primary affiliations are with Northern Ireland, or from Northern Ireland if their primary affiliations lie elsewhere, if there is evidence that they have been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. My right hon. Friend was supplied with such information, and he acted upon it and I agree that he was perfectly right to do so.
  It has also been argued that the logic of the decision is that these people should be prevented from circulating in Northern Ireland. I think that the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) was making that point last night.
  Mr. Keith Stainton rose—
  Mr. Prior: That is a spurious argument. The distinction between the nature of the information that would satisfy the requirements of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and the evidence of the commission of criminal offences that would be required were people to be arrested and prosecuted, is quite clear. The police will, without hesitation, move against those on whom it has evidence that will stand up in court. Unless and until they have such evidence, there can be no argument that exclusion from Great Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act should lead to arrest on return to Northern Ireland. That has been the position since the provisions were first established in 1974.
  Mr. Harold McCusker: The Secretary of State's action last night was illogical as a means of defending the citizens of Northern Ireland from those people. Would it be logical if we had another form of exclusion so that those men could be expelled to West Belfast, the Bogside or the part of Northern Ireland from which they come? The law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland, who suffer from the same threat as is posed to the citizens of London, would be safeguarded at least to the extent that we can put them back in the corner where they belong where, hopefully, they cannot wreak depredations on the rest of us.
  Mr. Prior: I do not believe that one could do that; nor does the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) believe it.
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: My views are fairly well known. Would the Secretary of State explain the hurry for the exclusion orders? I cannot see why the orders were put through at 7.45 pm yesterday evening. If there had been some consultation, one could have helped him. I still believe that the visit would never have taken place. If the exclusion orders had been postponed for a couple of days or even for 24 hours, there would have been no need for them.
  The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that those two or three gentlemen were praying that the Government would do what they have done. I speak only in political terms. I do not know the security aspects of the matter and, if I did, my view might be a little different. Why the hurry, last night, when many other things were happening?
  Mr. Prior: I am not certain that I can answer that, as it is the business of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, it is the duty of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, on the information that he has available, to advise the Home Secretary whether the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act should be implemented. Once my right hon. Friend has been given that advice, it is up to him to act upon it. My right hon. Friend would be wrong if he did not act speedily on that information. That is the reason why he acted in the way that he did at that time.
  Nearly all of us in the House deeply and bitterly regret the invitation that was given. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) has made no bones about that. I believe that those people would have come and that they wished to come. That would have caused much agonising by many people, but that is beside the point. The Commissioner gave his advice and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary acted upon it.
  Mr. A. W. Stallard: The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that there has been a large increase in interest following the incidents this week, in the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Many of those who have a new-found interest in the Act will not agree that the right hon. Gentleman answered the illogicalities mentioned by the hon. Member for Armagh. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he had seen the evidence with which the Home Secretary was provided before he made the exclusion order. In view of the background to the affair, is the Secretary of State prepared to show that evidence to the House, or at least to tell the House what evidence he saw to justify the use of this extraordinary Act?
  Mr. Prior: I have not seen the evidence. It is not my responsibility but that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am certain that my right hon. Friend would not be prepared to divulge the information to the House and it would be wrong for him to do so. My right hon. Friend's decision was correct. It was a difficult decision to make, but he could have made no other in the circumstances.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said that it was impossible to expel those people to West Belfast or to the Bogside, but it is possible to expel them to the Irish Republic because they are holders of Irish Republic passports. Why does not the Secretary of State exclude them from Northern Ireland and send them to the Irish Republic?
  Mr. Prior: They are domiciled in Northern Ireland. That is their place of residence. It is one matter to exclude people from another country but it is quite different to expel them from the country in which they are domiciled. That is what the Act says. If my answer is incorrect, I shall write to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), but I am sure that it is correct.
  Sir Julian Amery: Although I accept that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary acted completely within the legislation, are we not in danger of getting into the embarrassing and awkward position that fairly elected representatives of my right hon. Friend's Assembly are banned from coming to this part of the United Kingdom but are allowed to wander freely in the part of the United Kingdom in which they are domiciled?

  1063
  Are we making the Province a ghetto for criminals who can wander about there as much as they wish but who cannot come here?
  Mr. Prior: First, it is not my Assembly and, secondly, the principle of the Act is not changed by the fact that those people or others were elected to an Assembly. They are domiciled in Northern Ireland and they have a right to be there. They are not criminals. If they were criminals in the sense that charges could be brought against them, it would be the duty of the police to bring charges against them and I am sure that they would.
  The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act gives the Government and the security forces the essential powers needed to act against terrorism in Northern Ireland. However, it is perfectly correct that, in dealing with those exceptional powers, we should from time to time check with the greatest possible care whether they need changes. The House will recall that some months ago I announced my intention to establish an independent review of the emergency provisions Act. Some of the measures are similar, although not identical, to the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 which, unlike the Act before us, applies to the entire United Kingdom. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is currently being reviewed by Lord Jellicoe, who is likely to complete his work early next year. That will clear the way for the task of reviewing the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, as I told the House last summer.
  There is no doubt that the task will be onerous. It will involve the holding of hearings in Northern Ireland and the collection and analysis of evidence from everyone with an interest in the operation of the Act. I expect the review to take at least six months and I do not wish it to be prolonged. It is important that the review should be conducted by a person of high ability and standing. The Act is complex and the issues that it raises are of fundamental importance. I hope to be able to announce the name of the person to conduct the review before long.
  In the meantime, I must ask the House to agree that the evidence of continued terrorist activity tragically speaks for itself. The need to counter terrorism effectively remains, and our security forces should be enabled to continue their task. Thus, the draft order should be approved.
  10 pm
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: I do not know who said
  "a week is a long time in politics."
  Anyone who has anything to do with Northern Ireland affairs will know after this week that that was an understatement.
  I join the Secretary for State in his tribute to the security forces and in his expression of sympathy for all those who have suffered from the violence fostered by the terrorists in Northern Ireland not only in the latest outrage but in all the other outrages that have taken place. I should also like to thank him for the further information he gave about Ballykelly. I am sure that we can discuss some of the security measures at other times.
  The Secretary of State was questioned about the death penalty. On a previous occasion when the House discussed
  1064
  the issue, I gave my views on the effect the death penalty would have on terrorism. I agreed entirely with what the Secretary of State said in answer to his hon. Friends.
  The terrible history of Ireland is a perfect example of the effects of the death penalty. When one considers the summary executions which have taken place over the years, if the death penalty was ever going to help to bring peace to any nation, Ireland should be the Valhalla of this world. We all know that it is not.
  As a young man I served in Palestine towards the end of the Mandate. I know full well the stresses and strains that were placed on the ordinary soldier in the street when executions were beginning or about to take place in prisons in Palestine at that time. It was confirmed to me later when I spoke to Mr. Begin, now the Prime Minister of Israel, who told me that executions only served to increase the morale and the intentions of the terrorists to go even further. His offhand reply to me as he walked away—he was not the Prime Minister at that time—was, "Anyway, you were not sentencing our people to death. You were sentencing your own people to death". That is what took place. When terrorists were executed, British soldiers suffered as a consequence.
  I agree with the Secretary of State that the death penalty would not deter terrorists in Northern Ireland. It would be a spur to recruitment. We do not need the death penalty in Northern Ireland. Other things are required in Northern Ireland. The terrible history of Ireland is its own recommendation that the death penalties and summary executions do not bring peace. They have brought exactly the opposite to Ireland.
  Information coming to me from the Army and the families of serving soldiers in Northern Ireland tells me that they feel forgotten, especially this year. It is incumbent upon the House to pay tribute not only to our forces in Northern Ireland but to all the security forces and to everyone in Northern Ireland for the day-to-day grind. It is a day-to-day grind. There is nothing glamorous about serving in Northern Ireland. It is a hard grind. We should be thankful that we have the lads and lassies who are willing to go to Northern Ireland at our behest. We should be careful about how we treat them and how we treat their families afterwards. We cannot treat one section of the British Army, no matter how gallantly it served, differently from any other section of the British Army.
  The debate has disappointed me. Much time has passed since the introduction of the emergency provisions and many renewal debates have taken place. I have taken part in most of them. Only section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act has not been continued, but it still remains on the Statute Book. Even after this week—and more importantly this week—it is right that we should take a close look at the legislation.
  It is more important now than at any other time closely to examine the Act to ensure that it is doing the job that it is supposed to be doing. The circumstances are changing. Since the Act was considered by Lord Gardiner, the emphasis of terrorism in Northern Ireland and that of the court procedures have changed. We should not treat these renewal debates as formalities. They provide a genuine opportunity to scrutinise the operation of the Act.
  I have said everything that I can say about the Act. Everything is well set out in previous debates. Sadly, the emergency provisions are still necessary. Recognition of that fact should not blind us to the real concern that is felt in Britain and Northern Ireland that what began as

  1065
  emergency measures are becoming part of the normal judicial procedure in Northern Ireland. A study of the Act that was carried out last year showed that 90 per cent. of arrests under the emergency legislation never reached the courts and that only 60 per cent. of cases appearing before the Diplock courts are of a political or terrorist nature.
  The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and the National Council for Civil Liberties have expressed continued concern about the arrest and interrogation procedures, the operation of the Diplock courts and the list of scheduled offences. They are unhappy about a procedure that seems to undermine the principle that a person should be presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty.
  In his report Lord Gardiner stated that the
  "Emergency powers should be limited both in scope and duration … they can, if prolonged, damage the fabric of the community, and they do not provide lasting solutions."
  One can agree with that.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I hope that the right hon. Gentleman shares the reassurance that I find in the report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights of 1979–80, which expresses relief at the progress that has been made on the problem of remand. It observes that it has not
  "found any evidence to suggest the previous existence of and the subsequent ending of an Executive practice of detention".
  In its most recent report it has not referred to that at all. Progress is being made.
  Mr. Concannon: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He is stressing what I said earlier. Clearly, circumstances are changing all the time. This is why we should consider every six months whether the Act is doing what it was intended to do originally.
  It is high time that the emergency legislation was reviewed. During the last renewal debate in June, the Secretary of State, in answer to me, said:
  "I expect to set up the review in September or October."—[Official Report, 30 June 1982; Vol. 26, c. 944.]
  When the Under-Secretary of State replied to the debate, he said that I would not be disappointed by the terms of reference. I am disappointed because I still do not know the terms of reference. What has happened? Why has there been slippage from September-October? The delay makes my job especially difficult. In June I was promised an inquiry for which we had been asking for some while. I am sure that the House will accept on reflection that such an inquiry is necessary into the operation of the legislation that we are now asked to renew. I welcomed the announcement of the inquiry, for which we had been pressing for quite a long time.
  The Labour Party's policy document contains the following sentence:
  "there is in our view, a strong case for a fundamental review of the operation of the Act with a view to changing some of its operations and to provide for its ultimate replacement.
  We recommend that a review of the Act be given a high priority. That represents the policy that has been approved at the previous two Labour Party conferences. The voting has been virtually unanimous. When the Secretary of State announced his promise of a review, we welcomed it. However, we must know why the slippage has occurred, and I must press the Minister to offer the House an explanation when he replies to the debate. I trust that he
  1066
  will not disappoint me by failing to tell me what the terms of reference will be. What is the Government's position on emergency legislation? I was glad to be informed that Lord Jellicoe has not yet reported on the PTA. Some of my colleagues have received evidence concerning this emergency legislation. There is a danger that if this legislation remains on the statute book for very long its provisions will creep into other legislation. The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill is now in Committee. It is a matter of concern that the emergency and PTA legislation is now creeping into our domestic legislation.
  I warn the Secretary of State that we must have some evidence of action pretty soon about the review. As there is to be another review in six month, I do not want to be in the position once more of asking the right hon. Gentleman when the review will commence. What action he takes might colour the advice that I shall give my hon. Friends about the action we should take against the renewal order as it is presently drafted. I give fair warning to the Secretary of State on this matter. I shall be under continual pressure with regard to the procedures that we adopt.
  Mr. McCusker: The right hon. Gentleman has spent much time expressing concern about how the legislation infringes individual liberty on our fellow citizens and how it eats into basic human rights. I have listened to hon. Members on other occasions when we have debated this topic. I have much sympathy with what they have said. I wait for the right hon. Gentleman to make one suggestion which ensures that in six months some of my constituents, who might otherwise be dead might survive until then. Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest something which might save people's lives in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Concannon: That is a fair point. If more people from this House visited Northern Ireland and saw how the hon. Gentleman's constituents had to live, they would be more aware of the difficulties. It would awaken them to reality as to what life in Northern Ireland is like instead of having one-slogan solutions to the problem of Ireland I am talking about civil liberties as well. Bearing in mind the kind of life that I lead, I have to curb my civil liberties, as do a lot of other people. This is why the Labour Party working group went to great lengths to find out from the people of Northern Ireland what the problems were. That is the reason for our policy document. To the surprise of many people, one of the findings was that the emergency provisions were still necessary. It is fair to say that there are certain areas of concern that we must look at.
  One of the changes in Northern Ireland concerns intimidation. The Gardiner report recorded 482 instances between 1 January 1972 and 31 August 1974 in which civilian witnesses were either too afraid to make any statement at all or, having made a statement, refused in any circumstances to give evidence in court. In a press notice issued before the last renewal debate, the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights concluded:
  "In the last two or three years there have been times when there is little doubt that the pressures which would have been exerted on a lay jury could have poisoned and subverted the operation of the legal process. Regrettably, the time for the return of the jury in its traditional role has not yet come."
  What has occurred between the last debate and this debate has backed up what the Secretary of State has said about intimidation.
  The intimidation of certain people and their families has become more vile and vicious. In addition, the use of

  1067
  supergrasses as well as intimidation is now rife. Nothing is more demoralising for the legal system in Northern Ireland and for the RUC than to have someone who can give evidence that will put these criminals where they belong, only to find that when the time comes, as a result of intimidation, the witness must pull out thereby allowing the criminals to go free. Certain actions have been circumvented by the use of the small print in the Act, and that is bad for the image of law in Northern Ireland.
  Although there are many areas of concern, I shall not rehearse them again, because I did so in my last two speeches. My comments can be read in Hansard of 30 June 1982, columns 947 and 948. I do not intend to spell them out tonight, but they reflect our concern about the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.
  The Diplock court system was looked at closely by our working group, and its report stated:
  "In respect of the Diplock Courts, we do not see any prospect of a return to ordinary trial by jury, so long as paramilitary and terrorist activity continues on the present scale, and witnesses and jury members are subjected to intimidation and violence."
  It added:
  "There is, however, some support for a system of three judges, similar to that in the Republic of Ireland, to replace the single judge courts. We believe this should be given serious consideration".
  For goodness sake, let us have another look at this. We want to make sure that the Act is relevant to the situation now, not to 1978 when it was introduced. Things have changed, and the Act ought to be amended in the way that I have suggested. All my suggestions are on the record, and I shall not repeat them now.
  The criminalisation policy is the right one to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland, as the paramilitary opposition to it shows. However, if it is to work, it is vital that the normal legal processes should be subverted no more than is absolutely necessary.
  I have just mentioned the increasing reliance on so-called supergrasses. I hope that we shall be told about the rumours of unconditional immunities for supergrasses. This is all part of the process of law in Northern Ireland, and we must do what we can to protect it.
  Another procedure used in Northern Ireland is the invocation by the DPP of voluntary bills of indictment to bypass the need for committal proceedings. To people outside, it looks as if we are using the law in a way that we would not use it elsewhere. That is also a cause of concern.
  I accept the need for extraordinary legal measures in Northern Ireland, but they should not become entrenched. We must be constantly alert to the dangers and question not only the extent to which such measures are needed but the form that they should take. It is futile to examine the security problem in isolation. It must be considered in a wider context, as it will be impossible to make any significant advance on the security front while political conditions remain so inherently unstable. Whoever is confirmed as Taoiseach next week, we should be prepared to discuss the suggestions that have been made with him. We should discuss the all-Ireland police force, the courts and other matters, whether they be political, economic or social. The achievement of peace in Northern Ireland concerns not only the people of Northern Ireland but the people of Great Britain and the Irish Republic.
  1068
  I was astounded when I read a Minister's speech recently in which he said that the border is now a "non-question". To me and my colleagues it is far from being a "non-question". Nevertheless, we should be moving towards circumstances in which it becomes a "non-question". The Opposition believe that a commitment to a united Ireland on the basis of consent will bring that prospect closer. It is a psychological battle that we must wage. It will not be easy to win it, but we must win if we are to bring peace and hope to Northern Ireland in the long-term. We should not be deterred from pursuing a political solution, nor should we allow a Unionist or an IRA veto.
  There is much talk about the guarantee. There are 56 million people in Britain who are the guarantors of that guarantee. I do not know how long those guarantors will go along with what is happening now. My understanding of the British people is that they do not blame just one side. They blame the entrenched positions of both sides of the argument.
  The Opposition will not divide the House on the order. Nevertheless, I know that some of my hon. Friends have consistently voted against the renewal order. I do not expect them to act differently tonight. Indeed, I should be a little disappointed if they did not carry on as they have in the past.
  The Opposition believe that, unfortunate though the emergency provisions are, they are still necessary. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State must exert himself and get on with the review so that there is not a recurrence of tonight's negative debate. Although the Opposition do not mean that, if I do not receive some assurances or see some action between now and the next renewal debate, my advice to my right hon. and hon. Friends will remain as it is tonight.
  10.22 pm
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: It was a little flippant of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) to say that he might be disappointed if some of his Friends did not vote against the order. It is a serious subject. Nevertheless, I strongly agreed with him when he paid tribute to our soldiers in Northern Ireland.
  Those who died at Ballykelly were unarmed and off duty. They were not on operations. In the past few months there has been a change in Northern Ireland in that the Regular Army has, to a cosiderable extent, withdrawn to its proper role in a disturbed Province. It has acted in support of the civil power and in the defence of the land frontier of the United Kingdom.
  The gallant men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as distinct from the Regular Army, are much more in the front line and the courage of the part-time soldier on a lonely farm near the border is beyond measure. The Army in support—that has always been the legal position. Sometimes, however, that has been the position more in law and theory than, as today, in actuality.
  The primacy of the police is now a fact. Re-armed, re-equipped and rejuvenated, the Royal Ulster Constabulary is clearing up many difficult cases with remarkable speed and efficiency. It is non-sectarian, not merely in the sense that it is made up of Catholics and Protestants —the previous Chief Constable but one was a Roman Catholic and I understand that the present No. 2 is a Roman Catholic—but in the sense that it is trusted by everyone of good will to do its dangerous duty impartially. One thinks

  1069
  of recent successes against a murderous and sadistic mafia, who debased the title of Loyalist and besmirched the flag that they brandished.
  Much credit is due to the co-operative relations achieved between the RUC and the Garda Siochana. In connection with the South, I am sure that we shall all watch with great interest certain judicial processes which may lead to the solution of the important problem of extradition.
  The great respect that I have, as I am sure everyone has, for Sir Kenneth Newman—a brilliant Chief Constable of the RUC and now Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis— leads me to endorse his advice to the Home Secretary to issue exclusion orders against the two members of the Provisional Sinn Fein whom Mr. Livingstone, in his admitted ignorance, invited to visit what was once the greatest local authority in the world, although my personal feeling was that the visitors should have been left to the contempt of Londoners.
  The exclusion orders have disclosed—not for the first time, as has already been mentioned—an anomaly and a seeming injustice in the application of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, in that men who have the freedom of the streets of Belfast are refused the freedom of the streets of London. But the power exercised under that Act is an arbitrary power, necessitated by the difficulty of convicting terrorists, especially arch terrorists, when Crown witnesses are intimidated and murdered. That arbitrary power expresses the principle,
  "Salus populi suprema est lex".
  Whenever we debate the renewal of that Act or of the provisions before us today, I am not alone in expressing my reluctance and distaste. Nevertheless, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act seems to me no more or less moral or defensible than the power of detention that still residually exists in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  I know the arguments. I believe that my right hon. Friend is against any renewal of detention, and I should be hesitant to recommend it except as part of a policy agreed with the Republic. If he is not ready to do that, however, he must have an open mind to the many suggestions put forward—for example, those put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies)—and perhaps look again at the Gardiner proposals for the creation of an offence of terrorism, which might make it easier properly to convict terrorists in the courts.
  I do not ask for answers today, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not foreclose options in security matters as he foreclosed constitutional options more acceptable to many of his own party when the Assembly was introduced by the guillotined Northern Ireland Act 1982.
  Terrorism, like war, is politics pursued by other means. It is political propaganda pursued by other means. There is never any shortage in our debates of those who suggest that the solution to the troubles is political rather than military. There are two political attitudes on the two sides of the House, which seem to me to encourage the Provisional IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army to continue their dreadful work. There is, first, the nonsensical, self-contradictory and dangerous aim of the official Opposition to bring about a united Ireland with consent.
  1070
  There is nothing in the voting patterns of either community to suggest that consent to a breach with Great Britain would be forthcoming. The point was made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State that no doubt a Labour Government, if there were ever to be one, would try to erode the will for union with Great Britain. The Minister used the words "voluntary compulsion".
  I ask the right hon. Member for Mansfield whose service to Northern Ireland we all respect, whether he should re-consider his party's policy or his own position, as a number of us would ask the Secretary of State and the Cabinet to think again about a policy which we believe feeds Unionist fears and separatist hopes, and thus emboldens terrorists to persevere.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: This is the first time that I have participated in a debate on Ireland, though I had responsibilities for Northern Ireland as a Minister for many years. My reason for participating in the debate is that the renewal of the emergency provisions this week comes against a background of two events—first, the horrific killings at Ballykelly which have aroused the horror of people all over the country and the world; and second, the use of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisons) Act 1976 to prevent talks from taking place, thus implying that even those who are elected will find no solution in discussion when elected, and will suggest to others that violence is a course of action that offers better results.
  Like everyone else in the House, I detest the use of violence and want to see it end, but tonight we are being asked to renew the most draconian powers. Everyone recognises that the powers go far beyond what anyone in this country would accept as being within the range of normal democratic procedures.
  The problem does not lie in the detail of the legislation, which the Secretary of State will examine, but in the policy that has failed. We are being asked to continue a policy that has failed. The critics of the policy do not represent the major threat to the Government Front Bench, but the fact that the policy that has been pursued by successive Governments does not work. That cannot be dealt with by rhetoric directed at those who put a contrary view; it can by corrected only by looking at the real position.
  Like a growing number of British people, I believe, and have done all my life, that the root cause lies in partition, because partition denied Ireland the self-determination for which the Irish people voted at the end of the first world war. That is why the arguments about the democratic route are not credible in Ireland, because in the North many feel that it was a British Parliament that cheated them of their right to self-determination and that that partition has failed.
  I was a member of the Cabinet in 1969 which, after some heart searching, sent the troops into Northern Ireland, in part, it was argued, to protect the Catholic minority from what was happening as a result of the activities of the B Specials and others. That policy failed, too. The troops cannot solve the problem because their prime purpose is to enforce partition and partition is the problem.
  When the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) said that we should use the Treason Acts, which carry the death penalty and the Secretary of

  1071
  State made his position clear, he was putting his finger upon the central item of policy—that to be in favour of a united Ireland is treason.
  The other day the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) introduced me to Mr. Ian Smith who was wandering about the House. For 15 years, with the support of the Conservative Party, that traitor ran the colony of Rhodesia. Now, back in the country of Zimbabwe, he faces problems less severe than he imposed on Mr. Mugabe. Once the argument of treason is used, the hon. and learned Gentleman comes to the core of the matter. It is partition that he wishes to enforce by the Treason Acts and nothing to do with temporary emergency provisions.
  Mr. Prior: The right hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. If he argues that believing in a united Ireland is treason, it is palpably not treason. Anyone is free to believe what he or she wants to believe. What people are not entitled to do is to work for those beliefs by means of violence and terrorism.
  Mr. Benn: Neither are they allowed to come to London to argue their case peacefully. The Cabinet destroyed their own argument against violence by preventing discussion. I have listened to many right hon. and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friends, who have had responsibility for Northern Ireland. For a time, I tried to do my best for Harland and Wolff, Shorts and various other enterprises. I have concluded, like many people, that there is no policy that hon. Members can decide in this House for Northern Ireland. The problem is that we should not be there at all. [Interruption.] I am talking about Britain. I am referring to the policy of the Labour Party at the time of partition. A whole series of conferences culminated in one at Central Hall, Westminster, that came out overwhelmingly against partition. I am referring to the old Labour Party that we need to remember perhaps on this occasion.
  The problem is that we can discuss every detail of detention and the Diplock courts, but we do not discuss the basic question. If anyone tries to discuss the basic question, we are told that it could lead to bloodshed. The tragedy is that the bloodshed goes on when we do not discuss the basic question. I have no knowledge, other than what I have read in the newspapers, of the invitation issued by Mr. Livingstone to two members of the new Assembly to come to London. There was a greater furore over the invitation than has occurred over many of the incidents of bloodshed in recent years. I ask myself, "Why?".
  Is it because Mr. Livingstone believes in violence? Not at all. Quite the reverse. Time and again, he has made it clear that he is opposed to violence. I shall come to the offence that he is really guilty of in a moment. He does not believe in violence. Is it that the Sinn Feiners are unrepresentative? No, for they have just been elected under legislation established by the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman established the legislation. The candidates were elected. No one can argue that, in their own constituencies, they are not as legitimate as any of us are in our own.
  Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Benn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete this passage. I do not wish to occupy too much time. Is it that we can never talk to terrorists? My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) mentioned Mr. Begin. I was in Palestine at the end of the war. I remember that. It is now the official policy of this Government that there should be talks with the PLO. I have been present in this Chamber when Hastings Banda whom I first met as a doctor in Brixton—he used to come to meetings after his surgery carrying his Gladstone bag—was put in gaol by a Tory Government for his alleged part in a "Forest plot". Everyone remembers Jomo Kenyatta. The Government published a Blue Book on Mau-Mau. The annex contained the actual words of the Mau-Mau oath, considered so obscene that only hon. Members could obtain it from the Library. He was a terrorist. So was Mugabe until Lord Soames recognised that he was one of the greatest statesmen of the African world. These arguments do not hold water.
  Mr. Livingstone's offence is that he opposes partition. So do I. So do millions of others who want to be free of Britain's responsibilities in Northern Ireland. They do so for many reasons, one of which is that they fear and suspect—and they are right—that many of the techniques that have been developed in Northern Ireland will creep back and be used when our people are faced with the same level of unemployment that is the principal problem over there.
  Mr. Proctor: Which hand of the Sinn Fein is he shaking—the one with the ballot box, or the one with the Armalite rifle?
  Mr. Benn: I assume that anyone who met the Sinn Fein representatives would be doing exactly what the Home Secretary is supposed to have done when he invited some of them to London in the past. Does anyone believe that terrorism is other than a political definition? The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) said terrorism is "politics carried on by other means", as war—and, if anyone thinks that terrorism excludes negotiations, no war would ever end.
  The Labour policy that was mentioned is a great improvement on what has been done before, because bipartisanship is over. We are committed to reunification. We are beginning to erode that veto which is nothing more than a ticket that commands British troops to defend the old partition. However, we should be clear that Britain must withdraw from Northern Ireland. That is what many people feel. The only questions are: How? When? By which Government? Under what conditions?
  We shall withdraw. There will be an amnesty. All international conflicts of this kind end with an amnesty. It is not an offence—nor is it a defence of terrorism—to say that it might be right to set a date on it, as we did in Palestine and India. There are precedents that the House would be ill-advised to forget. If we withdraw, we would release some constructive forces to plan for the future. The problems as I understand them, in Northern Ireland are not that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) disagrees with the Pope on matters of theology but that the grinding poverty which was mentioned tonight and unemployment pit one group against another. The Labour movement must play a greater part in the solution of those problems than the presentation of the problem as a sectarial dispute up to now has allowed us to believe.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison rose—
  Mr. Benn: I do not want to detain the House, because there are other hon. Members who have much more claim to speak. I shall finish in a moment.
  If there is a security crisis during the transfer, some other force, some international United Nations force, is better able to meet that problem than a British force which would be interpreted as being there, not to deal with civil disturbance but to enforce partition.
  How can we start that process? We can tonight deny the Government the renewal of this order and force them to think again about these matters. Along with some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I shall go into the Lobby and vote against the order for that reason.
  10.43 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Along with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), I walked behind three coffins in Ballykelly today. The speech that has just been made, and the speech of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), would bring no comfort to the people who mourned today. Rather, they would plunge them into deeper hopelessness and helplessness.
  The House should come back to the grim facts of the situation in Northern Ireland. We should realise that we are dealing with people who are totally committed to a campaign of murder and degradation, and who rejoice in it.
  I heard Daniel Morrison, one of the men who has been mentioned tonight, on the radio today. He was justifying that dastardly deed that was done in Ballykelly. He said that there was no difference between that and the acts of British troops in the Falkland Islands. That was his thesis. I stood in the wreckage of that inn, from which the bodies were pulled out. Gallant members from this side of the water who serve in the British Army, whose homes tonight are in the same dark shadow of anguish as thousands upon thousands of homes in Northern Ireland, surely realise that no politician has any right to try to justify what has happened in Northern Ireland.
  I would go further. It may not be well received on Government Benches, but it needs to be said. The people of Northern Ireland find it strange to hear from Government Benches very strong condemnations of the reception of those two men by the chairman of the Greater London council, when they remember that one of those men was entertained by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That was not right. We said that at the time, and we continue to say it. But what do we find? It is revealed that the No. 2 man at the Foreign Office, the right hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), had a secret meeting with both those men. He talked with them just before the terrible La Mon massacre.
  Therefore, while the people of Northern Ireland realise the anguish of London people and their resentment, they feel that they—the Ulster people—are as entitled as the people of London to be rid of the presence of those men, who are just as guilty of murder as the people who are committing the dastardly deeds in Northern Ireland.
  Let it be said to the House that not only do those people walk the streets of Belfast but they are received in the Parliament buildings and a Minister meets them there. How can the people of Northern Ireland be convinced that there is an even-handed way of dealing with terrorism when that goes on? Those are the facts of the situation that grieve the people of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I shall not give way. I promised to keep my speech to a certain time. Many hon. Members want to speak. The debate finishes at 11.30.
  The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) told us that we were against discussion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those men set themselves up for election to an assembly in Northern Ireland. Did they say that they were prepared to attend that assembly and discuss their ideology with other elected representatives? They said: "No, we will not enter into any discussions."
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: So did the SDLP.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: That is right. The SDLP did the same and was condemned by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). He knows the politics of Gerry Adams. No one has been stronger in his condemnation of such politics than the hon. Gentleman, as the House knows.
  When those men say that they want discussions, it is only an excuse. They do not want discussions. They want to destroy, kill and take from the people of Northern Ireland their rights.
  The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East told us that partition was the problem in Northern Ireland and that the people of Ireland resent the fact that the island is divided. Before hon. Members discuss Northern Ireland they should read some Irish history and find out what exactly did happen in Ireland. Ireland was partitioned and the elected representatives of Ireland in the Dail approved that partition. This House approved that partition and Stormont approved it. It was done by an international agreement, which was lodged at the League of Nations. So it did not happen in a corner. It was done by the elected representatives of the people of both parts of Ireland.
  The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East says that we should get out of Ulster. Who does he mean should get out? Does he not realise that, if every member of the British Army were taken out of Northern Ireland tomorrow, Northern Ireland would not become a united Ireland by the will of its people?
  The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that 50 million guarantors hold the guarantee. Let me tell him that it is a million guarantors who hold it. It is the majority of the people of Northern Ireland who will decide their future. The so-called remedies put forward in the House are ridiculous. To say that if there were an all-Ireland court and an all-Ireland police force and if everyone were to withdraw that would bring peace is a recipe not for peace but for absolute calamity. Every right-thinking person in Northern Ireland knows that—Roman Catholics and Protestants alike.
  The catchphrase "We get out of Ireland" is exactly what Sinn Fein is saying. However, when it says that the British should go it means that every Unionist should go. That is exactly what de Valera said. He said that every person who believed in the union should either come into a united Ireland or leave. I do not believe in a united Ireland, as the House well knows. A million Protestants do not believe in a united Ireland. Many Roman Catholics do not believe in a united Ireland, as they showed by their votes in a recent election. It must be said in the House tonight that that is the guarantee. I think nothing of successive

  1075
  Governments telling me that they have given us a guarantee. The guarantee is the will and wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
  This is not a matter of employment. It is not a matter of a run-down economy. If that is settled, it will not give the answer. There is a basic conviction in the hearts of people that they want to remain in the country in which they were born and retain the citizenship to which they are entitled.
  We have in the House tonight a dark shadow of another massacre. I warn the House that it is only the beginning of many more if measures are not taken to deal with the matter.
  Let us be realistic. Praise was given to the UDR tonight, and rightly so. Where were the local UDR men on the night of this atrocity? Were they doing security duty in the village that they knew, when they would have recognised the strange car and the strangers who came in to do that dastardly deed? No. Under Government policy they were shifted many miles away to the village of Kilrea. It is not Government policy to use the UDR in places where they know they can be effective. In a debate last night the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) dealt with that point.
  We are not asking the Government to go outside the law. We are asking the Government to allow those who are in the police force and the Army to do the job that they are entitled to do and give protection to the people of Northern Ireland.
  The saddest thing about this awful calamity was the statement made by the Secretary of State that nothing more could be done and that we shall just have to carry on with the same policies. If that is so, matters will get worse and worse. I do not know how the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East was briefed in the Cabinet, but it certainly was not because of acts by B Specials or members of the RUC that the troops came to Northern Ireland: it was because law and order in the city of Londonderry broke down because of attacks made upon those who were responsible for law and order. That is why the troops were brought in.
  The people of Northern Ireland have been patient. If England had had half the battering that we have had, there would be trouble on every hand. I once told the Prime Minister that if as many people had been killed in her constituency as have been killed in mine, or as have been killed in Armagh and South Tyrone, there would be uproar in the House.
  What an uproar there is because two men are going to see the GLC. I am talking not about politicians, or so-called politicians who invite gunmen to discuss the future of Northern Ireland, but about the lives of our people. The people have a right to live. This House is dedicated to the rights of the individual, but there is one very precious right—the right to live. If the House uses its powers in the way that the Ulster people feel that they should be used—I am not asking anybody to step outside the law—it may bring some ray of hope to a darkened Province tonight. Some people will hope and pray that it is not from their homes that another coffin is carried, and that they will not have to share and mingle their tears with the thousands of those who have mingled their tears in the dark tragedy of the past 10 years.
  10.56 pm
  Mr. William Ross: I am sorry that I was late for the debate. However, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has informed the House of the reason. I was carrying out one of the saddest duties that a Northern Ireland Member regularly carries out.
  It does not give one any pleasure to listen to some of the things that have been said. It may give the Secretary of State even less pleasure to read his opening sentence on 30 June, when during a similar debate, he said:
  "I believe that progress on the political front has an important contribution to make in diminishing the tensions in Northern Ireland on which the terrorists feed."—[Official Report, 30 June 1982; Vol. 7. c. 941.]
  One could make a good long speech on that first sentence alone, because of the inaccuracies contained within it. The tensions in Northern Ireland are largely caused by the terrorists, although they also feed on them. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about looking forward to progress on the political front, and I assumed that he was thinking about the election. But he has had that election. Tension has not been reduced. The number of murders has not fallen.
  The Secretary of State gave us some figures, but only those for Northern Ireland. He forgot about the poor lads in the bandstand and about the guardsman going on duty. They were not included in the toll of IRA murders during the past few months. They should have been, because those people murder throughout the nation, and intend to do so for as long as possible.
  All Government spokesmen harp on having to act within the law. Who has ever asked them to act outside the law? However, we have asked them to change the law. Year after year the Government behave as if they are dealing with a normal policing situation. They are not. We all know that that is so. In abnormal times of murder and violence, measures that might otherwise be considered abnormal can be justified and put into operation. I refer to measures far beyond those that we are discussing tonight.
  Those who object to that statement do so on the ground that to take draconian measures will give Britain a bad image abroad. Is it not a far worse image of democracy that Britain cannot defend its people and keep them alive? Is it not a far worse image of this country, of which we are all so proud to belong and to live in, that the Government cannot defeat a fistful of murderers? That is the real issue and it is the measure of the failure of both Front Benches during the past 14 years.
  The remarks of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) were covered adequately by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, but I shall comment briefly on some of them. He said that in 1969 the troops were sent in to protect the Roman Catholic population. Of course, they were sent there on a false premise and on false evidence. I shall tell a story to the House that I may have told before, but, like a good sermon, it is worth repeating. It was said that for many years before 1969 the Royal Ulster Constabulary did not patrol the Creggan estate or the Bogside. That is a lie. Members of the RUC patrolled there nightly on foot. The records that prove that fact can be inspected by those who believe the lie that the RUC did not patrol. That is only a pinprick on the tissue of lies that emanated from our political enemies for many years, but it shows what went on and how easily many people here were misled.

