Sitting of 16 December 1982

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

  EPSOM AND WALTON DOWNS REGULATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 21 December.

HAMPSHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 18 January 1983.

LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  WESTERN ISLES ISLANDS COUNCIL (OMNIBUS SERVICES) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    CS Gas and Plastic Bullets
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the use of CS gas and plastic bullets by the police.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): In recent months I have received requests or inquiries about different aspects of this matter, to varying effect, from 26 right hon. and hon. Members, two Members of the European Parliament, and a number of organisations or members of the public.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the fact that 14 people, seven of them children, have been killed in Northern Ireland by rubber and plastic bullets and hundreds more seriously injured, and the reports that even some chief constables are opposed to the use of plastic bullets and CS gas, is it not about time that the Government implemented a complete ban on such lethal weapons throughout the whole of the United Kingdom? Otherwise, the Home Secretary will be faced with another humiliating defeat, this time in the European Court of Human Rights.
    Mr. Whitelaw: What happens in Northern Ireland is not a matter for me. The answer to the second part of the question is "No, Sir".
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: I imbibed CS gas to the full when a cannister was hurled into the Chamber just where I now stand, although the carpet has been changed since. Is not CS gas a legitimate and relatively humane anti-riot weapon?
    Mr. Whitelaw: It has been made clear that the various weapons, if used, would be used as weapons of absolutely last resort. It is wrong, and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has said so, to leave the police without any weapons of last resort. That is the position.
    Mr. Snape: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the ordering of the use of CS gas and plastic bullets by police forces is a proper subject for discussion and agreement between chief constables and the relevant police committees, particularly in metropolitan areas, rather than for the somewhat arbitrary decision of the Home Secretary?
    Mr. Whitelaw: It is not a question of an arbitrary decision by the Home Secretary. The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". With regard to the Metropolitan Police, I shall first discuss any such questions with the Commissioner. I am answerable to the House and will answer questions immediately. I have been prepared and have welcomed the opportunities to talk to London Members of all parties in the House. At such meetings as I have had, I have been prepared to discuss the problems involved.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: While agreeing that these dangerous instruments should never be used, except as a last resort, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that certain police authorities are not allowing their chief officers to procure this equipment and that—
    Mr. Canavan: Quite right too.
    Mr. Griffiths: —therefore training and the compatibility of services when they must work together in riot conditions are put at risk? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is national consistency between police forces on this matter?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I promised the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that I would give him full details of all the circumstances relating to all the police authorities. In answer to my hon. Friend, I can tell him that I am getting the full information and I shall present it to the House. It is an important subject, and I am pleased to respond to what was said both by my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman.

    Video Cassettes
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider introducing further criminal penalties to prevent the pirating of video cassettes.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): The Government are very concerned at the growth of video piracy and accept the need to increase the maximum penalties for criminal copyright offences to provide an effective deterrent. I note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) has introduced a Bill to bring about such an increase.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Unfortunately, any technical device to stop this

    465
    abuse has proved impossible. Therefore, does he agree that, either in the context of the Bill that he mentioned, or with additional measures thereafter, the only alternative is stiff criminal sanctions?
    Mr. Mayhew: We are aware of the great increase in video piracy and of the threat that that presents to the film and other industries. That is one of the reasons why we support an increase in the criminal penalties.
    Mr. Freud: Does the Minister agree that the longer the increase is delayed, the greater the damage to the industry? Is the measure appropriate for private Members' rather than for Government legislation?
    Mr. Mayhew: Early legislation is better than late legislation.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the estimated cost to the industry is £120 million a year and that there is a substantial loss to the Exchequer and to the film industry? Is he aware that organised crime is moving into this area? Therefore, will he accept that action on this sphere of activity should not be long delayed and that such action must be strong, positive and immediate? Will he give his wholehearted support to the Bill that has been brought before the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West
    Mr. Mayhew: We are extremely sympathetic to the Bill that has been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West. The extent of the damage that is being done is estimated at £100 million. I am very much in accord with what my hon. and learned Friend said.

    Naturalisation
    Mr. Pittasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time for processing applications for naturalisation.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): It is estimated that the current average length of time from receipt of an application for naturalisation to issue of the certificate is 23 months.
    Mr. Pitt: In view of the appalling length of time between a person first applying for and actually getting naturalisation—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in some cases it can take three years—will the Minister institute a proper and effective inquiry into the workings of Lunar House and Apollo House and make them efficient?
    Mr. Raison: Sir Derek Rayner has produced an extremely useful report on the workings of our nationality system. That is now being implemented.
    Mr. Tilley: The British Nationality Act comes into force in a fortnight's time, so there will be many more applications for naturalisation and registration. Has the Minister increased the print order for the various application forms? If not, he has no answer to the accusation that I have heard in many parts of the country and from my constituents that the Home Office can control the flow of applications only by ensuring that the application forms are not available for ethnic minority groups, voluntary organisations and community relations groups which want to give such forms to the people who wish to apply.
    Mr. Raison: I cannot say exactly what the print order is, but I am anxious that the forms should be available promptly.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that from time to time I have received complaints about the rudeness and unhelpfulness of the staff in Lunar House, Croydon? Will my right hon. Friend call the Department's attention to that matter? Does he appreciate that cooperation on the part of the staff is always appreciated by the public and that the staff have a duty in that respect?
    Mr. Raison: Of course, mistakes may be made. Civil servants, like other people, are not infallible. The staff at Lunar House and Apollo House work under great pressure. Overall, I believe that they do an excellent job.

    Rape
    Miss Joan Lestorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to announce the results of his review into guidelines to the police about the conduct of inquiries into alleged rape offences.
    Mr. Mayhew: Early in the new year.
    Miss Lestor: Is the Minister aware that we have waited a long time for that report and that several things have happened since the review began? When the report is issued, will he clarify the advice given by certain spokespersons for police authorities—that women in danger of being raped should submit to rape rather than risk further violence? Is he aware that the law seems to be perpetuating the contradiction that if a woman complains of rape but does not appear to have marks of violence on her, it will be assumed that she has submitted to sex as dinstinct from rape?
    Mr. Mayhew: I certainly do not accept the hon. Lady's proposition. It cannot form any part of the law or an assumption in law or common sense. Chief officers will shortly receive guidelines which will deal with all the controversial and topical matters involved in police investigations of rape offences. Those guidelines will be comprehensive and sensible.
    Mr. Farr: Will the inquiry cover penalties for rape offences, such as those referred to recently by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor?
    Mr. Mayhew: The content of criminal law is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Matters relating to judicial discretion are for my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. I see no prospect—the Government have no plans to do so—of legislating to introduce mandatory sentences. In 1980, the last year for which figures are available, 97 per cent. of all those convicted of rape received immediate custodial sentences.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Do not those figures put the issue into context? Is it not about time that a great deal of the emotion was cut out of the subject? Whatever the Home Secretary decides to do about the issue, will he please not allow a right of appeal against a sentence on behalf of the prosecution, as that would be a disaster?
    Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary goes wide of the original question. Discussion of the offence is bound to have emotional overtones. However, what needs to be brought to bear on all these difficult issues is a calm and sensible judgment.

    Telephone Tapping
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now answer questions on telephone tapping.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I intend to maintain the practice of successive Governments to answer questions about these matters only in so far as they concern general issues about the arrangements set out in the White Paper "The Interception of Communications in Great Britain" (Cmnd. 7873) and the role of the judicial monitor.
    Mr. Cryer: Can I say to the Home Secretary that that is a rotten practice? It reflects great concern by him and other Governments that apparently our democracy is so fragile that there cannot be full and proper accountability to the House about general policy and direction and that it must depend instead on the internal workings of a judicial scrutiny. That simply is not a good enough substitute for proper accountability to the elected Members of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Of course, the hon. Gentleman can say to me whatever he likes. He has not asked me a question. I maintain the position of previous Governments, of whom the hon. Gentleman was a somewhat erstwhile supporter. He supported them from time to time. I am in good company in maintaining that position.
    Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not just political phone tapping but commercial espionage could be carried out by phone tapping procedures? What safeguards are there to protect industry against infiltration by commercial espionage through phone tapping?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Interceptions for which the Home Secretary is responsible require his personal signature. If anything else happens, it is outside the law.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Does the Home Secretary agree that the Home Office's supposed decision to introduce a Data Protection Bill, which seems to be a little time in giving birth, changes the whole situation? How can the House—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unreasonable for hon. Members to conduct a running conversation when someone else is trying to address the House.
    Mr. Price: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    How can the House legislate on important matters of privacy and then give up all power of scrutiny thereafter? Surely there must be some scrutiny over those issues if we are to legislate on them comprehensively for the first time.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should wait to see the Data Protection Bill when it is published. He will then be able to judge on what basis the House might be asked to legislate.

    Parliamentary Elections (Deposits)
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now introduce legislation to increase the deposit required of parliamentary candidates.
    Mr. Mayhew: We are awaiting the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs' inquiry into the Representation of the People Acts.
    Mr. Janner: Do the Government accept that the present deposit provides no deterrent whatever to frivolous canditatures? Do the Government intend to make some change before the next general election?
    Mr. Mayhew: I agree with the first part of the question. We have submitted evidence to the Select Committee suggesting that the possible new levels for the deposit and the threshold might be £1,000 and 7½ per cent., but we think it wise to await the Committee's views.
    Mr. Farr: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that to make membership of this place consequent upon one's ability to pay would be improper, immoral and unjust? Will he advise his right hon. Friend to set his face against such a course?
    Mr. Mayhew: I have often wondered what are the criteria for membership of this place. I am sure that the right use of a deposit is to deter frivolous canditatures.
    Mr. Pitt rose—
    Mr. Skinner: He is one.
    Mr. Pitt: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the system of taking money from people to justify their bona fides is archaic? Would not a more intelligent system be to examine the number of people who are willing to nominate a person for a place in the House?
    Mr. Mayhew: All these matters are no doubt being considered by the Select Committee. One does not have to use money. One can use a banker's draft. The system is almost as versatile and flexible as the Liberal Party, of which the hon. Gentleman is a representative.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

    Unemployment and Crime
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply of 18 November, Official Report, c. 409, if he will set out evidence on which he bases his statement that unemployment is a factor in crime.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the review of this question in Research Bulletin No. 14 issued by my Department.
    Mr. Parry: Is the Secretary of State aware of the increasing problems of glue sniffing and solvent abuse among young school leavers and the young unemployed in Liverpool and in other inner city areas? In view of the massive level of unemployment among young people caused by the Government, does he accept that this manifestation is partly caused by increased crime?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have made my position clear over a number of years. I accept at once that unemployment is a factor, but I have never accepted that it is a main cause.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: In view of the figures for serious crimes published by the Home Department yesterday, does the Home Secretary accept that for the first time in postwar years the number of serious crimes will rise above 3 million? As there was so much talk in the debate last night by Conservative Back Benchers about manifesto commitments—
    Mr. Skinner: What about the hon. Gentleman's in 1979?
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: —what do the Government propose to do to stem the rising tide of crime from reaching the same figures as unemployment?
    Mr. Whitelaw: It is unwise of the hon. Gentleman to raise that matter, because it was his right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) who reduced the police service in the country. He did not back it up. He put officers into panda cars, not on the beat. Many of the troubles with crime that we face today stem from the time when the right hon. Member for Hillhead was Home Secretary.
    Mr. Skinner: You said he was finished!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not. I know that we are very near Christmas, but the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must restrain himself a little more.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that unemployed 16 to 18-year-olds would be much better off following courses at school or will be helped by the new training initiative next September? Will he do all that he can to ensure that they use their time at school in pursuit of valuable courses.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Yes. I welcome that point. I hope the House will understand that when I am attacked I am entitled to reply. My hon. Friend has made a serious point with which I entirely agree. We must do a great deal to ensure that young people are given proper occupations and, indeed, jobs, if we can possibly manage it, because that is a factor in combating crime.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in addition to the overwhelming evidence that there is a relationship between unemployment and crime—a relationship to which he himself has drawn attention—there is now mounting evidence that the courts are more likely to impose custodial sentences on offenders who are unemployed? Will he therefore point out to his Cabinet colleagues the human, social and law and order consequences of their economic policies, which are leading to high and unacceptable levels of unemployment?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am as responsible as any other member of the Cabinet for the Government's economic policies and, indeed, for what we are seeking to do. I take my full share of that responsibility. Of course, I understand that problems arise. I do not accept that people are necessarily given custodial sentences because they are unemployed. However, I do accept—I think we must all accept—that what is decided by the judges and magistrates is criticised both ways. Sometimes they are criticised for putting people into prison; at other times they are criticised for keeping people out of prison. I believe that their independence is important. My job as Home Secretary is to provide all the places in the prisons that the judges and the magistrates believe are required for those who have committed crimes.