  1077
  Those who think back to the early days of the present outbreak of troubles would do well to consider the solid evidence about the allegations on which the Government acted. They will be convinced, as any reasonable person would be convinced, that the Government acted foolishly and wrongly on falsehoods. To this day we are reaping the grim harvest of wrong decisions taken then.
  The Secretary of State told the House during the previous Northern Ireland Question Time that the policy would continue. That was repeated, in slightly different words, to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The nub of that policy is that, to obtain agreement in Ireland, to keep the peace in Ulster and to defeat the terrorists, we must keep Dublin happy. The strength of the link between Northern Ireland and the rest of the kingdom will be diminished, not increased, because the price of Dublin co-operation must be a weakening of the link. It must mean the edging and sliding of Northern Ireland slowly but surely in the direction of Dublin rule. The House must know that what I say is true. The majority of the population in Northern Ireland resent that undermining of their position and demand that they be dragged steadily closer to their fellow citizens, not thrust out.
  There are three aspects to keeping Dublin happy. First, there must be an open frontier, which is an open invitation to the murderers to flee south and then to return. Some interesting conclusions could be drawn if one were to examine the number of people from the two communities, respectively, who are serving prison sentences for murder in relation to the total number of crimes of murder that have been committed. Secondly, there is the demand for power-sharing in Ulster. Thirdly, there is the holding out of the long-term hope and vision of a united Ireland.
  The statement that
  "Where there is no vision, the people perish"
  is fundamental to any nation, but it is also fundamental to the terrorist organisations which are trying to destroy the nation. It works both ways. The terrorists have a vision and the majority population in Ulster have an opposing vision. The hope of victory, the hope of achieving their ends, keep them going. When that hope is buttressed by the demand that we give a place, as of right to the politicians—someone recently called them the democratic Republicans—or a place by a more insidious method of exerting pressure through the rules for the Northern Ireland Assembly that have been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and passed by the House, the strength of will of the Republicans of all stripes, whether they have an Armalite rifle in one hand and a ballot box in the other, or whether they work only through the ballot box, is greatly increased at the expense of those who desire to maintain the Union. Because the morale of the terrorist is strengthened, and because he believes he is winning, he redoubles his efforts and carries on thrusting into more and more vile and dreadful crimes, and more blood is spilled in our streets.
  The IRA demonstrated in my constituency this week the third leg of that vision—the long-term hope. If members of the IRA did not have that long-term hope, if they did not believe that they could win, if they did not believe that one day, through winning, an amnesty would be given, they would not take the risk of planting a bomb, or the risk that is inherent in moving so close to a military establishment—but they did and they do so time and again.
  1078
  Far too many people either do not know or have already forgotten that that bomb was only one of several that were prepared for use. It may have been a back-up bomb, because the main weight of the explosive that was assembled was found by the civic guards in the Irish Republic and exploded at the weekend. This terrorist organisation is like an octopus. It has a central direction regardless of the name that one may put on the terrorist who pulls the trigger. It appears to be controlled from a central point. If one leg of the octopus is crippled or cut off, another one immediately reaches out to carry out a corresponding deed, to keep the machine of terror in motion.
  Very few hon. Members, other than those who live in Northern Ireland, have been to a scene such as that at Ballykelly the other evening. Unless one has been there, unless one has looked at those people strewn about in bits and pieces, and unless one has said to oneself "These are the folk who voted for me, these are the people whom I represent, these are my people in the special sense that one's constituents are", one cannot understand the depth of bitterness, anger, frustration and sheer helplessness that a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament feels. We have all been through it time and time again. Time and time again we have put our arguments to Ministers, in Government after Government, and time and time again the Government of the day have refused to accept the central point, which is that it is hope that keeps the terrorists going.
  Do not think that the Ballykelly tragedy could not have been worse. It could have been far worse and there will probably be more death even yet. Above all, do not think that it is the last. Do not think that the next one will not be worse. After all, the Ballykelly bomb was probably only the back-up bomb.
  I have the greatest regard for the professionalism, the skill and the courage of all the security forces. Let us give them a chance to win. Let us remove the hope and the vision that the terrorist has of victory in the long-tern. Let us remove the power-sharing provisions. Above all, let us close the frontiers. That is one of the central keys in the battle against terrorism. It provides the safe haven, the hiding place, the planning room and the place where the decisions are taken and from where, very often, the attacks are launched. It can be done and if victory is to be achieved it must be done. If it is ever to be done, why should it not be done now? Let us get this thing over and done with once and for all.
  The Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that he would like to comfort the grieving. The greatest comfort that all the grieving of Ulster can have lies in measures to ensure that the murderers are caught. The greatest comfort that the people of Ulster can have is the vision of a sure and safe haven, where they wish to belong, within the United Kingdom. If the right hon. Gentleman is worried about harsh measures, the people of Ulster are not worried about them in the slightest. We are worried far more about harsh murder and the evil and violence that we face every day.
  Let us consider the history of the death penalty in Ireland as a whole. The willingness to execute would show a determination, which until now has been lacking. Secondly, the Irish Republic in its early days faced similar violence and stopped it by a liberal use of the death penalty. Thirdly, many men went on hunger strike and were glad to find any excuse to come off it. So they fear

  1079
  for their lives and they value them. At the end of the day, by an iron will, the hunger strikers were beaten. They had to forsake that weapon. They would not have forsaken it if they had thought it would be successful. It was unsuccessful, because they were allowed to commit suicide. That hunger strike provided the clearest evidence that the death penalty will work.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that the debate must end at 11.30 pm. The Minister hopes to catch my eye at about 11.20 pm.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: In Northern Ireland today there are 130,000 unemployed. There are massive social and economic problems. In the Republic of Ireland today there are nearly 200,000 unemployed and even greater economic and social problems. Last Monday night 16 young people in Ballykelly—British, Irish, Catholic and Protestant—were blown to smithereens, allegedly in an attempt to bring about the unity of Ireland. Many more have been maimed for the rest of their lives. Let us think for a few seconds of the terrible distress and despair that has been brought to those bereaved relatives. We must ask ourselves "What motivates people to carry out such an horrific act?" I listened tonight to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and I was sadly disappointed. However well intentioned he may be, and I do not dispute his motives, his speech will give succour to the people who plant bombs and kill. It is that kind of logic which generates paramilitary organisations.
  As I have said before, I am in total dispute with all the Unionist Members in the House. I believe passionately in a united Ireland. I believe that there will never be peace in Ireland until the border is removed. It was the creation of the border that has led to so many of the deaths and tragedies in Northern Ireland. I believe passionately in the unity of Ireland, and I do so only because I know there will be continuing murders until Ireland is united. I believe passionately that Ireland cannot be united by the actions that we saw in Ballykelly on Monday night. There is nothing in Ireland today to justify any murder.
  That is why I was so disappointed yesterday evening when I heard that the Home Secretary had placed an exclusion order on the two Sinn Fein representatives who were coming here to explain the policy of Sinn Fein. They were coming here to defend the policy of the IRA. I do not believe that we can defend murder in any circumstances. I do not believe that we can explain away the terrible atrocities that have been committed by a series of paramilitary organisations over the past 10 or 12 years. I do not believe in the great sincerity of Ken Livingstone in inviting the two Sinn Fein candidates to London.
  The problem in Ireland has existed for many centuries, but particularly over the last 13 years. Why did not Ken Livingstone go to Belfast last year and the years before that to acquaint himself of the terrible problems with which we have had to live? Why did he say today that he will find time in January to go to Belfast to have discussions with Sinn Fein?
  I came to London this afternoon. It is one-and-a-half hours from here. Ken Livingstone should avail himself of the opportunity to fly from Heathrow to Aldergrove and
  1080
  take a bus from there to Ballykelly. Let him stop off and visit Altnagelvin hospital and the homes of the bereaved relatives tonight. If he showed humanity and compassion along those lines, I might be inclined to believe him.
  I have never yet met Mr. Ken Livingstone, but I am not intimidated or frightened by him. I would say it to his face. I think Ken Livingstone is more interested in the deselection of the Brent, East constituency and getting that seat for himself. That must happen before Christmas. That is why Ken Livingstone is so mixed up in Irish affairs. He wants to unseat a sitting MP and get himself into this House.
  I was in Belfast yesterday, where I heard Ken Livingstone say, "The only reason I invited the Sinn Fein candidates to London was that I do not want bombs going off in London". What response did he expect? Everyone living in London is bound to support such a proposal, because no one in the run-up to Christmas wants to walk around in fear of being killed. Mr. Livingstone did not have to look far for support when he expressed that sentiment.
  Northern Ireland is coming to the end of a tragic week. One must see these events at first hand to realise how futile these murders are. I have experienced an incident such as the one that occurred at Ballykelly, when McGurk's bar in my constituency was blown up and 16 people blown to smithereens. I was even closer to the scene, because I helped to pull the dead out of the rubble.
  I was in Belfast last weekend when the news of Ken Livingstone's invitation was first announced. On Monday morning, the day before the murders at Ballykelly, Sinn Fein was shaking in its shoes. It did not want to come, because it knew that because of the controversy it might get an uneasy reception. I knew that Sinn Fein was desperately seeking any excuse to prevent it from coming to London.
  I telephoned the Home Secretary's office—I place this on the record so that it can be verified—and spoke to his private secretary. I said, "Sinn Fein is shaking in its shoes. It will not go to London. It is looking for any excuse".
  Those who let off bombs, smuggle in bags of gelignite and jump on to buses, blow the brains out of bus drivers or shoot men in front of their 10 year-old sons have a special type of courage. The Sinn Fein representatives invited here knew that they would get a hostile reception.
  I appealed to the Home Secretary not to place any exclusion order on the Sinn Fein candidates and not to have them arrested when they arrived at Heathrow. In fact, the Sinn Fein candidates are so courageous that they do not even go to Aldergrove airport to fly to London. They go to Dublin. But there is no Dublin on this side of the water. That illustrates their courage.
  It was a mistake for the Home Secretary to have placed that ban on Sinn Fein. It has gained a considerable political victory out of it. In Belfast today it was claiming that it had been denied the right to free democratic expression to come to London and put its views, but many other members of Sinn Fein, who have not been involved in terrorism, would not be excluded.
  Sinn Fein took upon itself the role of a martyr. The only martyrs in Northern Ireland today are those who were killed and maimed in the Ballykelly explosion and the bereaved relatives whom they left behind. The Home Secretary was utterly wrong to have stopped those men from coming. They cannot, and never will be able to

  1081
  explain away such acts as happened in Ballykelly. Nor will their apologists in the House —there are a few around—or those in Ireland be able to explain them away.
  Some time ago, a book called "On Another Man's Wound" was written in the South. There are an awful lot of people in the House who would be prepared to live on another man's wound.
  Having said all that, I must say that I have opposed this type of legislation because I believe that many innocent people are caught in its tentacles. I am not opposing it for the first or the second time, nor am I making a speech for the first time. I am being as consistent as I ever was in my opposition to this legislation; and I shall vote against it tonight.
  11.25 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I am sure that all hon. Members will have been moved by the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), the depth of feeling in the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the great depth of feeling that was expressed by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). All hon. Members who come from this side of the water must recognise that we cannot possibly understand fully the depth of feeling that they have expressed. We do them a grave injustice unless we recognise that.
  I am also afraid that in the five minutes that are left to me, I cannot possibly do anything like justice to the arguments that were adduced by hon. Members from across the water. I hope that they will exonerate me if I devote a few seconds of my limited time to suggest to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) that it ill befits him to use the sweet talk of democracy, human rights and democratic procedures to advance the utterly undemocratic suggestion that simply because there is a group of people who inconveniently are part of the United Kingdom they should be expelled from the United Kingdom because of that inconvenience. The sweet lingua franca of democracy should not be used to those ends.
  I have rightly been pressed hard by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). His case for pressing us on the review of the Act was extremely soundly based. Whatever has happened since we last extended the emergency provisions, the Government believe that the courts have continued to discharge their duties in scheduled cases without fear or favour. I utterly reject any suggestion to the contrary. I also reject any such suggestion with regard to the security forces. We have the utmost confidence in them and in the sensitivity with which they apply the terms of the emergency provisions legislation.
  The right hon. Member for Mansfield rightly said that the emergency powers were necessary for the present, but he went on to say, equally rightly, that we must not allow them to become part of the fabric of Northern Ireland society because if they became a permanent part of the warp and the weft of the Northern Ireland way of life in the long term that would be anti-democratic in the true sense of the term.
  I fully appreciate the strength of the right hon. Gentleman's feelings in condemning the delay in bringing forward the review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Unfortunately, however, that review is closely linked with the review of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act by Lord Jellicoe,
  1082
  which has taken a little longer than we expected. As the two reviews are closely linked, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to take long and deep soundings to find the right person to conduct the EPA review.
  To do their job properly, the police and security forces in Northern Ireland need three things. First, they need the support of the whole community, on both sides of the sectarian divide and to that end the Government are devoted. Secondly, they need the resources of men and arms to do the job. Those they have in plenty, as my right hon. Friend announced last week, with an increase in the RUC. Thirdly, until the review takes place—I do not intend to prejudge the results of the review—they need the emergency provisions provided by the Act. Therefore, I commend this order to keep the Act in play for a further six months, pending the outcome of the review which we hope will take place in the near future.
  The Act is vital to the conduct of safe and proper policing and to the security of the people of the Province, and for the moment we cannot do without it.
  Question put:—
  The House Divided: Ayes 94, Noes 15.

  Division No. 28]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Mellor, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Ancram, Michael

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Arnold, Tom

  Molyneaux, James

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Needham, Richard

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Onslow, Cranley

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Blackburn, John

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Blaker, Peter

  Parris, Matthew

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

  Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Butcher, John

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Roper, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

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

  Rossi, Hugh

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

  Cope, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Silvester, Fred

  Dunlop, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Speller, Tony

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Forman, Nigel

  Stainton, Keith

  Fox, Marcus

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Stanley, John

  Gow, Ian

  Stevens, Martin

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Thompson, Donald

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Lamont, Norman

  Waddington, David

  Lang, Ian

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Waller, Gary

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Ward, John

  McCusker, H.

  Wells, Bowen

  MacGregor, John

  Wheeler, John

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Marlow, Antony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mather, Carol

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Mr. David Hunt.

  1083

  NOES

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Richardson, Jo

  Cryer, Bob

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Fitt, Gerard

  Skinner, Dennis

  Flannery, Martin

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Tilley, John

  Harman, Harriet (Peckham)

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

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lamond, James

  Mr. A. W. Stallard and

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Mr. Alfred Dubs.

  Race, Reg

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)

    INCOME TAX
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, etc.)
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport Profits) (Cameroon) Order 1982 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th, November.
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Zimbabwe) Order 1982 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th November.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
    Question agreed to.

  Round Oak Steelworks
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
  11.42 pm
  Mr. John G. Blackburn: I rise for the fourth time in two weeks to bring to the attention of the House the critical position in my constituency relating to the proposed closure of the Round Oak steelworks. With all the power and dedication at my command, I represent my people in order, yet again, to present a case for the retention of the steelworks.
  These steelworks have been a vital and profitable part of the private sector of the steel industry for the last 124 years. Responsible representations have been made to the chairman of the British Steel Corporation, the Secretary of State, and the Minister of State by trade unions—it would be improper for me to mention that they are represented tonight— the Dudley metropolitan council, led by the mayor, the West Midlands county council and myself.
  Documented evidence of a high order has been supplied in support of the case which, yet again, I outline to the House. The plant is one of the most modern in Europe. The British Steel Corporation would be proud to achieve 26 per cent. of its production by continuous casting in order to keep plants based on the ingot route open. If Mr. MacGregor had suggested such a closure to the Governments of either Germany or Japan he would have been laughed all the way back across the Pacific.
  Industrial relations are a model for the industry. The trade unions have co-operated fully in the reduction of the work force from about 3,000 to 1,286 in three years. Even against that background, they are prepared to reduce the work force by a further figure to 900, with completely flexible working systems. These systems earned the highest praise from the chairman of the British Steel Corporation when he recently visited the works.
  The plant is probably the only steel producing plant that is capable of being profitable on 55 per cent. capacity. In essence, it is all that is good about a steelworks. It is all that the Government have sought. I state, with humility, that I am proud to be associated with the works, the largest employer in my constituency. I object in the strongest possible terms to the closure notice, both the manner in which it was handled without consultation and the time element of five weeks. With other closures, such as Corby, there has been up to a year's notice. The matter merits the most thorough investigation. It is nothing short of a disgrace.
  There are three basic reasons for the retention of the steelworks. The facts that I present cannot be challenged. In financial terms, the works are viable. I am able to report that a completely independent assessment of the financial structure has been completed this very day with the aid of the best computer. Recent trials have pointed to such a high quality of product that an annual order for 50,000 tonnes is waiting to be secured as second supplier to BSC Cumbria at Workington. With all the power at my command, I seek the assurance from BSC that the order will be placed with Round Oak steelworks.
  I have documentary evidence that local steel consumers are waiting to place orders of up to 1,000 tonnes a week. These are not being accepted. I have irrefutable evidence that failure to accept the orders will result in just what we

  1085
  do not want—imports. The exchange rate has fallen by 4 per cent., making the exports of the company even more competitive. It has to be borne in mind that the company holds the Queen's Award for export achievement. I am delighted that the firm is situated in my constituency.
  I applaud without question the reduction of 12½ per cent. secured by the Secretary of State in steel imports from third countries. There is extra capacity that can be produced by United Kingdom manufacturers. Round Oak is at the heart of the engineering industry. It produces high quality engineering steel. It is on the record that, for the last three years, hon. Members on both sides have given active and financial support to British Leyland for the production of the LC10 car. I pay a warm and generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who will be replying to the debate, for the prominent role that he played as a Back Bencher in seeing that work on the LC10 went ahead. It is now a reality. The components for the car should be manufactured in the West Midlands, in the heart of the Black Country. And here is the steelworks, specialising in the steel required to supply this venture.
  The social impact of the closure of the black country—not simply the constituency that I have the honour to serve—would be devastating. Unemployment is growing more rapidly here than in Scotland, the North-East or Merseyside. That aspect has been well documented and presented to the Secretary of State by the Dudley local authority. I pay warm tributes to the mayor of the borough, who has been active in all these matters, and to the chief executive, Mr. John Mulvehill, to whom I owe a personal debt. They receive from me the highest possible commendation.
  The third aspect to which I wish to draw attention is something which, in the final analysis, must be held very dear—certainly to me. It is the political philosophy of the proposed closure of the steelworks. I demand from the Government a renewal of the covenant which was made in 1981, and to which I was an enthusiastic subscriber, that Round Oak steelworks, having had its natural habitat for 124 years in the private sector, should be returned to the private sector. It was to be the king-pin of phoenix 2. I went into the Lobby, secure in the fact that there would be a phoenix 2, that there would be a private sector, and that it would compete equally and fairly with the giant British Steel Corporation. The private sector is part of my fundamental philosophy and that of my party. How can there be a private sector when the House was told last week that every tonne of steel that is produced by BSC carries a subsidy of £88?
  I find it morally and politically offensive that a Government should condone the proposition that the British Steel Corporation should be allowed to use public money in its attempt to close the private steelworks at Manchester, using £16 million to put 900 men out of work. That is the confusion of the slaughterhouse, with the logic of the madhouse, supported by the assets of the poorhouse. The British Steel Corporation is financially bankrupt. It is the will of the House that we go through the Lobbies to write off millions of pounds again.
  It is manifestly clear that a similar situation now applies at Round Oak steelworks, and I shall defend those steelworks tonight. The share capital of that company was purchased with public money. Although the time scale is
  1086
  a little longer, the situation is the same—the purchase of Round Oak with the intention of closing it and removing a competitor.
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: It is too efficient.
  Mr. Blackburn: My hon. Friend knows the area well, and knows the Black Country. He is correct when he says that Round Oak is too efficient. It is the most efficient modern steel plant in the country. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.
  By the grace of God I shall display all the courage and dedication that is required to oppose the closure. I shall do it in a most reasonable and responsible way, which I pray will be the hallmark of my service in the House.
  It is a matter of considerable concern that this company could be closed within five weeks of receiving the notice. I am able to tell the House that, because of the wealth of good will that has been extended to Round Oak steelworks, the highest and most knowledgeable authority in the country in connection with the administration of the steel industry is being commissioned to produce an independent report on Round Oak. I have already said that an independent financial report is being produced. Tomorrow at 2 o'clock I shall have it in my hands. It will be no surprise to the House to learn that the first person to whom it will go will be the Secretary of State for Industry, who is represented by his junior Minister tonight.
  On behalf of the fine workers of Round Oak steelworks and the people of Dudley, and to protect the political integrity of the Government, I look to Ministers on the Treasury Bench. I ask that they take note of the fact that an independent assessment of the financial structure has been completed. I invite the Minister to take note of the fact that the highest authority in the land is being commissioned to do an independent inquiry into the viability of the steelworks. I know that the steelworks are viable. I could never stand by and see my workers taken out of employment when I know, and in the soberness of the House we all know, that they are fine men producing a fine product in demand. They do it very well and very competitively. I pay tribute to them.
  It is in that spirit that I commend to the House the proposal that in no circumstances must Round. Oak steelworks close. It is financially viable. It has an order book. It has a superb work force and a reputation which has been built up solidly for 124 years. I give due notice—I do not say this in a sense of bravado, but out of a sense of affection for my people—that I cannot and will not stand by and watch this dark day dawn.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) on the most diligent and vigorous way in which he has presented his case both tonight and on previous occasions. He has pursued his constituents' interests most energetically and sincerely in seeking out my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on several occasions. Last week he led a deputation from the Round Oak works, the Dudley district council and the West Midlands county council to see my right hon. Friend. I know that he has the wholehearted support for his efforts from all those involved with the Round Oak works, with which he himself has been so closely involved over several years.

  1087
  As the Member for Coventry, South-West, I share my hon. Friend's concern about what is happening in the west midlands. Traditionally it is an area of great prosperity with low levels of unemployment by comparison with other parts of the country. Because of this, the present hardships are even more difficult to understand and to come to terms with. The announcement of the ending of steelmaking is a sad blow to the West Midlands. I join my hon. Friend in his concern for the work-force, and their families, faced with this closure.
  The steel industry currently faces appalling problems. We heard of many of them in the course of the steel debate in the House only last week and many suggestions were put forward to improve matters. I remind the House of some of the key issues which are at the roots of the problem. Essentially there remains too much capacity to meet fewer and fewer orders.
  The British Steel Corporation has more than twice the capacity of its current production of 10 million tonnes of liquid steel. On even the most optimistic of medium-term forecasts, steel demand is not expected to approach anything like those levels. This is a world-wide problem, but one that is particularly acute in Europe and in the United Kingdom. The solution to our problems is closely bound up with the measures being taken in Europe. We have fully supported the regime to cut capacity and phase out subsidies by 1985. This means further cuts in capacity and some of them will, I am afraid, affect modem steel plants.
  The rules on pricing, production and imports from third countries are all being tightened and we welcome that. Those latter measures are essentially short-term palliatives designed to give industry a breathing space in which to adapt to the necessary structural changes.
  For a time those measures brought some relief, but from the spring of this year the position has again deteriorated seriously. BSC's recently announced half-year losses of £154 million bear witness to the extent of this deterioration. Losses on this scale cannot continue and the corporation has therefore acted urgently to reduce them. It has been explained on previous occasions to the House that the Government, with the corporation, is undertaking a review of BSC's five major integrated works. However, other measures to cut costs, involving further redundancies and closures of smaller plants, are a matter for BSC's judgment and do not require authorisation by the Government. The decision to close Round Oak has fallen into this latter category.
  Round Oak, as my hon. Friend said, has been a private sector firm for over 100 years. Since nationalisation in 1967, it has been jointly owned by Tube Investments Ltd. and BSC. Its principal function was to supply tube rounds to TI. By late 1980, along with most of the companies making engineering steel, it was sustaining heavy losses. Here again the problem was one of serious over-capacity, and so discussions about rationalisation within the sector began. These discussions were codenamed Phoenix II. The objective was a viable joint venture, private sector company. At the outset there were five or six possible participants operating at several locations in the United Kingdom and with a combined capacity of around 4·5 million tonnes. There was general agreement at the time that only some 2·3 million to 2·8 million tonnes was required.
  1088
  By early 1981, Round Oak was in serious difficulties and the Government therefore authorised BSC to buy out TI's shareholding, in order to prevent the company from going into receivership. The clear intention was that the Round Oak plant would form part of the Phoenix II company. As we know, the discussions between the principal parties, BSC and GKN, have not produced any firm proposals. Sadly, no Phoenix II company has materialised.
  Meanwhile, demand for steel products has dropped below even last year's levels—in engineering steels, demand this year is 20 per cent. below BSC's expectations. Further reductions in capacity are inevitable. BSC has therefore acted to close Round Oak, involving 1,286 job losses and at the same time has announced 1,700 further job losses at it plants in Sheffield and Rotherham, together with the closure of an electric arc furnace. Those are serious measures, but BSC's situation is serious and the corporation needs urgently to cut its costs to restore its financial and commercial position.
  These measures will still leave BSC with almost 2 million tonnes of engineering steels capacity. Nor must we forget the rest of the private sector, which has currently over 600,000 tonnes in addition. United Kingdom demand for engineering steels totals 1·7 million tonnes and this is not forecast to show any significant improvement in the next two years. An increase in demand of 50 per cent. can thus be met without the Round Oak capacity of 360,000 tonnes and without increasing imports.
  I turn more closely to the capability of the Round Oak works and the decision by BSC to close it. It has been made clear that that decision is a BSC management decision, and not one in which the Government would seek to influence or question the corporation's commercial judgment. I understand, however, that although it is agreed that the works is modern and flexible with concast facilities, there are now cheaper means in BSC and the private sector in the United Kingdom for producing the tube rounds which gave the works its traditional order book. That is a development that has also taken place abroad. In addition, orders for tube rounds have now dropped to a very low level.
  The plan put forward by the work force involves a breathing space of 12 months in which to allow Round Oak to re-establish its market base. But as I have just explained, BSC believes that tube rounds can be produced more cheaply elsewhere and these alternative facilities are not expected to be fully loaded next year. In engineering steels, Round Oak would be competing against other BSC works and the private sector where both BSC and GKN have recently announced redundancies reflecting reduced demand and over-capacity for those products.
  The more favourable exchange rate has only restored the position in Europe, where the overall market is more competitive than last year. Demand in the United States of America is low and the quota arrangements inhibit any significant improvement. Elsewhere in the world, business is to be had only at a very low price, requiring the lowest cost process routes to be used.
  Unfortunately, reducing the work force to 900 does not remove the underlying problem of excess steel making capacity, nor can it compensate for the very low level of the Round Oak order book. The works is not viable at the 4,000 tonnes per week level suggested. I understand that the order of 1,000 tonnes referred to is a single order for 1,000 tonnes of steel made very recently after the closure

  1089
  announcement, and is not a regular order for 1,000 tonnes per week. However, I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend had to say and I am sure that that will enter into the Secretary of State's consideration of the paper that he recently put forward at the Department of Industry.
  This closure has been presented as a departure from our political philosophy of promoting the cause of the private sector of industry. It is true that in the Phoenix II case things have not gone well and that the lengthy discussions between BSC and GKN have not produced a new joint venture company, but this was always a particularly difficult sector in which to seek success. With Phoenix I and Phoenix III we have been more successful. Last year, Allied Steel and Wire was set up, merging certain of the rod and bar interests of BSC and GKN. Rationalisation has also taken place in the heavy forgings area with the recent birth of Sheffield Forgemasters, a joint venture between BSC and Johnson and Firth Brown.
  The paramount problem in the private sector is also one of over-capacity and the only way forward is for the industry to rationalise its resources. In order to assist this process, the Government originally offered £22 million under the private sector steel scheme and that has recently been increased to £34 million. One part of the scheme offers assistance to self-help levy schemes. Hon. Members will no doubt have seen references in last Sunday's press to major proposals for such schemes for the steel castings industry, and a similiar scheme was announced last week for wire drawers. They have the double attraction of ensuring a sector-wide approach to rationalisation, largely funded by the industry, and of ensuring that it is the industry as a whole—and not Government—that decides which companies are to close and which are to remain in business.
  My hon. Friend referred to the proposal for a scheme for the wire rod and rebar sector. The compensation that was to have been given to Manchester Steel was, I stress,
  1090
  to be funded not only by BSC but by other private sector producers. Indeed, it was a prime condition of the Government's support that that was so. As my hon. Friend knows, that particular proposal has now been dropped.
  My hon. Friend and I share a common interest in the well-being of the West Midlands. He and I have fought this corner together in the past. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend and I am aware that he has put in a very strong and tightly reasoned report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is considering it. I assure my hon. Friend that his report, and the representations that he has often made, will be treated very seriously. I know that he has a promise from the Secretary of State that we shall respond to those representations as soon as we can.
  My hon. Friend has been pugnacious in defence of his constituents' interests and in the interests of the Round Oak steelworks. I am sure that he can detect almost envy on my part because I am standing here and he is standing there on this occasion. That envy may not be reciprocated, given my hon. Friend's obvious affection for and faith in his constituents. He has shown that faith and I hope that, when we come to respond, we shall show that we have taken his position seriously.
  My hon. Friend talked, rightly, about integrity. He has shown integrity in the way that he pursues his aims to preserve the Round Oak steelworks. We shall try to respond with equal integrity, because my hon. Friend's case justifies that.
  I know well the people of the Black Country—those who live in Netherton, near Conuygre road and in Tipton. They are tough, warm and hardworking people and for their sake we should treat seriously my hon Friend's requests.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.