    Helicopter Patrols
    Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often the Metropolitan Police make low-flying helicopter patrols at night-time using searchlights; and if he is satisfied that all measures are taken to prevent unnecessary nuisance to London residents.
    Mr. Raison: We understand from the Commissioner that, subject to operational needs, the Metropolitan Police normally seek to limit night-time helicopter patrols to the early evening of Mondays to Fridays. The helicopters are subject to minimum height restrictions at night, but most flying is carried out at well above the minimum in order to reduce aircraft noise. The searchlight is used only when an incident has occurred or where a search is being carried out. The Commissioner assures us that every effort is made to minimise the disturbance to the public.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does the Minister appreciate that a low-flying aircraft between a ceiling of 1,000 ft and possibly as low as 600 ft using searchlights for the purpose of identifying people down below is a tremendous annoyance? Does he agree that as it is not possible, even with the latest equipment, to take photographs or to identify people at that height, there is little justification for this tremendous annoyance caused to people when a helicopter is circling above them for up to 15 minutes?
    Mr. Raison: I understand that the searchlight can pinpoint a suspect while keeping the pursuing officers out of its beam or illuminate a wider area. It is used only when an incident has occurred or when a search is being carried out. The commissioner assures us that this equipment is both necessary and effective and that every effort is made to reduce disturbance to the public.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in London consider the use of the helicopter as a great and much needed enhancement to the powers that the police should have in combating crime? Are helicopters used in a rescue role?
    Mr. Raison: I am not sure, but almost certainly the answer is "Yes".

    Detained Persons (Deaths)
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are taken by his Department in cases where coroners return verdicts of unlawful killing or death due to lack of care of persons in custody.
    Mr. Mayhew: The investigation of an unlawful killing is a matter for the police. Otherwise, when a person dies in a prison department establishment the action taken after the inquest depends entirely on the circumstances of the case.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that last month a coroner's jury returned a verdict of death due to lack of care on James Heather Hayes, who died in Ashford remand centre, and that earlier this year another coroner's jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing on Winston Rose, who was throttled to death while being arrested by 11 policemen? What, if any, action was taken by the authorities following those verdicts? Is it not wrong that such verdicts do not automatically lead to action being taken by the authorities and to those responsible being charged? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take steps to ensure that that happens in future?
    Mr. Mayhew: We have only recently received the notes of evidence of the inquest into the death of James Heather Hayes. I cannot comment until we have looked carefully into all the circumstances of the case. Whenever such a report reaches the Home Office it is, of course,

    471
    taken extremely seriously and all the circumstances are taken into account. That is the only, and proper, way to proceed.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that, for the most part, prison and police officers take extremely good care of the prisoners in their charge and are more worried than most people in Britain when mishaps such as that to which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred take place?
    Mr. Mayhew: I am certain that my hon. Friend is right when he says that that is the norm. On rare occasions things go seriously wrong. I know that my hon. Friend will agree with me that such instances must be investigated. However, I agree with his remarks.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Will the Minister accept that this is a serious problem? Is he aware that the recent incidents at Ashford, Wandsworth and Brixton have not resulted in any prosecutions, which has given rise to great disquiet? Is it true that since the commendable efforts to prosecute those responsible for the death of Barry Prosser and that prosecutions's failure, the prosecuting authorities are taking a different and much less stringent view about prosecuting policemen and prison officers?
    Mr. Mayhew: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not responsible for prosecution policy. That is the responsibility of the chief officer of police or of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Therefore, I cannot comment on that point.

    Nationality
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he proposes to the British Nationality Act to accommodate the aspirations of the inhabitants of Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, Hong Kong, St. Helena and any other dependency.
    Mr. Raison: The Government are not opposed to the Bill introduced in another place, which would confer British citizenship on the Falkland Islanders. We have no proposals for changes in the status under the British Nationality Act of the inhabitants of Gibraltar, Hong Kong, St. Helena or any other dependency.
    Mr. Lyon: Since the British Nationality Act was introduced to clear up the confusion between the citizenship of those born here, or those who are descended from people born here, and the citizenship of those in other parts of the former British empire, is it not absurd that we should chip away, bit by bit, at the edifice prepared in the British Nationality Act to give certainty, simply to appease pressure groups in the Conservative Party?
    Mr. Raison: No, Sir. We do not intend to undermine the edifice of the British Nationality Act, but the circumstances of the Falkland Islands are wholly exceptional.
    Mr. Dan Jones: Among the aspirations of the countries mentioned, one can reasonably assume that their economies are the chief concern. I rise to speak today—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman and I understand each other, because we come from the same valley. He will therefore understand that for "speak" I shall substitute that he proposes to ask a question. He will then be all right.
    Mr. Dan Jones: I want to say quite definitely—[Interruption.] Hon. Members might give me a chance to speak. I have had meetings in that area with the Home Secretary about the economy and the discussions have always been constructive. As a result, I am complaining, or asking the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, Conservative Members are really sticking to a minor point, are they not? I ask the Minister to use his undoubted influence in the Cabinet and to make representations to ensure that we guard our aspirations, just as those countries guard theirs. Will the right hon. Gentleman do that much?
    Hon. Members: Answer the question.
    Mr. Raison: I give the hon. Gentleman my categoric assurance that I shall do that.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has said that there will be no alteration in the position of the people of Gibraltar. However, will he give an assurance that there is no question of us nibbling away at the edifice—as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) suggested—because the people of Gibraltar are more British than the British and are entitled to British citizenship?
    Mr. Raison: We have no intention of nibbling away at Gibraltar.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister fulfil the aspirations of those on an island such as Diego Garcia, or is the truth that if the inhabitants are black and are to be thrown off the island because an American air force base is to De built there their aspirations can be put to one side while billions of pounds can be poured in to fulfil the aspirations of the Falkland Islanders, because they happen to be white?
    Mr. Raison: That really is another question.

    Metropolitan Police
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of Metropolitan Police officers; and how this figure compares with April 1979.
    Mr. Whitelaw: On 31 October 1982 the strength was 26,158. This was 3,933 more than on 30 April 1979.
    Mr. Chapman: I welcome that significant increase in the number of police officers in the metropolis. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that policy decisions and that increase in strength have led to a substantial increase in the number of bobbies on the beat? Does he agree that if the police patrol the streets of our capital city, that is the best and most effective deterrent to crime?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I entirely agree. It is the new Commissioner's policy that that should be increased. He has promised to give me a report on what he believes to be the most important factors in his task and the most effective way of using his existing manpower. I hope to have that report early in the new year and I shall report back to the House as soon as he has given it to me.
    Mr. Snape: Would the Home Secretary also like to publish the number of serious crimes reported in the Metropolitan Police area in 1982 compared with April 1979? While he is about it, will he also publish the detection rates for those two years?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Those figures will be published in due course in the various publications.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Despite that welcome increase in the number of bobbies on the beat, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figure for serious crime this year will almost certainly go over the 3 million mark for the first time in the post-war years? What further action does he intend to take to stop the continuing rise in serious crime?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman really is a tiger for punishment. I have given him one go, and I am going to give him another.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] He cannot get away from the fact that he is a member of a party whose leader believed that it was right to take the police off the streets and put them into panda cars. That has been proved to be wrong. Thank goodness, we are reversing the process. It will take a long time to repair the damage that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) caused, but we are doing so.
    Mr. Forman: I welcome the increase in police pay and the number of officers in the Metropolitan Police area, but can my right hon. Friend say whether it is proposed to take any action to relieve police, especially in suburban parts of London, of the burden of having to look after public demonstrations, which often take police manpower away from more needed tasks such as dealing with burglary and street crime?
    Mr. Whitelaw: That is undoubtedly true. Many people in those areas who have been subjected to burglaries feel strongly about the matter. The problem is that in our free society those who feel that they must demonstrate have the right to do so. If they demonstrate, the police must look after the demonstrations. That is one of the problems of policing the capital city. That is one reason why the Home Secretary must be the right person—he is answerable to the House—to deal with those problems.

    Parliamentary Candidates (Age)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards seeking a reduction in the age at which people can stand for election to the House.
    Mr. Raison: We have no present plans for legislation on this matter.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is anomalous that people can vote at 18 but cannot stand for election to the House until they are 21? Does he agree that it is time that something was done about the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference on the subject in the 1970–74 Parliament?
    Mr. Raison: The recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference, and your conference, Mr. Speaker, are not always accepted. I am not aware of any great demand for change. I write to all my constituents when they reach the age of 18. No one ever writes back saying that he wishes to replace me.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be just as logical to disqualify men over 65 and women over 60 as it is to continue the disqualification of those between 18 and 21 from standing for election to the House?
    Mr. Raison: I think that the passing of years confers some valuable wisdom.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my admiration for the youth of this country is unbounded? Nevertheless, does he agree that 21 is quite young enough for someone to enter this House? Will he please knock on the head the absurd notion of the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Liberal Party that people should have a vote at the age of 16?
    Mr. Raison: I hardly think that I am required to knock on the head the views of the leader of the Liberal Party. My hon. Friend's admiration for Britain's young people is unquestionably reciprocated.

    Burglary
    Mr. Edward Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the percentage detection rate for crimes of burglary in the most recent period for which figures are available.
    Mr. Whitelaw: In 1981 the clear-up rate for recorded offences of burglary in England and Wales was 30 per cent. More recent figures are not available centrally.
    Mr. Lyons: In view of the low percentage that the right hon. Gentleman has given, would it be right to say that a material increase in the clear-up rate, which would result in more convictions and more prison sentences, would mean that the prison system would collapse? Does he agree that the prison system survives on the low clear-up rate and that a high one would be disastrous?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I do not agree, especially as it is the Government's policy, for which I am responsible, to ensure that the prisons have sufficient places for those whom judges and magistrates convict for the crimes with which they are charged. My task in doing that would be much easier if the leader of the party to which the hon. and learned Gentleman now belongs had not done everything that he could to undermine the building of the prison system of the future.
    Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend ask the police to do everything possible to encourage members of the public to make their homes secure against burglary? Does he agree that about 80 per cent. of all burglaries could be prevented by proper precautions being taken by householders?
    Mr. Whitelaw: That is an important point. I am glad to say that the police, with the support of the public and many consultative groups which we are now setting up, are keen to achieve lower crime figures and to encourage crime prevention methods in houses in their areas. The more difficult it becomes for people to burgle houses, the better it will be for the community.

    Prisoners
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to lessen the number of hours that prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons spend in their cells due to shortage of prison staff and accommodation.
    Mr. Mayhew: We have arranged both for an increase in the number of prison officers and for a continuation of the very substantial building programme.
    Mr. Flannery: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts recently inspected educational facilities in prisons and witnessed the conditions there? Does he agree that they are an affront to human dignity and not conducive to good order in prisons? Does he agree also that it would be good experience for all hon. Members to witness three men in a cell for long hours? [Interruption.] Ebullience seems to be arising out of defeat among Conservative Members. Does the Minister agree that it would be good for all of us to understand the gross indignity of, for example, the slopping-out process and men being kept in cells for long hours? Is he aware that judges are sentencing shoplifters to longer sentences than those who have committed rape? Does he agree that the whole system needs to be overhauled? [Interruption.] The time spent in cells is too long for prisoners, even if it is not considered to be too long by Conservative Members.
    Mr. Mayhew: Conditions in prisons leave a great deal to be desired. That is why it is right that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should have embarked upon the largest prison building programme this century. Present conditions reflect how disgraceful it is that the previous Goverment, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, cancelled or deferred new prison building programmes so that 3,300 new places were either lost or deferred in 1975.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 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 the executive director of UNICEF. This evening I will be attending a dinner given by the president of the Law Society.
    Mr. Price: Is the Prime Minister aware how pleased we are that she arrived at Home Office Question Time just in time to hear the Home Secretary in such excellent fighting form in spite of the mauling that he received from her acolytes on the Right of the Conservative Party? How will she solve last night's problem? Will she make further concessions to the racist and sexist supporters on the Right of the Tory Party, or will she do a U-turn and introduce immigration rules that conform to the European Convention on Human Rights, which the Government have signed?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend was in splendid form. He will introduce new proposals for immigration rules and he will deal with the hon. Gentleman then as he dealt today with many other hon. Members during Question Time.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to reflect on the increasing evidence that Mr. Andropov headed the KGB when it planned the attempted, though I am glad to say unsuccessful, assassination of the Pope?
    The Prime Minister: I have not reflected on that matter today.
    Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Lady's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) about the humiliating defeat that the Government suffered last night mean that the Government will give a firm pledge that there will be no further appeasement of reactionary and racist elements in her party, as it was the original appeasement of them that led to all the trouble?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend said last night precisely what he would do. He will make further changes in accordance with section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 as soon as possible. In doing so he will endeavour to meet the wishes of the House. When he has decided what changes to introduce, he will present them to the House for approval.
    Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Lady understand that if the House is to be satisfied, and if the vote of the House is to be satisfied, that must mean a rejection of an item that appeared in the Conservative election manifesto? As she has already rejected so many of those items, why should she complain about having to reject this one, too?
    The Prime Minister: If my right hon. Friend is properly to consider the effect of last night's debate and the views expressed in it, he must have time to do so. He will consider further what changes are to be made and bring them before the House in the usual way. It would be totally unreasonable to expect him to have made a decision between last night and this morning.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a team from Russia were filming the protesters at the Greenham Common base? Has she any idea what the film will be used to demonstrate? Does she agree that it may be taken to suggest that the people involved in the protest were weak and vacillating? Will she confirm that that is not the position of the Government we support?
    Mr. Flannery: Get off your knees.
    The Prime Minister: Such protests tend to give the impression to the Soviet Union that this country has neither the capacity nor the resolve to defend itself or to keep defence expenditure at a sufficient level to deter. Any such action is contrary to the interests of this country.
    Mr. David Steel: Is it not reasonable to ask the Government to give a clear undertaking that the redrafted immigration rules will take account of the view of the great majority of Members of all parties that the rules should reflect the protection of the interests of family life of everyone in this country? Is the Prime Minister aware that if she does that the rules will go through, but that if she tries to appease the small group on her Right wing they will not?
    The Prime Minister: We shall consider fully what was said in yesterday's debate and then put the results of our deliberations before the House. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to try to put pressure on us to reach conclusions prematurely.
    Q2. Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Duffy: Before the Secretary of State for Industry plays Santa Claus next week to the five big steel centres, will the Prime Minister confirm that the job equivalent of any one of those major works has been lost in the steel industry in the past fortnight alone, without any ministerial statement, either within or outside the House? What difference is there between next week's statement and the major jobs haemorrhage of the past fortnight, which allows Ministers to dodge the political consequences of the right hon. Lady's industrial vandalism?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a crisis in steel throughout the world. World capacity for steel production is about 1,000 million tonnes, whereas orders amount to about 700 million tonnes. Further steel mills are being built in underdeveloped countries. There is thus a real problem in filling anything like the capacity of our home steel mills. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a statement on Monday about the future of the five steel mills. What we need is not more speeches, but more customers.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in so far as any Conservative Members voted against the Government last night they did not do so for want of confidence in the Government, in the programme announced in the manifesto or in my right hon. Friend's leadership?
    The Prime Minister: I should also like to express my complete confidence in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Wigley: In view of the right hon. Lady's oft-repeated assertion that disarmament can come about only through multilateral, not unilateral, disarmament, what steps have the Government taken in the past three and a half years to achieve multilateral nuclear disarmament, and which steps does she believe have succeeded?
    The Prime Minister: There are constant efforts to secure disarmament on a multilateral basis. For the past nine years there have been negotiations in Vienna on mutual and balanced force reductions. There have been negotiations in Geneva on a comprehensive test ban. There are negotiations through the United States to try substantially to reduce the number of strategic weapons. There are negotiations for a zero option on intermediate nuclear forces, which would cut out one class of nuclear weapons altogether. This country has played a prominent part in negotiations to try to persuade the Soviet Union to reject chemical weapons. We got rid of our stock of chemical weapons 10 years ago and about 1,000 nuclear warheads were withdrawn from the Western front. There are all those negotiations and many others.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: After the demonstration of dissidence in the House last night, will my right hon. Friend study today's issue of the New Statesman, which contains an article by a Czech dissident arguing that this country should not go in for unilateral disarmament, that liberty is necessary for peace and that peace does not necessarily bring liberty? Will she see whether that article, written by a Czech, can be published in Czechoslavakia?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his own point very forcefully. We do want, not peace at any price,
    478
    but peace with freedom and justice. For that purpose we must keep secure and strong defences and negotiate from strength for balanced and verifiable arms reductions.
    Mr. James Hamilton: On the home front, will the right hon. Lady take out of mothballs the two shopping baskets that she used at the last election to con the housewives of this country and to denigrate the Labour Government? Will she now admit that she conned the housewives and that since she became Prime Minister the cost of living has risen by 50 per cent.?
    The Prime Minister: I shall not do as the hon. Gentleman wishes. The Government's record in bringing down inflation is outstanding, especially when compared with the record of the Labour Government, particularly on food prices. Food prices rose by about 122 per cent. in the lifetime of the Labour Government.
    Mr. Tony Spellerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Speller: In view of the concern expressed by many pensioners following comments from the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, far from pensions being clawed back in years to come, pensioners will be better off in the coming year and that there will be no clawback of the kind suggested by the Opposition?
    An Hon. Member: Santa Clausback.
    The Prime Minister: In so far as the payment of pensions this year was in excess of inflation, pensioners received advance payment against increases due next year. Those advance payments are worth about £50 to a married couple this year. On the subject of Santa Claus, I remind the Opposition that for two years the Labour Government did not give pensioners a Christmas bonus at all.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: In view of the accusations by the Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues, will she assure the House that so far as she knows no Labour Member of Parliament active in the peace movement in this country has received a penny from the Soviet Union for that work, and that so far as she knows the CND movement has never received any money from the Soviet Union for its work in this country?
    The Prime Minister: I do not answer for Labour Members, nor am I responsible for the CND movement.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the defence of our nation is one of the priorities of a Conservative Government? Will she therefore discuss with the Foreign Secretary today the harassment of Mr. Lech Walesa, the leader of the Solidarity movement in Poland, by the forces of General Jaruzelski, who is the surrogate of the Soviet Union, to prevent Mr. Walesa from addressing a public meeting? Is that not the kind of society that we should get in the West if we in any way gave way to the views of the Opposition and relaxed our defences?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that to have a strong defence is the Government's first duty, and it is a duty which the Government will abundantly carry out. We have made our views known about Poland.

    479
    It is disappointing that martial law has not been lifted and that Mr. Walesa cannot be as free as he would be in a power within the State. That is what it is all about in a Western society. We have come to the crunch. A
    480
    Communist society cannot bear or abide another source of power within the State. That is what it is all about in Poland.

Business of the House
3.30 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 20 DECEMBER—Motion on the Christmas Adjournment.
Remaining stages of the Agricultural Marketing Bill.
Motions on the Asian and African Development Banks Orders, on the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development Order, on the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Exclusion of Proceedings) Regulations and on the Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payments of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations.
TUESDAY 21 DECEMBER—Debate on the White Paper on "The Falklands Campaign: The Lessons", Cmnd. 8758, which will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 22 DECEMBER—Debate On the report by Lord Shackleton on the economic potential of the Falkland Islands, Cmnd. 8653, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 23 DECEMBER—It will be proposed that the House should meet at 9.30 am, take questions until 10.30 am, and adjourn at 3.30 pm until 17 January 1983.
Mr. Foot: First, may I put to the right hon. Gentleman two major matters that have arisen in the past few days? Following yesterday's emergency debate and the Foreign Secretary's extraordinary statement that he was either unable or unwilling to describe precisely who would have control over the firing of cruise and Pershing missiles if they were ever stationed in this country, we believe that the House should be given an early opportunity to discuss that matter. It is plainly of absolutely supreme importance for the people of this country. Will he assure us that as soon as we return from the recess we shall have in Government time a major debate on disarmament? We forced the debate yesterday, and we feel that there should be a full debate on the subject as soon as possible.
Secondly, as a result of the decision that was taken yesterday in the European Assembly about Great Britain's contribution to the budget, all the negotiations on Great Britain's contribution seem to be in jeopardy. It is a matter of prime importance to the House. I presume that an early statement will be made to the House. The best time for that would be on Monday. The Government should make a major statement on how they are to defend British interests in the matter.
There are three other matters that I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman. When will we have a statement on steel, and will a debate he held? The Leader of the House has so far refused to provide time for a debate on fisheries, but I still ask for a debate on that subject. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me a favourable answer on the question of teacher-training colleges which I raised with him last week.
Mr. Biffen: May I respond in reverse order to the five points that the right hon. Gentleman has made? The issue of colleges of education was raised last week. I understand that preliminary discussions have taken place through the
482
usual channels. Clearly there will be no time for a debate next week. I shall of course bear in mind the possibility of such a debate.
It is well within the recollection of the House that I have said several times that the Government would wish to arrange a debate on the whole fisheries issue. There will be a Council of Ministers meeting early next week. That may well be decisive in resolving the present deadlock between Denmark and other members of the Community. I hope that the debate can take place in the new year.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a few moments ago that the statement on steel would be made on Monday next week. I cannot offer a debate in the few days remaining before we adjourn for Christmas, but clearly it is a matter that the House will wish to discuss when we return after the recess.
The Economic and Finance Council will consider tomorrow in the light of today's decision the serious position that has arisen in respect of the United Kingdom's contribution to the European Community budget and the refund. I ask the House therefore to wait until the outcome of that meeting is known. That will lead one to decide the appropriate day for a statement. I am sure that we can resolve through the usual channels when that should be.
I note what the Leader of the Opposition has said about yesterday's debate when I believe that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave an authoritative discourse on Government policy on those matters.
I note that the right hon. Gentleman would like a further debate on cruise missiles. Doubtless we can consider that through the usual channels.
Mr. Robert Adley: My right hon. Friend will recall that two weeks ago I asked him to arrange a debate on the Serpell report and he was kind enough to reply. Has the Secretary of State for Transport yet had the report? Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will find it unacceptable if the Government do not publish the report, and even less acceptable if there is not an early debate when the House returns upon the report which is the most important independent look at British Rail for a long time?
Mr. Biffen: I can make no commitment about a debate. I shall certainly be in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport again on the points raised by my hon. Friend and I shall be in touch with him.
Mr. Douglas Jay: I understand that there is to be an EC Fisheries Council meeting on Tuesday of next week when crucial decisions may be taken. May we be assured that a statement will be made in the House on the result of that meeting not later than the day after, and should we not have an opportunity to debate that and the EC budget crisis before 31 December when the common fisheries policy will come into effect?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been most punctilious in reporting to the House after ministerial meetings. I have no reason to believe that his future behaviour will belie his past performance. I can hold out little hope for a debate in the time that remains before the Christmas Recess.
Mr. Nigel Forman: When in the new year may we expect the regular debate upon public expenditure,