TRADE
  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Electricity Consultative Councils
  Electricity Consultative Councils
  European Courts (Judgments)
  European Courts (Judgments)
  Companies Act 1967 (Disclosure)
  Companies Act 1967 (Disclosure)
ENERGY
  Court Cases (Judgments)
  Court Cases (Judgments)
  Opencast Mining
  Opencast Mining
SCOTLAND
  Court Cases (Judgments)
  Court Cases (Judgments)
  Smallholders (Grants)
  Smallholders (Grants)
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Diego Garcia
  Diego Garcia
  President Mitterrand
  President Mitterrand
  Moscow
  Moscow
  President Reagan
  President Reagan
  Economic Policy
  Economic Policy
  Family Income
  Family Income
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Commonwealth Visits
  Commonwealth Visits
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Anglo-Japanese Trade
  Anglo-Japanese Trade
  Flags of Convenience
  Flags of Convenience
  Unemployment (West Midlands)
  Unemployment (West Midlands)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Arab League
  Arab League
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Metropolitan Police (Training and Recruitment)
  Metropolitan Police (Training and Recruitment)
  Armed Robberies
  Armed Robberies
  Civil Disorders
  Civil Disorders
  Criminal Offences (Penalties)
  Criminal Offences (Penalties)
  Provisional Sinn Fein
  Provisional Sinn Fein
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pension Clawback
  Pension Clawback
  Children (Employment)
  Children (Employment)
  Mr. Hugh Hourigan
  Mr. Hugh Hourigan
  Mental Patients
  Mental Patients
  Earnings Rule
  Earnings Rule
  Non-medical Hospital Staff
  Non-medical Hospital Staff
  Hospital Ancillary Services
  Hospital Ancillary Services
  Blood Supplies
  Blood Supplies
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Macclesfield)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Macclesfield)
  Vehicle Allowances
  Vehicle Allowances
  Drugs (Deaths and Injuries)
  Drugs (Deaths and Injuries)
  Pharmaceutical Companies (Compensation)
  Pharmaceutical Companies (Compensation)
  Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality
  Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality
  Overseas Visitors (Health Treatment)
  Overseas Visitors (Health Treatment)
  National Health Service Buildings (Asbestos Lagging)
  National Health Service Buildings (Asbestos Lagging)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
EMPLOYMENT
  West Midlands
  West Midlands
  Consett
  Consett
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Children (Illegal Employment)
  Children (Illegal Employment)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Industrial Training Boards
  Industrial Training Boards
  Redundancy Fund
  Redundancy Fund
  Closed Shop
  Closed Shop
  Court Cases (Judgments)
  Court Cases (Judgments)
INDUSTRY
  New Businesses
  New Businesses
  Radio Telephone Network
  Radio Telephone Network
  Buxted Poultry Factory, Gainsborough
  Buxted Poultry Factory, Gainsborough
  Court Cases (Judgments)
  Court Cases (Judgments)
WALES
  Hospital Plan
  Hospital Plan
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Rubens Cartoon
  Rubens Cartoon
  Court Cases (Judgments)
  Court Cases (Judgments)
  Welsh Water Authority
  Welsh Water Authority
  Housing Association Movement
  Housing Association Movement
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  European Space Agency
  European Space Agency
  Assessment of Performance Unit
  Assessment of Performance Unit
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
  Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1982
  Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1982
  Court Cases (Judgments)
  Court Cases (Judgments)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Margarine (Fish Oil)
  Margarine (Fish Oil)
  Opencast Coal Mining
  Opencast Coal Mining
  Subsidised Butter
  Subsidised Butter
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Assembly
  Assembly
  RUC (Service Medal)
  RUC (Service Medal)
  Court Cases (Judgments)
  Court Cases (Judgments)
  Droppin Well Bar, Ballykelly
  Droppin Well Bar, Ballykelly
TRANSPORT
  Storage Structures
  Storage Structures
  A40 (Traffic Flow)
  A40 (Traffic Flow)
  Mileage Recording
  Mileage Recording
ENVIRONMENT
  Homes Insulation (Double Glazing)
  Homes Insulation (Double Glazing)
  Statutory Sick Pay
  Statutory Sick Pay
  Water and Sewerage Workers (Wages Negotiations)
  Water and Sewerage Workers (Wages Negotiations)
  Council House Building
  Council House Building
  Structural Work and Christmas Trees (Mobile Access Platforms)
  Structural Work and Christmas Trees (Mobile Access Platforms)
  Nuneaton (Urban Structure Plan)
  Nuneaton (Urban Structure Plan)
  Land Use (Agreements)
  Land Use (Agreements)
  Court Cases (Judgments)
  Court Cases (Judgments)
  Wildfowling
  Wildfowling
  Chief Inspector of Audit (Report)
  Chief Inspector of Audit (Report)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  International Labour Conventions
  International Labour Conventions
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Miss Rhona Ritchie
  Miss Rhona Ritchie
  Diplomats (Expenses)
  Diplomats (Expenses)
  Exports (Promotion)
  Exports (Promotion)
  Lebanon
  Lebanon
  Saudi Arabia
  Saudi Arabia
  Arab League
  Arab League
  Court Cases (Judgments)
  Court Cases (Judgments)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Civil Servants (Political Speeches)
  Civil Servants (Political Speeches)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Capital Projects (Financing)
  Capital Projects (Financing)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Contingency Reserve
  Contingency Reserve
  Balance of Payments (Manufactures)
  Balance of Payments (Manufactures)
  Unemployment Benefit (Tax Refunds)
  Unemployment Benefit (Tax Refunds)
  Employers' National Insurance Contribution
  Employers' National Insurance Contribution
  Income Tax and Social Security Contributions
  Income Tax and Social Security Contributions
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Foreign Currency Debt
  Foreign Currency Debt
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Finance Bill
  Finance Bill
  Family Income
  Family Income
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Treasury Econometric Model
  Treasury Econometric Model
  Tax and Price Index
  Tax and Price Index
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Personal Incomes (Taxation)
  Personal Incomes (Taxation)
  Husband and Wife (Taxation)
  Husband and Wife (Taxation)
  Tax Credit Scheme
  Tax Credit Scheme
  Family Taxation (PAYE)
  Family Taxation (PAYE)
  IMF (National Subscriptions)
  IMF (National Subscriptions)
  Companies (Share Purchase)
  Companies (Share Purchase)
  Manufacturing Industry (Competitiveness)
  Manufacturing Industry (Competitiveness)
  Total Fixed Investment
  Total Fixed Investment
  Wick Airport (Customs Clearance)
  Wick Airport (Customs Clearance)
  Top Income Tax Payers
  Top Income Tax Payers
  Merchant Banks (Discussions)
  Merchant Banks (Discussions)
  Tax Incentives
  Tax Incentives
  Direct Taxation
  Direct Taxation
  Economic Improvement
  Economic Improvement
  Bank of England
  Bank of England
  Tax Thresholds
  Tax Thresholds
  Yen
  Yen
  Manufactures (Duty-free Imports)
  Manufactures (Duty-free Imports)
  Economists
  Economists
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Depreciation Allowance
  Depreciation Allowance
  Free Ports (Committee)
  Free Ports (Committee)
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Technology: Exports to Soviet Union
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards the sale of advanced technology to the Soviet Union.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, advanced technology may not be exported to the Soviet Union if considered to be strategically sensitive. It is not in our interest to contribute to Soviet military or strategic advantage and capabilities.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he does not consider that over the past 10 years or so a great deal of advanced technology has been made available to the Soviet Union which has been of assistance to them in their military endeavours; and therefore, would it not be desirable for the Government to consult with their allies in the committee known as COCOM as to whether that committee could not be expanded in relation to the type of goods which are exported to the Soviet Union, and in relation also to the number of countries which subscribe to that?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I could not accept the wide generalisation my noble friend makes. COCOM, the co-ordinating committee, keeps these matters under continuous review. A full-scale review of the list was launched in October of this year and will be completed next year. Any revision required between major revisions is always subject to consideration.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is there not some argument for the exchange of limited technological information, if only as an instrument to defuse East-West tension? Is not the exchange of information allowed for in the convention on the sea, which we have recently refused to sign, an example of that? Would the Government not consider that again?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, so far as the convention on the law of the sea is concerned, that is an entirely different point to the one raised in the Question on the Order Paper. With regard to the noble Lord's references to trade with the Soviet Union, I understand the point he is making. The restrictions operated through COCOM apply only to advanced technology which has a military or strategic value. One of the points we are pursuing in COCOM is to ensure that when technology ceases to be advanced technology it
256
should be removed from the prohibited list in the same way that new items of advanced technology should be added.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his reply is not entirely reassuring? He will recollect that as recently as 8th February last I was assured in a Written Answer that there was unanimous agreement between the NATO allies and within COCOM about the more rigorous terms which should be applied to the export of high technology. Despite that, we have quite recently seen the United States action, which has surely exposed the fact that the system is not working at all well and that we are in some disarray.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I would not accept the view that my noble friend puts forward that we are in some disarray. We are currently reviewing the list of items dealt with under the COCOM procedure. In so far as improvements to that procedure may be needed, we are prepared with our allies to review the situation in the COCOM machinery.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister not agree that over the years COCOM, through the intervention of different Governments with different standards of progress in technology, has more or less arrived at conclusions which are helpful? Would the noble Lord also not agree that nevertheless, with the advance of technology, to divide the frontiers of the artefacts of peace and the artefacts of war is growing more and more difficult as man's ingenuity invents items which can be used just as well for peace as for war?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, makes a philosophical point which is of considerable importance. The point on which we are all agreed is that we should not add to the military or strategic strength of the Soviet Union; there is no disagreement on that point at all. At the same time, trade in commodities or articles which do not add to the strength of the Soviets in the military field should not be discouraged.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Lord say what evidence he has of the use for military purposes of advanced technology of a non-military nature that has been exported?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, would care to give me an example of the specific articles he has in mind, I might be in a better position to answer his question.

Stansted Airport Public Inquiries
3.6 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask her Majesty's Government what has been the total cost to public funds and to the British

257
Airports Authority to date of the public inquiries relating to the development of Stansted Airport; and when it is anticipated a decision will be given.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the cost to the Exchequer to date of the public inquiries relating to the proposed development of Stansted Airport is approximately £600,000. Expenditure incurred by the British Airports Authority on this inquiry is, of course, a matter for the board. With a substantial part of the hearings still to be completed, it is too early to anticipate the decision date.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend Lord Avon for that reply, may I ask him whether he recalls that it is a little more than 18 years since the Government of the day pronounced in favour of the development of Stansted Airport? In these circumstances, and in view of the expenditure on a number of inquiries since then, is it not time that the Secretary of State put his foot down and demanded that this inquiry be expedited so that a decision can at last be reached?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention, with which I believe we all agree basically. It was in point of fact on 17th December 1979, in the term of office of this present Government, that the then Secretary of State, Mr. John Nott, invited the British Airports Authority to bring forward proposals. Since then there have been a number of other developments, all of which have been taken into account by this inquiry—including, of course, the Heathrow stage which will be starting in January.
Lord Alport: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he can assure us that nothing will be done to prevent those who are opposed to the development of Stansted Airport from having their fair say and putting their case at whatever length is necessary in order to ensure that the interests of, for example, the people of Essex are properly safeguarded?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am happy to give my noble friend that assurance. There has been nothing rushed in this inquiry, and it will be statutorily carried out.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, Lord Avon, whether, equally, he will give an assurance to those of us who have continually tried to secure some relief for Heathrow, and who have believed for 18 years that Stansted is the best bet? Will he be good enough to give us some assurance as well?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I seem to be giving everyone assurances on all kinds of matters. This matter is being pursued very carefully, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, is well aware, the case of Heathrow is to be looked at early in the new year.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend Lord Avon inform my noble friend Lord Alport that the people of Essex have now had longer than 18 years in which to make their views known; and does he
258
not agree that even the slowest-minded among us can generally express our views within that period—or even go to the extent of hiring expensive counsel?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I will be happy to serve as a post office between my two noble friends, although I understand that, at the moment, the Boy Scouts are doing that job and perhaps they would be better employed at it than I.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does my noble friend Lord Avon not agree that three times have the people of Essex won their campaign and three times has this come back again; that they have amply conveyed their opinions publicly, and that it is time this came to an end and the idea was dropped?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we hope to see the end of this particular inquiry in the not too distant future, and I am sure my noble friend will be satisfied.
Lord O'Neill of the Maine: My Lords, will the inquiry include the possibility of developing an airport in the North of England? There are many gateways across the Atlantic into America. Must everything come to London? Could it not, for instance, go to Manchester?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I understand that a consortium led by Manchester Airport has put the case to the inquiry for diversion to regional airports as an alternative to Stansted. The Secretaries of State for Trade and the Environment will reach a final decision in the light of the inspector's report.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, as the M25 becomes nearer to being a complete reality, might not the fears of the people of Essex be somewhat reduced?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out that the M25 is nearing completion. We shall of course then hope that the people of Essex are relieved by that motorway.

The Civil Aviation Authority: Administration
3.12 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority has completed his inquiry into the adminstration of the authority and if not when he expects to do so; and whether the resulting report will be presented to Parliament.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, in July of this year my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade asked the new chairman of the CAA, Mr. John Dent, to look at all the operations of the authority with a fresh eye and to let him have his views on the CAA's activities and his strategic objectives for the management of the authority over

259
the next few years. We are not expecting a formal report, but my honourable friend intends to discuss the chairman's conclusions with him, and the aviation industry will then be consulted before decisions are taken.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that on the day he mentioned I did ask in this House whether it was not true that Mr. Sproat had asked for this review to be conducted? Perhaps the Minister will refer to the Hansard for 16th July, at col. 572, which he probably has in his file. Is he aware that we were told that the results of this review would be published, and therefore may we perhaps hope that that will be the case? May I further ask the noble Lord whether, as well as reviewing the administration of the CAA, the functions and the power of that authority will also be included in the review?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, with respect, there is a difference between publishing the review itself and publishing the result of the review. Clearly if there are going to be consultations there must be clear indication of the points on which consultation is being conducted. Therefore, the broad conclusions will inevitably be published. So far as the powers and functions of the CAA are concerned, this, of course, lies quite outside the scope of the present review being underaken by my honourable friend.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while being grateful for half a loaf, in that at least the conclusions will be published, may I ask the noble Lord whether he feels that as a result of this he will be able to look at the problem which arises when the Department of Trade and the Civil Aviation Authority both have representatives at international meetings? Is he aware that, whereas the department deals with political and bilateral matters, the Civil Aviation Authority deals with fares, and this causes a considerable grey area which many people would like to see cleared up?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the latter point that the noble Baroness raises is one that I shall certainly be prepared to look at. I should have thought that there were sound reasons why both the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority should be represented, but I will look into the matter and write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister would be prepared to consider this. In so far as I understand it—he will tell me if I have got it wrong—Parliament and the Government ordered this inquiry, which will have very far-reaching effects, as I am sure the noble Lord appreciates. Would it therefore not be right and proper that the Parliament which instructed the inquiry to be made should also have the right to deliberate upon it?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, with respect, I think the noble Lord misunderstands the nature of the review being undertaken. It is a continuous process, by which both the Government and public authorities like the CAA look at their operations. It is perfectly normal for
260
a Minister to ask a body for which he is responsible to review its activities. The report which is produced will be in the nature of a working document rather than a formal report, and it would not be normal practice to publish it, as such.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, of course the noble Lord is absolutely correct, but when identical and similar instances have occurred Ministers have been requested by Parliament that their reports should be available to be discussed, and this is very rarely refused.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it depends on the nature of the document to which reference is made. So far as this review is concerned, it is essentially an internal review. We will be consulting the airlines and the other people interested on any points which we think ought to be pursued, but the review itself is essentially an internal operation and there is no question of a formal report being produced. There is, therefore, no report to publish.

The Export Credits Guarantee Department
3.16 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they plan any action in regard to the difficulties contemplated by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in view of the dangers to British exporters.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, despite the current difficulties of trading worldwide, the Export Credits Guarantee Department will continue to make its facilities widely available to British exporters, subject to the exercise of prudent judgment and the department's obligation to pay its way.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him two questions. Is it not a fact that there is a danger that the ECGD may have to raise its premium rates, and would this not be a setback for the Government's rightful attempt to increase the competitiveness of our British exports?
Secondly, is it the case that the surplus from the ECGD is at present invested in the Consolidated Fund? Have the Government looked at the suggestion made by the developing countries at the GATT meeting, that organisations like the ECGD might very well offer loans to the developing countries, which would increase both exports from this country and the purchasing power of those countries?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as far as the noble Lord's first question is concerned, the department is charged to pay its way, and its premium rates must reflect the difficult trading conditions of the world today. As far as the noble Lord's second question is concerned. I think it is a little wide of the original Question, but I am sure we are all grateful for his observations.
Lord Hatch Of Lusby: My Lords, with respect, my second question was not wide of the original Question. What I am asking is whether the Government have considered the proposals made at the GATT meeting by the developing countries, that the British Government—because this is a state organisation—should use the ECGD for the provision of loans which would increase the purchasing power of those countries, and therefore increase our exports and jobs in this country, rather than investing their surpluses (and, as the noble Lord knows, there was a trading surplus last year) in the Consolidated Fund?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, it is very soon after the conclusion of the GATT meeting in Geneva for the Government to have any firm views on this particular suggestion by the developing countries. As the noble Lord and the House will be aware, the ECGD is a commercial operation to assist British exports, and of course it is funded in the main by premiums paid for by British exporters.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I was first a little surprised to find a Question from my noble friend on the Order paper which appeared to be interested in British interests, but that his two subsequent additional questions seem to be to the effect that we should incur more rather than fewer bad debts?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord only stresses my replies to the first two supplementary questions of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Export Credits Guarantee Department is in fact an insurance organisation and is perhaps not the appropriate organisation for making loans? On the other hand, can the Minister assure us that the terms applied by the ECGD are subject to consensus agreement with other countries and that it would be unwise to get into a credit competition with some of the other lenders in international fields?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's reminder, contained in his first important point. He is absolutely correct on his second point.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, can we have an assurance from the Minister that any obstacle that bars the way to a revival of trade based on the export credit guarantee arrangement will be removed? We are anxious to revive international trade in any possible form. That is the only way to escape from our present difficulties.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, right. I draw his attention, and that of your Lordships, to the comments of my noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade. In July he pointed out that there is little point in this country supplying goods abroad for which it is not paid and for which it cannot be paid.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, am I correct in assuming that the ECGD does make loans and that it does so to the Consolidated Fund out of its trading surplus each year? Are we not in a "Catch-22"
262
position where our exports are restrained because of the lack of purchasing power overseas and at the same time that purchasing power cannot be raised because development is hindered through the lack of our exports?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, attends more moving pictures than I do. I am not too sure about this "Catch-22" movie. I have never seen it, so he has completely lost me there. The noble Lord is in danger of confusing accountancy terms, since in no way could the surplus accrued by the ECGD be described as a loan.

Business of the House
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Christmas Recess on Wednesday, 22nd December and return on Monday, 17th January 1983. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on 22nd December.
I should also say that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. Subject to the progress of business this afternoon, the Committee on the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill may be adjourned at approximately 7 o'clock for a short period.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question on Government business? The Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill is such a great Bill that I hope we are not trying to rush this vital legislation through Parliament just before the Christmas Recess. Can the Minister help the House and say that we shall have time to think in depth about it?
Lord Denham: My Lords, time is always at a premium in your Lordship's House, particularly before Recesses. I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that we have achieved a rather large share of the legislation of the Session starting in this House. It would help that situation to continue in other Sessions if we are as expeditions as possible. Having said that, the House must not be rushed, but I ask noble Lords—and I thank the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to say this—not to spend too much time on the less important parts of the Bill.

Public Records (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the transfer of certain records in the custody of the Registrar General to the Public Record Office. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time—(Lord Teviot.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
3.27 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Your Lordships may recollect that on Thursday 25th February of this year, when this Bill was before your Lordships for its Second Reading, I explained that the two main purposes of the Bill were contained, first, in Part II: to authorise the construction of a bridge over the River Severn with approach roads on either side to give access to the proposed multi-storey car park in the Borough of Shrewsbury and Atcham; and secondly, in Part III, to protect the old market square in the centre of that borough.
Your Lordships then instructed the committee in the following terms—I quote from the Instruction in paragraph 3 of the Select Committee's report:
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed:—

(a) that they should not allow Part II (Lands and Works) unless they are satisfied:—

(i) that the need for these provisions outweighs their detrimental effect on the Shrewsbury Town Football Club:

(ii) that the works will be carried out without undue delay:and

(b)that they should not allow Clause 4(3) or Clause 9 of Part II unless the Promoters of the Bill show special need for these provisions.".

The Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, sat for no less than six days, hearing evidence in this matter. I think everyone who has read the report and the evidence will agree that it was a long and a fair hearing. I now quote from Paragraph 14 of the committee's special report:
"The Committee heard evidence on all these points"—
that is, arguments were recited both for and against—
"from witnesses both for the Promoters and for the Petitioners. They have concluded that the detrimental effect on the Football Club is not sufficient to require them to delete Part II of the Bill".
The committee then goes on to deal with safeguards. I should like to adopt the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in 1973 on the British Transport Docks (Hull Docks) Bill. I quote from Hansard:
"Now it occurs to me that there is little purpose in your Lordships sending a Bill to a Select Committee and not having trust in that Committee to do that Committee's business, and with the full intention as declared perhaps at Second Reading, that notwithstanding what a Select Committee may do, we will raise the matter again at Third Reading.
"Some of these Select Committees are a little arduous. This one was not very arduous: it meant three days of close attention with an extra half hour on the second day. If Select Committees are going to do this work on behalf of the House, I think it would be in the better interests of the House to accept their recommendation, unless there are very momentous, pressing reasons why it should not".— [Official Report, 24/7/73: cols. 1790–1791.]
Bearing in mind that that quotation reflects the tradition of this House, I was a little surprised to see the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, unless, as I anticipated, it was simply a courteous indication that he was not happy with some aspect of the matter but was not going to press it to a Division. Here we have a report that is, first, unanimous and, secondly, no momentous reasons are known to me in this matter. It is politically non-controversial. It is of some interest to note that on the
264
borough council 45 of the 48 members were entirely in favour of the scheme, and they cover the whole political ambit as reflected in Shrewsbury—that is, the four main political parties were in favour of the Bill.
On Second Reading your Lordships heard most eloquent speeches on behalf of the football club. They have now been examined in detail on either side, and perhaps it is right that we should reflect on the matter. It is one thing to make a statement in your Lordships' House; it is another thing to sustain that statement, as it were, in cross-examination before a Select Committee.
It might be of some interest to distinguish between the supporters of the Shrewsbury Club and the shareholders, because there is a distinction. The supporters of the Shrewsbury Club are largely electors of the Borough of Shrewsbury, and the promoters of this Bill have to answer to those electors. The shareholders may be entirely different. On the fifth day of the hearing before the Select Committee, one of the directors gave evidence. He was cross-examined, but I shall not trouble your Lordships with the cross-examination, which was extremely illuminating. Suffice it to say that he was a shareholder who owned 50 per cent. of the interest in the club. Therefore, a shareholder who holds 50 per cent. of the interest may have different interests from those of the supporters.
However, the committee commented in the following restrained terms, as one would expect of one of your Lordships' committees. At paragraph 15 they said:
"There is one other matter to which the Committee feel the attention of the House should be drawn. It is that, during the last three years, the Petitioners themselves have been interested in the development of their practice ground which would have provided not only car-parking, but also a super-store and a sports hall. Access to this development would have been through the Club's property to the cast of the Football ground. While the Committee of course see no reason why the Football Club should not have examined ways of developing their own land, they consider that it puts in perspective some of the Club's complaints and fears about the damage that the Borough Council's scheme will do to their facilities".
That was, if one reads the cross-examination, a very restrained comment, but it is a sufficient indication of the view of the committee.
I do not want to recapitulate what I said on Second Reading. However, one finds in the Bill—and this is the advantage of the procedure before your Lordship's House by way of Select Committee—that there are safeguarding clauses. Indeed, there is a long safeguarding clause with many subsections in favour of the football club. There are also many safeguarding clauses in favour of the county council. Your Lordships will remember that, when the Bill was here for Second Reading, the county council were also petitioners against the Bill. I foreshadowed then that an agreement and an accommodation would soon be reached with the county council. So it was, and the petition of the county council was not proceeded with. But there is a safeguarding clause in the Bill in favour of the county council and there are safeguarding clauses to protect other interested parties.
I simply want to quote one of the safeguards for the football club—and I quote from Clause 15 of the Bill.
Lord Beswick: My Lords. I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him before he

265
goes on to another point? As he has made a strong point of the fact that the county council are now satisfied, will the noble Lord tell me why, at the meeting of their Planning and Transport Committee on 10th October, they refused to accept the proposal that the car park should be sited at the Guildhall site and said that the matter should be left open for further discussion?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, as regards the county council wishing to pursue their objections, I point out that they put in a petition, they reached an accommodation with the promoters and the petition was withdrawn. The petition was never in fact before the Select Committee: the matter had been agreed and settled prior to that. No doubt there are matters of detail which the county council will want to clear up.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to raise one further point? While it is open to the county council—
Lord Derwent: My Lords, is not the noble Lord going to make his own speech presently?
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I was proposing to ask a question so that I am in full possession of the facts when I make my speech. Will the noble Lord be good enough to tell my why, although the county council had this opportunity by legislative process, by petition here, they preferred to rest upon the powers of the Highways Act 1980?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, if the noble Lord would only be patient I will come to that matter. I explained it on Second Reading; and I only hope that the noble Lord's interventions will at least shorten his own contribution later on.
I was adverting to the fact that at Clause 15(11) there appears one of the safeguards put in by the Select Committee:
"The Council shall use their best endeavours to acquire from the British Railways Board for transfer to the Club on terms no less advantageous than those on which it is acquired from the board so much of the land of that board which lies between the north boundary of the Gay Meadow ground"—
"Gay Meadow ground" is the Shrewsbury football ground's name; I think that, there, "gay" is to be used in its traditional sense and not in its modern connotation—
"the river and the railway viaduct of the board upon the eastern bank of the river except so much of that land as is required for the provision by the Council of a riverside walk of approximately 10 metres in width".
The promoters have in fact been using their best endeavours with the Railways Board. The Railways Board, in a matter of negotiation, do not exactly move with the speed of their 125 m.p.h. trains. On the other hand, they have clearly indicated that they are going to make the land available to the football club although they will not sell it. That is their present state of mind. They are willing to lease it but not to sell it, although the promoters are pressing them to come to an agreement with the football club to sell it.
I now turn to the matter about which the noble Lord interrupted me; namely, the question why the
266
promoters did not leave it to the county council to develop this matter under their powers contained in Section 28 of the Road Traffic Act 1967 and the Highways Act 1980. I adumbrated the reasons during Second Reading, but I shall repeat them as quite obviously the noble Lord certainly heard them but did not appreciate them. The county council did not wish to proceed with the scheme. They are responsible for the county. Shrewsbury is but a part of the county, and it has to compete for priorities with other towns in the county. The matters that are dealt with in this Bill alone will cost £1¼ million. The car park will cost £4 million. The county council will be making its own contributions towards highways which are going to connect up the scheme. Therefore, in all we are dealing with a £6 million scheme and far less than £1 million of this will fall upon the ratepayers of Salop County.
The second reason is that the promoters did not wish this road to be a public highway. Of course, it will be used most of the time by the public. On the other hand, crowd control is a matter to which the football club themselves gave a great deal of argument. It is so much easier to assist the police with crowd control if this is a private road which, on occasion, can be closed and controlled, and is not subject to the normal rights of passage which exist over a public highway. That is a great benefit.
Thirdly, your Lordships will appreciate that this is a bridge over the Severn and an access road to a particular development. It is very difficult to persuade a county council which has many responsibilities covering a large county like Salop to earmark money, particularly in these difficult times, to a specific scheme of this kind. Therefore, it was entirely right that the procedure to be adopted by the promoters should be a Private Bill in your Lordships' House.
Your Lordships will appreciate, as I said on Second Reading, that there are really two constraints on development in Shrewsbury. One is a geographic constraint. It is a town; in Housman's words, "islanded by the Severn"—the loop of the Severn encompasses the old mediaeval town of Shrewsbury. The access to Shrewsbury today is exactly as it was in the 13th century. There is the Welsh bridge to the west, the English bridge to the east and that narrow isthmus to the north by which access can be obtained. One toll footbridge has been built since those days. That was the access in mediaeval times and it is the same access today. Therefore, there are very severe geographical constraints.
Secondly, there is a historical constraint. This is one of the oldest towns in England. No less than 84 per cent. of the buildings within the loop of Shrewsbury are listed for historic or architectural interest. With the possible exception of Bath—and I do not even know whether Bath is an exception—I do not think that there is one town in the United Kingdom that has 84 per cent. of its buildings listed in this way. Therefore, your Lordships can appreciate how important it is to the burgesses of Shrewsbury that Shrewsbury should, first, not lose out to its powerful neighbours—such as Telford, which is a new town—in its role of Queen of Salop, in its commercial and shopping role and, as the usurping queen, in the shopping role as regards mid-Wales.

267
This is a very important town. So how is it to be developed? In accord with its great tradition and yet with all possible advantage being taken of modern development. It is a very acute problem and one that is rightly dealt with by a Bill before your Lordships' House.
I would conclude by saying that the promoters have had discusssions with many bodies and I believe the Select Committee saw that they had gone into great detail and were, as it were, quite prepared to meet the legitimate aspirations and the legitimate criticisms of affected bodies. But, after all—and a Welshman can say this, can he not?—this town is one of the jewels of England. It really is. You have finer black and white houses in this town, together with medieval houses, than can be found in almost any other town in England.
The burgesses of this borough are tremendously concerned about their town. They, themselves, are providing the money for this development. It does not fall on the ratepayers of Shropshire. A great deal of the money is to come from private enterprise. I should like to quote from an article published in the Shropshire Star of Wednesday, 17th November, 1982. Under the heading:
"We'll help with car park, say town's traders".
It says:
"Shrewsbury businessmen, convinced that the only real answer to the town's traffic problems lies in the long awaited new multi-storey car park, have made a revolutionary proposal to finance preparatory work themselves."
I should have thought that this would accord with the best traditions of this House. Granting this very much needed Bill, which will bring employment to Shrewsbury, will result in re-establishing, or in assisting to re-establish, Shrewsbury as the great commercial, administrative and shopping centre that it has been for centuries, and at the same time will safeguard its great traditions. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Hooson.)
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time, to leave out ("now") and at the end insert ("this day six months").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, following that lucid introduction, as one would expect from the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, it was not lightly that I felt compelled to put down this amendment to express very serious misgivings as to the wisdom of allowing this Private Bill a passage through this House. I recognise that it is the rightful custom of the House normally to accept the recommendations of a Select Committee following their detailed examination of a Private Bill, and I am mindful of that. Indeed, I am mindful of the possible gentle chastising that I may receive from the Chairman of Committees later on as well as of the baleful glare from my noble friend on the Front Bench. However, I would say to both noble Lords that if I have sinned, at least I shall be brief.
There are, of course, precedents for moving such an amendment and I think that a good parallel is perhaps what happened in 1968 when the late Lord Mitchison, of whom we have fond memories, moved an amendment to the Brighton Marina Bill in similar vein to the present amendment. At that time he recalled the "Salisbury dictum"—not the dictum of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, but the Salisbury dictum—in which the question was posed:
"Have the House any interest or discretion once the Select Committee has reported on a Private Bill?".
The answer was that the Select Committee is a Select Committee of the House and the House is the sovereign body of the matter.
The reason that I have tabled this amendment is a question of principle affecting not only this Private Bill but others of this nature that may follow. It is not a criticism of the work of the Select Committee, which examined the Bill over six sittings against the background of a hostile Second Reading and, indeed, a subsequent Instruction to them. The members of that committee could not have been bettered for experience and judgment: nor could its chairman—my noble friend Lord Derwent—have done more valuable work, as he has done for so many years for the House. The committee clearly paid great heed to the stringent criticisms expressed on Second Reading and the Bill was amended to provide numerous protective provisions, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has said.
I have no quarrel with that at all. My quarrel is twofold. First, should a Private Bill seeking a specific power of planning and compulsory purchase be accepted by Parliament when the body in question has other means of securing what it seeks to do under the Bill? Secondly, should Parliament be asked to bless a planning power, sought within a Bill, which is only part of a comprehensive scheme of which other parts have not been tested or approved by the normal planning processes?
On the first point, the Bill in its Preamble claims, under subsection (6), that the object of this Bill cannot be attained without the authority of Parliament. The Select Committee's report, however, confirmed that the powers are available through the county council as the proper responsible highway authority. I think that that is the essence of my remark and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, may feel the same. But the report added that the county council:
"do not wish to co-operate because they have not the money".
That is a perfectly understandable reason. The report then went on to say:
"But the borough council have the money".
This is surely a terrible condemnation and example of split local interests which results in the normal local government processes set up by Parliament being set aside and, at the considerable expense of local ratepayers, a Bill is promoted that, with a little bit of common sense, is wholly unnecessary. In my view, Parliament should not accept that the power sought under this Bill cannot be obtained elsewhere. It clearly could be if the two authorities stopped their internal feud and buried their differences.
My second principle is one of planning. The Bill seeks to provide a road which is only part of a traffic management scheme and, indeed, a car park. It is to

269
improve the desperate shortage of parking in the small, historic city of Shrewsbury. That ancient Tudor city—and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, described it as a jewel of our heritage—was so movingly described on Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Salisbury in his excellent maiden speech last February. I do not believe that anyone contests the need for more parking in the centre of Shrewsbury. It is a problem that has long been with them. It is a problem that affects every ancient city within Britain.
But any scheme which includes a new concrete skyscraper multi-storey car park is bound to be contentious and sensitive to the hearts of conservationists in the area, and particularly to Shrewsbury. Has a detailed planning consent been granted for this car park? No. Has an application for this car park been submitted? No. The local residents may well also wonder how Parliament, in its wisdom, feels itself equipped to grant planning powers to a borough council for a specific line of an access road to the city when the last comprehensive study of the best route to serve that car park was nine years ago. How is anyone convinced that the borough's present proposal is the best alternative for 1982?
Our planning procedures may sometimes creak and appear cumbersome. It is a system, however, that has evolved since the very first planning Act of 1932. It has great merit and it serves us well. Today we pride ourselves on public participation, public consultation, an open planning system, and with an appeal procedure to counter negative planning decisions. It all blends well to meet the needs of densely populated areas of our country. Parliament clearly has a special duty of responsibility not to be seen to be interfering with this system unless there is some overriding reason.
I have but one small point to make to my noble friend Lord Derwent. It is a minor point. It was a shame that no time was found by the committee to visit Shrewsbury and the site when the Bill was so clearly a planning issue. Years ago I had the privilege of serving on a Joint Select Committee on the High Wycombe Bill. The Bill sought to construct an inner relief road crossing some ancient common land. The evidence in Committee was unquestionably in favour of the "big guns": the Ministry of Transport, the county council and their "fleet" of learned counsel. Against them was one solitary secretary of the residents' association. It was not until the committee inspected the site that we realised the practical consequences and the impact that the proposal would have on that area. It could only be seen on the ground. We came down on that occasion in favour of the residents and the Bill was dismissed. I would add that that was the last time I served on a Joint Select Committee, and was no doubt considered an unsound member.
I do not wish to comment on the specific anxieties of the Shrewsbury Football Club should part of their grounds be compulsorily acquired for the road. I cannot believe that a responsible local authority would knowingly do anything financially harmful to a club which is the pride of the city and the envy of other football clubs for its record of good crowd behaviour and control. Nor would I comment on the sensitive subject of the five-year compulsory purchase power
270
under this Bill, and all the blight and uncertainty this could cause to club premises as to its future expansion. Nor would I venture a view on the viability of a scheme that is totalling now £6·5 million which would provide parking for 700 cars. That is clearly a matter for local judgment. I remain convinced that this is a thoroughly bad example of a Private Bill; indeed, a misuse of the procedure. It is unnecessary, offensive to normal planning procedures, and should not be allowed. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time, to leave out ("now") and at the end insert ("this day six months").—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
3.54 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, although the Select Committee have implemented the Instruction that I moved when this Bill was read a second time, I would not be honest with your Lordships, or indeed to myself, if I did not admit that I am disappointed that the Select Committee have not come out on a stronger line on a number of points. For instance, as my noble friend Lord Kinnoull mentioned, the Bill pre-empts the planning commission judgment for a multi-storey car park, and, quite outside the Bill, as my noble friend pointed out, a large number of compulsory purchase orders that will be required for the new traffic system.
This habit of pre-empting decisions is much loved by civil servants, for I am suffering myself at the moment in a similar manner over the proposed M.40. I would also remind your Lordships that although all parties have always agreed to the need for a car park, though I think it will be particularly difficult to put into Shrewsbury, because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that it is a beautiful town, the tone of the report suggests that because the football club tried to promote a previous car park development they are being less than honest over this Bill's proposals.
I put it to your Lordships that if you owned land which is likely to be developed, would you not try to take the initiative yourself? I am sure you would, and that is exactly what the football club did originally. It was a perfectly honest and indeed praiseworthy motive, although of course a totally different proposition from the present Bill which, among other things, puts the football club in a disastrous position for compensation because of the restrictive covenant; and also, for reasons which I do not understand, the Bill does not give compensation to the football club to move to another site.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for one moment? He said that the committee inferred that the football club was being dishonest.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, would the noble Lord address the House?
Lord Derwent: Where does he find that?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I beg your Lordships' pardon if I put it in that way. What I said was that I thought the tone of the report gave the impression that the football club—I would take back the word "honest"—were acting in a different manner because