483
as there are many Conservative Members who would like to point out that the falling rate of inflation enables the country to get much better value from existing levels of public expenditure?
Mr. Biffen: It is a central point to be made, and it is made all the more effective by the brevity with which my hon. Friend has addressed me. There will be a debate on public expenditure, as is traditional. I cannot give the precise date.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: In anticipation of the Leader of the House replying that he could not find time for a debate next week, may I ask him to look at early-day motion 169?
[That this House would welcome Her Majesty's Government having a detailed investigation into, and publishing a detailed report on, how and why almost daily reports are published giving court records of where: (a) a man convicted of twice raping a girl of six years only serves a six-week term of imprisonment, (b) a man pleads guilty to manslaughter after having slit a widow's throat with a machete and is immediately set free with a 2-year suspended sentence, (c) on an admission of deliberately scarring a man's face for life, a fine of £200 is imposed but has still not been paid, (d) stabbing a six-year-old girl with a screwdriver, denying murder, but found guilty of manslaughter, results in being put on probation, (e) a drunken driver pleading guilty to careless driving and manslaughter killing a teenage girl gets four months imprisonment and (f) of three men found guilty of theft and killing a man at a concert, two are given six weeks' imprisonment and the third is fined £250 which has still not been paid; and recommend what action should be taken to prevent the now admitted growth in all forms of crime, particularly those involving violence, and to see to what extent the leniency of sentencing is now acting as an encouragement to these thugs, wicked and cruel beasts, who are referred to wrongly of course as human beings.] To save the time of the House and that of the right hon. Gentleman, will he ask the Home Secretary to look at and implement the suggestion made in the motion?
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the pertinent point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Mr. John Peyton: Will my right hon. Friend take an opportunity next week to make a statement on whether we can hope for an ending to the torrent of legislation that we have endured since the Queen's Speech? Perhaps he will say whether there are any more substantial measures to be found hidden between the lines of the Queen's Speech.
Mr. Biffen: That is a good-natured question in the best spirit of Christmas. The legislation that has been introduced is proceeding at a pace which may redound to our personal convenience rather later in the year, when we may have other distractions.
Mr. David Stoddart: Further to the vote in the European Assembly yesterday on Britain's budget rebate—I trust that a statement on it will be made next week—I hope that the Government will explain why the European Assembly was offered a monitoring and supervisory role over the spending of any such money. May we be assured by the right hon. Gentleman, who has
484
a good record on Common Market matters, that it is this House alone which supervises Government expenditure, from wherever it derives?
Mr. Biffen: The light that this topic throws upon the relationships between the Assembly and the Council of Ministers is one dimension of any debate that will arise on these matters. I am sure that there will be a chance to address ourselves to such issues during our deliberations when we return after Christmas.
Mr. Dudley Smith: Will we have the data protection Bill's Second Reading on our return, or is it my right hon. Friend's intention to start its parliamentary progress in another place?
Mr. Biffen: I am not yet in a position to answer that question.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: In view of the failure of the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Wales to make statements to the House on the Welsh water rates controversy and, disgracefully, to announce a decision through a press release on Monday rather than to the House, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange an early debate on this issue, perhaps coupled with a debate on the Welsh rate support grant order? If it is not possible to couple the two issues, will he say when a debate on the rate support grant order will be held?
Mr. Biffen: I am not able to answer either of those questions in specific terms. There will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to make known his irritation in some form.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before Tuesday's debate on defence, may we have an explanation of how a simple juxtaposition of answers from the Prime Minister and from her Defence Ministers reveal, by putting map coordinates together, that on Sunday 2 May the British fleet was firmly placed on dry land in Argentina? This was confirmed by a report of these questions in The Times.
Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, if he asks his business question for next week it will help those who are hoping to be called.
Mr. Dalyell: Some explanation should be given of the sinking of the "Belgrano" before the debate on Tuesday.
Mr. Biffen: I think that it will be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to make his points during that debate.
Mr. Christopher Murphy: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 168, which has been tabled by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells)?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to make an early decision on its defence suppression requirements in favour of the British Aerospace/Marconi/ALARM project which would both ensure an increase in employment opportunities while providing a cheaper and more flexible option than any available alternative; and firmly believes that essential defence technology should be developed and maintained within the United Kingdom whenever possible.]
When is a statement likely to be made on the ALARM project and defence suppression?
Mr. Biffen: I understand that the weapon to which the early-day motion refers is currently under evaluation. I do not think that I can go further than that.
Mr. David Ennals: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that two weeks ago today I drew his attention to early-day motion 44 on the importation of baby seal skins, which now has the support of 320 hon. Members from both sides of the House?
[That this House, bearing in mind the motion passed by the European Assembly on 11th March 1982 calling for the banning of the importation of the skins and the products derived from young hooded and harp seals slaughtered in Canada, the subsequent reports of the Nature Conservancy Council, the recommendation of the European Commission and the support for Early Day Motions Nos. 342 and 344 in the last Session of Parliament by over 300 honourable Members, calls on the Government now to take positive action to stop the importation of these products.]
When I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether there could be a statement about the outcome of the meeting of the Environmental Ministers on Friday, he said that he would draw the matter to the attention of his right hon. Friend. However, no statement was made on the following Monday. Will he now give me an assurance that the Minister will take rather more notice of what he has to say following the meeting that is to take place tomorrow? May we have a statement on Monday?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot give a guarantee that there will be a statement. However, I am sure that the whole House will be interested in the outcome of Friday's meeting in the hope that it will help to resolve this contentious issue. I shall refer my right hon. Friend to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Now that the industrial action in the National Health Service has come to an end, will my right hon. Friend invite the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a written report to the House setting out, first, the exact cost in terms of deferred operations and longer waiting lists and, secondly, his ideas for the future for some arrangement with the Health Service unions which will prevent industrial action being used against the sick?
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to prevail upon the Home Secretary to bring the new immigration rules before the House as quickly as possible? As a result of the vote that took place in the early hours of the morning, an important and progressive part of the package—to accord to women not born in this country but who have acquired citizens' rights the freedom to have a foreign husband if they so desire—has not been put in the rules. This is an urgent matter to be rectified consistent with the new British Nationality Act. Therefore, it is urgent that the new rules should be put before the House.
Mr. Biffen: After the vote this morning, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear his position under the legislation and that of the Government. I do not think that I can add to that.
Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that quite a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have been seeking copies of the Sobell report on British Rail finance and have been unable
486
to obtain them? Will he ensure that the Sobell report is printed and made available to right hon. and hon. Members?
Mr. Biffen: I shall look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members who have been rising in their places since business questions began in an attempt to catch my eye. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) has risen for the first time following the business statement. I shall call him at the end of questions before we move on to the next item.
Mr. Greville Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an unprecedented number of people in Leicester and elsewhere are facing the Christmas season while haunted by the impossibility of getting work? Does he consider that at least one of the days next week should be devoted to this problem rather than spending two days on the Falklands?
Mr. Biffen: Parliamentary business is always a matter of legitimate claims competing for very scarce resources. I cannot hold out any hope of readjusting next week's business at the expense of the Falkland debates.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of the continuing tragedy in Northern Ireland, will we have a statement before the Christmas Recess on whether the Prime Minister intends to meet the new head of the Irish Government? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it would be most unfortunate if we did not have a statement on Northern Ireland before the House rose, notwithstanding the debate which took place last Friday?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has fairly observed that we had ample opportunity to debate Northern Irish affairs on both Thursday and Friday of last week. However, I shall draw his anxiety to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the resolution that was passed to provide moneys for Opposition parties in Parliament—I stress "Parliament"—as there may have been some encroachments recently? Is he satisfied with the workings of the operation and the provision of the moneys? Are all the moneys being used in the way intended? Are the parameters being observed? Will he ensure that all the members of a party are accountable and as much involved in the distribution of moneys as certain individuals may be currently, especially on the Opposition Front Bench?
Mr. Biffen: That is a fairly formidable request, but I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman says. It will provide some Christmas diversion.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Although I recognise the international nature of the recession, may we have a statement from the Prime Minister and a full debate on the measures that she is promoting and the other measures that should be promoted to end the recession and to put millions of people in the Western world back to work?
Mr. Biffen: The comprehensive policies of Western Governments will conduce to the end that the hon.

487
Gentleman points out. I am not sure whether a statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or by anyone else would add significantly to that.
Mr. James Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are concerned mainly with the unilateral and multilateral disarmament debate? Would it not be appropriate to debate the national civil defence programme when we resume after 17 January?
Mr. Biffen: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point that civil defence is an intricate part of our total defences. Any defence debate, by implication, covers that issue.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is a debate in Government time early in the new year on the multi-fibre arrangement? The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is a highly complicated and technical matter, but it is of great concern to the textile industry and should be debated urgently.
I endorse the request of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for a debate on cruise missiles. There has been no satisfactory supervision of the installation of American nuclear bases in Britain since the agreement between Truman and Attlee in 1951, which has not been endorsed or even debated by the House of Commons.
Mr. Biffen: I cannot helpfully add to my answer to the Leader of the Opposition about nuclear defence. Without wishing to commit myself, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I remain sympathetic to the general prospect of a debate on trade, including the multi-fibre arrangement.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Given the appallingly high unemployment on Merseyside and the fact that, even if there is an upturn in the economy, its problems will not be resolved—there are 5,000 19-year-olds unemployed today who left school in the year that the Government came to office and who have never had a job, and that figure is more than three times the population of the Falkland Islands—may we have half of one of the two days allocated next week to discussing the economic prospects of the Falkland Islands to discuss instead the Government's proposals for the industrial regeneration of Merseyside?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot accommodate the hon. Gentleman's request.

Christmas Adjournment Debate
Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 23 December, up to nine hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Rate Support Grant Settlement
3.53 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the rate support grant settlement in England.
In my statement to the House on 27 July I set out proposals for the main elements of the rate support grant settlement for 1983–84. I have today tabled the main RSG report. I am placing in the Library copies of the detailed material being sent to local authorities today.
The Government have three main objectives. The overriding one is to achieve further real reductions in local authorities' current expenditure. We must also recognise the efforts that most authorities have made to find economies and we must increase the incentive for all authorities to spend at target, by increasing the grant pressure on the high spenders.
As well as the main report for 1983–84, I have also tabled today the first supplementary report for 1982–83. The main effect of this report is to reduce block grant to authorities budgeting to overspend both their target and grant-related expenditure assessment. The holdback for 1982–83 amounts to £308 million. Authorities were warned about the holdback scheme before they drew up their budgets, and they took their decisions in that knowledge. This report implements the scheme. It also adjusts relevant expenditure and grant to reflect a number of changes, mainly in the usual variable items caused by interest rate changes.
I turn now to the main report for 1983–84. The current expenditure provision is £19·7 billion. It is about 3 per cent. more than the equivalent figure in authorities' budgets this year. The aggregate Exchequer grant is £11·8 billion or 53 per cent. Although the percentage is lower, the grant is about £300 billion higher in cash—almost 3 per cent.—than in last year's settlement. There are no major changes to the methodology of grant-related expenditure assessment. Some useful improvements have been made, including the 1981 census data, in consultation with local government. There are no changes in the main grant distribution mechanisms. The distribution of block grant between classes of authority is similar to that of last year.
I am now confirming the expenditure targets for all authorities. Since July inflation has fallen and interest rates have dropped, but I have not reduced the targets that I announced then to reflect that. A few targets have been raised following minor changes to the methodology. None has been reduced. Most low-spending authorities and those that have complied with this year's guidelines are given targets that allow a 4 per cent. cash increase over their budget this year. Usually, authorities spend less than they budget for. In those cases the new target will be a small increase beyond 4 per cent. over actual spending this year. In the light of the current economic trends it is fair, and it rewards efforts to economise.
By contrast, the target for most overspenders represents a 1 per cent. cash cut from their budget this year. That is tough, but rightly so, because those authorities have made no real effort to reduce spending so far, and their scope for reductions is greatest. I believe that most local authorities will act responsibly and will plan to hit their targets. This year and last, two-thirds of authorities budgeted to avoid grant holdback, but we also know that a less responsible

489
minority exists. Pressure must therefore be increased on the highest spenders. The grant holdback scheme achieves that. For each of the first two percentage points of spending above target there will be a loss of grant worth a 1p rate at ratepayer level. For each subsequent percentage point of overspending, there will be a loss of grant worth a 5p rate. This will help authorities which narrowly fail, but it becomes increasingly severe for overspending at all levels above 2 per cent. For the first time since 1945, current expenditure by local government has been shifted to a downward trend, and this settlement builds on that.
We have not yet achieved the rate of reduction for which we originally asked when we took office. We have made a start, especially with manpower. Local authorities have now reduced manpower by about 5 per cent. since 1979. The Manpower Watch figures also published today show that we are back to the level of 1972. We have eliminated the growth in manpower that followed reorganisation.
The issue here is not the creation of unemployment, but the reverse. High rates have forced the wealth-creators in our society to reduce staff in order to maintain jobs in local government. Any objective survey of a proper cross-section of authorities will show that, as a result of this settlement, rate increases next year should for most authorities be nil or in low single figures. If authorities spend at target, in many cases rates could actually be reduced. That is the prize offered by this settlement. There is no excuse for overspending this year. Authorities have had more notice than ever before. In the overwhelming majority of cases ratepayers will know that excessive rate increases are the result of excessive spending by their authority.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is the Secretary of State aware that, with one exception—the penal holdback formula—his statement today tells us almost nothing more than he said in his initial statement in July, which, as usual, contained material that deliberately distorted the truth?
Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore now tell us the following facts? First, what is his revised figure for relevant expenditure? Secondly, may we assume that he has not changed the angle of the taper? Thirdly, has he decided to include within targets surpluses transferred from housing revenue account to general rate fund and interest on capital receipts? Fourthly, will he confirm that there is no grant-related expenditure assessment exemption for what he calls overspenders? Fifthly, and possibly most importantly, will he tell the House the figure that he assumes for holdback for 1983–84?
The Secretary of State says that his targets are fair and that only what he calls overspenders need worry about those targets. How can he square that misstatement with the indictment by Mr. John Horrell, the Conservative chairman of the Conservative-controlled Association of County Councils, that
"the targets for next year require reductions in services beyond those which are likely to be acceptable to members of the public in the areas we serve"?
Mr. Horrell, the Conservative chairman of the Conservative-controlled ACC, also said that
490
"central government have set unrealistic targets which are not seen to be fair even by those who are anxious to play their part in supporting the Government in their economic strategies".
The Secretary of State has concealed the real reduction in rate support grant. Is it not a fact that his announcement cuts rate support grant for the forthcoming financial year in real terms by £250 million? Is it not also a fact that the reduction since he took office, from 61 to 53 per cent. of relevant expenditure, has cut rate support grant by £1,800 million, and that that is a 25p in the pound rate increase for every domestic ratepayer? Is it not a fact that his penalties so far, in addition to that reduction in the rate support grant of £700 million, have increased the additional rate burden for every domestic ratepayer, since he took office, by 35p in the pound?
Is it not therefore the Secretary of State who is responsible for the intolerable additional rate burden for domestic ratepayers? Is it not he who is damaging industry and commerce, those whom he calls the wealth-creators, by forcing up rates so steeply? In the light of his rate increases, is not his phoney and misleading talk about nil or low single-figure rate increases a sick joke?
The Secretary of State is personally responsible for destroying basic services and causing heavy unemployment in local authorities. What is more, as local authorities spend billions of pounds every year on purchases from private industry, he is causing massive unemployment in the private sector as well. The Secretary of State is the grim reaper of local government. He is killing local services, and thousands of councillors and millions of ratepayers will never forgive him.
Mr. Heseltine: I realise that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) finds it necessary to make these assertions, which are ill-founded, as one realises when one considers the reality behind them. The clearest demonstration of who is responsible for high rate increases is to be found in the results of all the shire counties in the current year. Conservative-controlled counties increased their rates by 12 per cent. "Other-controlled" counties increased their rates by 21 per cent. Labour-controlled counties increased their rates by 31 per cent. Those authorities were all running the same services in broadly the same circumstances, yet where there is Labour control the rate increases are three times as much as where there is Conservative control. That clearly shows where the responsibility lies, and no other evidence is necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a long list of questions and I shall do my best to answer those that I managed to note down. First, the tapers are reflected, as he knows, by the various multipliers that are necessary to inject the holdback scheme into the distribution system. The rate at which that bears on any authority is a matter that each authority must decide for itself.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the transfer of housing surpluses. He knows that last year we did not do that, and we do not intend to do it this year.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the exemption below GREA. There is no proposal for a below GREA exemption this year, because we believe that setting targets 4 per cent. above those authorities which had expenditure below GREA last year is a sufficient recognition of the inflationary pressures which they face, and they should be able to operate within that expenditure.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about holdback and the assumptions. We hope that there will be no holdback. It