271
this was not their scheme; it was the borough council's scheme as opposed to the original scheme. I hope I make myself clear there.
I am in the fortunate position of finding it easy to visit Shrewsbury because I pass by it very often, so I believe that if the Select Committee had visited the site they might have been struck with the problem that the football club will have when they have 5,000 vehicle movements a day passing within 10 feet of their main entrance. However, I only listened to the local gossip, whereas your Lordships' Select Committee listened to learned counsel. I have no intention of arguing these points again here, for they have been discussed at length before the Select Committee. I raise them again merely to point out how controversial the Bill still is as it leaves your Lordships' House.
I should, however, like to comment on two final points that I hope will receive the support of your Lordships, and indeed of the Select Committee. The first point is to repeat and reinforce my remarks made at Second Reading, that the Bill has been a disgraceful performance on the part of the borough council, not only in the way it was presented but also because of its autocratic indifference to all parties except itself. Here, of course, I do not agree—and I hope he will allow me not to agree—with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson.
The Bill broke a number of rules, which matter of course has been covered, or corrected, by the Select Committee. But it also has taken many hours of the time of your Lordships' Select Committee. I hope that my noble friend Lord Derwent will not mind me saying that I do not mind him and his Select Committee being overworked, but I do mind intensely the cost of such representation, both to the innocent petitioners and to the ratepayers of Shrewsbury. I hope—maybe forlornly—that in future those promoting Bills will give just a little attention to avoiding such costs and causing such acrimony before presenting Private Bills to Parliament. It reflects no credit whatsoever on the council, and to me shows all the signs of a bully-boy approach, for sadly the council's pocket is bottomless, since their piper who pays is the unfortunate ratepayer. I therefore hope that in future promoters of Private Bills will make up their minds as to what they want to do, and how they want to do it.
Secondly, while this Bill is promoted by the borough council, of course it must not be forgotten that it is vitally important that the county council is in partnership with it. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, raised the question of money being provided by the county council. He did forget to say that, as I understand it, £3 million will have to be provided outside the county council, which of course will come out of taxpayers' money, albeit not ratepayers' money; the situation is rather similar. Although it is a joint effort on the part of the borough council and county council, I am extremely doubtful if the two authorities are at one. As has been pointed out, they have not yet agreed about where the car park is to be sited.
On 20th November, the county council decided that they could not accept the original idea of the Guildhall site; only that it should be somewhere "near to the English Bridge". It is a real case of not knowing where
272
they are going until they are there. That was noted in paragraph 9 of the Select Committee's Report, where it was stated:
"The Guildhall site was the one again favoured by the Borough Council, although they only reached this decision at the end of March 1982, four months after the deposit of the Bill",
in your Lordships' House. I hope those points will be taken into account as the Bill leaves us for consideration in another place. It is still my hope that they will there receive detailed investigation before Part 2 of the Bill is permitted to become law. Although it was stated by counsel for the borough council,
"That the detrimental effect, if any, on the football club would be very limited".
I assure your Lordships that the football club do not believe it to be so, and they, after all, are the injured party, not learned counsel, nor indeed the promoters.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, by temperament, training and experience I am all in favour of the optimum degree of decentralisation. We have developed in Parliament the practical procedure of delegating to a Select Committee the responsibility for considering all relevant details in certain legislation. So I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that it follows that conclusions reached by the Select Committee, unless there is good reason for another course, should be accepted by the House on Third Reading.
However, in this particular case the Bill went to a Select Committee with a clear Instruction, and at this stage the House has a duty to satisfy itself that the terms of that Instruction have satisfactorily been met. Unless it has that duty, the Third Reading is a superfluous stage, and I cannot think that Lord Hooson is really suggesting that your Lordships' House on Third Reading is simply a rubber stamp for all decisions for all Select Committees.
We all have experience of courts of one kind or another and we know that the special skills of counsel or the inexperience of a particular witness can, on occasion—not always and not often, but on occasion—lead to an imbalance in the weight of evidence and a court decision which comes down on the wrong side. This was a Bill of some controversy, which I understand is why its Third Reading has been moved by a Back-Bencher instead of the Chairman of Committees. The fact that the issues were finely balanced is one reason, I believe, why the Select Committee tried so conscientiously hard to write in concessions and protections. I hope therefore that it will not be taken as a criticism of the careful work of the Select Committee when I say there is doubt as to whether the terms of the Instruction have in fact been met.
We have been reminded of the terms of the Instruction. First, we must be satisfied that the need for the provisions of the Bill outweighs the detrimental effect on the Shrewsbury Town Football Club. We talk about unanimity but there was unanimous agreement in this House that this Instruction, and that particular part of it, should be adopted. The question at issue here is not whether or not there should be a car park. Everyone agrees there should be one and certainly the football club are in favour of a car park, as are the

273
county council, and the borough council have been talking about having a car park for the last 12 years, so there is no question of being against a car park. The question is whether an Act of Parliament should give power to build that car park in a particular place to the undoubted detriment of an existing social amenity; namely, the football club.
If one considers the claims of that car park on that site with that access, there is much doubt as to whether the committee was right in coming down in favour of the promoters of the Bill. If I am told that the Select Committee considered all the evidence in detail; I of course accept that, but my answer is that the county council studied the evidence in even greater detail and with more local knowledge, and as yet they have not come down on the same side or on the same point as the Select Committee.
In moving his amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested that the Select Committee had not been to the site. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will be able to correct him on that; I am sure they would not have dared come before us here and to have made a decision about a local issue of this kind without having had a look at the local factors.
Lord Derwent: We had at least 30 maps, my Lords, and rather more drawings.
Lord Beswick: I have knowledge of maps, my Lords, and I have some knowledge of the difference between the environment when one goes there and what one gathers from maps. Do I understand from the noble Lord's intervention that he is saying that they did not in fact go to the locality?
Lord Derwent: We had photographs and so on.
Lord Beswick: They did not go to the locality? I gather not, and I am obliged to the noble Lord for making that clear.
The football club are quite clear about the detrimental effects. I asked the club directors if they were still against the Bill, despite the protections written into it by the Select Committee, and they left me in no doubt whatever. These are not from some militant, obstinate faction in Shrewsbury; they love Shrewsbury Town as much as does the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. There is no political question involved here. Nevertheless, the club directors told me that they were dead against it. When I asked why, they told me:
"We shall effectively lose the all-weather practice area; we shall lose parking space for the coaches; we shall lose spectators because access to the stadium will be more difficult and less attractive, with this motor road running round two sides of the stadium and in front of all the entrances; and moreover, the possibility of improving accommodation or extending the stands will be doubtful, if not practically impossible".
Those detrimental aspects of the Bill cannot be denied. I have found, however, that the promoters endeavoured to minimise those aspects by telling the story much as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, told it—about the other, earlier proposals which the football club themselves had proposed. There was no mystery about those earlier proposals. We knew about them when the Bill came here for Second Reading. But they were brought up in the penultimate paragraph by the Select Committee as if there was something strange
274
about them, and they said we should know about them. Of course, but what did those earlier proposals mean? The earlier development proposals which the football club considered would not have obstructed access to the stadium, would have provided extra parking accommodation, two new stands for the football club and extra revenue for the club, with an indoor sports hall and training facilities, which would have been available for others, apart from the football team.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, surely the Select Committee is saying that it ill-becomes the football club, who were going to develop the practice ground themselves for commercial purposes, to complain later, within two years, that the development would affect the practice ground; they were going to get rid of it.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has studied the plans as carefully as I have, and at this moment it is impossible to have before us the large plans that are available if anyone wants to see them. But if one studies the proposals, one realises that they are an entirely different set of proposals from those contained in the Bill. They were in fact designed to help the club. They would have provided extra space for the club. They would have provided new stands for the stadium. They would have provided indoor training facilities for the club. They would not have denied access to the club. One cannot possibly compare, on the one hand, proposals that were designed to assist the club with, on the other hand, proposals which, everyone agrees, will damage the club.
If we are to talk of perspective, I would suggest that it is not unfair or unkind to say that the reference in paragraph 15 of the report puts into perspective what the report describes, and what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to, as "safeguards" for the petitioners. The noble Lord did not spell out very clearly what the safeguards were, and I suggest that we look at them a little more closely. The report states, in paragraph 13, that,
"the Bill does not affect any of their buildings or the actual football stadium".
Of course it does not physically knock them down, but if a motor road is to be driven around them it will affect them. But here the protection—and I pay tribute to the care which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, put into this—is that one road should be set back, about 11 feet I calculate by the plan, and another road should be moved back I reckon by about 30 feet. If the noble Lord wants to tell me that it is 32 feet or so, I would of course accept that correction.
But the committee itself realised, did it not? that the so-called protections were not adequate. Even if the roadway is set back by as much as is stated from the actual entrance, there will still be grave detrimental effects to the football club. It was because of that that the committee makes another proposal, it inserts another protection, which I can only describe as bizarre. The further protection is that on match days there should be police discretion to close the access road altogether. That means that the Upper House of Parliament, and its Select Committee, solemnly consider a Bill that provides for the expenditure of

275
some £7 million for a car park and a road giving access to it, and then go on to say that on Saturday afternoons, when shoppers will most need the car park, the police will have discretion to close the road altogether. If I may say so, I read that point out to my wife, and she said, "It doesn't fit in with my conception of your Lordships' House that they should seriously put forward a suggestion of this kind".
There are other protective provisions which the Select Committee has put into the Bill. Time does not permit me to go into them all. But the House will see that under Clause 15(15) of the Bill, if the club property sinks as the result of construction works, then it can claim compensation. I am willing to be advised differently, but, when he comes to speak, probably the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will tell me whether he really thinks that that adds anything to established common law? Are we really giving to the club anything that it would not otherwise have in the ordinary way?
Then in Clause 15(9) the borough council is told that it will have to keep down noise, dust and vibration. I shall not repeat in your Lordships' House the comments of the footballers when they were told that that was the kind of protection that they were going to enjoy. If we look at the protective measures, it is indeed difficult to claim that they meaningfully reduce the undoubted detriment caused to the football club by the car park and access roads provided in the Bill.
Then we come to the second of the requirements of the Instruction. Something seems to be troubling the Chief Whip. Would he like to tell me what it is?
Lord Denham: No, my Lords; certainly not. I should be glad if the noble Lord would continue with his speech. We are becoming a little worried about time, and so I hope that he will not be unduly long.
Lord Beswick: I should have thought that it was proper to consider very carefully these matters, which very closely and intimately affect quite a number of people.
We come to the second of the requirements of the Instruction, and there would seem to be some doubt as to whether it is satisfactorily met in the report. The requirement of the Instruction was that the works will be carried out without undue delay. I suppose that one can always argue about the definition of "undue delay", but there is room for serious doubt as to when, if ever, the proposals in the Bill will go ahead. In the first place there is the question of finance. The report states that the borough is confident that it can find the money. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, says that it will be able to find the money. But it is not a confidence that is shared by all, and certainly within any reasonable definition of "undue delay" there is doubt as to whether the money can be raised.
But there is another factor. If the Bill is given a Third Reading and, if, which is not certain, it goes through another place, work on the project cannot go ahead immediately. Again, I am open to correction and the Select Committee must have considered the point, but from what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said—and I
276
shall be corrected if I am wrong—even if we allow the Bill to go through, work cannot start immediately. It is still not agreed by the county council, which is the planning authority, that the site is an acceptable place for a car park.
Reference has been made to the Planning and Transport Committee of the county council. On 13th October it stated that there was no agreement to a car park on the Guildhall site. As I understand it—and, as I say, I am open to correction—even if the Bill goes through, planning permission from the county authority would still be required, and then surely we would face a most peculiar position. If the county council agrees, it means that all the construction work could have gone ahead without the apppalling expense of this parliamentary procedure. If, on the other hand, the county council does not agree, all the time of this House, all the careful adjustments of the Select Committee to the line of the road, will have been wasted. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, said, we should have the nuisance of the road without a car park at the end of it.
The Planning and Transport Committee of the county authority calls attention to many complicated factors that could make for delay. It states that the plans for the Guildhall site are lacking in substance. It states that public funding is not available for all the works, and it emphasises that a private sector contribution is obviously for negotiation, and—I quote from the report—
"is not something that can be predicted".
In the face of all those doubts I must confess that I find it difficult to believe that there will not be delay.
I have only one other point that I want to make. Because the borough council chose to come to Parliament instead of seeking agreement by negotiation and instead of using the provisions of the Highways Act 1980, the Shrewsbury Town Football Club has been put to very considerable expense. The Select Committee went some way to acknowledge the club's case. I hope that serious thought will be given to awarding the club part, if not the whole, of the expense necessarily incurred by our procedures.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, you will be delighted to hear that I shall not try to answer in detail any of the speeches made so far, because the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is moving the Third Reading and he will doubtless take up any points that he wants to take up. However, as chairman of the Select Committee I think that I should address your Lordships to explain what were the problems and how we arrived at the solutions that we reached. What has been said in the speeches made so far by my noble friends and the noble Lord opposite I heard every word of during six days from counsel and witnesses, and there is nothing new in the whole thing—
Lord Beswick: My Lords—
Lord Derwent: My Lords, I will not give way. Most of your Lordships will not have read the special report and most will not have read the minutes of evidence—and I do not blame your Lordships for that

277
because they comprise very thick volumes. The special report contains roughly what I am going to say. I would only add that I am somewhat astonished at my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who, as far as we can make out, has not taken any interest in this Bill until the last 48 hours. He put down this amendment only 24 hours ago; and I cannot see why he has suddenly done this. It is something quite different. Other noble Lords who have spoken also spoke on Second Reading, and had a case to put. This has come straight out of the blue, and I trust that the noble Earl will not press his amendment.
The problems that we had to settle were quite simple and straightforward; it was the solutions that were difficult. First of all, we had the Instruction from your Lordships, and I think I can safely say to anyone who has read the evidence that we have carried out the Instruction in full. The first problem was whether new car parking was urgent. Even the petitioners agreed that it was urgent. The situation in the town is really quite hopeless and it is going to get worse. Tourism is increasing and many of the existing car parks (such as they are) are going out of use; they are in private ownership, and are going to be used for other purposes. It is desperately important that as soon as possible car parks should be provided.
The next problem was where to put it. There were two sites put forward. The promoters' site, the Guildhall site, we considered, after exhaustive cross-examination, and so on, was the better site; and that is why we came to that conclusion. The next problem was how to get there. The town being virtually an island and the only two bridges being mediaeval—one, to the east, the English bridge and one, to the west, the Welsh bridge—it was essential, if one were going to build a car park where it would be most useful, that there should be another bridge across the river. We came to the conclusion that this was right and that the line was right; and we got endless plans and photographs and everything else.
We came to the conclusion that the money was more or less available—not the whole of it now, but there is nothing unusual to put through a Bill before the whole of the money is there. We were quite satisfied that the large bulk of the money was there. The police were very much in favour of the line that we favoured because it meant a private highway instead of a public highway, and, owing to the difficulties of entering the town, it was essential that the police should be able to close the road when necessary, if necessary, when football matches were going on—I repeat "if necessary"—and not necessarily for the whole of the match.
The next problem was this. Did the people of the town want the car park? From what we heard I am quite certain that they are desperately anxious for it, for business and for shopping. The crowds going through the town are increasing because tourism is increasing. This is a very lovely town with very little access. It is essential to have a big car park near the English bridge, and then one has to get out and walk, particularly as, in future, there is no doubt that many more of the streets will be made pedestrian precincts.
Then we come to the most difficult question, that of the football club. Obviously, they are going to be
278
affected. The question is, how seriously? In spite of what noble Lords have said today and in spite of how the petitioners started off, we came to the conclusion that they were not going to suffer unduly. They are going to suffer, but to nothing like the extent they have made out. We do not think it will affect them very much. Then it was a question of whether even then—because it would affect them to some extent—we should allow the Bill to go forward. In the public interest, we considered it was far more vital to be able to have a proper car park in the town, to some slight disadvantage of the football club, than to stop a new road, a new bridge and a new car park. That is what it came to. We decided that, with certain additional safeguards which are now in the Bill and which were agreed between the parties, subject to that and to certain safeguards to the county council, the Bill should go ahead with these amendments.
My Lords, that is how we arrived at our decisions. As I say, I have heard nothing new that was not argued in front of us almost ad nauseam for six whole days, and I really have nothing more to add to what we say in the special report.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he made the statement twice that there is nothing new in what I have said. Since I quoted from the report of the committee which had met after the Select Committee had been wound up, how could the noble Lord know what was said at that committee?
Lord Derwent: My Lords. I am sorry but I have not got the point.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord said on two occasions that nothing new had been said here and that he had heard these points ad nauseam. Since some of the points I made were taken from the report of the Planning and Transport Committee of the Shropshire County Council, which met after the Select Committee had finished its deliberations, how could he say that he had heard these points at the committee's meetings?
Lord Derwent: My Lords, it went before the county council and was well-known beforehand.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, it is not for me to enter into this interesting discussion on the merits of the Bill, but I think I should say a word on procedure generally in view of the Motion in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. As we have now heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, at the Second Reading on 25th February an Instruction was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in the terms that your Lordships have already heard. This Instruction was considered by the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, at the same time as they considered the petition of the Shrewsbury Town Football Club. As your Lordships are by now also very well aware, they sat for six days and they had the advantage of hearing the evidence of witnesses and the arguments of counsel on both sides, and, as a result, they have made a special report to the House recommending that the Bill should be allowed to proceed with certain agreed amendments.

279
My Lords, I took the opportunity of saying at Second Reading that a Private Bill is normally much better dealt with in committee than by the House itself, as it deals with a variety of local issues rather than matters of general policy—and, if I may say so, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, went to prove that point. For that reason, it is most unusual for the House to disagree with the recommendations of a Private Bill Select Committee.
I must protest at only one remark that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made when he said that this Bill is an abuse of the Private Bill procedure. I do not believe that to be so. He referred specifically to the Preamble, where in paragraph (6) it says:
"The objects of this Act cannot be attained without the authority of Parliament".
Every promoter of every Private Bill has to prove that point to the satisfaction of the committee, and, of course, in the case of the Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council, it is perfectly true that the objects cannot be attained without the authority of Parliament.
My Lords, in the last 50 years there has been only one instance of a Private Bill being rejected by this House on Third Reading. That was the British Transport Docks (Felixstowe) Bill in the 1975–76 Session, and I have no doubt that many of your Lordships will remember that Bill. Your Lordships will recall that there were wider political implications, which resulted in its defeat at Third Reading.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, also mentioned another case where a Motion of this type had been put before the House. That was the Brighton Marina Bill in 1968. The circumstances were somewhat different in that case in that most of the objections raised on Third Reading related to provisions which had not been considered by the Select Committee on the Bill. That was a very different matter to this one. In any case, in a Division the House defeated the Motion by 67 votes to 38.
If your Lordships give this Bill a Third Reading, it will go to another place, and if there remain objections from the Shrewsbury Town Football Club—or indeed from the county council or anybody else—they can petition against the Bill in that House. Before I conclude, may I say a word about a point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on costs? The award of costs to petitioners against Private Bills is governed by the Parliamentary Costs Act 1865, which provides that if a committee on a Bill find the Preamble not proved—that is, in effect, they reject the Bill—or insert any provision or amend the Bill for the protection of the petitioner and unanimously report that the petitioner has been unreasonably or vexatiously subjected to expense, the committee may award the petitioner his costs, or part of them. In this case, no application for costs was made by the petitioners to the committee, and in my opinion it is unlikely that the committee would have found that the petitioners were unreasonably or vexatiously subjected to expense.
For these reasons I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, will not press his amendment. If he does, I hope that your Lordships, in making up your minds
280
how to vote, will bear in mind some of the considerations that I have put before the House.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, if I may reply very shortly to this amendment, I should like to deal with the one point of principle which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. That is whether this House has a discretion on Third Reading. Certainly I would not argue to the contrary, but I think that the conventions of this House are as important as its formal rules. I respectfully agree with what the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said, that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was a typical example of how this House is not equipped to hear evidence. He reported on conversations with the directors of the football club. The Select Committee heard the director who owned 50 per cent. of the shares and had seen him cross-examined, so they were in a far better position to judge what the rights and wrongs were than emerge from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick.
I suggest that the conventions seem to indicate that when this House is going to disagree with the Select Committee, it should do so only when (a) the Select Committee's report is not unanimous; (b) when it is a momentous issue; or (c) if it is politically very contentious, as was the Felixstowe Bill. Save for those considerations. I would respectfully have thought that we do not entrust this task to Select Committees knowing that we are ill-equipped to deal with the particular kind of matter that arises in this Bill and to come to conclusions on these issues. We do not entrust this arduous task to a committee simply in order to reject its findings. I hope that the amendment is defeated.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, we have had a healthy Third Reading debate, despite the rising blood pressure of my noble friend the Chief Whip. I think that we agree on one matter on Third Reading, and that is that this Bill is a controversial one. To my noble friend Lord Derwent I add that I am unrepentant in moving this amendment because I still remain unconvinced as a matter of principle about this Bill. It was more of a courtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that I put down and moved the amendment. I do not intend to press my amendment. I am grateful to those who placed on record their reservations about the Bill so that these matters may be taken up in another place. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Sound Broadcasting
4.35 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Sound Broadcasting Committee that they shall consider whether or not the recent change in the format of "Yesterday in Parliament" and its inclusion as an item I the "Today" programme is in conformity with Clause 13(2) of the Licence and Agreement of the BBC.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will recall that the House recently set up again the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting, and most of your Lordships are aware of the unhappiness and uncertainty which has been aroused in connection with the change in the treatment of "Yesterday in Parliament" to which this Motion refers. As we have this Select Committee, it seems sensible, in the context of the bearing on it of the Licence and Agreement of the BBC, to refer this matter to that committee. If your Lordships are of the view that that is a sensible move, I imagine that you will feel as I do that it would not be appropriate to seek to try to discuss this matter at this stage, but that it would be much better to await the report of the Select Committee, when it may well be necessary to have some discussion. I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Sound Broadcasting Committee that they shall consider whether or not the recent change in the format of "Yesterday in Parliament" and its inclusion as an item in the "Today" programme is in conformity with Clause 13(2) of the Licence and Agreement of the BBC.—(Lord Boyd-Carpenter.)
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I entirely support what my noble friend has said in moving that this somewhat narrow issue should be referred to the committee, and I look forward to seeing their report. Nevertheless, it will be recalled that this forms a part of a protest about some of the BBC's performances which took place in the debate on the humble Address on 4th November. I take this opportunity which is presented by this short debate to request the powers that be, the usual channels, to remember that there is another part of the complaint that I personally made about the BBC. It may be wise for the House to have an opportunity to debate some of the imperfections—they are not many, but they are important—in the performance of the BBC as soon as possible after this report has been received.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, would not this House be well advised to follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that this matter should be examined by the Sound Broadcasting Committee as the most convenient and effective way of dealing with this issue?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I must echo from this Dispatch Box the noble and learned Lord opposite by saying that this matter arose from an exchange in this House in which my noble friend the Leader of the House was involved last week. My noble friend's Motion arose from that, and it would be right that it should be put to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

International Transport Conventions Bill [H.L.]
4.39 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee.
282
Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [H.L.]
4.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MURTON OF LINDISFARNE in the chair.]
Clause 1 [Joint financing of community services in England and Wales]:
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 43, leave out (" and ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, standing in the Marshalled List in my name and the names of my noble friends Lady Robson and Lord Banks. Amendment No. 1 is merely a paving amendment for Amendment No. 2 and therefore I think it might be for the convenience of your Lordships' Committee if, in moving No. 1, I speak to No. 2. So far as Amendment No. 2 is concerned, it is a fairly simple matter. It merely seeks to add a further subsection (2)(f) at line 19 on page 3. This subsection, as your Lordships will see, enables the managers of a public transport undertaking to meet the cost of fare-free or concessionary transport which is provided for users of particular community services which are authorised by this Act. This would enable joint financing money to be used to subsidise patients' transport to the various services provided. In some cases, that could well enable people to receive care in the community rather than in hospital, and that is surely the main object of this Bill. In addition, perhaps it would move in the direction of seeing that the ambulance service is not used as a taxi service or as a public transport service, because it would facilitate the use of public transport for patients who are fit and able to use it at concessionary rates, or even free, in order to attend for the various services as authorised under the Act. I think the amendment is a fairly simple one and we believe it would be helpful. We shall be very interested to hear what the Government have to say about it at this stage, and I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I believe I can instantly allay the fears of the noble Lord in this matter because the powers in the present Section 28A and in subsection (2)(a) already permit the health authority to give financial support to the local authority towards assisting with such transport costs. The provision of

283
transport or assistance with transport costs in connection with the use of personal social services is a matter for the social services committee of a local authority, and it is neither necessary nor even perhaps appropriate for additional powers to be given to health authorities to make payments direct to public transport undertakings. I hope the noble Lord will be reassured by what I have said and will not wish to press the matter further.
Lord Winstanley: I am most grateful for what the noble Lord has said, but it will not have escaped the notice of the noble Lord or of others in your Lordships' Committee that there have been certain impediments placed in the way of transport authorities providing concessionary rates for transport. Therefore it is very welcome to hear the noble Lord's assurance that for these particular purposes obstacles will not be placed in the way of such concessions. I will read the noble Lord's words with care, but so far as I have understood them they seem to be entirely satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 4.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 23, leave out subsection (4).
The noble lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, which seeks to leave out subsection (4) on page 3 of the Bill. A major problem which impedes the whole strategy of getting patients out of hospital and into the community—which surely is a strategy that we all wish to see prosper and succeed—is caused by the old, large, institutional, mental hospitals. Those large hospitals are managed by one health authority, but traditionally and in practice they take patients from a very large number of different health authorities. The clause requires that a health authority making a payment for a joint funding scheme should be represented on the joint consultative committee recommending the payment.
The implication of that is that any health authority managing such an old hospital should be represented on a very large number of joint consultative committees. It has seemed to us that would indeed be a very substantial administrative burden. Moreover, in view of the strict definition of joint consultative councils provided on page 45 of the Bill, the Secretary of State would have to be asked to make a very large number of variation orders. Those are described on page 46 of the Bill. The amendment simply seeks to remove this particular impediment. I would imagine that the Government would not wish such an impediment to exist to a strategy on which we are all agreed, and it may well be that they have in mind other methods of dealing with this particular problem. If so, I shall be very grateful to hear what they are.
In the meantime, I regard this amendment as a probing amendment, pointing to an administrative difficulty—indeed, almost an administrative
284
absurdity—which could arise from the strict application of this particular subsection. I shall be very interested to hear what the Government have to say about other means of dealing with this particular problem, and I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I must confess that when I was considering exactly what the noble Lord had in mind regarding this amendment the precise difficulty he had in mind did not occur to me. However, may I refer to some of the problems that did occur to me and then I can add further remarks at the end in accordance with the speech of the noble Lord?
The arrangements for health authorities to make payments to local authorities and voluntary organisations which we are revising in this clause have always been seen as an integral part of the arrangements for health and local authorities to collaborate in the planning and operation of services of common concern. The development of such collaboration has been greatly helped by the availability of finance in this way. This subsection is designed to ensure that social services schemes are supported through joint finance as part of the wider joint planning between the authorities and that such schemes have the support of all the authorities concerned. It repeats subsection (3) of the present Section 28A, except that it now permits payments to be made to local authorities or voluntary-organisations outside the locality of the health authority. A health authority would thus be able to make payments towards enabling hospital patients to return to their home districts, wherever they might be.
As I said, the immediate problem the noble Lord has drawn to our attention is not one that I have considered in great depth. I should like to do so, and if the noble Lord will be good enough to withdraw his amendment I will give the point careful attention. I will write to him between now and the next stage and then he can take it further if he wishes to do so.
Lord Winstanley: I am most grateful for the noble Lord's assurance that he will look at this point. I do assure him that it really is a serious point and that we have no quarrel with the basic intention behind this part of the Bill but we really feel that so far as these old hospitals are concerned, taking patients from a very wide area, there can be some very serious administrative problems. On the noble Lord's assurance that he will look at that and perhaps produce a remedy for it. I should indeed be glad to seek the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 28, at end insert—
("Such joint consultative committees shall include representatives of appropriate local voluntany organisations.")
The noble Lord said: The proposal of the Government, to include these joint consultative committees, increases their importance. In the past, they have not met very frequently and have played only a very small part in planning and co-ordination. But if local schemes are to reflect the innovatory ideas of voluntary' organisations, it is very important that

285
voluntary organisations should be included in such committees and their importance should be enshrined in legislation.
I want to make the further point that it is quite clear that the Government are looking forward, more and more, to voluntary organisations taking part in their scheme of things, so far as social and other services are concerned. I do not have the slightest objection to that, because they do very valuable work. In view of that, it is only right, fair, reasonable and to the advantage of the services concerned that these organisations should have representation. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, because my Amendment No. 7 is practically the same and the wording of this amendment is very much better than mine. One cannot plan facilities in a local authority without consultation with the voluntary organisations concerned, including the people supplying private housing, particularly for the elderly. Therefore, I very much support this amendment and hope that the Government will be able to accept it.
Lord Trefgarne: I hope your Lordships will agree that, in discussing Amendment No. 4, we may also discuss Amendment No. 7, set down by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services already has power to authorise or, indeed, require the appointment to joint consultative committees of persons who are not members of the authorities, and he most certainly could use this power in relation to voluntary organisation representation. However, we see difficulties, both of principle and of a practical nature, in such a step, given the large numbers of voluntary bodies in each health district, their differences of organisation and the fact that, at most times, the joint consultative committee will wish to have access to specialist knowledge, rather than generalised knowledge, about voluntary activities.
We do not therefore consider that direct membership of the consultative committee is the most effective way of involving the voluntary sector more closely in the provision of community care. What is needed is a voluntary sector voice at working level. Our forthcoming circular on Care in the Community will contain guidance on involving voluntary organisations more closely in the work of the joint care planning teams, and will ask authorities to invite local ' voluntary organisations to meet them and discuss ways of carrying forward the Care in the Community initiative.
But, as I said at the beginning, my right honourable friend has power to direct the appointment of such people to JCCs in appropriate cases, and he will certainly do so. I hope that in the light of this position, which I think is better than having it compulsory, as the noble Lord seeks in his amendment, he will see fit to withdraw it and, also, that my noble friend will not wish to press her amendment when we get to it.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I cannot quite see the point. There are committees in the health service to which voluntary organisations are asked to nominate a representative. Most of these voluntary organisations
286
have some degree of co-ordination between themselves, and there is not the slightest difficulty in appointing a representative. If the Minister has the powers—albeit, powers which he is, apparently, very reluctant to exercise—why on earth not put it in the Bill? It will be to the advantage of everyone concerned. I see no problem and I do not think that any Member of the Committee who is involved with local organisations, and with the general set-up in the community, will see any difficulty either. The Government are making a mountain out of a molehill.
I shall not press the amendment to a Division. I do not think that that would be advisable at this stage, considering that it is Thursday and a time when many noble Lords are trying to catch trains, some of which are not running. Therefore, to use a colloquial term, I am "using my loaf". With the permission of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I shall beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I am not quite sure of the procedure. May I speak again?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, as often as you like.
Baroness Faithfull: I am not clear on one point. My noble friend the Minister said that the Secretary of State can appoint somebody. What happens if there is a disagreement between the Secretary of State, a voluntary organisation and the consultative committee, if it is not written into the Bill?
Lord Trefgarne: I have no doubt that my noble friend was addressing that question to me. The difficulty is that the amendment seeks to make this compulsory in every case, and I argue that there will be a good number of cases where it clearly is not appropriate. I suspect that where there is a disagreement between my right honourable friend and the bodies concerned, the view of my right honourable friend will prevail, and so it should. But, of course, my right honourable friend will be very reluctant indeed to impose his views on anybody in these circumstances. No one knows better than I the difficulties of imposing views of any kind on voluntary bodies, because they, understandably, resent that very much. I am certain that my right honourable friend will want to go to the greatest lengths to avoid that. In the meantime, we are considering the amendment, which seeks to make this compulsory in every case, and that is the proposal which I ask your Lordships to resist.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: The noble Lord said that his right honourable friend is a very reluctant person. I entirely agree about that. My view is that he has been far too reluctant on far too many issues. However, I shall not waste the time of the Committee now, because we still have the Report stage. We shall not give up this point. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 18, after ("question") insert ("or have been endorsed by the authority making the payment and the authority receiving

287
the payment in the knowledge of the advice given by the joint consultative committee;").
The noble Lord said: This simple amendment seeks merely to expand, and perhaps liberalise, paragraph (a) of subsection (8) on page 4, by inserting the words on the Marshalled List. It is not unreasonable to envisage a possible situation which could arise where the health authority and one local authority, represented on a joint consultative committee, wish to make a payment, but where other local authorities—and there may be local antagonisms and jealousies—together with a minority of health members of the joint consultative committee, block the scheme.
Had she been able to be present, my noble friend Lady Robson would have moved this amendment. She has great experience in this area of the administration of the National Health Service. Unfortunately, she has had to absent herself from your Lordships' Committee to attend the funeral of a very close relative. But had she been here, she would have recalled an incident in a district in south-west Thames, which comprised a piece of Surrey and a very tiny piece of Hampshire. In my noble friend's words, the tiny part of Hampshire rarely got anything at all.
Notwithstanding this, it might be in the best interests of the patients for a scheme to go through in this minority area, if the two authorities principally involved agree, without the whole of the joint consultative committee necessarily supporting the arrangement. This amendment would allow this, provided that both the authorities concerned took their decision in the knowledge of the conflicting advice. I am sure that this is a provision which would very rarely be used, but it might be a worthwhile one to be inserted into the Bill. I shall be most interested to hear what the Government have to say about it. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: The paragraph to which this amendment relates repeats one of the provisions in paragraph (3)(a) of the present Section 28A in requiring that the conditions relating to the payment accord with the advice given by the joint consultative council in making that recommendation. Since the arrangements for the joint financing of social services activities are part of the wider aspects of joint planning between health and local authorities on which the JCC has a statutory responsibility to give advice to the authorities represented on it, it seems entirely appropriate that payments by health authorities under the arrangements should accord with that advice. This requirement is one of the safeguards ensuring sensible and effective use of the National Health Service funds involved.
I have listened to the scenario of the noble Lord who pointed to a somewhat unusual circumstance. I fancy I recognise the district to which he refers, since I happen to live in it. Be that as it may, I do not live in the deprived area to which the noble Lord referred. I do not believe that in reality this will be a difficulty. On reflection and having listened to the assurances I have been able to give, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Winstanley: I shall most certainly reflect upon what the Minister has said and will also consult my
288
noble friend Lady Robson of Kiddington, who takes a great interest in this area and who has experience of problems having arisen. We shall most certainly consider carefully what the noble Lord has said and will then decide whether or not to ask your Lordships' House to return to the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) The work of a joint consultative committee shall be reviewed every three years by each Health and Social Services Department jointly in England and Wales and a report of the review shall be submitted* to each local authority, to the District Health Authority and to the Department of Health and Social Security.")
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. So often we pass good laws but, because the joint consultative committees have not been monitored and surveyed and because reports have not been made and submitted both to the central Government department and to Parliament, work has not been done. The amendment recommends that the work of the consultative committees should be monitored: that reports on the work of the joint consultative committees should be made to both the social services committee and to the health committees and that these should be amalgamated at national level by the Department of Health and Social Security, so that every few years it will be possible to see what work is being done by the joint consultative committees. Unless we monitor the legislation which we pass we shall not know whether it is working successfully or whether it is being implemented. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I support my noble friend's amendment. It seems to me that a great deal of this work is probably already being done. It would merely be a question of letting interested members of the public know the facts. I cannot see that it would cause unnecessary work. Indeed, I believe that it would be a valuable exercise.
Lord Renton: I, too, would like to support my noble friend's amendment. I assume that we may refer also to Amendment No. 7 which is closely allied to Amendment No. 6. It seems to me to be unthinkable that the voluntary organisations should not be fully represented on the joint consultative committees. Unless that is so, I do not see how the committees could do their work.
Lord Davies of Leek: I should like Members opposite to know that we on this side of the Committee believe this to be a constructive amendment. It will keep people informed about this important organisation. I shall say no more. The nub of the argument is so clear that I have pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.
Lord Kilmarnock: I, too, wish to add my name to the chorus of support. I believe that the noble Baroness has shown great restraint in specifying three years. Parliament is criticised for requiring too many reports