491
is a matter of the judgments reached by individual authorities, and the best information that I have—at this stage it has to be informal—is that a significant number of authorities are already determined to accept that budget at levels which will not incur holdback and will lead to moderate rate increases.
Perhaps the House will bear with me if I give one example. I note that the right hon. Gentleman gave no examples. He suggested that I was responsible for decimating the services. I have no hesitation in giving the example of Birmingham. Birmingham renegotiated the costs of collecting its refuse disposal with its own workpeople. In a year, it secured savings of £3 million, and its own workpeople are prepared to carry out work currently done by 700 people with 262 fewer people. If that does not show that the same achievements and results can be obtained with much lower expenditure, I do not know what does.
Mr. John H. Osborn: In the debate two days ago my right hon. Friend and I agreed that South Yorkshire and Sheffield were high spenders. Will he confirm the consequences on rate levels there? Is my right hon. Friend aware that citizens in the Hallam constituency who have larger houses and flats have a high rate burden to bear? Commerce, industry and business cannot face any higher rate burdens. What pressure can he put on the local authority to relieve industry of the intolerable burden, which will cause rising unemployment and its collapse? The local authority is not considered sufficiently responsible by many of its citizens. Can he help to bring about an agreement so that the burden does not fall on industry and other commercial activity?
Mr. Heseltine: I have nothing but sympathy for the problems faced by my hon. Friend and his electors in Sheffield and in the metropolitan county of South Yorkshire. I have set reasonable targets which I believe they should try to achieve. If they do that, there will be low or modest rate increases. If they do not, the only sanction that is available is the democratic sanction, and that will be manifested, because people will prove to be as indignant this year as they were last year about the substantial and avoidable rate increases of some authorities to which my hon. Friend draws attention.
Mr. Stephen Ross: As the Secretary of State expressed some sympathy with councillors who have to operate under the schemes which he keeps introducing, switching and changing, almost week to week, is he aware that his statement today comes as no surprise and that it is probable that most authorities will get within their targets, although at a cost to services?
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me—he would not do so the other day, when he threw it back in my face—that in the six Liberal authorities in this country the average rate increase is not more than about 10 per cent.—the highest is Liverpool—and most of them are under 12 per cent.? Does he realise that his continual attacks on local government generally, and his constant references to nil increases, and possibly even reductions, are at best naive, and at worst totally dishonest? In fact, he has cut Government support by 3·1 per cent., and he has given no recompense for inflation. It is now becoming almost impossible for people serving in local government,
492
who want to comply with Government policy if they possibly can, to provide the services which the country needs and which most people want.
Mr. Heseltine: I am not altogether certain how the hon. Gentleman can square the assumption that I am constantly switching and changing when he then says that I have changed nothing since July when I made the original announcements. As the hon. Gentleman will know, local government warmly welcomed the earlier announcements that we made this year to give them certainty and plenty of notice about the targets that we expected.
The hon. Gentleman's views about the reductions in services that are taking place do not accord with my experience that where authorities have had to try seriously to find additional value for money in the public sector—as the private sector is being forced to do by recessional pressures—they have been able to do so, to the greater advantage of their ratepayers.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Is it not clear that the Government are doing serious damage to industry and employment by forcing up local authority rates on this scale?
Mr. Heseltine: The serious damage is being done by those who take the decisions about the rate levels. They are largely Labour-controlled authorities in urban areas.
Sir Angus Maude: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, without seeing the detailed figures, it is difficult to know whether this settlement will significantly help authorities such as Warwickshire which have continually underspent and tried to keep their expenditure to a minimum and yet have consistently suffered at nearly every settlement, while other authorities consistently overspend? Can he assure the House that this settlement will bring some relief to those hard-pressed authorities?
Mr. Heseltine: I am sympathetic to the sort of authority to which my right hon. Friend refers. From memory, without going through the detailed and complex figures, I think he will find that Warwickshire has a 4 per cent. increase in its cash targets for next year compared with this year. While I realise that it will require tough management to stay within those figures, if it does it will lead to relatively low rate increases and I believe that, with its tradition, it will make every endeavour so to do.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Is the Minister aware that, despite his well-known insensitivity, his statement is punitive and vindictive and will undoubtedly inflame the whole situation? Is he further aware that a pack of nonsense is talked by him in that statement? The reality is that in Labour areas where the rates are high, such as Sheffield, about which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) has just spoken—the rich area in which he has a pied-a-terre, whereas I live there—people vote by increasing majorities year by year for the same Labour Government, which is accused of putting up the rates. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, because he is the grim reaper, who will go down in the history of local government as its destroyer, it is his parsimony and vindictiveness that are forcing us to put rates up against our will in order to provide proper services for our people? It is not true that firms have left Sheffield as a result.
Mr. Heseltine: There are Labour authorities which will achieve the Government's targets and set low rate increases. I can see no justification whatever for taking grant away from them in order to finance the ever-increasing expenditure by the authorities to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must inform the House that if questions are not briefer I shall have to call fewer hon. Members. As it is, I shall not be able to call everyone. The briefer the questions, the more hon. Members I shall be able to call.
Mr. Tony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the falling rate of inflation and the downward trend of interest rates will help local government considerably at present and should keep rates low?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. Since I made my statement in July, £200 million worth of resources have become available as a result of that factor alone. I was faced with the prospect of reducing the targets to reflect that position, but the Government took the view that they would not have increased targets if events had gone the other way. Therefore, it would have been quite wrong to take advantage of those circumstances when it suited the Government so to do.
Mr. Christopher Price: Is the Minister aware that when he made a favourable comparison between the spending of the shire counties and the metropolitan districts, at the same time Her Majesty's inspectors of schools, who judge standards covering about half the home expenditure in local government, made exactly the opposite comparison in expressing worry about provision in certain shire counties while praising that in metropolitan districts? Is he now saying that the Conservative Party, which came to office saying that it would raise standards, is recommending that educational standards should be reduced?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we now have one of the best pupil-teacher ratios that we have had for many years. He will be aware to a greater extent than I am, because I do not have responsibility for the specific services to which he refers, that while considerable anxiety is expressed by Her Majesty's inspectors about schools across the country, the fact is that a great deal of it is based upon their professional judgment. They are doing their best to raise those standards, which is not always immediately transferable into the need for more cash.
Mr. John Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State accept that, when he talks about the increasing pressure on those authorities which he dubs in an arbitrary way as overspenders, he is penalising, not the local councils which he regards as guilty of overspending, but the poor unfortunate ratepayers who have to pick up the bill? Is not his settlement today another step in that process of transferring financial responsibility for local services from central taxation to an already over-stretched local rate system?
Mr. Heseltine: I should be the first to say that where councillors do not take decisions to find expenditure patterns within our target, it is the ratepayers who suffer.
494
However, it is those ratepayers who feature prominently among the local electorate which elects those councillors. If we are to have a system of local democracy, it must be with responsibility.
Mr. Neil Thorne: My right hon. Friend has heard concern expressed from both sides of the House about the effects of increasing rate levels upon businesses and employment prospects. He has also heard at least one Labour Member say that domestic ratepayers in some areas continue to vote in authorities which believe in high expenditure. As the taxpayer is left to pick up the substantial unemployment benefit bill, will my right hon. Friend consider some method of limiting the amount of rates that can be levied upon the non-domestic ratepayer who has no vote and therefore reduce the number of businesses that are likely to go out of operation as a result?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that point, which has been put to the Government in the process of consultation on the reform of domestic rates. One of the consequences of taking the step that he proposes is that a heavier burden would fall on the domestic ratepayer, which the Government would be reluctant to see happen.
Mr. Reginald Freeson: Will the settlement to which the statement refers increase Government resources going to areas of greatest deprivation, such as the partnership and programme authorities, the designated inner urban area authorities and areas of special rural deprivation? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House to what extent the capital receipts of about £1,500 million that local authorities have in hand are to be used, according to the calculations of the working party with which he has been involved, to reduce loan charges and thereby reduce rate burdens for local authorities?
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that the extent to which capital receipts are used to earn interest charges which offset the current expenditure target is a matter for each local authority. It is impossible for us to forecast what each local authority will do. The answer to that question is similar to the estimates for which the right hon. Gentleman has asked in respect of the urban partnership and programme authorities. The grant that each of those authorities will get will depend upon the decisions that they have yet to take about their expenditure levels. I can help the right hon. Gentleman by saying that if authorities within the programme and partnership areas budget according to the target, they will receive the highest proportion of grant that they have received in the past three years.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call three more hon. Members from either side and then to move on to the Standing Order No. 9 application.
Mr. David Madel: As it is assumed that local authorities must take action over surplus school places caused by falling rolls or face withdrawal of grant, does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the Manpower Services Commission is now taking new initiatives in education, local authorities should have urgent talks to see what help the MSC can give over the problem of surplus school places, rather than wait until they possibly collide with his Department?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for inviting me down the education road. He will understand if I resist. However, he will have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is in his place. It is perhaps therefore the case that the message has reached the appropriate quarter.
Mr. Stanley Newens: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the present method of determining grants is grossly unfair to areas faced with increases in population, such as Essex, which are Conservative controlled? Will he recognise that it is his policies that are putting the increased burden of extra rates on such authorities, which are seeking to keep in existence a minimum of services? Is he aware that those services are not provided on a level that many Labour Members desire?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Essex has received as favourable treatment under our targets as any authority, with an extra 4 per cent. cash above its budget. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that we have fed the 1981 population statistics into the GREA mechanism.
Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations for continuing the squeeze on high-spending Labour-controlled local authorities such as Humberside, where industry has been driven into the ground? Does he accept that district authorities in my constituency, such as East Yorkshire and Holderness, are in an embarrassing situation? They keep within the guidelines, but have to levy a rate which includes a large precept. Is my right hon. Friend aware that electoral pressure is, unfortunately, applied to the wrong council? If high-spending councillors do not desist, will my right hon. Friend consider abolishing the precept system?
Mr. Heseltine: I am immensely sympathetic to the point raised by my hon. Friend. It is difficult for local electors and ratepayers, who pay only one bill levied by the district authority, to know the origins of the bill. I have had to consider this, and I am continuing to do so, in consultations on the reform of the domestic rating system. My reading of the local press convinces me that electors, in the end, have a pretty clear understanding of where the ultimate decisions are being taken.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's statement show that the Government's tactic is to inflict the most painful cuts through an
496
unwilling agent, the local authority, which thereby gets the blame? Did not the Secretary of State refer to street cleaning and refuse disposal? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—I do not think he is—that I live in the North at the weekend but that during the week I live in Wandsworth? I have never seen such dirty streets in all my life as I have since privatisation.
Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is an authority on these matters. The Wandsworth authority has secured savings over the contract period estimated at £1·65 million. There was a high volume of complaints before the transfer to the private sector. At the moment the private sector is beginning to build its way into the system and the new opportunities that exist.
Mr. Christopher Murphy: Following representations by Conservative Members and myself representing Hertfordshire, will my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied that the rate support grant settlement will protect education standards in that county?
Mr. Heseltine: This has to be a judgment exercised by the individual authority. It is the essence of the manner in which the rate support grant is distributed, under the present system as under the previous system, that the grant is distributed according to national formulae and national rules. Each local authority then makes up its own mind on its various service priorities.
Mr. Kenneth Marks: Is it not the case that included in the rate support grant report is the transport supplementary grant? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Transport has made his announcement in a written answer to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who has shown his interest by being absent? Will the House have the opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Transport? Has the Secretary of State for the Environment considered the effect on the lives of people in inner cities of the judgment of the Secretary of State for Transport on bus subsidies?
Mr. Heseltine: The specific questions that the hon. Gentleman wishes to put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport are at his discretion. The hon. Gentleman has the opportunities available to every hon. Member to question the Minister in many appropriate forms. The guidelines that my right hon. Friend has issued are compatible with a reasonable level of service in the areas concerned.

West Coast Stevedoring Company
4.24 pm
Mr. Robert Parry: 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 of the West Coast Stevedoring Company to cease operations in the port of Liverpool at the end of this month, causing further unemployment on Merseyside and the redeployment of registered dock workers and placing further financial burdens on the Merseyside Docks and Harbour Company."
The matter is specific. It means that 55 ancillary workers will have to seek other jobs. Also, 275 registered dock workers will have to be relocated with other companies within the port under the Jones-Aldington agreement. It will mean deploying 186 to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. The dock company, at Government insistence, has recently given severance payments to thousands of dock workers. Only yesterday, in reply to a planted question, the Government stated clearly that there will be no further grants to the port of Liverpool after the end of this year.
The matter is important. One of the major reasons given by the company for the decision is the adverse effects caused to the company's trading by the Falklands crisis earlier this year. The Export Credits Guarantee Department, a Government agency, has started to meet claims by companies affected by the economic sanctions taken against Argentina.
The matter is urgent. If the company has made an application to the Government and that application has been considered, there is need for a debate. The company is owned by that super tax fiddler, Lord Vestey. Although his company may not need the money, we in Liverpool badly need the jobs.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the points that I have outlined you will grant my application.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing
"the decision of the West Coast Stevedoring Company to cease operations in the port of Liverpool at the end of this month, causing further unemployment on Merseyside and the redeployment of registered dock workers and placing further financial burdens on the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company."
The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a very serious matter. It is not for me to estimate the seriousness of what he has stated. He knows that I do not decide whether the House will debate the matter. I merely decide whether there should be an emergency debate.
Having listened with great care to the hon. Gentleman, and taking into account all the several factors set out in the order, I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Select Committee on Welsh Affairs
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to seek your ruling and guidance on the procedures and actions of Members of Select Committees.
Yesterday morning, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs met to consider a draft report on water in Wales, a subject that it has been considering for the past 12 months. Part of the draft report criticised the actions and the attitudes of the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Office. We discussed a proposal to postpone publication of this document. There appeared to be nothing sinister in anyone's attitudes or motives to accept the proposal. The only objection was raised by the Chairman who had hoped for progress—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot complain about the Chairman of a Select Committee or the conduct of the Select Committee unless he places a motion on the Order Paper. It is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Powell: I am not criticising the Chairman of the Select Committee in any way. I am seeking your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the actions that were taken subsequent to the decision of the Select Committee.
Mr. Speaker: I am unable to rule on anything to do with a Committee that has not reported to the House. Until it has done so, the Committee is in charge of its own affairs. The hon. Gentleman should raise the point within the Select Committee. I am not an appeal court against what is going on in a Select Committee.

Fair Wages Resolution
Mr. Speaker: I have selected amendment (d) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
4.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I beg to move,
That the Resolution of this House of 14 October 1946 relating to Fair Wages Clauses in Government contracts be rescinded as from 21 September 1983.
Before discussing the fair wages resolution, I wish to deal with the quite extraordinary complaint from the Leader of the Opposition that there has been inadequate consultation on this issue. The process of consultation began more than three years so, in 1979, when the Government sought the views of interested parties by issuing a working paper.
In May of this year, six months ago, I wrote to the CBI and to the TUC indicating my intention to rescind the fair wages resolution and to denounce the related ILO convention 94. At the same time my Department asked 50 other bodies for their views, and we asked for all those comments by the end of June, five and a half months ago. The TUC replied on 5 July—a little late, but no matter—when Mr. Murray wrote saying that the
"General Council have now considered the proposed abolition"
of these measures and recorded their explicit opposition to the abolition of the fair wages resolution and the denunciation of the ILO convention. The Government considered these representations, and indicated in a written answer at the end of July, four and a half months ago, that the Government intended after the Summer Recess to denounce the convention and to invite the House to rescind the resolution. On 20 September, three months ago, we duly denounced the convention, a denunciation which hon. Members should remember can arise only during specified periods once in every 10 years.
I was therefore somewhat surprised when on 15 October the TUC wrote complaining that it had not been consulted on the denunciation, in spite of the fact that I had written to it in May, received its comments in July, publicly announced my intention to proceed later that month and had acted to denounce the convention in September. The TUC at no time asked to see me, nor did it request further time for consultation. I am at a loss to explain this sudden outburst of indignation about the lack of consultation. I suspect that at the root of this is a belief in the TUC that consultation means a right of veto. That I cannot accept.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment—I congratulate him on his appointment as Chairman—asked for today's debate to be postponed so that his Committee could have time to inquire into this issue. His Committee had plenty of time to raise it over the past six months. Indeed, although I have enjoyed a constructive relationship with the Committee, I had not formed the impression that it had any intention of considering the matter in its future work programme.
At the end of November, I confirmed to the House by oral answer that the motion to rescind the resolution would be put to the House this Session. The motion was duly tabled on 7 December. It was only after that motion was tabled that I received a letter from the new Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment asking me to reconsider the issue before it went to the House.
500
I hope that the Chairman of the Committee and his colleagues will acquit me of any lack of consultation or, indeed, of any discourtesy to the Committee. I believe that the record shows that the Government have been as open and frank about their intentions as possible and have provided every opportunity for consultation by interested parties. I cannot accept the blame if any of those interested parties failed to take advantage of the opportunities that were open to them for many months. That is why the Opposition amendment on consultation is particularly spurious. The demands made are calculated to be impossible to meet.
Mr. Eric G. Varley: The Secretary of State has given part of the story. It is true that in May last year the Minister wrote to various people asking for comments, including the TUC. As I understand the position, the TUC replied on 5 July. With the reply was attached a summary of its objections. Almost immediately after that the Secretary of State announced that he would rescind the resolution in spite of that written representation. He announced that fact to the House just before the Summer Recess.
Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the obligation to consult under the ILO convention can be satisfied by a perfunctory exchange of correspondence? Bearing in mind that he does not have to take action on this matter before September 1983, would it not have been in his own interest, and in the interest of the House, that he should have consulted the TUC properly, not by an exchange of correspondence but by asking it to explain what it meant, bearing in mind the damaging impact this would have on industry?
Mr. Tebbit: I find that a most curious series of remarks by the right hon. Gentleman. Later I shall refer to the Labour Government's record on consultation and on the important matter of employment legislation. He will see that I have been more than generous in the time allowed. I have heard what he has said about the exchange of letters. I do not know what he imagines I could have done other than to ask the TUC for its views, to receive its views and to consider them.
Had the TUC felt it necessary or desirable to come and see me, it need only have asked and I would have been willing to receive it. That was made plain on many occasions, but it has rarely taken advantage of that invitation.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot talk his way out of the fact that from the end of July, when my decision was announced, nothing was done by himself or his colleagues until almost the eve of this debate. They have had many months in which to take action. For them now to put down an amendment suggesting that this matter should be the subject of a consultative document to be sent to all those affected by any change in the resolution, and that the outcome of such consultation should be reported to the House before any change is proposed, is ridiculous.
Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that the document should be sent to all those affected by such a change, including every individual whose company could be involved in accepting a Government contract? That is what the amendment says. It is not my fault if the amendment does not say what it means. We must accept what is written on the Order Paper, not what the Opposition Whip chooses to mutter about it. The demands are calculated to

501
be impossible to be met. There is no reason in logic to believe that consultations over another six months would produce anything more than we have had from the consultations over the past six months.
The only credible reason for the amendment and the Opposition's great show of indignation must be that they have realised that both the TUC and the Labour Party have dozed away for the last six months, failed to use the time available and now want to put the blame for their lethargy on me.
The Leader of the Opposition complained during last week's business questions about a lack of proper consultation. But there is another complaint—that of a very poor memory. I am surprised at just how bad it is. I am even more surprised that the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), who is not normally a slouch in these matters, did not remind the right hon. Gentleman about his record, especially as they were ministerial colleagues at the Department of Employment in the Labour Government. What did they consider to be the relevant periods for consultations?
What about the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974? No single clause Bill or resolution that! The then Labour Government published a consultative document on 22 March 1974, sought views within a fortnight, by 5 April 1974, and in less than six weeks, on 1 May 1974, presented a Bill to Parliament. It is doubtful whether the ink had dried on the consultative document. However, the TUC did not complain about that. A fortnight was enough for the TUC, and the Government thought that it was enough for everyone else.
What of the Employment Protection Act and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act? That is another pair of infamous strands in the Opposition's industrial relations policy. A consultative document was published on 13 September 1974, views were sought by 1 November—six whole weeks in which to respond, predominantly over the Summer Recess—and three weeks later, on 21 November 1974, they presented a Bill to the House. One suspects that that Bill must have been drafted, ready, printed and lined up before the farce of consultation had started. The TUC did not complain then.
Mr. Harold Walker rose—
Mr. Tebbit: I am willing to let the right hon. Gentleman intervene to excuse his record.
Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the essential purpose of both the 1974 and 1976 Acts was to repeal the Industrial Relations Act 1971. During the Second Reading of the Industrial Relations Bill, as it then was, a solemn pledge was given that as soon as the Labour Party was returned to office it would wipe the Industrial Relations Act 1971 off the statute book. Three years' notice was given, and during that time almost every Labour Member campaigned throughout Britain telling the country that we would repeal the Industrial Relations Act.
Mr. Tebbit: Three years is just about the same as the period since 1979 when the Government first started consultations on this fair wages resolution. If the right hon. Gentleman's intervention means anything at all, it is that he accepts that the period we have offered for consultation is entirely adequate on his own standards.
Mr. Walker: Did not the now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, during the passage of the Employment Act 1980, assure the House and the country that the Conservative Government had exhausted their zeal for reform following the consultative paper?
Mr. Tebbit: I am not sure. I was not in the House at the time my right hon. Friend made those remarks. However, no hon. Member should have assumed that, when my right hon. Friend referred to a step-by-step approach in industrial relations reform, he meant that he would take only one step. Indeed, it was plain from what he said in 1979 that that was not his intention.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the right hon. Gentleman claiming that the Conservative Party clearly explained in its election manifesto that it would abolish the fair wages resolution?
Mr. Tebbit: I am saying that there has been no lack of time for consultation on this issue, and that that consultation was initiated when the Government came to office. The question now at issue is whether the consultation period has been adequate. I have demonstrated that in every conceivable manner the time for consultation has not only been adequate but more generous than the time allotted by the Labour Government in respect of highly contentious legislation.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State has just passed me a piece of paper which reminds me that in May 1980 the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) was told by the then Under-Secretary of State in a written reply:
"The Government will be reviewing the Fair Wages Resolution in the light of debate on clause 18(c) of the Employment Bill, which proposes to repeal schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975. A statement will be made in due course."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 299.]
Mr. Harold Walker: But he took no further action.
Mr. Tebbit: On the contrary, no such undertaking has ever been given, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that that is so. On 26 January 1981, a similar reply was given by my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment. Therefore, there is nothing of merit in this fandango of indignation about lack of consultation.
Mr. John Grant: I am sure that all these dates are of some importance, but it is difficult to see how important they will be to the low-paid workers who will be affected by today's action. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear-cut assurance that what he is now proposing is not the forerunner of an all-out attack on the wages council system and that it does not herald an attempt by the Government to abolish that system?
Mr. Tebbit: I felt that I should first deal with consultation. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman such an undertaking. This matter is a long way off in any case, because it would not be possible to renounce the convention relating to wages councils until 1985. It would better if we considered such matters a little nearer the date. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if we decide to make changes we shall give adequate time for consultation.
Mr. James Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest criticisms of the wages councils is that they create a form of unemployment? They can automatically gear up wages irrespective of the rate of inflation. Frankly, I have had so