289
from the bodies which it sets up. A period of three years seems to be very reasonable. It will be of great interest to learn how the new joint consultative arrangements are working.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: May I also say that I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Since I am concerned with very many voluntary organisations of which I am president, I, too must support this amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: Can we be quite clear which amendment we are speaking about? We are speaking about Amendment No. 6, the subject of which is not the voluntary organisations.
Lord Lyell: It might be for the illumination or enlightenment of the Committee (I am grateful to my noble friend for providing additional ministerial illumination) if I tried to clarify the difference between Amendment No. 6 and the voluntary organisations which are the subject of Amendment No. 7. I am sure that the Committee will be interested to hear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services already has powers by order to require the authorities who are represented on these joint consultative committees to make reports to him on the work of the committees and their sub-committees. There seems to be no need for additional legislation. Our view is that the planning process in the National Health Service already provides a satisfactory means of monitoring (this is as far as we would go) the development of joint planning, whenever this seems appropriate. At present, particular attention is being paid to joint planning in the regional reviews which culminate in the meetings which take place between Ministers and the regional chairmen. We are considering setting up a research study into joint planning and into collaboration in this field. After this brief attempt to illuminate Amendment No. 6, I hope that my noble friend will be similarly illuminated.
Baroness Faithfull: I am not very happy about my noble friend's reply. However much good work goes on within the confines of the Department of Health and Social Security, it is important that from the point of view of the National Health Service and from the point of view of the voluntary organisations and the public, what is being done and what is going on should be known at local government, district and regional level. The Court Report called for a triennial report on the work being done, but it was felt that this was not possible. This report would, however, be available to parliamentarians and to the public at large. If reports, however good, remain within the Civil Service and local government, the public know nothing about them. Having said that, although I am still worried, I should like to think again about the amendment. At this stage, therefore, and only at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Does the noble Baroness wish to press Amendment No. 7?
Baroness Faithfull: No.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Wallace of Coslany Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Payments to voluntary organisations.
.The following shall be substituted for section 23(6) of the National Health Service Act 1977—
"(6) The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, make payments to a voluntary organisation towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the organisation in connection with the provision of any service under the Act.".").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Jeger and myself, I beg to move the new clause. My comments will be brief. The Government's consultative document Care in the Community proposes that voluntary organisations might receive direct funding from the Department of Health and Social Security for joint finance purposes. That proposal has not been incorporated in the Bill. It is desirable that it should be and the new clause therefore incorporates it. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has explained, the effect of this amendment would be to enable the Secretary of State to make payments to voluntary organisations towards expenditure incurred by them in the provision of health services. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services already possesses the power to give assistance to voluntary bodies providing health services and personal social services by virtue of Section 64 of the Health Service and Public Health Act 1968. The amendment will not give my right honourable friend any new power and so I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
If I may add a personal reflection. Section 64 is a provision which we use quite widely in the department. I myself have responsibility for authorising some of the grants which we make under that section of the Act. The noble Lord may be interested to know that in the 1981–82 financial year we made grants to no fewer than 250 organisations under that power, totalling some £8,881,000. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, will be satisfied that not only do we have the power but we use it and use it widely, and that he will therefore see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, decides what he will do, I should like to support him, because I see no reason, if the Government have this power, why it cannot be written into the Bill.
Lord Trefgarne: It is already in another Act.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Then would it not be easier if it were in this Bill as well? I should like to say to the Minister how grateful are voluntary organisations to the Government for the help that the Government give, because it enables them to keep

291
going. I would also like to ask what the Government would do if it were not for these voluntary organisations, because, if one thinks about the Sue Ryder Homes, the Cheshire Homes, and all the other voluntary homes, I do not believe the Government would be able to cope if they all packed up.
Lord Trefgarne: If I may just intervene again to answer the noble Baroness, I am grateful for the words of appreciation she used for the Government's efforts. Of course, it is not the Government's money that we dish out with such largesse; it is the taxpayers' money. I believe the taxpayers get good value for the money we issue in this way, and I take note of what the noble Baroness has said. But I do believe that there is a considerable objection to adding another provision designed to achieve the same purpose as the earlier one. The Section 64 provision to which I have referred has worked very well for a long time and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, will be happy with that.
Lord Davies of Leek: In respect of Section 64 of the 1968 Act, the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum States that Part I of this Bill,
"make further provision, in relation to Great Britain, with respect to the financing of community services".
What further finances are the Government making available if they are not prepared to explore at least the suggestion made in this amendment? This worries me when I look at the Green Paper on Income During Initial Sickness: A New Strategy. With all due respect, and without being malevolent, the new strategy takes a line opposite to that of Beveridge. The Green Paper states on page 2:
"Further, the fact that many employees receive the equivalent of full pay during sickness … is a curious and unintended outcome. Successive Governments have acknowledged that it is indefensible, but until now no serious attempt has been made to remedy it."
We believe that when people are sick the maximum amount should be given to them. Again without trying to make a party political point, I believe that the new strategy is a little too harsh. There are voluntary services all over Britain outside the scope of national grants, such as the Women's Institute and the people who provide meals on wheels. There is a vast amount of voluntary money put in by ordinary people in helping out our social security schemes, and I feel that that should have a little more recognition.
I do not want to speak longer. This is an important Bill and we do not want to act stupidly and keep the House talking unnecessarily. I believe we should think in a little more depth about this amendment before it is withdrawn.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I am not withdrawing the amendment at this stage because I cannot understand the Government here. The Government put into the consultative document Care in the Community a proposal on the lines of that which appears in the amendment I am moving. If the Minister has these powers—which one may find surprising, but they may exist—why on earth can they not be in the Bill? They will not do any harm; the taxpayers' money will not be dragged from the taxpayers and they will not have to
292
pay more than is necessary because the amendment states quite clearly that,
"The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, make payments to a voluntary organisation",
so there is no reason at all why this provision should not be in the Bill. I believe it ought to be in the Bill and I am not going to withdraw the amendment.
5.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 87.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwic, L.

Kagan, L.

Avebury, L.

Kaldor, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Balogh, L.

Leatherland, L.

Banks, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Beswick, L.

Loudoun, C.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bowdcn, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Mishcon, L.

Caradon, L.

Molloy, L.

Collison, L.

Northbourne, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Oram, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Phillips, B.

Darcy (de Knavth), B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

David, B. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Porritt, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Richardson, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rugby, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Foot, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Gormley, L.

Shinwell, L.

Hampton, L.

Sleadman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stone, L.

Hayter, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hunt, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ingleby, V.

White, B.

Jacobson, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jeger, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Eccles, V.

Ailesbury, M.

Ellenborough, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ampthill, L.

Elton, L.

Avon, E.

Faithful, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bellwin, L.

Ferner, L.

Beloff, L.

Forbes, L.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Burton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Cathcart, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Colwyn, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Harvington, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Henley, L.

Davidson, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

De La Warr, E.

Kemsley, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.)

Lane-Fox, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Long, V.

293

Lyell, L.

Seiborne, E.

McFadzean, L.

Selkirk, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sharpies, B.

Mancroft, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Marley, L.

Somers, L.

Merrivale, L.

Spens, L.

Mersey, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Milverton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Stradbroke, E.

Mottistone,, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathspey, L.

Norfolk, D.

Swinfen, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Teviot, L.

Pender, L.

Teynham, L.

Pennock, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Portland, D.

Ullswater, V.

Renton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rochdale, V.

Vivian, L.

St. Just, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Salisbury, M.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 9:
Before Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of s. 3 of Child Care Act 1980.
The following section shall be substituted for section 3 of the Child Care Act 1980—

"Amendment of s Child Care Act 1980.

3.—(1) Where a child is in the care of a local authority under section 2 of this Act the local authority, if satisfied that one of the conditions in the following subsection is satisfied and that it is in the best interests of the child, may bring the parent or guardian of the child before a juvenile court.

(2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) of this section are—

(a) that his parents are dead and he has no guardian or custodian; or

(b) that a parent of his—

(i) has abandoned him, or

(ii) suffers from some permanent disability rendering him incapable of caring for the child, or

(iii) while not falling within subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, suffers from a mental disorder (within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1959), which renders him unfit to have the care of the child, or

(iv) has so persistently failed without reasonable cause to discharge the obligations of a parent as to be unfit to have the care of the child; or

(c) that a care order under paragraph (b) of this subsection is in force in relation to one parent of the child who is or is likely to become a member of the household comprising the child and his other parent; or

(d) that throughout the three years preceding the application for a care order the child has been in the care of a local authority under section 2 of this Act, or partly in the care of a local authority and partly in the care of a voluntary organisation.

(3) On an application by a local authority under subsection (1) of this section the court may make one of the following orders—

(i) a care order,

(ii) a supervision order, subject to the conditions laid down in subsection (5) of this section.

(4) In determining whether or not to make a care order the court must be satisfied that one of the conditions in subsection (2) of this section exists at the time of the hearing and that the order is in the best interest of the child.
(5) Where the court is satisfied that condition (c) or (d) of subsection (2) of this section exist in relation to the child but the court decides not to make a care order, the court may make a supervision order if satisfied that such an order is in the best interest of the child.
(6) Before considering what are the best interests of the child the court must be satisfied that the local authority has fulfilled its duties under section 18 of this Act, and that the plans made by the local authority for the future care of the child are in accordance with the said section.
(7) Where, after a child has been received into the care of a local authority under section 2 of this Act, the whereabouts of any parent of his have remained unknown for twelve months, then, for the purposes of this section the parent shall be deemed to have abandoned the child.
(8) In the circumstances of subsection (2)(a) or (7) above and any other circumstances where the parent does not take any part in the proceedings before the Court, a guardian ad litem under section 7 of this Act shall be appointed for the purposes of the proceedings.
(9) Where an application for a care order in respect of a child has been made by a local authority under this Act it shall be an offence, punishable under section 33 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to remove the child from the care and control of the local authority except with the authority of a Court, or under authority conferred by an enactment or on the arrest of the child.".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 9. I think this amendment covers a substantial issue. I would like also, with permission, to speak to Amendment No. 150, which is consequential. The main effect of this amendment is to remove from local authority social services committees the power to take away the rights of parents over children who are in the authority's voluntary care. The amendment gives these powers instead to the juvenile courts and allows the parent to be heard and represented. The background to the amendment is this. The Poor Law Children Act 1889 gave the Poor Law Guardians the power to assume parental rights over any child in their voluntary care if they were satisfied that the parents were irresponsible. The law was passed in response to evidence that parents were placing children in the workhouse and then removing them when they were aged 10 and able to work. Ninety-three years later these powers now rest with the social services departments, who are still able to remove a parent's rights by administrative means. The principle is enshrined in the Children Act 1948 as re-enacted in the Child Care Act 1980.
Local authorities are able to receive children into care to meet a family crisis, such as illness, homelessness or the inability of the parent to cope. At the moment approximately 50,000 children are in care under these voluntary orders. The parent can remove the child at any time during the first six months of care or by giving one months' notice after six months have elapsed. However, the local authority can by administrative procedure remove a parent's rights over the child. They can do that at any time.
The procedure is relatively simple. If a social worker believes that a parent ought not to have his or her child back, a report stating the reason is prepared for the

295
social services committee. The social worker must in theory satisfy himself or herself and the social services committee that one of several grounds is proved. This committee usually confirms any application for a parental rights resolution, but it may refer the matter back to the department. Neither parent nor child has the right to know that the resolution is being considered, let alone the right to be consulted beforehand or to be represented at the committee meeting. The local authority must, therefore, act as witness, counsel, judge and jury in its own cause. The parent may object and therefore be heard at any juvenile court, but must do so within 28 days. In many cases the parent may be asked to consent to the resolution in advance, and in doing so forfeits the right to object.
A study which was carried out by the National Council for One-Parent Families shows that the procedure in practice is heavily weighted against the natural parents. During the early part of this year workers from that body examined procedures in 30 different local authority areas. This revealed that no parent was heard by the social services committee, and only one of the social workers discussed the issues with the parent before a decision was taken; of the others, half either wrote or visited the parent before the resolution was taken, explaining that it was going to happen, and the others wrote or visited afterwards.
In some boroughs this letter was sent by a solicitor or the chief executive and the social worker followed it up with a visit. In other areas the letter went from a solicitor and no visit occurred. Many clients claim that they were given wrong information. The committee proceedings themselves varied. The case was usually put by the assistant director of social services or by the legal department. In some authorities the legal department was very involved, but in others not consulted at all. In only two authorities did the elected members challenge social work representatives at the committee. In some authorities the case worker was not present at the committee but was represented by a senior member of the department who had no direct contact with the family. A quarter of the parents were put in touch with lawyers and received legal advice. Of the rest the majority received none at all although a few managed to get in touch with pressure groups.
The rights resolutions themselves were taken for several different reasons. Some local authorities used the resolution as an absolute last resort after all rehabilitation had failed or where the parent had almost lost contact with the child. Others, however, saw it as a means of expediting long-term fostering plans and took the resolutions very quickly on the child coming into care. In five cases the resolution was taken in under three months and in one it was taken on the same day. Few parents actually understood the implications of the resolutions. In fact, several people actually consented, thus losing their right to object, while not in a fit state to do so. One mother, for instance, signed while she was an in-patient at a mental hospital. Others were told that if they did not consent their rights would be removed anyway.
Even if the powers were always used responsibly—that is, as a last resort after attempts at rehabilitation had failed—the procedure would still
296
remain fundamentally unjust. The present system puts the social workers in an invidious position in that they are forced to act for all parties during the procedure. Neither parents nor child has a right to appear before the committee or have access to the social services department to put their point of view. Neither the parents' nor the child's case is presented legally at any time during the procedure. The committee members themselves have little training and very often act as a rubber stamp. They are advised by their own officers and act as judge and jury with the officers being the only witnesses.
The number of resolutions has increased from 12,400 in England and Wales in 1973 to 18,400 in 1980. At least 2,300 resolutions are taken each year in Great Britain. It is against this background that the amendment seeks the abolition of parental rights resolutions and the substitution of juvenile court orders for these resolutions. The proposed amendment abolishes parental rights resolutions and places on the local authority the responsibility to take the parent to court if it wishes to obtain the care and control of a child already in its voluntary care. The decision will be made by the court in possession of all evidence and opinion.
I understand that this proposal has the support of the family sub-committee of the British Association of Social Workers, the National Association of Probation Officers, the Magistrates' Association, the National Council for One-Parent Families, and other organisations intrested in child care. As we all know, there have been some horrifying cases of children suffering through not being brought into care, but mistakes are made in the other direction too, with suffering of a different kind. All of us agree that, unfortunately, there are cases where parents must be deprived of the responsibility for their children. The amendment seeks to ensure that the procedure for doing that where children are already in voluntary care, is fair and just. I beg to move.
Lord Hayter: On these Benches we find ourselves in some difficulty on this Bill because we do not understand the supernatural powers of the local authorities. How could they bring the parent or guardian of the child if, under subsection 2 (a) of the new clause; the parents are dead and there is no guardian? We do not understand that.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Avebury: I am sorry; I was distracting my noble friend when the noble Lord was putting that question.
I intervene briefly to pay tribute to my honourable friend Mr. David Alton, who introduced a Bill during the last Session in order to achieve the objectives that my noble friend described and who has fought a number of cases in this respect. I refer particularly to the case of Caroline Pritchard whose child was taken away from her but who, after an enormous struggle, succeeded through the courts in having the child restored to her care. I shall mention the sort of steps that she took. She even went so far as to write to various organisations throughout the country and to the Prime Minister, to whom she appealed as a mother

297
to assist her in her fight for her parental rights. In that letter she told the Prime Minister how she had been through Liverpool Crown Court and lost and had paid out enormous sums of money in legal fees but had discovered in the end that parents had no chance of winning their child back especially, she said to the Prime Minister, if they have no money. I think this is an important point that we should bear in mind. If a parent has plenty of money she can obtain proper advice. She can go to the lawyers and resist the attempts by the social service committee to assume parental rights in the month that she has available to do that. Otherwise she may lose control for ever and not be in a position to get legal aid for the purpose of bringing actions in the courts. In any case, if she lets the month go by it is too late.
I draw the Committee's attention to an article about a particular case written by Polly Toynbee in The Guardian. In this article she says:
"To tell a mother that she is unfit is to strike at the most fundamental part of herself, and tell her she has failed in the most devastating way imaginable".
This article is concerned with a young mother called Susan who had a baby daughter when she was very young, at the age of only 15. It was never suggested that she was incompetent to look after the child. She was extremely fond of it, but problems arose because Susan was living at home and she had rows with her mother and stepfather. In the end. Miss Toynbee writes, in a fit of depression she brought the child into the council's care and in describing why she did this afterwards she said:
"I wanted a couple of weeks to sort out what I felt, and what I should do".
Her parents were absolutely appalled, but her mother realised that she did this as a kind of cry for help. There was no question of her being financially unable to look after the child. It was a good house and the stepfather was in work. Unfortunately, the daughter had friends who were a bad influence on her and at times the mother and the stepfather had rows. That was the background. But to the horror of the whole family what happened then was that four days after Susan had handed the baby into care she was told that the council had deprived her of all her parental rights. Susan and her parents had been given no warning that this was to happen and there had been no discussion with the social worker, no hearing, no court and no magistrate was involved, as my noble friend has described. Susan's social worker simply went round to the house and instructed them that the social service committee had made the decision on his advice. Later on the committee wrote formally saying that notice was given that the council had passed an assumption of parental rights resolution under Sections 3(1) of the Child Care Act 1980 on the grounds
"that you are of such habits and modesof life as to be unfit to have the care of the child".
It told Susan that she had a month in which to object to the order.
She was so upset that some nights later she threw a stone through a shop window and stole a bottle of vodka. Of course, she was had up for that offence and the solicitor who represented her advised her that she ought not to object to the council's decision to take away her parental rights because if she did so it might
298
affect the case against her for malicious damage. Having been given that advice, she omitted to take the one step which was absolutely essential in the whole process if she was going to contest the decision of the social services committee. She forfeited any rights over the child whatever through having let the month slip by.
It is almost unbelievable in this day and age that a parent can be left with no power whatever to assert her rights when the social services committee has made a decision behind closed doors and only one month has elapsed from the date of that decision. As my noble friend has said, since the few cases like this one have arisen, anyone who has come to consider the matter says that the law is wrong and that it should be amended. In these days when the Poor Law, thank goodness! has disappeared, we should take a completely different view of the relative rights of parents and the successors of the Poor Law guardians. I very much hope that the Committee will see fit to accept the amendment, because I am certain that it will not only give enormous hope to parents throughout the country who are affected by it, but it will be in accordance with the views of almost every expert who has studied the matter and in accordance with the views of all the national organisations that my noble friend has mentioned.
Lord Davies of Leek: With the permission of the Committee I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, for some clarification. I only want to hear what the noble Lord said. He put a point of which nobody seems to have taken any notice.
Lord Hayter: It is very kind of the Committee to allow me to clear the matter up. The new Section 3(1) which appears in the Marshalled List says that the local authority has to be satisfied,
"that it is in the best interests of the child".
to bring the parent or guardian of the child before a juvenile court if one of the conditions in the following subsections is satisfied. One of the conditions is:
"that his parents are dead and he has no guardian or custodian".
I could not understand how the two phrases were linked together. Maybe there is some drafting mistake?
Lord McGregor of Durris: Since its inception, the national Poor Law imposed a separate and special system of family law upon those within its care. Patches of that family law still survive, as noble Lords have pointed out. The people in the workhouse under the 1899 Act, whose children had been removed from them on the grounds that they were irresponsible, share many of the characteristics of those affected by this system today. Nowadays most of them, or at least about two-thirds of them, are lone mothers—one parent families. They are often the least educated, the worst informed and the least literate of our fellow citizens. Not only do they suffer all those disadvantages, but in this particular system they are stripped of their parental rights in circumstances in which, as noble Lords have pointed out, many of them have no understanding of the procedure under which it is done or the purposes for which it is done. This seems to me not so much an issue of social policy as an issue in the realm of what the fashionable rhetoric describes as

299
"human rights". It is not creditable to a society that prides itself on possessing a judicial system which dispenses justice to all citizens on equal terms and gives all citizens equal access to that justice.
Manifestly, in these circumstances such women and such men—there are fewer men than women—have no access to justice. I can think of no grounds—and if there are grounds I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will state the Government's view of what they are—on which it would be reasonable to resist transferring this administrative procedure into the courts. I can think of no circumstances, not even the death of a child, which would cause a greater shock or deprivation to a parent than having a child removed and being unable to get the child back. Let us change this procedure from being an administrative ukase to a matter of judicial determination.
The Marquess of Salisbury: I rise to support the amendment having had some experience of a similar case—one already mentioned by the noble Lord opposite. In that instance a family was deliberately broken up as a result of administrative action, although there appeared to be no real reason for assuming that the parents were incapable of looking after the children. In fact, the mother was a state registered nurse. I think that they were misled, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord who has just spoken, and did not understand the position. The case was taken up by two local magistrates who told me that they considered that it was a gross miscarriage of justice.
As I see it, as the law stands there are two factors which need amending. One is protection from the administration which, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has pointed out, is judge, jury and prosecutor. The other is that they should have an opportunity of being looked after. It, therefore, seems to me that if they have a right to go before the courts that would cover the injustices that exist at present.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I also would like to support the amendment and particularly to support what the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, has just said. At the same time I should like to bring out what to me is a really staggering statistic. It is thought, although estimates vary a little, that between 50 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the children in voluntary care come from one parent families. That is an overwhelming fact. It is true that children from single parent families are the most vulnerable. That is the case for varying reasons, one of which is that a single parent family would clearly suffer very often from a lower income and from poorer housing. However, the main reason is that the child would suffer from the anxiety felt by single parents who are trying to bring up their children alone and who have no one with whom to share their anxiety.
Therefore, it seems very likely that a single mother who is more often in a state of depression, anxiety or stress, and therefore more often in a state where she cannot make a rational decision about something, would fall into the trap of losing her child without having thoroughly understood the implications of the procedure. So from the point of view of the single
300
parent family, I think that they need all the help that they can get. These families now number nearly 1 million in the country and I believe that this proposal would help them greatly.
Viscount Hanworth: I should like briefly and very strongly to support this amendment. First, the point I want to emphasise is that the existing system is not working well. It seems extraordinary that the safeguards rigorously applied elsewhere are almost totally absent in committing children to care. The social services committees seldom question their social workers' recommendations: nor are the possible methods of appeal by parents likely to be known by them and used. It appears that hardly, if ever, has a parent's point of view been put before the social services committee. Secondly, I believe that most social workers would welcome shifting some of the very invidious and difficult decisions to a juvenile court. I venture to think that the unfortunate mistakes which are given wide publicity are in part at least due to a reluctance by the social worker to take the major step of taking a child away from his or her parents. We all know that this is, per se, undesirable and a last resort.
Baroness Faithfull: I particularly wanted to speak last. I support this amendment but with sadness and misgiving. With sadness, because there are many single parent families with whom social workers work and with whom they have a very good relationship, and they should have a good relationship. They are able to talk to the mother and put the point of view to her: would she rather a Section 2 resolution be taken out, or would she rather the case goes to court? In the many cases with which I dealt under Section 2 of the Children Act 1948 a large proportion of mothers did not want to go to court.
Secondly, we should realise that if the social worker is a well-qualified, well-trained and understanding social worker, he will want to reunite the child with the parent despite Section 2, and it is perfectly possible to rescind the Section 2 right. The third point I should like to make concerns committees. I do not know the kind of committees about which the noble Viscount spoke. I can only say that when I worked in Oxford my committee certainly never accepted just like that anything that I said. Very many of the committees for which I have worked questioned everything very clearly.
I support the amendment, but I feel sad about it because I think that where a good relationship is established between the mother and the social worker, it is not necessary in all cases to go to court, and the decision should lie with the mother. However, the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, are so overwhelming, and the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, so powerful, that I am convinced that this amendment must go through. Therefore, despite my misgivings and despite my sadness, I support this amendment.
Baroness Jeger: I hope that the Committee will support this amendment tonight. I must say that I share the confusion of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, about some of the wording of the Bill, but it is not unusual for wording which is brought forward as an

301
amendment at this early stage to be dealt with later, and I am sure any verbal misgivings can easily be put right.
Briefly, I think that an unanswerable case has been made. One reason I support the amendment is that those of us who have been involved in local government for a long time are very well aware of the difference between committees in various parts of the country, of the extraordinary range of ability and practice. In fact. I understand that the one-parent families carried out a review of the practices of 30 local authorities and found practically 30 different methods of dealing with these cases. In some areas neither parent was heard by the social services committee. In some cases the matter was put through the legal department and a document was sent out which was very difficult for a parent, especially a parent in trouble, to understand. In other cases a quarter of the parents were put in touch with lawyers and received some legal advice. Cases were quoted from other areas where no real attempt seemed to be made at contact or at advice, or at bringing the matter to fruition in a way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, I am sure would have done whenever she faced these difficulties.
However, I am not talking about the best social workers or even the worst social workers; I am talking about the system. As has been said, it is a system which puts the social worker in an invidious position. It is a system under which neither the parent nor the child has a legal right to appear before the committee or to have access, as of right, to the social services department. I am sure that it happens in some authorities, but we are talking about rights which we want these parents and children to have, and we want them written into the statute. Very often neither the child's case nor the parent's case is presented legally, and, with all the sympathy in the world, there is a great disadvantage built into this system. The noble Baroness may say that it works well in some cases, but I am glad to hear that she will also support the amendment.
I am very influenced by the fact that this amendment is supported by the Magistrates' Association, a body of wise and experienced people. It is supported by the British Association of Social Workers and by many other experienced voluntary committees. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the Minister say that, apart from the help I am sure the Government will give in tidying up any contradictory wording, he will accept the principle of this amendment.
Lord Milverton: I should like to support this amendment, which seems a very reasonable one. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to accept it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister speaks, may I ask him how many such cases as are covered by this amendment arise each year? I have received many representations from outside bodies, as have most other noble Lords.
Lord Trefgarne: First, I very much appreciate the work of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in bringing forward this amendment, and I appreciate that noble
302
Lords who have spoken are motivated by a concern for the welfare of divided families and their children. I am sure that noble Lords will accept that we are equally concerned about this vulnerable group. We have, of course, been aware for some time of the representations which have been made by a number of groups and individuals about the law and procedures which are the subject of this amendment. We have also been considering the findings of research commissioned some time ago by the department.
I propose to address myself to the intention and the effect of this amendment rather than to the drafting details and the technicalities. The effect would be to do away with the power of local authorities, in certain specified circumstances, to pass a resolution taking over parental rights and duties in respect of children who have been placed in their care.
It would also do away with the right of a parent to agree to such a transfer of parental rights. Every case would have to be referred to the court, instead of only those cases where the parent objected to their rights being transferred. It has been argued that this would achieve consistency with the situation where a local authority is seeking a care order. There is no doubt that the law relating to children is very complicated and fragmented, and, partly for historical reasons, there are inconsistencies. I am bound to say, however, that the two situations—the seeking of a care order and the transference of parental rights—do not seem to me to be entirely similar; in the latter case, for example, the local authority will have been carrying out many of the responsibilities and duties of a parent for some time. Moreover, I am not convinced that the problems can be wholly resolved by a change in the law. It might be simpler if that were the case. But there is a need to find a balance between the interests of the child and the rights and wishes of the parents—I do not think we can ignore the fact that these sometimes conflict—and the need for a constructive and sensitive social work practice.
We have been looking at the present procedures and they are not, I agree, ideal. But it is clearly the intention of the law, it seems to me, that the decision about parental rights should always be referred to a court when the parent objects; and there are substantial safeguards designed to ensure that wherever a parent is not content with the local authority's proposal to take over parental rights he, or she, is given every opportunity to contest that proposal and to put their own case. We believe we must aim in the first instance to make sure that this intention is not frustrated because the procedures make it likely that parents will let their rights and opportunities go by default. This is where good administration and good social work practice come in, and this cannot be achieved by legislation alone.
We intend to explore with those who are responsible for providing social services, and with other groups who are concerned with the welfare of children and their families, the possibility of drawing up a code of practice for the operation of Section 3 of the Child Care Act. Such a code would provide a framework which would ensure that at every stage parents are given the information and advice which will enable them to take the fullest advantage of their rights under

303
the Act, and would also encourage good social work practice with children and with their families.
Of course parents must have the right to a hearing in court and access to legal aid and advice, and of course they must be given all reasonable assistance to exercise these rights. But I believe we must consider whether the best interests of either children or parents are best served by exposing them to unnecessary court proceedings, when there may be scope for agreement between local authorities and parents about what is best for the child; or whether the parent's right to give a considered and informed consent and reach such an agreement with the local authority should be denied; or whose interests will in fact be served by proceedings when there may be no conflict between the authority and the parent, or when the parent has abandoned the child or disappeared and does not choose to take part in the proceedings. It does not seem that the court, in any of these circumstances, would have any alternative but to confirm that the local authority should exercise parental rights.
There are also practical considerations which we cannot ignore. We estimate that there may be up to 3,000 resolutions made each year—which is the answer to the noble Baroness. We do not know how many of these cases go to the magistrates' court, or to appeal. But there would undoubtedly be a significant increase in cases going before the courts, and it has been put to us that some of these cases might be lengthy. There would be significant additional costs to be met by local authorities and by the legal aid fund; and this at a time when there is important legislation on the statute book—I refer to the Children Act 1975—which we are anxious to bring in, and which I know noble Lords and some of my noble friends are anxious should be given priority. These are all matters which we have to consider. I do not wish to suggest that we believe there is any room for complacency about the present position, or that we have ruled out the possibility of any changes. We intend, in addition to the consultation exercise I have mentioned about a code of practice, to consider carefully whether any changes are needed, and we may conclude that changes or further safeguards are necessary. If that is our conclusion I have no doubt we shall want to use the opportunity of this Bill to bring forward proposals in another place.
I have taken careful note of everything that has been said tonight, and your Lordships have my assurance that we shall certainly bear those views carefully in mind. But in the light of the general assurances that I have been able to give—namely, that we accept that there are some difficulties, that we are considering the matter very carefully and that we will, if we can, bring forward proposals in the other place—I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Banks: I should like to express thanks to all noble Lords who have supported this amendment—and as your Lordships have seen, it has been supported from every part of the Committee. There is clearly some strong feeling that there is here a need for reform. I think the noble Lord who raised the question of drafting had a point. There is some room for improvement in the drafting. The intention is clear, that in certain circumstances the local authority
304
should have recourse to the juvenile court; but perhaps the wording could be improved. That could always be done at a later stage.
I sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and understand her reluctance, but the fact that she, with all her long experience in social work, came to support this amendment is significant. I am sure she would agree that the fact that the family subcommittee of the British Association of Social Workers have supported it is also a significant fact. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was endeavouring to take a helpful attitude in the matter; and I am glad that consideration is going on beyond the term of the passage of this Bill through Parliament. It would seem, unfortunately—and I regret it—that the Government do not feel able to take action at this particular point of time. If we are to remain with the old system then a code of practice would no doubt help, but I doubt very much whether it would eradicate all the faults in the present arrangements to which noble Lords have referred.
While it is true that a parent may protest within 28 days and the case goes to court, not many parents are aware of that. Many are not aware of it and do not understand that they have this right, but that it must be taken within that time, and that if it is not taken I within that time then they lose the right altogether. I feel there has been so much support expressed for the amendment that we ought to test the feeling of the Committee, and that is what I should like to do.
6.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 84.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kaldor, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kennet, L.

Avebury, L. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Banks, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bowden, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Caradon, L.

Milverton, L.

Collison, L.

Mishcon, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Molloy, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Northbourne, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Rea, L.

Diamond, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Serota, B.

Faithfull, B.

Shinwell, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Stedman, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gormley, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hampton, L.

Stone, L.

Hanworth, V.

Slrabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hooson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

White, B.

Jacobson, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jeger, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winstanley, L. [Teller.]

John-Mackie, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Kagan, L.

305

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ampthill, L.

Mancroft, L.

Avon, E.

Marley, L.

Bellwin, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bessborough, E.

Birdwood, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Burton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carrington, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cathcart, E.

Onslow, E.

Chelwood, L.

Orkney, E.

Coleraine, L.

Pender, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Plummer of Saint Marylebone, L.

Davidson, V.

De La Warr, E.

Porritt, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Portland, D.

Digby, L.

Renton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Rochdale, V.

Eccles, V.

St. Just, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Seiborne, E.

Elton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferner, L.

Slim, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Somers, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Spens, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Greenway, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Harvington, L.

Hayter, L.

Swinfen, L.

Henley, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Teynham, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Kemsley, V.

Trenchard, V.

Killearn, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Ullswater, V.

Lawrence, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Long, V.

Vivian, L.

Lyell, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

McFadzean, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 3 agreed to.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Children's regional planning committees.
. The following section shall be substituted for section 32 of the Child Care Act 1980—

"Children's regional planning committees.

32.—(1) Notwithstanding the responsibilities given to local authorities in section 3(1) of this Act. where at least two-thirds of the local authorities in a regional planning area (as established by order of the Secretary of State under this Act) agree to retain or re-constitute a children's regional planning committee for that area then it shall be the duty of the local authorities in that area to establish such a committee for the purposes stated in subsection (3) below.

(2) The provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect in relation to any children's regional planning committee established pursuant to subsection (1) above.
(3) The purposes for which a children's regional planning committee shall be established under subsection (1) above are—

(a) to prepare and approve plans for the provision by local authorities and voluntary organisations of community homes oflering special facilities intended to meet the needs of other local authorities in the planning area;

(b) to approve any changes in the planned provision of community homes offering special facilities provided under paragraph (a);

306

(c) to provide information and advice to assist local authorities and voluntary organisations in the planning area to carry out their child care functions and responsibilities.

(4) Where a regional plan prepared pursuant to subsection (3) above includes provision for a community home offering special facilities to be provided by one of the relevant local authorities it shall be the duty of the local authority concerned to provide, manage, equip and maintain that home.".").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment concerns regional planning committees. As your Lordships will know, under the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 England was divided so that the various regional planning committees could decide the work of the areas in relation to residential care and shared facilities. This Bill makes it possible for regional planning committees to be done away with, and I agree with that; there are many such committees which do not serve a useful purpose. Under the amendment, however, if a regional planning committee wishes to continue, and two-thirds of the members wish to continue, then it shall be able to do so.
Secondly, smaller authorities in particular are unable to supply—and it would be impracticable for them to do so—a wide range of specialist interests for the different types of children in care who need specialised types of treatment. If the regional planning committee in that area, at their wish, continues, then they will be able to share the facilities as between the local authorities.
Thirdly, where there is offered a specialist facility of a residential establishment for a particular type of child, it could not be closed unilaterally. One authority might want to close it, but the other authorities might want to use it. Therefore, I move the amendment so as to ensure that in those areas where the regional planning committees are serving a purpose, they may continue to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I can well understand the purpose of the amendment, and I certainly appreciate the strong feelings, at least in some quarters, that have inspired it. None the less, I hope to be able to persuade my noble friend not to press the amendment. The effect of accepting the amendment would be to enable a majority of local authorities in any of the existing regions to impose their wishes on the minority and deprive them of the devolution of powers and duties, which is the main purpose of Clause 3.
There is nothing in the Bill which would prevent any grouping of local authorities from getting together to plan and provide residential services for children. Indeed, there is nothing to stop any existing children's regional planning committee from continuing in existence, if the local authorities concerned so desire. What the Bill proposes, and what the amendment would negative, is that a statutory requirement to plan residential provision for children in this way should no longer exist.
Co-operation and joint planning will certainly be necesssry in the future as in the past, but the Government are proposing that each local authority be allowed discretion as to how it fulfils its statutory requirement to provide adequate residential accommodation for children in its care, and related welfare provision. The Bill opens the way to new and

307
more flexible forms of co-operation, better suited to local circumstances. It imposes no duties on local authorities in this respect. I would suggest that a duty to co-operate imposed on an unwilling party would be ineffective and self-defeating. It is for those reasons that I hope that my noble friend will not press her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: Not unnaturally, I am disappointed by the reply of my noble friend the Minister, because the situation could work the other way. The amendment provides that if two-thirds of the membership of a regional planning committee wish it to continue, it shall continue. Taking into account what the Minister has said, it seems that the minority can control the majority. I have personal experience of this kind of situation arising from when, in a voluntary capacity, I was responsible for setting up a small hostel for very difficult boys. Local authorities which had used it did not continue to support it. They withdrew their boys, and so we had to close the hostel. One of two boys who had been in the hostel for three years is now serving a prison sentence of nine years, and the other is serving a sentence of five years. I would dare to suggest that had the hostel remained open, those boys would not be in prison. However, I shall not press the amendment at this stage, but I hope to discuss it with the Minister and, if necessary, I shall bring it forward again at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Leek: Before the Minister answers the noble Baroness, will he help to clarify my mind? Under the Criminal Justice Act 1982 RPCs are required only to prepare a plan for submission to, and approval by, the Secretary of State for the provision and maintenance of community homes, including voluntary homes designated by the plan as controlled or assisted community homes for the accommodation and maintenance of children in the care of local authorities. The abolition of the statutory requirement makes it necessary to place these or similar duties upon local authorities. What has been put in the place of the statutory duty that hitherto existed? Is not the position nebulous and unclear? What constructive answer can be given to the amendment of the noble Baroness?
Lord Trefgarne: If I have the permission of the Committee to speak again, since my noble friend has I think sought leave to withdraw her amendment, I shall briefly answer the noble Lord. We do not really see that the function that the noble Lord describes would be advanced by imposing upon unwilling authorities an obligation to plan together with others. It might be thought that that kind of mandatory arrangement would effectively prevent some local authorities which provide homes with much-needed facilities from withdrawing them. But it is most unlikely that such authorities would not continue to make available spare places in their homes for other authorities, since this is the obvious way to keep down the running costs and maintain viability. I am of course also dealing with the point that my noble friend raised. I think that I should be trespassing unduly on the patience of the Committee if I were to continue
308
further, but I think that the noble Lord's fears are unfounded.
Lord Davies of Leek: I thank the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Closure of controlled or assisted community home]:
6.26 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 9, line 10, at end insert—
(" ( ) Before taking a decision to close a controlled or assisted community home, a local authority shall give priority to the special needs of children being fulfilled by a particular controlled or assisted voluntary school or home and shall consult with the voluntary organisation concerned.")
The noble Baroness said: Had the previous amendment been passed, this amendment would have applied in the case of local authorities where there are no regional planning committees. A worrying situation is at present evolving in the country concerning facilities for children who need a particular service: for instance, diabetic children and dyslectic children. A number of voluntary organisations run community homes or assisted homes, in particular for the severely maladjusted child. These are specialist homes. Because they are under financial pressure, many local authorities are withdrawing their children and are not using these specialist homes that children most need and that are run by voluntary organisations. The local authorities are withdrawing the children in order to keep open their own homes, in their own areas, and maintain their own staff. That action is quite understandable, but what is important is the welfare and well-being of the child. Where there is a specialist home providing a service that the local authorities cannot give, the local authorities should not give up using the home in order to use their own homes. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I fear that my noble friend's amendment gives me a little difficulty. If I correctly understand her intention, it is that before a local authority sets in motion the procedure to close a community home, it should first give consideration to the special needs of any children that are being fulfilled by the home, and by consulting the voluntary body concerned ensure that alternative arrangements are made. If that is indeed my noble friend's purpose—as, from what she has just said, I think it is; and I have to make certain deductions from the amendment as drafted—then I am happy to assure her that the Government are in sympathy with it. Moreover. I can show that the worthy objective that she seeks will in fact be achieved through statutory safeguards in the primary legislation and indeed those proposed in this Bill.
First, however, I ought to point to the ambiguity of the amendment as drafted. It is not really clear what duty would be imposed on a local authority by it. The authority is asked to "give priority" to children's special needs, but the amendment does not indicate what the object, or the effect of doing so, would be. Nor does it indicate the object, or the effect, of the second duty—that of consulting the voluntary body.

309
For that reason, I fear that the amendment is technically defective.
However, putting that to one side, I would draw my noble friend's attention to the new Section 31 of the Child Care Act 1980, which Clause 3 proposes to insert. This lays a duty on local authorities to have regard to the need for ensuring the availability of accommodation of different descriptions, and suitable for different purposes, and the requirements of different descriptions of children. If, therefore, a local authority decided to withdraw its designation of a controlled or assisted home, and, as a result of its subsequent closure, the special needs of children being fulfilled by that particular home could not be met elsewhere, the local authority would be in breach of its statutory duty under that provision.
In taking action which would result in the closure of a controlled or assisted home under the new Section 43A proposed by the clause, the local authority is required to give two years' notice. This is the same period of notice that voluntary organisations must give under Section 43 of the Child Care Act 1980 if they wish to withdraw a home from the community home system. There is, therefore, strict comparability between the existing provision and the one proposed. Two years is long enough for alternative arrangements to be completed satisfactorily both for the children in the home and for any children with similar needs who might be placed in that home in future.
Although the proposed Section 43A allows my right honourable friend to make an order which would effectively shorten the period between the giving of notice and closure—again comparable with Section 43—he is, under subsection (4) of this clause, required to consult both the voluntary organisation and the local authority before doing so. One of the purposes of this requirement to consult is for him to satisfy himself that earlier closure will not create a situation where hasty alternative arrangements for the children have to be made or that no provision will exist for children with special needs which were being fulfilled by the home in question. He will be concerned, therefore, with the appropriate timing of any effective closure earlier than two years, and such factors would have a bearing on the date when the order would come into effect. I am satisfied, therefore, that the provisions introduced by both Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill are sufficient to meet my noble friend's intentions and anxieties and I hope, in consequence, that she will agree not to press her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his explanation. Despite present legislation, I think that I have to say that there have been children withdrawn by local authorities from voluntary homes without consultation. However, perhaps I may write to my noble friend the Minister at a later stage asking, if this is done and it is against the legislation, what action can be taken and by whom.
Lord Trefgarne: I shall be very happy to look into any specific case that my noble friend brings to my attention and, if the response that I give her is not satisfactory, doubtless she will feel free to raise this matter at the next stage.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank my noble friend for that. I will look at this and think about it and, if I may, discuss it with him. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Children and Young Persons.]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 23, line 38, leave out ("or section 55 of the Adoption Act 1976").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss Amendments 12 and 13 together. These are drafting amendments which clarify the wording of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1. They express more clearly the fact that the adoption Act 1976 consolidates existing adoption law, and that Section 55 of that Act merely restates Section 25 of the Children Act 1975. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 23, line 48, at end insert—
("(3) After the commencement of section 55 of the Adoption Act 1976 subsection (1)(c) above shall have effect with the substitution of "55 of the Adoption Act 1976" for "25 of the Children Act 1975".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 24, line 5, at end insert ("and has requested not to be brought before the court.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, standing in my name and that of my noble friend. This is a very important amendment but one not easily explained. I fully understand the Government's purpose in including in the Bill the amendment to Section 22 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. Children become alienated by long delays in the juvenile court awaiting the short and predictable outcome. In some cases, children may find these hearings and the sight of their parents traumatic.
On the other hand, there is the experience of children who are anxious to attend every hearing of their case and I am concerned that it may become a routine matter for the courts to exclude children if they are legally represented. Given the ultimate significance of these hearings for the children concerned, the presumption should be that they will attend all the hearings. This amendment would ensure that legal representatives and their clients and not the court take the initiative in this matter.
It is a relatively straightforward task for lawyers to ask children over five whether or not they wish to attend subsequent hearings and to convey these wishes to the court, which may then take appropriate action. I think this is a sensible and reasonable human way to do it to avoid some of the difficulties that could arise otherwise. I hope the Government will see their way to accepting it or at least will show some degree of sympathy to it. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: We are hoping to introduce, by virtue of paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 to this Bill, provision for juvenile courts not to require the attendance of a legally represented child at court when an interim order in respect of him expires and where it is clear that the case will not be completed that day. The proposed amendment will remove the discretion of magistrates not to require the child's attendance where the legally-represented child wishes to attend the court on the expiry of the interim order, or where he expresses no clear view on the matter. Perhaps I may tell your Lordships of some of the misgivings we have about the amendment.
First, we are talking about children of all ages between the ages of 5 and 16. It is difficult to see how young children would be in a position to express an informed view on the question of their future attendance at court hearings. Unnecessary suffering might be caused in respect of those children who had to attend court for a further interim hearing through either not having expressed a clear view on their attendance or through having requested to attend but not knowing the full implications that a court attendance would have.
Secondly, the way that the Bill is drafted at present does not prevent the child's solicitor from making representations to the court on the question of the child's attendance. While the court would have the final say on the matter, it would take into account the views expressed by the child's solicitor along with all other relevant factors, including the child's welfare. Furthermore, if it became apparent that the case would be concluded at the hearing, the court could rescind any earlier decision not to require the child's attendance, and, if necessary, adjourn the hearing so that there would be time to bring the child before the court.
To summarise, I consider that the proposed amendment will not have the effect of avoiding unnecessary suffering caused to children by their having to attend repeated interim hearings, and I hope therefore that the noble Lord will see fit not to press his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I can see the points that the noble Lord is making. He makes one slight mistake and, as a family man, he will understand this well, because he has got some lively children. Children are a little more mature today and can reach decisions for themselves a little earlier than we used to in our days. I am correcting him only on that point. I have gone beyond the age of having young children but I have got some very energetic grandchildren. They know their own minds at times. I will not tease him on that point too much because it is not relevant. I see the point that he has made. I fully understand it. I want to read what he said in Hansard. I apreciate the way that he has spoken on the matter. In the circumstances, at this stage I shall withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 28, line 38, leave out from ("following") to end of line 44 and insert ("paragraph shall be inserted after subsection (5)(g)—.
"(ga) Part II of the Children Act 1975." ").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple drafting amendment to paragraph 39(c) of Schedule 1. It does not alter the effect of the provision, which is to add Part II of the Children Act 1975 to the specified enactments on which the Secretary of State can obtain information from local authorities. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [The Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work]:
6.42 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 10, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) Grants for the training of social workers shall be mandatory and funded either by local education authorities or from central funds.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment concerns the financing of the training of social workers. At the moment social workers may be seconded from the local authority department for which they work. They can receive a grant from the Department of Health and Social Security or they can receive a discretionary grant through their local education authorities, but there are no mandatory grants for the training of social workers.
I move this amendment on two counts. First, may I ask my noble friend the Minister to clarify exactly what are to be the financial responsibilities to be given to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work in allocation of grants for students and allocation of grants for training courses? Secondly, I want to make to the Committee and to the Government a reasoned appeal—but an appeal with deep feeling behind it—for mandatory awards for training to be given for social work students instead of discretionary awards as at present. I think that the social services departments in this country—and I apoligise, for I have not looked up the figures—are the second biggest in the local authority. The education department is probably the biggest. In every other department of the local authority it is requested and required that there shall be professionals. I have in mind the architect's department, the surveyor's department, and so on. Indeed, the architect's department has just been made the subject of mandatory awards for training.
The fact that there are not mandatory awards for the training of social workers means that social work in this country is uneven among all the local authorities. Sadly, the local authorities who can least afford to send social workers on courses are very often the local authorities where there is most need for good, experienced and qualified social workers. This is really an indictment of our system. I believe—and I hope that your Lordships will agree with me—that society cannot have it both ways. If there is a case, the media take it up; for example, a battered baby who should or should not have been removed from its home, or a mother who should or should not be the subject of a Section 2 resolution—and we have just heard a debate on this. If there are complaints from magistrates or judges that social workers do not always know their law or court procedure then there is an outcry from the public through the media and from other professionals

313
from all over the country. Yet the authorities are not prepared to train social workers under the mandatory system. Social workers cannot have it laid at their door that they are not doing their job properly if society—the taxpayer—is not prepared to pay. I suggest that if the exercise were to be costed, it probably would not involve an enormous amount of extra money for there to be mandatory awards.
There is another point. Working in the department in Oxford, I found that a member of staff would be seconded for training and although they may have been very happy in the department, and enjoyed the work, after they had trained they had a view of the wider world. They wanted to move away and work in another sector of social work in a different part of the country. But because they had been seconded, they had to return to the local authority that had seconded them. This does not always make for happy relationships. They are in fact trapped, at any rate for two years.
In the residential sector in this country, only 14 per cent. of those who care for children in residential accommodation are trained, and it has to be remembered that those children are the most difficult children. They are not easy children, they are children with particular and peculiar difficulties. Of those working with the handicapped, the disabled and with the elderly, only 3 per cent. are trained in this country. Residential social workers are in a very vulnerable position. I think that in this Bill the time has come to face up to whether or not we want a good social work service? If we do, and we regard our social workers and value the residential, community and field staff—and I do—has the time not come to look and see whether we ought to make mandatory awards so that they can be well trained and well qualified to give a service which this country deserves? I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Leek: Briefly, this amendment is of great importance. I do not know whether the noble Baroness will divide the Committee on this amendment. Maybe we do not want to divide because we hope to get a reply which will satisfy the noble Baroness. Despite the scoffing that takes place, social workers are still of paramount importance to this country in many areas. Those of us who have had some experience—and I had a little, particularly in a social security department—know that it is important to have people especially in these areas who have had the chance of practical and theoretical experience. They must be trained in dealing with the particular types of people against whom they sometimes help to legislate or guide.
This amendment does not need long speeches. It is obvious that if we leave a blank in the forces that are working for social security, working for the benefit of these under-privileged youngsters and people, then it is a great blot on the escutcheon of our society. I hope that the Government will look at this matter. Unfortunately, there is so much in this vast Bill that we can talk for hours and hours about these matters. Without boring noble Lords any further, I hope that the Minister—who always gives these matters his attention—will give a reply which at least will be favourable on this point.
Lord Mottistone: I should like briefly to support my noble friend's amendment. Training in this sort of area is now becoming essential: social workers have been going for some time and we really have reached the stage when we must have properly trained people. I would suggest to my noble friend that although that may appear to be an added expense it may in fact be an economy in the long run, because trained preople can do more work than untrained people. This is a matter which I should have thought deserved particular care, and I would hope that he would be able to respond sympathetically to my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Seebohm: May I just add my comments on that? Since the Seebohm Report, if I may so call it. probably one of the most important documents has been the Barclay report, which came out very recently. I have in fact been talking about that today in another place. I really think that the urgency for additional training at the present time, in view of the Barclay Report and the changes in social work likely to take place in the next year or so, makes this amendment very important, and I sincerely hope that we shall give this amendment serious thought.
Lord Banks: I should like briefly to support the amendment of the noble Baroness. I think the absence of mandatory grants for the training of social workers in this country is a great handicap to that important branch of training. The training is vital, as the noble Baroness made clear, and I think the statistics she gave about the numbers of people trained in particular spheres were very telling indeed and they indicate how great the need is.
Lord Trefgarne: The question of which types of professional and vocational training should attract mandatory awards from local education authorities was debated fully during the discussion of what was then the Education (No. 2) Bill in 1980. Local education authorities make awards under Section 1 of the Education Act 1962, which specifies the categories of courses which may be designated for mandatory awards. Students on degree courses in social work are thus eligible for mandatory awards, but the majority of students on non-graduate or postgraduate social work training courses do not qualify. They do, however, attract support from other sources such as local authorities, who release their employees on secondment, local education authorities' discretionary awards and from certain central Government departments, notably the DHSS.
In principle the Government would not oppose the designation of courses of professional and vocational training for mandatory awards. However, the cost of making such a change, I am sorry to say to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, was estimated as an additional £8 million a year in 1980, and doubtless it will be more this year. In the light of the need to contain public expenditure, this was considered too high to merit inclusion in such a provision as the Education (No. 2) Act.
As for central Government support for students on social work training courses, I am afraid that the need to contain public expenditure still applies.

315
Nonetheless, in 1981–82 my department alone spent more than ever before (some £4·1 million) on the support of students on social work training courses. The major employers of social workers in this country are local authority social services departments and they have traditionally seconded staff for professional training. Such authorities are in a position to know their staffing and training requirements best; yet this amendment would effectively exclude social services departments from sponsoring the training of their staff.
Finally, lest this amendment should give the impression that the number of social workers going through training has dried up for lack of mandatory grants, I should like to point out that some 3,361 students received the basic social work qualification—the Certificate of Qualification in Social Work—in 1981 and there are no indications that the number qualifying this year will have dropped by a significant degree.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull also asked me specifically about the grant-making responsibilities which may be transferred to CCETSW. The grants which will in future be made by the council will be subject to discussion with them, but at present we do not propose that the council should make any new grants, other, that is to say, than those already made by the DHSS. In the field of grants to individual students, these will be limited to postgraduate students undertaking basic training—the Certificate of Qualification in Social Work to which I have already referred—and certain limited grants to social workers attending specialised post-basic courses. Nevertheless, I hope the range of grants I have described, which are available from other sources, will persuade my noble friend not to proceed with her amendment, particularly having regard to the very considerable cost it would involve.
Baroness Faithfull: I have listened with great care to the reply given by my noble friend the Minister, and inevitably it is deeply disappointing. If, as he has said, great care is being taken over the training of social workers, I have to come back to my original point: How is it that only 14 per cent. of people working in residential care with children (and with the most difficult children) are trained and only 3 or 4 per cent. of those working with the elderly and handicapped are trained? This really means that local authorities are not seconding or supporting those who are most in need of training at the moment, although I would wish to say that with the new CSS certificate great efforts are being made towards this end.
I think I must consider this because it is one of the most vital parts of this Bill, at any rate so far as I am concerned. I think it is something which the country has to face up to; and when my noble friend talks about £8 million it is a question of priorities—where do we put our money? I wish it to be clearly known that I support my party in its fiscal policies and always have done so; but, having said that, I think one has to look at where the priorities lie, and I believe they lie in this area.
Finally, I have to say that money not spent here will have to be spent elsewhere. Could it be costed out? I
316
agree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone, who supported me, that it would not cost more, although, of course, I know it is very difficult to cost out. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will discuss this matter with me before we come to the Report stage. I am unrepentant in bringing it forward: I think it is right. I will now seek leave to withdraw the amendment but will bring it forward again at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19:
Page 11, line 39, leave out ("or").
line 40, after ("Ireland") insert "or education and library boards in Northern Ireland").
line 42, leave out ("and aftercare services") and insert ("service").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to consider Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 together. Subsection (16) of Clause 6 of the Bill defines "relevant social work" for the purposes of training. One of the services for which social work training is required is the education welfare service. Indeed, the service throughout the United Kingdom is covered by the provisions of the Health Visiting and Social Work (Training) Act 1962, which set up what is now the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.
The education welfare service, which in broad terms concerns itself with the problems of truancy and non-attendance at school, is organised by local education authorities in Great Britain. In Northern Ireland, however, it is organised centrally by the Department of Education for the Province and, as such, is not covered by the existing wording of the subsection. This exclusion was unintentional and I trust your Lordships will agree with me that it should be rectified with this amendment.
Section 65 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 changes the designation of the "probation and after-care services" to what are called "probation services". This minor consequential amendment to the wording of subsection (16)(b) is accordingly intended to bring the Bill's designation of the service up to date. With that brief explanation, I beg to move these three amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Denham: I think that this would probably be a convenient moment to adjourn for a short period until a quarter to eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.1 p.m. to 7.45 p.m.]
Schedule 2 [The Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 29, line 16, at end insert—
(" . Members of the Council shall be appointed from—

317

(a) qualified experienced practitioners in social work, including field, residential and community social workers and probation officers; and

(b) the sector of education responsible for the training of social workers").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment concerns the composition of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, which, by this Bill, will be reduced from, I think, 65 to 26. May I say to my noble friend the Minister how much so many of us approve of this reduction in the number of the Central Council.
I now come to the point of who should serve on the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. I have consulted with a number of other professions. I have consulted with the General Medical Council and various other professions as to exactly how they set their standards of training and their standards of performance of the training courses. I believe that the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work should he a professional body consisting of, as I say in the amendment,
"qualified experienced practitioners in social work, including field, residential and community social workers and probation officers".
Although I have not set this out in the amendment, I should like to add "and paediatricians", with whom social workers have to work so closely.
Secondly, I believe that the sector of education responsible for the training of social workers should be represented on the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. I believe that those two sectors must work in partnership with one another, because the courses for any good, trained social worker consist of practical work in the field, linked with the theoretical, academic work at the centre of training in the colleges or in the universities. At that stage, I believe that those two sectors have to work out between them what are the right methods to use, and what is the right training to give to social workers.
I should like to link Amendment No. 22 with this amendment, and, in order to save your Lordships' time, I shall also speak to that, so that when we come to it I shall not have to speak again. But the two amendments are linked. I equally believe that it is very important that the employing authorities and the relevant trade unions are involved in a consultative capacity concerning the training of social workers, concerning the number of social workers and the planning, and, of course, concerning the way in which local authority social services are run, and their needs. I believe that on page 30, line 12, we should insert that,
"One of these committees"—
which are referred to in the Bill—
"shall consist of representatives of the employing authorities and relevant trade unions to act in a consultative capacity to the Council."
So my very strong recommendation is that the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work should be a professional body and that, having worked out the methods of training over the whole country, they should then consult with local authorities, employing authorities and trade unions. These two amendments, therefore, go together. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I rise very briefly to say that I fully support the noble Baroness. The first amendment is an obvious one, which is worthy of support, and the second is a very sensible one which I also entirely support. I hope that the Government will see fit to accept them.
Lord Trefgame: I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of your Lordships, and agreeable to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, if he were to speak to his amendment now. I had it in mind to reply to Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 together, although, naturally. I am in the hands of the Committee to do otherwise, if your Lordships so wish.
Lord Seebohm: I am in a little difficulty over this, but I shall speak to my amendment. If the previous amendment is passed, mine may become slightly superfluous. The appointment of the members of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work is very important, and I feel that what is in the Bill, which is,
"Before appointing a member other than the chairman the Secretary of State shall consult any body that appears to him to be appropriate".
is quite inadequate. My amendment is very simple and just states, in addition,
"including such bodies concerned with training in social work and with the employment of social workers, and such bodies representing social workers, as appear to him to be appropriate."
In other words, I am not making it mandatory that the council should be restricted to the people mentioned in the noble Baroness's amendment, but certainly these bodies should be consulted.
I must declare my interest as the present and past chairman for many years of the National Institute of Social Workers. I hope the Committee will not think that I am therefore biased in what I say.
It is worth pointing out the duties of the council. It will probably strengthen both amendments. The council operates by making statutory training rules, issued with the authority of the Privy Council, which lay down minimum standards for entry and student assessment as well as specifying in broad terms the required content of courses. Within these rules, the council makes detailed regulations and guidelines for education and training and for the assessment of students. The CCETSW is also giving urgent attention to the training of approved social workers under the provisions of the new Mental Health (Amendment) Act, and will be considering any special training needs arising from the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act: training staff for working with disturbed and difficult adolescents, and for working with cases of child abuse; probation and after-care hostel staff, and all the matters which are currently concerning the council and its officers. It is a highly technical body. To be a generalist body is not good enough. The least that I should like, therefore, is agreement to my amendment to consult these bodies.
May I also mention that the previous regulations laid down that these bodies should be consulted. To leave out this requirement seems to me to be a slight insult to the institutions concerned. For one reason or another the confidence of the public in the competence of social workers is not at its highest. Simply to refer to

319
any institution or body that the Secretary of State feels appropriate is far too slender.
In a sense I support both amendments. My slight objection to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is that it is exclusive. It just says, "shall be appointed from". There must be freedom for the Secretary of State to appoint somebody he wants to be on the council who is not in those particular categories.
Lord Trefgarne: Before turning to the detailed effect of Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22, perhaps I may touch briefly on the underlying principles. As I said at Second Reading, the CCETSW has become too large and the arrangements whereby a large number of appointing bodies are prescribed by statutory instrument has become unwieldy. But one of the important principles within the existing arrangements has been an equal partnership on the council between the social work profession, the social work educators in colleges and universities and the employers, particularly in local authorities and voluntary organisations. It is this principle which the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, seeks to reflect explicitly in the Bill, and it is a principle which I know the present council considers to be important.
For reasons that I shall explain, it is, moreover, a principle which the Government wish to uphold in the reconstituted council. When considering appointments to the council, the Government will indeed consult organisations which they consider to be representative of the professional, the educational and the employer interests and will seek to reflect their views in a balanced membership of the council. In the light of that explicit undertaking I hope the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull argued cogently that the council proper should be drawn solely from the professional and educational interests. She acknowledges, none the less, that the employers have a part to play in the council's deliberations. But she seems to relegate them to a place some way below the salt, to be co-opted to one of the council's committees. We believe that the part to be played by employers in the council demands better representation than that. It is not simply, as my noble friend argued earlier this evening, that the absence of mandatory grants for social work training makes this necessary. Even if there were mandatory grants in their field—which, as I have argued, we cannot at present afford—and even if as a result the employers were relieved of some of the cost of training, we would still think it right for employers to be fully represented on the council.
There are two main reasons for this. The first is that the training which people need to work in the personal social services is substantially affected by the way the services are organised and by the way the services are managed. This was well brought out in the recent Barclay report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, referred earlier this evening, on the role and tasks of social workers, and it is very much a question for employers.
The second main reason is that the training itself is increasingly dependent upon the co-operation of the
320
employers themselves. The Certificate in Social Services—a qualification of growing value within the personal services—is a mixture of regulated in-service training and college-based training. It is run locally by groupings of employers and education interests, within a structure laid down by CCETSW. As demonstrated by the proposals for the training of the approved social workers called into being by the Mental Health (Amendment) Act, this is a useful pattern which may be adopted again in the future. Employers have a right to expect that training will be relevant to their needs, and that their part in providing in-service training is properly represented. We believe that there should be a proper balance with the other two interests concerned.
My noble friend drew parallels—I believe it was at Second Reading—with other professions. I do not think these parallels are exact. What may be the right arrangements for regulating, say, the architects' profession or the medical profession are not necessarily the right arrangements for considering the training of social services personnel.
In the light of these thoughts. I hope that my noble friend will see fit not to press her two amendments and that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, will not wish to press his. either.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply, with which, inevitably. I do not agree. First, I certainly did not mean that the employing authorities should be looked upon as being relegated to the position of a consultative committee. If one is working out a professional method of training, I believe it is for the professionals to discuss it among themselves first, before submitting it to a lay committee. The employing authorities are lay members of social services departments.
Secondly, from the point of view of argument on the question of the co-operation of employers, I am still not convinced that social services, as a service of local government, are any different from education. I should very much like to know from my noble friend the Minister—not now, but perhaps he and I might discuss it or he might kindly write to me—whether or not the employing parties are represented on whatever is the training medium for teachers. I was visiting the Department of Education the other day and asked about this, and I do not think that they are represented. I am not quite sure why social workers should be different from teachers.
From the point of view of medicine, I phoned up the General Medical Council and was told that they did not think it was wise to have lay people advising on training for the General Medical Council. The same goes for architects and others. We would have a much more productive service if, in the first instance, the professions thought about and worked out their schemes and then submitted them to the employing authorities for consultation—not relegating them, but using them as a consultative body. I am sure it is right that this should happen.
I know when I am beating my head against a brick wall—if my noble friend will excuse me for describing him as such—and I do not propose at this time of night

321
to divide the committee. At this stage I will withdraw the amendment but will ask my noble friend the Minister if he is prepared to see me on this matter and to discuss it and whether I should bring this matter forward again at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 21:
Page 29, line 19, at end inssert ("including such bodies concerned with training in social work and with the employment of social workers, and such bodies representing social workers, as appear to him to be appropriate")
The noble Lord said: I feel that this is a completely harmless amendment; it purely concerns consulting and does not give a direction to anyone. These people must be consulted and I do not feel that there can be any harm in adding these few words to this particular schedule. If we are not to have the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, my amendment would be a very gentle improvement to the Bill.
Lord Trefgarne: Before the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, decides whether or not to press his amendment may I simply repeat the assurance that my right honourable friend will conduct the consultation for which the noble Lord is asking, in a rather more informal basis than the one which the noble Lord predicates in his amendment? I believe that is a better way to proceed and hope that the noble Lord will let it rest at that.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall be agreed to?
Lord Renton: The point I wish to make has not been covered by an amendment. If your Lordships will look at paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, you will see that,
"Before appointing a member other than the chairman the Secretary of State shall consult any body that appears to him to be appropriate".
In view of the very strong feelings which the Royal Society for the Mentally Handicapped have had about the way in which the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work has governed its affairs—a censure which caused us much concern—we feel that we should be consulted among the bodies which seem to be appropriate. We feel that if we were consulted we could give advice which would be of great value and which would help to prevent certain mistakes which have occurred in the past being repeated in the future. I hope that there will be an undertaking from my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that such a consultation might take place.
Lord Trefgarne: My noble friend Lord Renton is the distinguished president of the Royal Society and I happily give him the assurance for which he has asked.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Residential homes and nursing homes]:
8.5 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 32, line 12, after ("age") insert ("(defined as the minimum state pension age)").
The noble Lord said: Quite frankly, this amendment does not need any explanation. The amendment would clear up what we mean by "old age". There may be moments in a late Sitting in this House when the noble Lord the Minister might feel that he knows something about old age, but that is temporary in so far as he is so young. I feel it is necessary that we should define this because, after all, what is old age? We can argue the toss about whether we are old or whether we are young and it is far better to bring in the little amendment I am proposing to define old age as,
"the minimum state pension age".
and then we know where we are. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, in this amendment. Looking at the schedule, there is the phrase "old age", which is not defined; "disablement", which is capable of definition; and "past or present mental disorder", which is also capable of definition. So one of the three main conditions mentioned in that subsection is not defined and I consider that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, is extremely sensible.
Lord Trefgarne: As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has said, the effect of this amendment would be to define "old age" as meaning the minimum state pension age—a reference, I suspect, to the definition of pensionable age in the Social Security Act 1975. We consider that it is not necessary and perhaps not prudent to define old age in this way for the purposes of the registration system. There is a general conception of old age and whether or not a person receives personal care in a residential setting does not depend upon the attainment of a specific age but rather on his or her need for such care.
It is often the case that not until after the age of 75 does the proportion of persons with some degree of disability rise sharply. On the other hand, there are some young persons who are in need of personal care and for whom provision would be appropriate. In that case they could be suffering from disablement or from a mental disorder—conditions which also give rise to registration. Old age and these conditions are not exclusive. I might add that using an age such as 65 to define "old age" would be particularly inappropriate in the case of your Lordships House, where there are a number of distinguished members greatly in excess of 65 years of age. I do not consider that there is any real merit in this amendment and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Baroness Faithfull: Before my noble friend sits down, may I just point out that men and women are different? Also, the minimum state pension age for a woman is 60 but for a man it is 65—and I do not believe that the women look any older than the men.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I am not going to get involved in that argument. I know that there is a difference between men and women; I have been married for 50 years and I have found out. I am not too happy with the reply given by the noble Lord the Minister, "old age" is a phrase that does not define anything. If it were taken to mean the minimum state pension age, it would be defined. I am not going to argue the toss at this late hour because I have already been made to feel older than I am and, goodness knows, I am old enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 32, line 24, at end insert—

("( ) any establishment which receives recurrent grants under regulations made by virtue of section 100(1)(b) of the Education Act 1944:

( ) any university or university college or college, school or hall of a university.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 24 in the name of my noble friend. Your Lordships will see that the Bill as drafted, with certain listed exceptions, requires any institutions which cater for four or more disabled students to register as residential care homes. This could include some higher and further educational establishments. Those establishments which are managed or provided by local authority or a body incorporated by Royal Charter or constituted by an Act of Parliament are excepted. This is a long-standing exemption which we see no reason to change, and above all tonight.
However, those university institutions which have no Royal Charter or special Act of Parliament—for example, some university colleges—and other colleges such as those linked to the various Churches which have been established under charitable trusts and are supported by grants from the Department of Education would at present be required to register. This is inconsistent and it would place what we feel to be unnecessary constraints on some institutions. The amendment I am proposing seeks to achieve what we hope will be more equitable treatment of certain higher and further educational establishments. I hope that on this relatively simple basis your Lordships would agree to the inclusion of Amendment No. 24.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 35, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall keep a national register of licensed residential and nuring homes, and a register of owners and managers of such homes who have had their registrations cancelled or refused.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 25. In order that local authorities are in a better position to satisfy themselves of the suitability of a person to organise and manage a home for dependent people, we think the Secretary of State should keep a national register of licensed residential and nursing homes and a register of owners and managers of such homes who have had their registrations cancelled or refused. I think the purpose of such a register would be self-evident. It is, first, to prevent people whose licences have been cancelled or refused from going to other areas to undertake similar work where their
324
previous history is unknown; and, secondly, to indicate who the licence holders are. I hope the Minister will feel that this is a sensible purpose.
Lord Trefgarne: As the noble Lord has explained, the effect of this amendment would be to require the Secretary of State to keep a register of all licensed—that is, registered—residential homes and nursing homes in the country, and he would also be required to maintain a register of owners and managers of such homes whose registration had been either cancelled or refused. Local social services authorities are the registration authorities for residential homes, and while the Secretary of State is the registration authority for nursing homes he has delegated that function to district health authorities. In the circumstances the Secretary of State is not in possession of the information necessary to compile a register of all registered homes.
Moreover, it would be needlessly cumbersome. I suggest, for him to attempt to do so. There were some 4,100 homes in 1981 registered in England and Wales under the residential Homes Act 1980, and over 1,000 nursing homes and mental nursing homes registered under the Nursing Homes Act 1975. It is sensible and practicable for the authorities which actually register and inspect the homes to maintain registers of the homes which are so registereed.
I turn now to the question of a register of persons whose registrations have been cancelled or refused. In the debate on Second Reading I said that we were considering how best to keep a record of undesirable people who have lost their registration. We shall shortly be consulting the local authority associations about this. However, we do not think it would be practicable or desirable to keep a register of all whose applications for registration were unsuccessful. The reasons for not accepting an application for registration can be varied and can be influenced by local circumstances. I hope that the noble Lord will now appreciate the difficulties, or some of them, which are inherent in the amendment proposed and that he will not see fit to press it.
Lord Kilmarnock: May I ask the noble Lord this? I take his point about the difficulty in keeping a register of all persons whose applications have been refused, but would it not be possible to keep a smaller register of those who have had their application accepted and later cancelled? Those are the ones in which we are perhaps most interested.
Lord Trefgarne: I have no doubt it would be possible to do that, even having regard to the difficulties I have indicated, but I think the objection is that, however you define the list of undesirables, if I can call them that—those to be included in the list—it would take on the nature of a black list. I must say I find black lists a somewhat undesirable, almost distasteful, thing, principally because of the possibility of an injustice. As I said, the reasons for which people might find themselves on such a list are sometimes influenced by purely local considerations.
It might well be that an application which had been unsuccessful in a certain area or a registration which had been cancelled in a certain area would not fall to

325
be so treated in another area. Thus, there would be a clear injustice in that somebody had been included, because of that local difficulty, in the black list—I can only call it that. This is a matter to which Ministerial colleagues and I have given some thought, and we have concluded that the difficulties of a central arrangement are rather great and that it would be better to proceed along the lines I have suggested.
Lord Gibson-Watt: May I support my noble friend in relation to this? On the face of it there is something to be said for the amendment, but like my noble friend I abhor black lists. My modest experience of being responsible for health affairs in Wales for a short period, and having been engaged in the knowledge of certain people being sacked for running these residential homes in a bad way, leads me to believe that any local authority or any authority taking on somebody to run one of these homes will inquire whether they have done it before. Short of that person lying to the authority, they will then be able to check up. I agree with my noble friend that we should not have any black list in regard to this.
Lord Banks: I wonder if I may ask the noble Lord this question, because from what he said I was not quite clear what he and his colleagues are considering. I understood him to say that administrative difficulties made it impracticable to have a list of all registrations. But I thought he went on to say that, while it was not desirable, to have a list of everybody who had had their registration refused or cancelled, nevertheless it was desirable to have some kind of list of people who might be described as undesirable. Yet in the second part of his reply he seemed to say that this was not the case and that he did not approve of what he called black lists. I am not quite clear what it is that he and his colleagues are contemplating as a possibility.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked about the possibility of a list of those whose registrations had been cancelled, and although I poured some cold water on that because it presents difficulties, that is actually one of the things we are considering. I cannot prejudge the outcome of that consideration, because all lists of this kind entail difficulties, as my noble friend has pointed out. It might equally be possible to have a list of those convicted of some offence in connection with these matters. We take the problem on board. There is a problem where people might conceivably offer themselves for an appointment for which they were manifestly unsuitable and had been found to be so in a previous appointment. I am much attracted to the line proposed by my noble friend because I am sure that responsible authorities will want to inquire into the background of their applicants and anyone who lies to conceal his background would be clearly obtaining the post under false pretences.
This is a matter which ministerial colleagues and I are considering. One of the possibilities, not without its difficulties but one which we are examining, is a list of those who have had their registration cancelled. I understand that such a list would not require legislation. Therefore, it is not necessary to make specific provision as suggested by the noble Lord. I can
326
give the assurance that this is a matter of which we are fully seized and I hope that we shall be able to bring forward sensible proposals in due course.
Lord Kilmarnock: In his departmental consultation will the noble Lord take care to draw the distinction which I strove to make between refusal of a licence which might be on technical grounds—for example, the unsuitability of a building—and cancellation through malpractice?
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord is right to draw attention to that necessary distinction. We want to make sure that people who are held to be unsuitable really are unsuitable and have not simply been found so for some local reason, as I described earlier.
Lord Banks: Since I understand from the Minister that the matter is under consideration, that the Government are seized of the nature of the problem and that there is a possibility of some kind of list, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 37, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert—
(" "(3A) The registering authority shall ensure that all homes to which this Act applies shall be, as a minimum, inspected annually, and that one additional annual visit shall be undertaken without notice.".").
The noble Lord said: This question arose on Second Reading and the Minister indicated that it was in the Department's mind that inspection would be on the basis of its taking place once per annum. That may be so, but I felt on consideration that we should put something into the Bill. If I may briefly explain, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure regular inspection of homes and, in particular—this is very important—to ensure that inspections occur during normal circumstances rather than on a special occasion with ample opportunity given for a brief and transitory improvement in standards and conditions.
I emphasise that the inspection should occur during normal circumstances. Those of us who served in Her Majesty's Forces in some capacity or another will know that regular inspections were (shall we say?) often a bit of a fiddle. I remember when I was a rookie in training at Cardington, before I was allowed out wearing Her Majesty's uniform, that we were a dustbin short in one group of huts. In fact, as the inspecting officer went into one hut so a dustbin was rapidly moved to the next hut. The point I am seeking to illustrate is that it is essential to have an inspection that is not prearranged or notified beforehand, otherwise people will get away with murder. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, but I feel that his amendment does not go far enough. I suggest that these residential homes should be inspected at least twice a year. If that is done it would save the cumbersome business of renewing registrations. If we are to have only rare inspections then we must have registrations renewed fairly frequently. The more frequent the inspections,

327
the less need there is for renewal of registration. Therefore, I should have thought it worth the Government's thinking again about this. Inspections at least twice a year might save a certain amount of administration as well as ensuring higher standards.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I spoke on this point on Second Reading. I could tell your Lordships some horrifying stories about unemptied bed-pans and young people, only 17 or 18 years old, on duty at night. Although it may look good on paper and the staff qualifications are there on paper, it does not always happen in practice. I have recently dealt with a most horrifying case concerning an elderly woman in a home in Leeds. Happily she has been transferred to another home and is now happy. What is in the Bill is just not good enough and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The clause states that the Secretary of State "may". We all know there is a considerable difference between "may" and "shall". Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will accept the amendment, or even strengthen it.
Lord Trefgarne: The effect of the amendment, as has been described, is to substitute in the Bill itself a minimum frequency of twice a year for inspections, one of which is to be without notice, with power to make regulations prescribing the occasion and frequency of inspections. The expressed intention is that the regulations should prescribe at least one inspection a year. I believe I referred to this on Second Reading. This frequency is considered appropriate for residential care homes. It would be a minimum—I underline that—and registration authorities would be able to inspect more frequently if circumstances warranted. On average this is about the level of inspections carried out by local authorities at present.
I suggest that the occasion and frequency for inspections is a matter that is more appropriate to regulations, which would be able to respond more readily to changed circumstances than a substantive provision in the Bill itself. The regulations will have to come before your Lordships and be subject to annulment by either House. I hope that your Lordships will agree that that is a more appropriate way to proceed and that the noble Lord will feel able not to press this amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: May I ask the Minister one more question? What does he think about spot checks and unprepared visits? I should think them to be very important.
Lord Trefgarne: That is a matter for the registering authority. Speaking personally I think that is a very good idea. I do not think that we want to put into the regulation any provision which made it necessary for authorities to pre-announce their visit.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I do not agree that regulations are necessarily the best thing. This is so vitally important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, so graphically described, that we should in fact have this provision stated very clearly in the Bill. I go further and say I would certainly accept
328
the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Obviously the Government will not agree, and there is no point in pressing this tonight, but between now and Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, I myself and others will have to think seriously about a suitably phrased amendment which will meet the case. I still think that it should be covered in regulations, but I will not delay the Committee at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 3, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Renton: I do not wish to detain your Lordships for long, but this is a very important schedule and I welcome it as a serious attempt to curb the activities of a small number of people who have been exploiting the field of residential care. Some rather bad cases have come to light and one therefore feels in sympathy with the schedule.
I must comment that it runs to seven pages. Perhaps that is difficult to avoid, but I take the view that the Minister was expressing just now the view that regulations are often a better place for detail, especially administrative detail, rather than the schedules to a Bill. However, we have this very long schedule in front of us and it seems to me that, from its wording, the schedule is much more concerned with provision for the elderly than with provision for any category of disablement, other than the elderly. We should bear in mind in our further thoughts about the administration which will arise under this schedule, that the disabled, including the mentally handicapped, are not always in the kind of residential homes which are suitable for the elderly. A good deal of specialisation has to take place.
I am anxious that the scheme should be effective. As I understand it, registration will be mandatory upon those voluntary and private homes which declare themselves to be giving accommodation, board and suitable attention. But there is nothing in the Bill which compels people to register those establishments which do, in fact, provide such services, but which call themselves guest houses or something like that. That is a point to which I would invite the Government's attention for further thought.
I am sure that it is right to require, where there is registration, that both the manager of the establishment and its owner should be named as part of the registration, provided that a change of either of those personalities is notified and accompanied by a fresh inspection when that occurs. We do not want what seems to be a well-run establishment suddenly finding itself in fresh hands with people who are not of the same high standards as those expected when registration took place.
Another point that I wish to make is that the appeals procedure that is envisaged specifies that, in addition to a chairman with legal experience, there shall be two other members of the tribunal, and they should have, I suggest, experience in the field of operating either a residential home or a nursing home. There is nothing that specifies the particular experience required. It could mean that an appeal being made by a voluntary organisation running a residential care home for the

329
mentally handicapped could be heard by a tribunal consisting of a lawyer, the administrator of an old people's home and a psychiatric social worker—with deep respect to all such categories. But surely it would be better to ensure that someone with the specialised experience of, let us say, looking after the mentally handicapped was brought in when there was such an appeal.
I know that the points that I have raised are not the type of points that it would be reasonable to expect my noble friend to answer immediately. But I hope for an undertaking that they will be carefully considered.
Lord Trefgame: I am happy to give my noble friend the assurance for which he asks. Certainly the points which he raises will be carefully considered—indeed, the points that my noble friend raises are always carefully considered. There is perhaps one point which I am able to deal with now and that is his anxiety about the possibility of guest houses, or so-called guest houses, escaping the net of this system.
I understand that the revised definition of "establishment to be registered" does provide for the registration of those places which call themselves guest houses but which do, in fact, provide personal care. So that anxiety at least I am able to set at rest. However. I will certainly study what my noble friend has said and write to him between now and the next stage.
Lord Renton: I am much obliged.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Constitution etc. of Family Practitioner Committees]:
8.36 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 13, line 36, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move amendment No. 27 and also, with the leave of the Committee, to speak to Amendment No. 30. The subsection referred to in the amendment says that the Secretary of State can do anything having regard to Schedule 5. The actual terms are as follows:
"The Secretary of State may by order under this subsection make such repeals in or other modifications of any enactment or instrument as appear to him to be necessary having regard to this section and Schedule 5 to this Act".
Schedule 5 says at paragraph 2(b) at page 44 line 23 that the family practitioner committee can do anything which may be prescribed.
If we put those two parts of the Bill together, the Bill appears to say that the Secretary of State can do anything to allow anything. That would appear to be a rather absurd and perhaps dangerous extension of delegated legislation. The object of these two amendments is to remove these sweeping powers. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: We share some of the anxieties to which the noble Lord has referred and I would like to put one or two points to the Minister about these two amendments. In the first case, I wish to make it clear
330
that the suggestions under the Bill about family practitioner committees—which go directly against the recommendations of the Royal Commission—are opposed by the Labour Party. It is our policy to follow the advice of the Royal Commission. We do so because we believe that there will be more integration of the services if that is done and also because there will be more accountability to local people.
However, as I understand it, the suggestion in the Bill is that the Minister is to appoint both the chairman and the vice-chairman. I know that that is the subject for another amendment, but it is part of the whole picture. There is also, of course, the problem that was raised on Second Reading about whether the districts will be coterminous or whether there will be overlapping boundaries.
I must remind the noble Minister that he did say on Second Reading that the Government did not accept the views of the Royal Commission on this point. He said that he had consulted many people. I am referring to col. 774 of the Official Report for 22nd November, when he said that the Government had consulted with interests working in this field. I do not know who was consulted and he did not make clear the evidence on which the Government rejected the recommendations of the Royal Commission. For those reasons I very much hope that he can give us some more information tonight, because this is a very fundamental change which seems to go against so much current thinking about the need to integrate primary care with hospital care and with the type of social care about which we were talking earlier in our deliberations. It is really a puzzle to many of us that not only has the recommendation of the Royal Commission been abandoned, but there does not seem to have been adequate explanation of the Government's point of view on this. I very much hope that, before we take the matter further and decide what action to take, the noble Lord can help us on this very important question.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I can first deal with Amendment No. 27, and then I shall move on swiftly to Amendment No. 30, because the noble Lord has rightly chosen to speak to both together. First, Amendment No. 27 would have the effect of removing the provision for consequential amendments to Acts and regulations which may be occasioned by the FPC provisions of the Bill but have not yet been identified.
Schedule 5 to the Bill already contains substantial amendments to the National Health Service Act 1977 which fall to be made as a consequence of the new status of FPCs. Schedule 9 includes consequential amendments of other enactments, while Schedule 10 contains repeals and revocations relating to FPCs. So far as I am aware, we have identified all the amendments needing to be made, but subsection (3) provides a fallback power should any others come to light.
I trust that your Lordships will accept that this is a customary "failsafe" provision, and will accept my assurance that it is not intended as the means of getting substantial changes through, as it were, the back door. Incidentally, I understand that a similar provision was included in the Health Services Act 1980, in Section 1(8) of that measure. In the light of that assurance I

331
hope that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will not wish to proceed with that amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 30. This amendment would certainly have the effect of removing the longstanding statutory provision for FPCs to exercise functions in addition to the administration of arrangements for the provision of general medical and other family practitioner services. Paragraph (b) of the new Section 15 of the 1977 Act, as substituted by paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to the Bill, simply carries forward the provision in the existing Section 15 for FPCs to perform such other functions relating to the Part II services—that is family practitioner services—as may be prescribed. The provision derives originally from Section 7(3)(b) of the National Health Service Re-organisation Act 1973, which first established the functions of FPCs.
There is, therefore, nothing new in this provision. It is not itself affected by the change in status of FPCs and is restated only for ease of reference. To remove it would be to stop FPCs, whatever their chain of responsibility may be, carrying out certain important activities—for example, in relation to the training and study leave of general practitioners—which are, of course, already their responsibility. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will agree that we are not actually proposing anything new in this provision and that his anxieties are therefore unfounded.
I turn now to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, who was anxious to know who the Government had consulted. Consultation on our proposals for FPCs was wide-ranging. It included health authorities, family practitioner committees, community health councils and a considerable number of other interested bodies. I would be very happy to write to the noble Baroness with an even longer list of those who were consulted if she would find that helpful.
Lord Avebury: When the Minister says that my noble friend's second amendment would interfere with the arrangements that have already been made under Section 7(3)(b) of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973 for training and study leave of general practitioners, does he mean that those arrangements are not included in the provisions of what is now the new Section 15(a)—that is to say, the arrangements made for the provision of general medical services, et cetera? It seems to me that if you are making arrangements for medical services, those could well include the arrangements for training and study leave. I do not understand why it was necessary to prescribe separately under additional powers what should be done under this heading. It seems to me that it is already included in the wording that we have.
Further, I wonder whether the Minister could tell me on what occasions since the equivalent provision in the 1973 Act other functions relating to those services have been so prescribed, and what they were. Is training and study leave the only example that he could have given and, if so, why could it not be written into Section 15(a), if indeed that is necessary at all?
Returning to the first of my noble friend's amendments, are we not really encouraging parlia-
332
mentary draftsmen to be idle in putting something of this kind into any Bill? Because what the noble Lord the Minister is telling us is that just in case they have not been able to spot all the repeals that should have been incorporated in this Bill, the Government want this failsafe clause which enables them to be picked up later on. I know that we do not yet have the statutes on computer, but I should have thought that it is not beyond the wit of man to go through all the references and to identify them, as is done in every other Bill. In such complex amending legislation as the Nationality Bill last year, we had to go through many previous enactments and no one ever suggested that we should put in clauses there which enabled us to go back and carry out additional repeals by an administrative procedure, such as is proposed here. In fact, that is not the only example of complicated legislation in recent years that one could cite. I do not recall this happening in the old days. It must be a comparative innovation to find in a Bill of this kind a blanket power given to Secretaries of State to amend enactments by instrument.
I agree with my noble friend that, however much one trusts the intentions of Ministers on the Front Bench—and I am not saying that they would in any way use these powers in an irregular manner—I do not at all like the idea of giving such sweeping powers to any Government. If we create the precedent of legislation by statutory instrument, as we appear to be doing—and the noble Lord says that this is not the first instance of its kind, but I do not recall any—we are opening the door not just to the parliamentary draftsmen being less assiduous than they might otherwise be in picking up those enactments that need to be amended, but also to scattering across the statute book very wide powers which in the future may be used in a manner that your Lordships would not like.
Therefore, I wish that the noble Lord would have another thought about my noble friend's first amendment. I hope that in the end. on reflection, he will agree that it should be accepted.
Baroness Faithfull: I am in some difficulty, and would seek the help of my noble friend the Minister. I find it difficult to presume to speak about another profession and make recommendations, and therefore I ask a question. When the health service was set up the principle behind it was to have a unified health service, with all branches co-operating with one another for the benefit of the patients. It seems to me that in the Bill there is fragmentation and not unification. But, equally, it seems to me that the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, also lead to fragmentation. How does the Minister think that the Bill will lead to a unified health service with all the different parts of that service?
Lord Trefgarne: Answering my noble friend first, if I may, it is of course the case that ever since the inception of the health service the family practitioners—that is to say, the general practitioners—have not, strictly speaking, been part of the health service. They have all been self-employed contractors to the health service. What we are doing in this measure is not making that position worse or better, but are changing the responsibility of the family practitioner committees within the health service. I

333
am not sure that the fundamental problem my noble friend saw arises.
As for the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who addressed his remarks first to Amendment No. 27. I do not think I can go further than to repeat what I have said already, which is that the power contained in this provision is one which will be used only with the greatest care, and certainly not in furthering any substantial change to the legislation. That is not the purpose for which this power is sought, and it will not be used for that purpose. A similar provision was included in the 1980 Health Services Act.
I can assure the noble Lord that we have culled the statutes to the best of our ability. I honestly believe that we have got right all the repeals that we need and all the other references that we need, but I could not put my hand on my heart to say that we have so achieved it, and that is why we need this particular provision. Even Parliamentary draftsmen are human beings (do I hear dissent from behind me?) and it is for that reason that we need to include this provision.
Turning to Amendment No. 30, I think we have it about right. I do not think I have anything to add to what I said just now in connection with that amendment. It would be wrong to prevent the FPCs carrying out the duties to which I referred. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury,. asked me whether there were any other particular activities that had been prescribed. I do not in truth know the answer to that, but I shall certainly find out and let the noble Lord know.
Lord Banks: There is no doubt that these powers are far reaching, as my noble friend emphasised, however lacking in novelty they may be, however conventional they may be. The very fact that the noble Lord the Minister gave an assurance that they would not be used to introduce major changes indicates that they could be, which is further proof of the extent of the powers. Nevertheless, I should like to consider what the Minister has said in his reply to these amendments, and we may well return to this subject at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 28:
Leave out Clause 9 and insert the following new Clause—
("Abolition of Family Practitioner Committees
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, section 10 of the National Health Service Act 1977 is hereby repealed.
(2) The following section shall be substituted for section 15 of the National Health Service Act 1977—
"15. It is the duty of each District Health Authority in accordance with regulations—

(a) to make arrangements in pursuance of this Act for the provision of general medical services, general dental services, general ophthalmic services and pharmaceutical services for their locality, and

(b) to perform such other functions relating to those services as may be prescribed.".

(3) All Family Practitioner Committees shall cease to exist on the appointed day.
(4) All functions which immediately before the appointed day were functions exercisable by a Family Practitioner Commitee shall be conferred upon the District Health Authority or jointly
334
upon those District Health Authorities which established that Family Practitioner Committee.
(5) Wherever in the National Health Service Act 1977, as amended by the Health Services Act 1980 and in other enactments, orders and regulations, the functions of a Family Practitioner Committee are prescribed, those references shall from the appointed day be read as references to the functions of a District Health Authority.
(6) It shall be the responsibility of the District Health Authority in pursuance of its responsibilities under section 15 of the National Health Service Act 1977 to establish a Primary Care Commitee which shall include persons nominated by the Local Medical Committee for that locality, the Local Dental Committee for that locality, the Local Optical Committee for that locality, the Local Pharmaceutical Committee for that locality, and such other persons as the Secretary of Stale shall prescribe in regulations.
(7) Schedule 5 to this Act shall have effect.").
The noble Lord said: In rising to move this new clause I should make clear that it was attributed in error to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, by the Public Bill Office. They placed a note to that effect in the Printed Paper Office, and I believe that they have written to the noble Lords and the noble Baroness concerned. I apologise to them. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, with permission, I speak also to my amendments to Schedule 5: Amendments Nos. 29, 31, 33 to 35, 37 to 79 excluding 53, which is also printed in error, and 84. These are all related to, or consequential on, the new clause.
The intention of Amendment 28, replacing the Government's Clause 9, is pretty clear. It is to abolish FPCs and to vest their functions in the district health authority or in authorities to which they were previously linked. It also obliges district health authorities—and this is the most important point—to establish primary care committees for the planning of primary care and prevention in their districts. I would have retitled the schedule to reflect this intention but I am advised that this cannot be done by an amendment. If the clause were to be accepted the schedule would later be provided with a title more appropriate to its new content.
It requires some temerity to speak on these matters in the presence of the noble Lords, Lord Richardson, Lord Hunter of Newington. Lord Stone and Lord Rea, but I think in health matters it is vital also that we should have a lay view of the problem. Amendment 28 derives from the proposition that it should be a principal aim of the National Health Service not only to cure the sick and care for the dying but also to promote the health of the country as a whole. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, asked whether the National Health Service should not be seen in a more integrated light.
My party attaches great importance to the prevention of disease and the development of primary and community care. The aim is to pick up problems as soon as possible and prevent as many as possible, and to treat as many cases as possible within the home, or within the practice, rather than referring them to hospital. This can be achieved only by the greater integration of prevention and primary care with the other branches of the National Health Service. It appears to me that in Part V this Bill sets out to do the opposite.
The Government have in effect moved in the opposite direction to that advocated by the Royal

335
Commission on the National Health Service which reported in 1979 and which recommended,
"the abolition of FPCs in England and Wales"—
they do not, of course, exist in Scotland or in Northern Ireland—
"and the assumption of their functions by health authorities as a step towards integration."
This appeared in Chapter 20, paragraph 57, and in their Recommendation 110.
But what the Government are proposing in Clause 9 is to promote family practitioner committees to the status of fully-fledged independent health authorities. As my noble friend Lady Stedman said at Second Reading, this is a retrograde step which will not assist the National Health Service in providing an integrated primary care service. If my reading of the impressive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, who followed her, is correct, he quite largely agreed with her. I am delighted to see that he is here this evening, and I hope that he will speak. It seemed to me that he had a number of worries, prominent among them being that the new system would lead to a further isolation of GPs from hospital practice and that the development of new methods of primary care involving collaboration with other professions and new technology would not be made any easier.
To these objections I would add the overwhelming one that it cannot be a good idea for three totally independent authorities to be responsible for primary care—that is, the district health authority, the local authority personal and social services department, and the family practitioner committee, which is now "beefed-up" in status and distorted in membership by the reduction from 11 to four of the representatives of the health authorities concerned and the creation of seven unspecified appointments in the direct gift of the Secretary of State. Apart from the undesirable extension of direct patronage, how this is going to assist integration (as I think was claimed the other day by the Minister of Health) I cannot for the life of me see.
Winding up the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that it was a function of family practitioner committees to administer the contracts of self-employed GPs and that this was a specialist area and ought to remain so. There is nothing in my proposal to prevent district health authorities sharing, or pooling, adminstrative arrangements for this purpose. The noble Lord also said that practitioners themselves attached great importance to their independent status. Here it is of interest to note that according to the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration, which reported in 1974:
"Work in hospitals for local authorities and Government departments gives the average GP less than 2 per cent. of his income, and private practice probably accounts for another 6 per cent."
This may have changed somewhat in recent years, but even so a very large percentage of GP income will still come from the National Health Service.
Despite these figures, or perhaps because of them, we fully understand the legitimate concern of GPs who do not want to become direct employees of the state. Nothing in my amendments threatens their contractual arrangements. I have also, incidentally,
336
taken note of the Royal Commission's concern that the position of existing FPC staff should be safeguarded and handled sensitively, I imagine that most of them will continue doing much the same work as before.
However, when all that is acknowledged, there remain some other important considerations. Not all GPs I have spoken to have felt a great bond with their FPC. I have heard the criticism that they are remote and out of touch. Another consideration is the continuity of care on discharge from hospital, at present defective in many cases; it could be much enhanced by more integrated GP services. And without forcing GPs into a straitjacket, the salary option recommended by the Royal Commission in paragraph 82 of Chapter 14 should, in my view, at least be available, if only on a limited scale. If conditions arose, say, in an inner city area in which a DHA wanted to employ a GP directly, and the doctor was willing, what is wrong with that?
Can the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, tell the Committee a little more about the Government's consultative process, and in particular which bodies were opposed to the Royal Commission's line, and which were in favour? He said he consulted the FPCs and community health councils, and I think that when answering the previous amendment he mentioned simply "a number of other interested bodies". It seems that we have not really been informed about the Government's consultative process, and one of the objects of my amendments is to ask the Government to be rather more open about that. I should be grateful therefore if the Minister would enlighten the Committee on these points because I believe them to be substantial.
At this hour I do not want to detain your Lordships. A number of attractive and even cost-effective possibilities would follow from the adoption of this series of amendments. Had the Government left the status quo, perhaps I should not have tabled them at this time, but since they have chosen to move in the diametrically opposite direction to that recommended by the Royal Commission, and have not revealed to us the nature of the advice on which they have based their decision, it is important that the contrary case should be put at this stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House. That, after all, is one of the main reasons for our existence. I beg to move.
Lord Hunter of Newington: We discussed this matter at considerable length on Second Reading. I consider that there are probably three very important functions which the family doctor has under the circumstances existing today. The first, of course, is his daily work, in which capacity he is, as the Minister said, an independent contractor doing the ordinary day-to-day work with his patients. But, secondly, in the present climate, which has been clearly stated by the Government, the whole question of accountability in the National Health Service is paramount, and one thing that is not clear is how family doctors will be accountable in future. We have heard of important meetings between Ministers and regional health authorities, and those authorities are required to have similar consultations with the district authorities. On that aspect, therefore, we require an answer.

337
My third point concerns to regional planning. It is not clear how the family practitioner committee fits into the regional plan. In 1973 the area health authority, to which they were closely attached, was responsible for the planning. How will the planning be done in the future? Is it clearly stated that the regional health authority is the planning authority? The chief medical officer of that regional health authority must obviously have an important function in relation, one would have thought, to planning by the family practitioner committee to ensure proper integration with the complex local authority health services, occupational health and other things which are developing all the time in the community.
Without being nostalgic again about the medical officer of health in the past, a gap was created in 1973, when the family practitioner committee was brought nearer to the NHS, and the gap created by getting rid of the medical officer of health has not been filled. Therefore, one wants to know whether the regional health authority, and particularly the regional medical officer, will play a new role in the forward planning. Or does the Secretary of State feel that all the planning for family practitioner committees should be done centrally?
Lord Rea: Speaking also as a member of the medical profession, I should like to know from the Minister why he disregarded the commission's suggestions, and I think it reasonable to spell them out once more. The Royal Commission felt that to abolish the family practitioner committees and merge their administration with the district health authorities would enable those authorities to influence more positively than they can now, first, the distribution and quality of surgeries and other practice premises, some of which are still well below standard, as many of your Lorships will be aware; secondly, to create a better balance and relationship between hospital and community care; and, thirdly, to enable the freer movement of staff across institutional boundaries, together with the better control and supervision of deputising services.
It could be that there are many general practitioners who are nevertheless pleased with the idea that family practitioner committees will have a direct link with the department. They feel, perhaps, that their needs will be better cared for. They are worried, for instance, about the contractor status of general practitioners being a difficult matter for a district health authority to manage, when they are also dealing with a salaried service which is also controlled on a cash limit basis, whereas the general practitioner service at the moment has a rather more free arrangement for financing.
The only anxiety that I really have about general practitioners in connection with the commission's recommendation that they should come under the jurisdiction of the district health authorities would be that they might lose out in competition with some of the strong voices which would be sounding loudly from the hospitals, who will have urgent and expensive needs. If the family practitioners have to be in direct competition on a local basis with hospitals, they may lose out. So it is possible that the arrangement that is suggested in the Bill may be the best for primary care, despite the disadvantages that I have mentioned.
338
One other matter that I should like to mention is the question of boundaries and the extraordinary business—in particular in London—of overlap of boundaries. I should like to read from Schedule 5, paragraph 5, which states:
"The Secretary of State shall have power by order to provide for any matter relating to joint consultative committees, and such an order may in particular"—
I ask the Committee to listen to this—
"(d) authorise or require a joint consultative committee to appoint any sub-committee or to join with another joint consultative committee or other joint consultative committees in appointing a joint sub-committee".
To me that sounds like administrative gobbledygook and a multiplication of committees. Many doctors sit on committees and waste a lot of time on them. They are not paid for sitting on them, and some of them find them very boring. This means that they are becoming uninterested in the administration of the health service. That is a bad thing, and unless there is a tightening up on boundaries, the situation will become worse.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question before he sits down. With whom is he saying the family practitioner committees should work—the district, the region, or the Secretary of State?
Lord Rea: In reply to the noble Baroness, I would say that I am really asking for guidance. Personally, I should like to see a situation in which we can work in integration with the district health authority, but many of my colleagues have misgivings about this, and those are the views that I voiced. I am sorry if what I had to say came out in a somewhat disorganised way, but I had not prepared my speech.
Lord Trefgarne: What is being proposed here is an alternative form of organisation for the administration of family practitioner services which the Government have considered and rejected—namely, that of integrating them with the district health authorities. As I made clear at Second Reading, the majority of those whose views we sought last year about possible changes in the arrangements for FPCs favoured the solution that we now seek to implement. As I mentioned earlier, our consultations extended to health authorities and community councils. I at this precise moment cannot provide a definitive list of the rest of the people whom we consulted, but, as I earlier undertook to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, I shall most certainly prepare a list in the cold light of tomorrow morning and write to the noble Baroness. Certainly I shall be willing to pass a copy of the letter to other noble Lords who referred to the same point.
What is wanted is legislation that will enable FPCs to manage their own affairs. That was the view of the great majority of the people whom we consulted. It is the wish of the contractor professions, and indeed of the bodies which represent the family practitioner committees and their administrators. In the case of the FPC administrators, these are the very people whose duty it would continue to be to administer the contracts if the amendment were to be accepted.

339
As I have previously said, what we are dealing with here is a specialised area of administration of the contracts of self-employed practitioners, which has always been a function separate from that of the rest of the NHS administration. As noble Lords present who are doctors will no doubt appreciate, the practitioners themselves attach great importance to this, and it is right that proper regard should be paid to their wishes, but separation does not mean isolation. We intend that there shall be adequate safeguards to ensure effective collaboration between all those concerned with the delivery of primary care. This means full and effective arrangements between FPCs and DHAs, and between those bodies and the local authorities. What we are proposing is something tangible and lasting which will foster and strengthen the development of community health services to the lasting benefit of patients. We are creating a firm focus for family practitioner services as part of the wider system of primary care.
The noble Lord's amendment, if accepted, would, I believe, create a great deal of bitterness and alienation among those practitioners upon whose services we rely so heavily as the first line of defence against illness and infirmity. It would have the opposite effect to that which the noble Lord desires; that is to say, we are convinced that it would make co-operation in the provision of primary health care and between those services and other parts of the health service both less easy to achieve and less effective. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not wish to pursue his amendment.
I was asked particularly about the problems of co-terminosity. It was the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who raised that. It is a new word which I have discovered only recently but its meaning will no doubt be obvious to your Lordships. There are two main arguments for FPCs keeping to their original boundaries. The first is administrative efficiency. Some 90 per cent. of the day-to-day transactions in FPCs relate, most conveniently, to the old boundaries which match up with postal districts. National bodies associated with FPCs, for example, the Prescription Pricing Authority, the Dental Estimates Board and the NHS Central Register, follow similar patterns.
The second argument has to do with the avoidance of disruption and costs. If the FPCs in boundary-change areas were required to work within new boundaries, the cost of sorting and transferring all the affected records would be between £1 million and £½ million. Change would also be disruptive when at the same time the FPCs will be having to come to terms with their new status. I hope that these arguments will persuade the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, not to proceed with his amendments, but I shall be happy to provide further confirmation if I can.
9.16 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken and to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his reply. I must confess that I still feel that the Government have not got it quite right. I should like to stress that the main burden of my amendment was the recommendation for primary care committees at
340
district health authority level; in other words, the administrative arrangements for dealing with contracts could remain very much as they are at the present time. I was at pains to stress that we were in no way trying to tamper with the cherished, independent, self-employed status of the general practitioner.
I thought that a number of quite interesting points emerged from this short debate. I noted particularly Lord Rea's worry that direct competition with hospitals for scarce resources could lead to the GP at the front line of the National Health Service being squeezed out. I think this is a real worry. It was taken up in the first place by the Resource Allocation Working Party which reported in 1976 and I think that if there were to be another change we would need another Resource Allocation Working Party. The Royal Commission, in the chapter on finance, say under "Family Practitioner Services":
"However, there are some obvious practical problems to be overcome and we recommend that a study of the desirability and feasibility of a common budget for the family practitioner and hospital and community services should be undertaken".
I think that is a road down which we should have to go.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord for having offered to write to the noble Baroness. Lady Jeger, and I hope he will write to me, too, for I must confess that I am slightly confused about the consultation process. I think it would be extremely helpful to know who was consulted, apart from the health authorities themselves and the community health councils. The debate seems to me to have revealed a number of areas of concern about coterminosity, overlapping, lack of integration and things of that nature in relation to the NHS. I go back to my first point that we see the NHS as being not only concerned with cure and care of the dying but with the front-line promotion of the health of the nation. We are not at all sure that the Government have chosen the right option in upgrading the family practitioner committees to totally independent status. I do not want to detain the Committee any more at this late hour.
Lord Trefgarne: I apologise for interrrupting the noble Lord. I wonder whether he will allow me to make one point arising out of what he said. I intervene now because I suspect that he is about to withdraw his amendment. I failed to make one point in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington. I apologise for not mentioning this earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, put to me two points about accountability and forward planning. In fact, may I take the Committee into my confidence: the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, had given me advance notice that he was going to raise those matters. It was particularly remiss of me therefore not to deal with them when I was on my feet earlier.
One of our main objectives—and I am referring now to the accountability anxiety to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, referred—in this part of the legislation is to secure greater accountability of FPCs to Ministers for the exercise of their functions. This is why it is our intention that the Secretary of State should appoint the chairman, vice-chairman and members. With the removal of the administrative dependence of these committees on district health authorities, there will be clear lines of delegation and accountability between

341
FPCs and the Secretary of State. Like health authorities, they will not only be accountable but be called to account. There will be cash limited administrative management costs and a performance review. Both internal and external audit arrangements will be made, the latter to be undertaken by the department. There will be a further safeguard of the involvement of the Exchequer and audit. Finally, we are taking, in paragraph 3 of Schedule 5, powers of direction as to the exercise of the functions.
There is, as your Lordships may know, at present under way an independent consultant's review of forecasting and controlling the family practitioner services. We hope to receive the report before Easter. Turning to forward planning, FPCs will not be the planning authorities for primary health care. This is to be the function of the DHAs. It will be for the FPCs to make the necessary input to the district plans, especially with regard to the supply of necessary information for planning purposes. This we are sure will bring plans for the services administered by FPCs much more closely into the simplified NHS planning cycle, where they will be subject to monitoring and review by regional health authorities and the department. That system is wholly the product of administrative action, and it will not be appropriate therefore to make legislative provision with regard to planning in respect of the FPCs only. I apologise again for intervening at a rather inapproriate moment, but I felt I had to take my chance while I could do so.
Lord Kilmarnock: The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is perfectly correct. I was about to withdraw my amendment. I was interested in his remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter. He seems to have rather played into my hands when he confessed that it will be the district health authorities who will do the strategic primary health care planning. That would have been very much facilitated by arrangements along the lines proposed in my amendment. I shall read Hansard and think about what has been said. I shall possibly come back to the matter at the next stage; or indeed others may wish to take it up in another place when the Bill moves there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Family Practioner Committees]:
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 31 not moved.]
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 46, line 50, at end insert—
("(7) The Secretary of State shall annually lay before Parliament a Report of all orders laid under subsection (5) above and of all requests received that an order be laid and of the disposal of such requests.").
The noble Lord said: Health authorities which manage large institutions of the kind that we were discussing earlier, institutions which take patients from many districts, will have to help get their patients back into the community, since that is the object we have in view, via those districts. They will have to be represented on the appropriate joint consultative committee in order to make a payment to the appropriate district. That would depend on variation
342
orders issued by the Secretary of State. If the Government should decline to allow orders under subsection (5) of this paragraph of this schedule, they will in many cases in fact be impeding the implementation of their own purported policy. I am not saying that the Government will do that, but what I am saying is that Parliament has a right to monitor the implementation of the policy, and that is what this amendment seeks to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has made only two orders affecting joint consultative committees since these bodies were first set up in 1974. The first of these orders provided for most of the matters specified in subsection (5). There is no record of any request ever having been made for an order.
It will be necessary to make an order in relation to the inclusion of FPCs in the JCC structure, but the need for further orders should rarely arise. Any order made under this section takes the form of a statutory instrument and would therefore be laid before Parliament, It is, of course, open to your Lordships to table a Question at any time. In essence, therefore, I do not think there is need for this provision. The noble Lord makes a good point, but I think it is already covered by the procedure I have outlined.
Lord Banks: Is the noble Lord saying that the need for these large institutions to be represented on a large number of joint consultative committees will not be the occasion for an increasing number of orders?
Lord Trefgarne: Indeed I am, yes.
Lord Banks: I am surprised to hear that, but I will look again at the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): I assume that Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, are not moved?
Lord Kilmarnock: They are not moved.
[Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35 not moved.]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 47, line 18, leave out from ("for") to end of line 19 and insert ("persons in the Committee's locality").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. As your Lordships will know, we are considering Schedule 5, and the purpose of paragraph 6 of that schedule is to carry out a minor amendment to Section 30 of the National Health Service Act 1977 in such a manner as to reflect the replacement of the district health authority by the family practitioner committee as the body to which medical practitioners must apply for inclusion in a medical list. As worded, the paragraph implies that the inclusion of a medical practitioner in the medical list of an FPC obliges him to provide general medical services for all persons in the committee's locality who wish to take advantage of the arrangements the committee has made with

343
general medical practitioners to provide personal medical services. Indeed, it states that he gives such an undertaking, but he does not in fact do so and he is not under an obligation so to do. We feel that is the important point.
Once on an FPC's medical list, a general practitioner is entitled, within certain limitations, to accept any person for NHS general medical services. However, he is not, and indeed cannot be, expected to provide those services for all persons in the committee's locality who might wish to use them. He is in fact entitled to refuse to admit a person to his list and need give no reason for his refusal. There is, too, an upper limit prescribed in regulations to the number of patients a doctor may have on his list. The amendment is fairly simple, and I hope that I have been able to clarify the reasons why we believe it is necessary. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: May I briefly ask the Minister what happens to a doctor who is working in two localities and has surgeries in two different districts? In which locality or territory does he function?
Lord Lyell: I believe that the Government Front Bench, just like the doctor suggested by the noble Baroness, is not all-powerful. I shall certainly inquire as to which of the districts the doctor should belong to at any one time, or to whom he should administer his services, and will write to the noble Baroness with expedition.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 37—79 not moved.]
9.31 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 53, leave out lines 36 to 38.
The noble Lord said: Sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 6 enables the Secretary of State to appoint a member to be vice-chairman of a family practitioner committee. It seemed to us on these Benches that the family practitioner committees should elect their own vice-chairmen, as do the district health authorities. It also seemed to us to be an unnecessary bit of central control to have this appointment made by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: On these Benches, we support this amendment, and I am very surprised to find that the British Medical Association itself has written me a letter of support for this amendment. This is an organisation with which I do not always agree, but I am glad that they agree with me on this matter. It does not seem right that the Secretary of State should have direct appointment of both the chairman and the vice-chairman. That is a change from the present practice, and I do not know the justification for the Secretary of State now wanting to appoint both the chairman and the vice-chairman.
This view is strongly held by the General Medical Services Committee of the BMA, which represents the general practitioners in the National Health Service. I understand that previously there has been an accepted
344
practice of having either a lay chairman and a medical vice-chairman or the other way round. But there always has been a lay element and the BMA is asking that there should be a balance of lay and medical representation, as has been the case in most areas. The General Medical Services Committee fears that this balance might be lost if both appointments were made by the Secretary of State. It is a late hour, but to those who are seasoned old people from another place it is early hours yet, so I hope we can hear what your Lordships think, I shall also be very interested to hear the views of the Minister on this.
Lord Kilmarnock: We on this Bench also agree with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I have already referred this evening to undesirable extension of the Secretary of State's patronage, and this seems to be a further example of it.
Lord Trefgarne: There are two factors which we took into account when deciding that it would be right for the Secretary of State to appoint vice-chairmen as well as chairmen, although he does not, of course, do so in respect of health authorities. The first stems from the long-established practice of maintaining a balance between contractor and non-contractor membership of the committees: not a feature of health authority membership. It is our intention that in all the new FPCs the vice-chairmen should not be drawn from the same group of members as that of the chairman. Thus a contractor chairman would have a non-contractor vice-chairman, and vice versa. There will also be instances where we identify a potential chairman whom we would wish to appoint when he had acquired more experience of the work of the committee. It might well be that we would feel that experience could best be gained by a spell as vice-chairman and we need to be able to ensure that such experience would be made available.
I hope what I have said will persuade the noble Lord not to press his amendment—I believe that they are compelling points—and that the arguments I have adduced will convince the noble Lord.
Baroness Jeger: When the noble Lord referred to a contractor chairman having a non-contractor vice-chairman, and vice versa, he did not make clear whether one of them could be a lay person or whether both of them would have to be medical.
Lord Trefgarne: A non-contractor could certainly be a lay person.
Lord Banks: The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, indicated the support which the amendment has attracted from people who will be very much concerned with the development of family practitioner committees. I did not find the reply of the noble Lord to be altogether convincing. However, I do not wish to divide the Committee. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 54, line 13, leave out ("any local authority whose area is wholly or partly included") and insert ("local authorities any part of whose area is").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move Amendment No. 81 and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 82. Both amendments stand in the name of my noble friend the Minister. As your Lordships will see, paragraph 30 of Schedule 5 to the Bill substitutes a major new Part II in Schedule 5 to the 1977 Act. This deals, among other things, with membership and appointments to family practitioner committees. In the new paragraph 6A(1), paragraphs (f) and (g) relate to nominations by local authorities and district health authorities. As at present drafted, the words "includes/is included" are used in the definition of interested authorities. However, legal opinion now suggests that a strict interpretation of these words is liable, in certain circumstances, to exclude nominations from one or more authorities, even though their territory is wholly or partly in the locality of the family practitioner committee.
I understand that this difficulty is particularly likely to arise in the case of district health authorities because of the particular wording of paragraph (g). I hope your Lordships will agree that it is only reasonable that we should be able to consider nominations from all authorities which share at least some of their territory with the family practitioner committee. The new wording which we suggest in the two amendments removes any doubt or ambiguity about this. For that reason, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 54, line 16, leave out ("any District Health Authority whose district wholly or partly includes") and insert ("District Health Authorities any part of whose district is in").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment, which is consequential, at considerable length. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 55, line 12, at end insert—
("Paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 shall apply to Family Practitioner Committees in the same way as it applies to District Health Authorities.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to give community health councils the same rights with respect to family practitioner committees as they currently have with respect to district health authorities. At present, with the family practitioner committees being to some extent subordinate to the district health authorities many of the community health councils' rights can in principle be enforced against the district health authorities. This will no longer apply under the Bill.
The rights referred to are in the 1977 Act and concern the right to be consulted, the right to information, the right to inspect premises controlled by the family practitioner committee—which does not include general practitioners' private surgeries, the right to comment on services, and the right to respond to the Community Health Council's annual report. In that these rights are currently defined in regulations rather than in the 1977 Act, it seems appropriate to deal with the family practitioner committees in the same way. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I believe I can save a lot of your Lordships' time by saying that I accept this amendment in principle. If the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will be good enough to withdraw his amendment at this stage, I will undertake to bring forward a suitable Government amendment, embodying the principle which the noble Lord has enunciated, at the next stage.
Lord Banks: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his acceptance in principle of this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 5, as amended, shall be agreed to?
9.42 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I want to make a few comments on the schedule, even though I do not wish to make any amendments to it. I am worried by a few points in this schedule. I will not delay your Lordships too long because it is late. First, there is the whole question of the family practitioner committee and its control on new medical entrants. In order to explain my worries, I will describe my own experiences. In 1950, having been an assistant in a general practice in Chiswick, I decided to open a practice far away from my previous boss. I discovered the area in Euston where I now practise. I was able to start a practice, which I built up from scratch. It was not until I built it up that I went to the committee and eventually secured from the committee the initial practice allowance. As I see the present regulations, and as I know from colleagues, it seems almost impossible for anybody to do today what I did in 1950. In 1950 I started a practice from scratch and built it up.
If your Lordships will allow me to digress for a moment, it is rather amusing that I did not stay in the surgery to worry. When I started, I was taking a course in child health at Great Ormond Street Hospital. When I attained my DCH I decided to do a course on skin diseases and attended the Hospital for Skin Diseases near Leicester Square. When I finished that, I decided to do a course in psychiatry and I used to go to Maudsley Hospital and to Cane Hill. Finally, I was attending Maudsley Hospital and Belmont. By the time I reached the stage when I was attending both Maudsley Hospital and Belmont my practice had reached such a size that I could no longer go to Maudsley in the afternoons as I had done. I am merely using that as an illustration. I was aiming to be in practice just from scratch.
As a result, when I went into County Hall in 1961 as a member of the LCC I had a practice of 3,500 patients, and I was doing midwifery. Naturally, I had to give up midwifery; I had to reduce the practice. I do not mind if the Minister gives an undertaking that the Secretary of State will see that doctors can do what I did, but as I see it, and as things are at the moment, it is not possible for a doctor to do what I did. I personally think that would be a loss to the community. I genuinely believe that. Therefore, I am concerned

347
about the rigid control which the medical practices committee is allowed to have which makes it difficult for new doctors to establish practices. That was the first point I wanted to make. I hope the Minister can give me some assurance. I am not really trying to get the law changed. What I am trying to do is to get an undertaking from the Secretary of State that these things will be facilitated.
There is another point I was a little worried about, and that is paragraph 21. I cannot see how a person can be in general practice in the National Health Service and not on any FPC list. I do not understand paragraph 21(2) and 21(3). I do not understand how you can have a practice, which you could sell, without being on the list, unless of course it is a private practice, in which case I do not see the point. I would like the Minister to explain what paragraph 21(2) and 21(3) mean. I know it was in the 1977 Act: I did not understand it then and I do not understand it now. I would be happy to have an explanation of that.
The other point on which I need some reasurance is the whole question of whether or not FPCs would be cash limited. So long as you accept demand-led general practice—I do not necessarily defend it: I do not believe it is so difficult to have a salaried GP practice, but at the moment general practice is demand-led—I do not quite see how you can cash-limit it. I am trying to get an undertaking from the Minister that there is no thought in the Ministry of trying to cash-limit FPCs. I am very serious about this, because I would not like to happen the sort of thing that has happened in the hospital service, under which, for example, in Birmingham, people have been told that they must say to kidney patients that they must go home and die. That is virtually what you are saying to them if you say they can no longer have treatment.
I therefore want an undertaking from the Ministry that they appreciate the point in terms of service, in terms of the principles underlying this demand-led service in which the doctor who is doing it is a contractor rather than an employee. The mere acceptance of the FPC as a separate branch I agree with, regardless of what anyone says, and, once you have decided that the GP has to be an independent contractor, then it is right that the FPCs should be separate from the area or district health authorities, particularly because they can cover a larger area than any district, and in fact many areas.
It is right that they should be controlled directly from the Ministry. What I do not want, however, is for the Ministry to now say, "You can have £X and £Y must be spent on general practice, but X plus Y means that a certain number of patients cannot have treatment." It is possible, as I see it on my reading of the schedule, for the Ministry to be able to do that. I genuinely hope that the Minister will tell me that the Ministry have no such ideas. I should be unhappy if I thought that it had.
There are one or two other things I am worried about, but they are not as important as the two points that I have just made. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on those points and that we can allow Schedule 5 to pass.
9.52 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I speak against the acceptance of Schedule 5, in particular with regard to Part II. I have been asked to make a number of points by the Conservative Medical Society, which is concerned about the totally new structure proposed for the family practitioner committees. The society is not happy that the chairman will be appointed. I was not able to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, because his amendment started after the matter of the chairman. As I understood it, his amendment commenced with the vice-chairman. The society is not happy because it considers that the past tradition of family practitioner committees, where the chairmanship alternated between a professional and a lay member, is a system that has operated very well and happily for many years. It is rather a pity to throw it out and to superimpose possibly a completely outside person on a very localised and well-knit local family practitioner committee, which it would normally be. I ask the Minister to consider that point.
I am not aware whether or not this chairman will be someone who is salaried or carrying a large honorarium and intended to be fairly full-time in the job. If so, that would make a difference and it would perhaps be understandable to have someone appointed for his administrative ability as much as anything else. The Conservative Medical Society is very keen to have the Government ratify an appointment put forward by the members of the family practitioner committee. It believes that that would be a better system.
In discussion at another meeting that I attended, the point was made that some local medical committees are already saying that if the Government are to choose eight people they will give only eight names. In that way the Government will have no choice as to the people nominated. If the medical profession adopt that technique everywhere it will be going back to the original system, because whatever number there are on the family practitioner committee at present are elected by the local medical committee, who are themselves elected from the local general practitioners. It has been quite a fair and democratic system. I have never served on a family practitioner committee, but I did serve on the Inner London Executive Council which was the predecessor of that body.
I wish to make only one other point, because the hour is late. I noticed that there is provision under Part II for the medical and optical committees to require the Secretary of State to allow them to have deputies. But there is no such provision made for the dentists, nor the pharmacists. I ask the Minister why that is so. I also ask that he look into that matter and rectify it because it seems wrong that some professional people can nominate deputies while others are not mentioned in that way. With those comments I would ask the Minister to consider these matters.
Lord Trefgarne: First. I should like to deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, or at least as many of them as I can and I will gladly write to the noble Lord on some of the more arcane matters that he mentioned. As to the first point raised by the noble Lord, who recounted his own

349
experience in this matter, in particular about starting a practice from scratch, it remains possible for a suitably qualified doctor to put up his plate and build from scratch his practice in any area classified as designated or open. Indeed, in the former case financial inducements are offered by the department to encourage him to do so.
The noble Lord also questioned the provision in paragraph 21 of Schedule 5 for a new subsection (2) of Section 54 of the 1977 Act which relates to the sale of medical practices. This subsection has only been altered in respect of the reference to "a locality" rather than the district of a DH A in accordance with the new arrangements for FPCs. The provision remains the same and, indeed, is a longstanding one. Its effect is to exempt purely private general medical practices from the general prohibition on the sale of goodwill of medical practices. It contains safeguards to make sure that the sale of a private practice cannot benefit from any NHS interest which the doctor in question may have had, because of course a number of practices are both private and health service. If he has never had an NHS practice in the locality in question—that is, if his name has never been on the medical list of the FPC for that locality—he will be debarred from selling the goodwill of any practice, private or otherwise, in that locality. This is an equitable arrangement and one which we would not wish to see changed.
The noble Lord also asked me about the financial arrangements, or cash limits in particular. The Government have commissioned an independent review by consultants of the arrangements for forecasting and controlling spending on family practitioner services which is to be completed next year—1983. The rest of the NHS has found such limits to be a stimulus to the better use of resources, but we certainly do not seek to minimise the major problems which would be involved if it were decided to try to translate a cash limit system from the different conditions and statutory frameworks of health authorities to the family practitioner services. These have traditionally been regarded as demand-led for expenditure purposes and a reflection on the fact that it is the acts and decisions of individual contractors which commit resources, not so much the family practitioner committee themselves.
We are not expecting easy answers to what is a problem of immense complexity, but we shall study with great care the outcome of the review. The noble Lord recited some of the major difficulties in the way of a change that he feared, and we of course will be confronted by those difficulties too. The administrative costs of family practitioner committees will be subject to cash limits in the same way as the rest of the health service and we shall be looking to the newly constituted committees to contribute their share to savings in public expenditure.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes referred to the appointment of chairmen of the new FPCs. The appointment of FPC chairmen by the Secretary of State is central to the Government's policy of securing direct accountability of these committees. We cannot accept the principle that appointments should be just a rubber stamp, and we could not therefore agree to confirm a recommendation originating locally. My
350
noble friend raised some other points, some of which, frankly, have been dealt with on earlier amendments to this Bill. But I shall certainly study what my noble friend said and write to her if there are no obvious answers to the points she has raised.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
10 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 85:
After Clause 10. insert the following new clause:
("Power to provide for cenital funding of certain hospital facilities.
. The Secretary of State shall have power by order to designate hospitals or specialised hospital units as national hospital facilities: and such hospital facilities shall be funded from central funds.").
The noble Baroness said: If the Government are really interested in keeping standards as high as possible in the National Health Service, and if they want to have the power to protect our finest and most excellent medical specialtiies, then they should welcome this amendment before your Lordships. Our National Health Service has been the envy of many countries throughout the world. I am a strong supporter of this service, putting it at the top of my priorities.
Like many other noble Lords I have been worried, and I still am worried, about the growing pressures on the National Health Service. This amendment, if accepted by the Government or if your Lordships accept it should the Government not, would give power to provide for central funding for specialised hospital or hospital units which serve a national need and are concerned with a speciality. I hope that the Government will accept this.
I have always believed that our health service should not be too parochial but that there should always be a cross-boundary flow of patients when this is necessary. All regions cannot cover all specialties. In some small vital problems the numbers may be small, the experts scarce; and the need of the individual may be the choice between life and death. I do not know how many units dealing with such special patients there are. Every specialty is a priority. The National Health Service must cover all needs. Everybody's life is a unique and important one. But many specialties are covered by regions or districts. It is the national units which this amendment seeks to safeguard. The Government must know which these are.
I quote from an article published in the Yorkshire Post on Tuesday this week. It is headed "Hospital Fear", and says:
"The only specialist diabetes hospital in the country, the 30-bed Langwith Lodge near Mansfield. Nottinghamshire, may be forced to close because of a lack of funds. Nottingham Health Authority said yesterday".
Because of this fear many people with diabetes may feel threatened.
After a visit to Africa, my noble kinsman was sent to the Hospital for Tropical Diseases in London, Yorkshire having no such facilities to deal with a tropical specialty. The national spinal unit at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, which deals with patients from all over Britain and from other countries throughout

351
the world who break their backs and their necks, nearly went down a few years ago. The Oxford Regional Health Authority had not kept that hospital in satisfactory repair. The ceilings fell down on top of patients. With the pressure of needs on the Oxford region it is not surprising that a national unit such as this is not popular with the regional health authority. The goodwill of the country came to the rescue of the spinal unit, and all over the country people raised money on a voluntary basis for the National Health Service hospital with a special unit, and now this hospital is being rebuilt.
That unit has many patients who are at risk from urinary complications and pressure sore problems and special psychological needs. It needs specially trained staff and facilities which many general hospitals have not got. It has to treat old and new lesions. The unit has to be funded once it is rebuilt. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the Committee how the cross-boundary flow works for supra-regional units. I cannot see any reason why this amendment would not be helpful to the Government, should they need to use it. I hope your Lordships will support it. I beg to move.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I support this amendment. Some of your Lordships will remember that on a previous occasion when we had a debate on the National Health Service I instanced the haemophilia unit at the Royal Free. The Government need to look at this question of central funding of some services. For example, the issue about kidneys that I raised earlier in my other speech on Birmingham illustrates the point. The Government need to look at this.
There are some issues that need to be funded centrally. The Government should take power to deal with those issues. In terms of the general service, the way in which we have arranged the service—the regional health authorities, the district health authorities, and so on—is quite right, but there are some issues which can be better rationalised by being centralised. I hope that the Government will think seriously about accepting this amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: I should like to support this amendment. I speak entirely personally. I hope I am not out of date, although I well may be, and I am sure the Minister will tell me if I am. I speak as a past member of the United Cambridge Hospitals Board. Addenbrooke's Hospital, for instance, has specialties which are led by professors of world-wide distinction. If you have a department dealing with a particular disease which brings people in from all over the country and that department has an international head, he is going to be away from the hospital a great deal. This means that he has to have a great deal of additional back-up which normal professors of medicine do not have to have. That is costing the area health authority a great deal of money for one particular hospital.
To my certain knowledge this in the past caused enourmous unhappiness and feelings of jealousy, whether well-founded or ill-founded, on the part of the other hospitals in the area, though the amount of finance at the disposal of that particular authority was being channelled for a very good reason into, let us say,
352
kidney dialysis or liver research—liver research happens to be one of the particular specialties of Addenbrooke's. This meant that the other peripheral hospitals were suffering financially as a result of the very important international work which was being done by a particular department. It must follow that such a department, because it will advance science and therefore lessen the suffering of people who happen to have a particular disease, needs money for the back-up and research involved.
I strongly support the amendment if the result will be that the right amount of money can be spent in order to make medical progress, and there should not be a niggling doubt among those running the area health authorities that maybe they cannot spend what they want to spend because they have a number of other hospitals which they must service and look after at the same time.
Baroness Lane-Fox: The amendment gives me the chance to voice our deep concern about the future of the Phipps Respiratory Unit, and I shall try at this late hour to keep my remarks short. Although this unit belongs to St. Thomas' Hospital—that illustrious hospital which is going through such traumatic times—it is based in the South-Western Hospital at Stockwell. The unit is unique. It deals with severely disabled cases who also have respiratory problems. To see patients in iron lungs, on life-support respirators with tracheostomies, on the cuirass pump method, on rocking-beds and other forms of respiratory assistance, appears to encourage those who sometimes visit the unit to describe it as "a dump for moribunds". Of course, that is a shocking and quite inaccurate description. Nevertheless, it is clear that it is only those of us who have been treated or worked there who know how far from the truth that description is.
Under the brilliant ministrations of Dr. Geoffrey Spencer, the consultant, who was there to set up the unit in 1969, with a dedicated team, many patients, who on admission appear to be material for the rubbish heap, are transformed and go back into the community as useful members of society, limited only by their disability. To achieve this, many have to take home with them breathing aids of various kinds which must be serviced by expert technicians from the hospital. Even so, for some, life would end within three minutes of failure of the machine. But. with the machine, they live useful lives as secretaries, computer programmers, housewives, students of Open University courses and so on. All know that the Phipps Unit is their lifeline, and they recognise that it is the success of the endeavours of Dr. Spencer, with his team, that has given them this new lease.
The patients' association was formed in 1979 and, as their chairman. I have been astounded by the funds they have raised and given—over £50,000 in the last two years—to ensure the ward's future. Alas, it is that future which is now in grave danger. Not that the unit is likely to be closed down, but it looks all too likely to be killed from strangulation for lack of funds. The reason is simply that it does not fit into the RAWP budgets, which work on a local per head of population basis.
Being of such a specialised nature, as my noble friend Lady Trumpington mentioned, patients are

353
admitted to Phipps from all parts of the country—from Scotland. Wales, East Anglia, Devon and so on—and many had been shunted round numerous other hopsitals without success and several had practically given up in despair before being admitted to Phipps. It is as a result of the expertise which is there given, combined with the constructive atmosphere of Phipps, that many of all ages—children, young marrieds, senior citizens—find themselves suddenly getting better. It is then that they make their contributions to our association, which is busily and carefully trying to improve and update the respiratory equipment and other ward amenities.
Ten years ago the total of patients in the ward was about 40. Now the numbers attached to the unit, and living in or out of the hospital, are about 220. This spring the bed occupancy was about 115 per cent., and there are three or more referals per week. The same number of staff still has to cope, and technicians undertake a six-fold increase of work, compared with six years ago, and now travel over 100,000 miles per annum to maintain the breathing and other equipment that is essential for the patients.
The consultant cannot see how he can retain even useful standards if the suggested financial cuts are imposed. The hope had been that, partly for economic reasons, the unit could be rehoused in St. Thomas', thus reducing costs and greatly facilitating medical care. But on account of St. Thomas' budgetary cuts of an expected 20 per cent. or over during the next five years, understandably the space that we wanted for the unit has been filled by St. John's Hospital for Diseases of the Skin and, it is hoped, the Dreadnought Hospital, both of which have financial resources and do not suffer our budgetary nightmare. Who can blame our district health authority for being less attracted to our needs, for we deal with only two or three patients from the district, when the authority has plenty of local hospitals needing to augment financial resources?
Our patients know that each day of their life they depend on Phipps Unit. There is nothing else for it; it is their lifeline. No wonder they are rigid with fear about what may happen. The only solution would be if the unit, serving a national need, receives national, or supra-regional, status.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to add a brief, but none the less wholehearted, word of support on my noble friend's amendment. The ground has already been very eloquently covered by the three noble Baronesses, and so I shall not paint any more pictures of the state of things. The amendment is not really asking for much. It is asking only for the Secretary of State to have power to provide for central funding of certain hospitals. As my noble friend said, it is very important to maintain the standards. Perhaps the Minister will say that the power already exists—I do not know. But if he does say so, I shall be delighted, though I think that the power should be written into the Bill, and should be used.
I should like to underline what my noble friend said about the problems at the National Spinal Injuries Centre at Stoke Mandeville Hospital. Recovering the money for the cross-boundary flows—which is for
354
patients coming from outside the region—takes about two years. So it really is a grossly unsatisfactory arrangement, and I hope that the Minister can accept my noble friend's amendment.
Baroness Jeger: I rise very briefly just to associate my noble friends with the amendment. The ground has been very well covered, as it certainly was in part on Second Reading, when the noble Lord the Minister agreed that RAWP was a very blunt instrument, but that it provided for the cross-boundary flows. But clearly things are not working satisfactorily. I shall not detain your Lordships tonight beyond mentioning hospitals such as the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases, Moorfields Hospital, and Great Ormond Street Hospital. They are hospitals for the whole world, as one can see when one visits them. When one tries to speak to the patients it is difficult before it is time to leave to find one who speaks English.
If the Minister feels unable to designate certain hospitals in this way for total funding, as the amendment seems to seek, I wonder whether, by some mark of generosity, he could establish a partial funding that did not come out of local or regional budgets. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, was quite right when she referred to some of the tensions in some areas where it is felt that all the money is going to the splendid centres of excellence, while the mental hospitals and the geriatric wards are the Cinderellas of the health service. That we must not allow to be said; it certainly should not be true. But, if we do not do something exactly as the amendment proposes, we must take on board the real problems of our finest hospitals.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to speak very briefly, since I think that a slight misconception arose in the speech of the noble Baroness when she referred to funding. The amendment is not actually asking for funding, and, if it comes through in that way, the Minister may be more inclined to turn it down. It is asking for the power to provide funding. This means that the Minister could actually decide about the question of funding, and which units were to be funded, afterwards. All that we are pressing tonight is for the power to have this facility. I appreciate that in the form of the postgraduate hospitals there are certain specially designated hospitals that are national hospitals already. This is really to cover in particular the small units within the present, ordinary health structure within the district health authorities which are being swallowed up because, as I know from having served on health authorities myself, they are reluctant to spend any money on people who live outside their own area: it is the national element which is important. We are asking here only for the power to provide the funds. I cannot imagine why the Government would refuse to have those powers.
Viscount Ingleby: In supporting this amendment, may I just remind the Minister of the undertaking given by Dr. Vaughan in 1979 that, if money for building the new spinal injuries unit at Stoke Mandeville was raised by voluntary subscription, the Government would ensure that the running costs would be met?
10.22 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: Strictly speaking, this amendment is not necessary because it is already open to the Secretatry of State to provide funds specifically for individual hospitals and units if he so chooses. In addition, the implication that highly specialised services can somehow be insulated from judgments about the relative priority of different claims on the limited resources of the National Health Service is not one that we can accept. However, we are now well advanced with proposals for a new method of funding those services which are recognised as having a supra-regional character, and it may be helpful to the noble Baroness if I say something briefly about these.
There already exists a group of services which were identified in 1979, in consultation between the department and the medical profession, as falling into the supra-regional category. There are four of these: they are paediatric haemodialysis, spinal services (including Stoke Mandeville), the management of chorioncarcinoma and the National Poisons Information Service. These services already receive a degree of special treatment, under arrangements which started in 1980, in the allocation of health authority funds. These arrangements have not proved satisfactory. I will not go into the detailed reasons, which are somewhat complex but briefly, the point is that, while an allowance for these services is made in health authorities' revenue targets, its effect on their actual allocations is negligible in the short term. Following further discussions with health authorities and the medical profession, we have accepted the principle that services which draw patients from an area much wider that that of their own region should not have to complete directly for funds with services which the same authority has to provide for its own district.
We have now reached agreement with regional health authorities on proposals for earmarking funds for these and similar sevices, and we will be discussing them with the medical profession next month. A key point in these proposals is that we shall be setting up a forum comprising representatives of both health authorities and the profession, whose job will be to advise on which services should be covered by the new arrangements and the level of funding they should receive. This will achieve two purposes. First, it will eliminate direct competition between district and supra-regional services—which we think is unfair to both—for the limited funds available at local level. But it will also ensure that the priority for highly specialised services, as against those provided by health authorities collectively from their normal allocations, is properly considered at the right level—that is, the national one. I cannot emphasise too strongly that more money for services funded nationally means less for all the others that health authorities have to provide; and that is why we think it so important for authorities to be involved in these decisions.
We hope to make a start with the new funding arrangements in the coming financial year. Initially, they will be limited to the four services I have mentioned, but once we have the new forum in being we expect it to be looking at the case for bringing in other services which can claim to be performing a supra-regional function.
356
My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox referred particularly to the Phipps Respiratory Unit. My noble friend warned me that she would be raising this point and I have therefore caused to have made particular inquiries about the Phipps unit. I have been assured today by the chairman of the West Lambeth Health Authority that there is no threat at all to the future of the Phipps unit. The authority is fully aware of the importance of this unit and intends to maintain it. Clearly its expenditure cannot be unlimited but its budget has not been cut in the current year, and there is no intention to reduce its budget next year.
What we are talking about is priorities, and I want to tell your Lordships that that is probably the most difficult decision that we have to take in the National Health Service. I, like all my ministerial colleagues in the department, visit a great many hospitals in the health service around the country. I visited a little hospital in Maidenhead a month or so ago which housed a small number of profoundly physically and mentally handicapped children. I defy any Member of the Committee to look those children in the eye and tell them that they are a lower priority than some others to which reference has been made tonight. These decisions are extraordinarily difficult.
We are living in a time of financial constraint within the health service—not of cuts, as some people sometimes accuse us. We have not imposed cuts on the health service. The decisions that we have to take are very difficult. The amendment before your Lordships will not make those decisions any easier. It will not provide any further funds for these services. I hope that, in the light of the assurances that I have been able to give about the supra-regional services, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have supported this amendment. I consider it very important. I should also like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for what he has said. But I am worried that he has a fear about this very helpful amendment. I want to study what he said, go back and take advice from other people working in the field to see why the Government should be frightened of this amendment—because I have a feeling that they are frightened.
I should also like to say to the Minister that I too have visited many places for multiple handicapped children. I opened a centre for rubella-damaged children in Leeds. Those children were blind, deaf and otherwise handicapped. I agree with him. But the really specialised centres are very important for other reasons apart from just treating patients. They are important for teaching and research purposes so that future children will not be born handicapped such as those children that the Minister visited. That is why we need these highly specialised units. Excellence is worth preserving, and that should be part of our National Health Service.
The hour is late and I am sorry that so many of your Lordships and members of the staff have been kept so long; but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said, when we have an important matter we must discuss it fully. I consider this to be a very important matter. I

357
shall come back at the next stage maybe with a different amendment but with the same aim. With that, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Lord Denham: I think that as it is very nearly half-past 10 we may take this opportunity of rising. I should like to thank noble Lords for the careful way in which they have been considering this Bill without too much time attached to it.
I beg to move that this House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

British Railways (Liverpool Street Station) Bill
The Examiner's Certificate that no further Standing order is applicable was ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before eleven o'clock.

  PRISONERS' MAIL
  PRISONERS' MAIL
  CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: TAPE RECORDING
  CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: TAPE RECORDING
  SINN FEIN: GLC INVITATION TO TALKS
  SINN FEIN: GLC INVITATION TO TALKS