503
many complaints about the wages councils' minimum that in the short term the Government should seriously consider their abolition.
Mr. Tebbit: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but he must not tempt me to stray from today's debate and to discuss matters that might conceivably arise at a later time.
Today, after this extensive and prolonged consultation, the House is debating a single issue—the demise of an outdated resolution that affects the employees only of those firms that perform contracts for Government Departments. When I compare the opportunity that we have given for consultation on this narrow issue with that given by the Labour Government for consideration and discussion of much wider measures, I reject not only their criticisms but their amendment.
Mr. Leighton: The Secretary of State says that this is a narrow issue, but does he not agree that the Government are the biggest employer?
Mr. Tebbit: The Government are certainly the biggest single employer, but that is not by any means solely due to the contracts that they place, which is what the resolution is about. I suspect that if all local authorities were put together the hon. Member would find that they would make a much larger employer than central Government, but the resolution does not apply to local government.
The TUC and Mr. Basnett, in particular, have joined in some of these protests, and I suspect that they originated them. What Mr. Basnett wants today is just what he wanted when he fought the winter war of 1978–79 against the Labour Government—nothing more nor less than unconditional surrender.
At such moments, I have the deepest sympathy for the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) who was toppled by the winter of discontent, and for the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and Lady Castle who were attempting to replace conflict with institutionalised consultation through the White Paper "In Place of Strife". The unions killed that and destroyed the Wilson Government along with it. So much for Mr. Basnett's ideas of "pluralistic democracy" and "agreed consensus".
The Government are happy to debate, discuss and consult, because we believe in a parliamentary democracy and the exercise of that authority in the public good. The Government will not succumb to the insatiable demand for consultation designed solely to pursue a narrow sectional interest and to frustrate the will of Parliament.
Mr. David Penhaligon: As someone who has always been in Opposition, I know what consultation with Government means. The Minister has been speaking for 21 minutes, but he has not mentioned the motion or given a single reason or even a hint as to why he is promoting this legislation. The resolution is vital in some parts of the country, and I should appreciate a few reasons why the Minister is doing what he is.
Mr. Tebbit: Like every other right hon. and hon. Member to whom I have given way, as I always try to do, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) is preventing me from getting to that point.
The resolution is the last of three such resolutions originally concerned with sweated labour conditions in the nineteenth century. In 1946 the Conservative Party
504
supported that resolution, but one has only to read the official records of the day to see that times have changed considerably in the intervening 36 years. I took the trouble to examine the official records of the time and hon. Members may extract as much interest as I did not only from the debate but from looking at some of the written questions in the Official Report. They are concerned with such things as a request that the Government should
"remove the restriction which limits the number of gift food-parcels from well-wishers overseas that may be received by any one person in this country in any month."—[Official Report, 14 October 1946; Vol. 427, c. 125.]
There are questions about the shortage of perambulators and the condition of utility furniture. A good deal has changed in the past 36 years.
Because of this resolution, there is a procedure concerning terms and conditions of employment which can be imposed on an employer regardless of his consent, and he is effectively bound by the outcome whether he likes it or not. While the fair wages resolution is in force, all Government contracts are required to include a standard condition calling upon a contractor to observe the terms of the resolution. These have two main components. First, contractors are required to observe terms and conditions of employment
"established for the trade or industry in the district by representative joint negotiating machinery or arbitration".
Secondly, in the absence of such established terms, contractors must observe terms no less favourable than the
"general level … observed by other employers"
whose general circumstances in the trade or industry are similar. Questions arising under the resolution are first referred to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service for conciliation and, if this is unsuccessful, to the Central Arbitration Committee for decision. The latter's awards are not directly enforceable at law, but contractors are expected to comply with the terms of any award made.
The resolution also contains a number of other minor provisions. The most important, clause 4, provides that contractors must recognise the freedom of their work people to be members of trade unions. That general freedom to belong to a trade union has now been embodied in statute—the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978—and is not of course in any way dependent upon the continued existence of the resolution.
In addition to the resolution itself, there are four Acts that refer to it—the Housing Act 1957, the Films Act 1960, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973. They do so in such a way that the relevant provisions would cease to have effect with the rescission of the resolution.
I earlier reminded the House that the Government undertook to review the fair wages resolution in the light of the repeal of schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975.
Mr. Leighton: And other legislation.
Mr. Tebbit: No, we are not amending any other legislation.
The essential difference between that schedule and the fair wages resolution was one of scope—the schedule applied across the whole of industry, whereas the resolution relates only to public contracts. Otherwise they were virtually identical in principle and substance. Schedule 11, like the resolution, was an artificial mechanism through which an employer could be required to observe certain terms of conditions of employment,

505
regardless of whether he was a party to their establishment or was in a position to provide them. The arguments that so clearly justified repeal of the schedule in 1980 apply with equal force to the resolution.
Pay and conditions of employment are matters to be determined by negotiations between the parties concerned in the light of their individual circumstances. This a cardinal principle of our system.
I understand, and my understanding is reinforced by the drawing in of breath among Members on the Opposition Front Bench, that that is no longer a principle to which the Opposition adhere. Certainly it is no longer a principle to which all the members of the SDP-Liberal alliance adhere. I understand that one wing of the alliance, led by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), now believes in control of these matters by law. I am told that many members of the Labour Party are what the Americans call "closet" income policy believers. They dare not quite own up to it in public, although they hint at it and go away to closed rooms to talk about it.
In our view, it is wrong to expect employers and employees to reach responsible settlements and at the same time make such settlements vulnerable to this kind of external interference. One cannot have, on the one hand, a commitment to agreed bargaining arrangements and, on the other a measure such as the resolution, which provides for third, party interference to be imposed in this way. The two are incompatible. That is not to say that arbitration arrangements can have no place in settling differences between employers and employees. They certainly can have a place where the parties concerned agree to them.
It is sometimes said that the resolution is important as a means of underpinning sound industry-wide agreements, which is a very curious argument. Realistic and sensible agreements need no crutches or other artificial means of support. Agreements should stand on their own merits. There is no case for imposing any agreement on those who are not parties to them and who may have very different circumstances. A pay level which takes account of the productivity, efficiency, profitability, market prospects and investment of one firm may be totally inappropriate to the circumstances of another firm. The fact that they make the same product is an irrelevant argument, Abitrarily to impose common pay levels in such circumstances as the application of the resolution does serves only to impede competitiveness and destroy jobs.
The resolution procedure can cause harm in other ways. Existing pay structures may be undermined in the firms affected by an award. Awards under the resolution are made in respect of specific categories of workers, without regard to the effect this has on the overall pay structure of the firm or industry concerned. This can produce distortions which lead to pressure from other groups, in the same or even different negotiating structures, for increases to maintain differentials or other relativities. In seeking to resolve one particular issue, awards imposed by an external agency tend to create additional problems.
Mr. Keith Best: I am trying to discover exactly why Opposition Members are so concerned about the rescission of the resolution. No doubt we shall hear about that. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can help me. Is it not a fact that an award made by the Central Arbitration Committee is not enforceable at law? Even if someone has
506
a matter referred to the CAC and it is resolved to his satisfaction, he still does not have legal redress. The only redress is where there is a proper contract for wages or services, as my right Friend said.
Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right. When the resolution is still in force it would be curious if the Government continued to make contracts with a company that behaved in that way.
As I was saying, all that underlines a simple, basic fact of life. Employers and employees should take the responsibility for their own decisions, including their financial consequences.
It is claimed that the resolution ensures fair wages for the low paid. The questions that must be asked are: Does it do so in practice? Does it achieve its objective of protecting the low paid?
From 1946 to 1975 65 claims were made under the fair wages resolution, of which 13—less than one every two years on average—were found to be justified in whole or in part. That handful of cases hardly suggests that the resolution was standing between the oppressed masses and the poverty line during that period.
Mr. Jim Craigen: If it is so irrelevant, why spend all this time proposing the abolition of the fair wages resolution?
Mr. Tebbit: I would have been willing to arrange for the debate to be conducted for an hour after 10 o'clock or for half a day, but the hon. Gentleman's colleagues seemed to think that this was a matter for more fuss.
Mr. Craigen: I am sorry. What I meant was, why should the Government bother to bring the motion before the House?
Mr. Tebbit: Because, as I shall go on to show, not only was the resolution ineffective in doing what it set out to do, but in some cases it was extremely damaging in upsetting other differentials and other negotiating systems.
Mr. John Grant: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the small number of claims. However, he is not taking into account the deterrent value. There is no way of measuring that. The suggestion is that it was considerable over the years.
Mr. Tebbit: I shall come to that point.
Between 1976 and 1979 there was a sudden upsurge in claims to a peak of 570 claims in 1978. Let me hasten to remind the House that I am unwilling to accept any responsibility for the oppression of the low paid during that period. I am not sure whether the Opposition, with their new-found commitment to wage controls, remember that that vast upsurge in claims was a direct result of various incomes policies pursued during those years. Since the Government have restored greater responsibility towards wage negotiations, the House will be pleased to know that the number of claims established in whole or in part under the fair wages resolution has fallen to 10 in 1980, four in 1981 and five so far in 1982.
Therefore, can anyone claim that the resolution has protected the low paid? Again, the answer must be "No". More than 95 per cent. of all claims submitted under the resolution are from major unions such as the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff and the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial

507
Staffs, on behalf of their members in the engineering, shipbuilding and aerospace industries which are not, to my knowledge, traditionally associated with sweated labour.
Two matters in particular concern me about the claims that are made under the resolution. A substantial proportion of the claims presented by unions have nothing to do with low pay. Typical of the claims presented in the past two years are those on behalf of engineers at British Aerospace, then earning between £6,000 and £9,000 a year, staff employees at Rolls-Royce, then earning between £5,600 and £6,700 a year, technical staff at Airtech Limited, then earning between £7,300 and £8,500 a year, and foremen and superintendents at Dunlop, earning between £8,000 and £8,850 a year. Those claims under the resolution do not seem to have much to do with the low-paid. In fact, the low-paid are being used as a battering ram for the benefit of powerfully organised and quite well-paid workers.
The second point that causes me particular concern is that, when claims under the resolution are implemented at lower levels of pay, often the result is to promote redundancies. I know that the Opposition do not like to hear such things, but the direct result of pay awards under the resolution over the past two years has often been to price the poorest-paid out of a job altogether. In the light of that evidence—
Mr. Giles Radice: What evidence?
Mr. Tebbit: The evidence is in the appalling number of people, particularly the low-paid, who have been forced out of work in recent years following the wage explosion. The hon. Gentleman is among those who are keen to point out the loss of competitiveness in British industry.
In the light of that evidence, it is clear that, whatever the merits of the immediate post-war era or the nineteenth century, the resolution's time has now passed. It does not offer salvation to the low-paid and it does nothing to help Britain compete with other countries or to help those without a wage packet to achieve one. Therefore, we are asking the House to rescind the resolution and we have denounced the related International Labour Organisation convention.
Let me remind the House that only 51 countries have ratified the convention, and 95 have not done so because they have had too much sense to get involved. Among our major competitors that have not ratified are the United States of America, West Germany, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Portugal, Greece and Luxembourg. In few of those countries are wages lower than in Britain. Lest Opposition Members feel no sympathy with the views of Western capitalist countries, let me remind them that the entire Eastern bloc has failed to ratify the convention, though to be fair that has not of itself led to workers' paradises in those countries.
There is one area of genuine difference between the Government and Opposition—[Interruption.] I believe in making the case fair and putting the arguments on both sides. We believe in doing away with artificial controls and barriers because they are usually counter-productive. In the end, they do not protect those they are intended to protect. They often do positive damage. That is our view. The Opposition genuinely disagree because they see the way forward as being through planning agreements, bureaucratic controls and Government direction. I
508
recognise that genuine conviction. I disagree with it. It is that fundamental disagreement that separates us on the fair wages resolution.
The Leader of the Opposition has been remarkably frank about the society that he would like to build. Perhaps I can best explain why we oppose the resolution by explaining why we disagree with his objectives. He was asked recently in an American interview that was reported in The Guardian what example he took as a model for his desired society. He replied:
"the best example that I have seen of democratic socialism operating in this country was during the Second World War."
Since then the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has joined the Second World War nostalgia club by saying that if the Labour Party wins the next general election it will place the country on a war time footing, as the Walthamstow Guardian reported on 10 December.
Mr. Leighton: What has the Walthamstow Guardian got to do with my right hon. Friend?
Mr. Tebbit: Presumably the right hon. Gentleman wanted a return to war time conditions. I do not share his view or that of the Leader of the Opposition about the Second World War being the golden age of British Socialism. Then prices and wages were controlled by law, strikes were forbidden by law, strikers were imprisoned, food was rationed by law and conscription and direction of labour were imposed by law. It is not difficult to see why there was little unemployment. There was rigid State control and intervention in a way that satisfies the Leader of the Opposition, but it is not a way of life that Conservative Members would support or which the country would tolerate outside war time.
Of course, the resolution is but a small part of bureaucratic interventionism and I do not pretend that on its own it imperils individual freedom and liberty in this country; but nor does it protect the low-paid. It is part of an old-fashioned State apparatus which can no longer be justified on economic or social grounds. That is why we propose its rescission.
If the House approves the motion, the resolution will remain in force until 21 September 1983. From that date the Government will stop including fair wages clauses in any new contract they let and will release their contractors from any such obligations in contracts existing at that time.
I am aware that the resolution is a traditional piece of the furniture, of considerable age and ancestry, but it was passed in times different from the present. It has become increasingly irrelevant.
Mr. Tom McNally: No.
Mr. Tebbit: There is no place today for such measures which originated in—
Mr. McNally rose—
Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his speech.
The measure originated in an entirely laudable effort to deal with the problems of the nineteenth century and the early post-war era. Changing circumstances have rendered the resolution an anachronism. At best, it is a diversion from the real problems of today; at worst, it gives rise to abuse, not least by its use for the benefit not of the low-paid but of the higher-paid. It is high time it went.
5.11 pm
Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed motion, to leave out from 'be' to the end and to add
'the subject of a Consultative Document which shall be sent to all those affected by any change in the Resolution and the outcome of such consultations shall be reported to this House before any further change is proposed.'
The Secretary of State's speech was true to style—thin in argument, strong in abuse, bereft of intellect and full of characteristic union bashing. It confirms what I have long suspected, which is that the right hon. Gentleman is the nastiest thing that has happened to Christmas since Scrooge.
I propose to comment immediately on the way in which the Secretary of State has proceeded in these matters and, in particular, on his denunciation of the ILO convention. The spirit, intention and form of ILO convention 94 is that Governments, and those who carry out contracts for Governments, should behave like good employers. Not only have successive United Kingdom Governments accepted that principle since the convention was established in 1949, but the crucial words of article 2 of the convention are lifted straight from our own fair wages resolution, which reflects the United Kingdom's lead in providing decent terms and conditions of employment. It is that principle—that the Government should set an example as good employers—that has been rejected by the Government by their denunciation of the convention.
In denouncing that convention, the Secretary of State seems to have chosen to ignore another. What does the ILO mean by consultation? It is set out in convention 144 and by the tripartite committee of experts who elaborated on convention 144. It imposes an obligation on member Governments to carry out effective consultations. The hon. Member for Torquay—[HON. MEMBERS: "Folkestone and Hythe".]—The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) appears to find these matters amusing. Doubtless he finds them amusing from his position as a building employer and as someone connected with one of the principal firms in the building industry. I hope that he will still be in his place when I refer to the views of the building industry.
Sir Albert Costain: I was laughing because the right hon. Gentleman confused my constituency.
Mr. Walker: I apologise if I referred to the wrong constituency, but the hon. Gentleman was laughing before I mentioned it. No doubt it is some swish place down in the South where people do not worry about those affected by the fair wages resolution.
Convention 144 imposes an obligation on member Governments to carry out effective consultation with employers and workers' organisations before the denunciation of conventions. The ILO believes that consultations are not only compulsory but that if the procedure is not to be a mere formality they must be carried out before the measure is decided upon, and that those organisations must be able to have some influence on the decision.
The ILO believes that consultations must be conducted in a way that will enable workers' organisations to have some influence on the decision to be taken. I ask the House
510
to consider whether the description of events given by the Secretary of State this afternoon begins to measure up to the requirements of the ILO.
Mr. Tebbit: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the actions that I took were ample to allow the TUC to have a useful say. Whether what it said was useful is a matter of judgment.
Mr. Walker: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say a little more before he intervenes again.
The Secretary of State wrote to the TUC on 25 May saying that the Government had it in mind to propose to the House of Commons that the fair wages resolution should be set aside, and that before finally settling on such a course he would like the views of the TUC before the end of June. That time scale not only seemed needlessly hasty, as we have had the resolution for the best part of a century, but ignores the obligations on the TUC to consult its many affiliates. As the Secretary of State reminded us, the TUC replied at the beginning of July and not only categorically rejected the Government's proposals but set out a detailed and powerful argument in support of its view. There is no evidence that that submission has been seriously considered by the Government.
In his letter of 25 May the Secretary of State made the point that repeal of the fair wages resolution and denunciation of the ILO convention
"clearly need to be considered simultaneously",
thus implying that any action on the convention would have to go hand in hand with the decision of the House on the fair wages resolution. What happened was that on the first day that he could possibly do so—20 September—without waiting for the views of the House—indeed, while the House was in recess—and without further consultation or advance notice, the Secretary of State informed the ILO that the United Kingdom Government were selling out the low-paid by denouncing the convention. Thus, at a stroke, the right hon. Gentleman pre-empted the parliamentary debate, apparently confident and sure that the Whips today would be able to count on the puppets on the Government Benches to endorse what he had established as a fait accompli.
The Secretary of State has demonstrated not only his cynicism towards consultation, with his attitude of "Tell them what you are going to do and then do it", but his contempt for the House and for its Members. I believe that the House should tonight reject the farce and mockery in which the Secretary of State is indulging and tell him to go back to the starting gate and seek to do these things properly and decently.
Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman is misinformed. If the House decided tonight that it wished to maintain the resolution, the fact that we had denounced the convention would not prevent the House from coming to that conclusion. What we cannot do is come to the conclusion that the fair wages resolution is rescinded while we are still party to the convention.
Mr. Walker: That is a convoluted argument. The sensible and logical way for the Secretary of State to proceed in these matters is to hear the views of right hon. and hon. Members before denouncing the ILO convention, and then to formulate his attitude toward the convention in the light of the debate and in the light of the decision

511
and vote of the House. The Secretary of State has anticipated and pre-empted our debate. He has already acted. He has ignored the views of the House on the ILO convention.
I shall now deal with the motion.
"The story behind this Clause"
—the fair wages resolution—
"is interesting and, today, almost incredible, because there was a time when the Treasury forced so stringent an economy upon Departments that it was the Departments which were seeking always to find the little undercutting employer as a contractor. It was the Treasury Bench, the people inside the Treasury, who were always scraping to see whether they could obtain some small advantage by placing their contracts at some slightly lower price with second or third rate contractors. Therefore this Clause was the protector, certainly of the standard of living of the workers, but also of the standards of competence and honour of industry as a whole."—[Official Report, 14 October 1946; Vol. 427, c. 632–33.]
Those words were uttered by Mr. Harold Macmillan when he stood at the Dispatch Box on 14 October 1946 and spoke for the Conservative Party. When one contrasts that—and particularly the last sentence—with the words and actions of the Secretary of State today, one realises the extent of the moral degeneration in the standards of the Conservative Party.
Mr. Tebbit: I promise not to intervene again in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but would he like to quote and stand by—to avoid a charge of moral degeneration in the Labour Party—the words of Clement Attlee, Aneurin Bevan or Hugh Gaitskell on the issue of unilateral disarmament? If he wants to stick by the words of 30 years ago, he should stick by all of them.
Mr. Walker: I shall not give way again to the Secretary of State. If that is the best argument that he can advance, we should divide the House immediately. If that is the best argument that Conservative Members can advance, they should go into the Lobby now. The Secretary of State's attitude only confirms that the right hon. Gentleman is the nastiest thing that has happened to Christmas since Scrooge.
On previous occasions I have told the House that the Government's declared step-by-step approach to industrial relations—to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—was not merely a casual, off-the-cuff piece of rhetoric but was a deliberate, calculated and cynical policy of attacking the hard-won rights of working people, of weakening the trade unions and of undermining collective bargaining. The Government's motion is the latest, but I fear not the last, step in a process that has continued unabated since the Conservative Party took office.
Not for the first time in our debates on such matters we are today reflecting the views not only of the workers who are being oppressed by the Government, of the trade unions that are unanimous in denouncing the Government on this issue but of many employers. For example, I understand that employers in the construction industry are utterly opposed to the rescission of the fair wages resolution. They know the enormous damage that can be done to industrial relations, that the fair wages resolution provides a mechanism for resolving conflicts without resorting to industrial action and that the House may today be unleashing a dog-eat-dog struggle between firms that are fighting for contracts by seeing who can drive down wages the furthest.
Responsible employers will be driven out of business by their less scrupulous competitors, who will exploit the
512
millions in the dole queue who are hungry for a job at almost any price. Alternatively, those same employers will be driven to attempt to worsen the terms and conditions of their workers. That is the Secretary of State's intention, and it came through in his speech. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position at the conclusion of the debate. Perhaps he will tell us what the Secretary of State intends to do to prevent that from happening.
I have no intention of taking the time of the House to describe the resolution's history. It is sufficient to say that for the best part of a century the House has unanimously thought it right that Governments, and those carrying out contracts on behalf of them, should behave as good employers. They should behave, not, as Mr. Macmillan reminded the House in 1946, as the best employers, but as employers who conform to the best established traditions of private industry. In practice that has meant conforming to what has been established as a result of collective bargaining between employers and the trade unions. In a sense, that has provided a buttress for collective bargaining, because it has meant that employers could enter into meaningful negotiations, assured that whatever agreement was reached was unlikely to be undermined by unscrupulous employers who had little or no concern for the well-being of the workers.
The House is invited to throw all that away, and it will throw it away if it supports the Secretary of State. The whole concept of collective bargaining—not only in the public sector, because there will inevitably be repercussions in the private sector—will be jeopardised. A new and much worse industrial relations environment is bound to develop quickly. None of us will gain from ii and the principal losers will inevitably be those who already have the least—the low-paid.
There is no doubt that the hardest hit will be women and the ethnic minorities, whose numbers are disproportionately high in the ranks of the low-paid. What arguments have been advanced by Ministers for abandoning what Mr. Macmillan described as
"the protector, certainly of the standard of living of the workers, but also of the standards of competence and honour of industry as a whole."—[Official Report, 14 October 1946; Vol. 427, c. 632–33.]
Perhaps I should add "and the standards and honour of the House."
During the recess the Minister was apparently kept busy signing a fairly standard form of letter, which said, among other things:
"The Resolution has existed for nearly a century during which collective bargaining has become widespread. The Government believes that pay and conditions should be a matter for mutual agreement between employers and employees or their representatives, and not subject to interference by third parties."
So far, so good. I should not want to challenge that, although I wonder whether the Secretary of State can say—hand on heart and without blushing—that the Government have not acted as an interventionist third party in pay negotiations and settlements.
The Minister then made the incredible assertion that
"Abolition of the Resolution is wholly consistent with this approach, and reflects the growth of collective bargaining."
Anyone who was ignorant of the Government's record could be forgiven for believing that those words implied a belief in and support for the principle of collective bargaining. However, the House knows that the Government have introduced measure upon measure designed to weaken and undermine collective bargaining.

513
Today's motion is equally deliberately designed to carry that process a dramatic stage further. In case it is assumed that I am expressing a personal and subjective view, I shall quote from a letter that I received only yesterday. It states:
"The Fair Wages Resolution has played a major part in helping to underpin the industry's Working Rule Agreement, contrary to the Department of Employment's stated view that the Resolution weakens collective agreements."
That statement comes not from some obscure and minor trade organisation, or from a trade union, but is the considered view of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers—the authentic voice of one of the largest industries in the land.
The letter goes on to say:
"We are apprehensive that the rescindment of the Resolution could result in this Agreement"—
the industry's working rule agreement—
"being less widely observed, and we feel that this could well lead to a significant increase in the number of disputes within the industry … while these possible adverse effects of the rescindment of the Resolution would fall in the first place on building employers, any deterioration in our industrial relations position would also be contrary to the interests of the industry's clients and could well lead to higher building costs."
The letter concludes by saying:
"The House should be left in no doubt that the building industry does not support the total rescindment of the resolution."
The Electrical Contractors Association is also a large employers' organisation. It wrote:
"The repeal of the resolution could not only mean an extension of the 'lump system' and 'moonlighting', but also result in a loss of tax and National Insurance contributions. Recruitment of young people and organised training would cease and, ultimately, recognised safety standards would diminish … We are convinced that these proposed changes will not only be to the detriment of a well-organised industry which provides considerable benefits to its employees and clients, but is against the national interest."
In their own defence, the Government say in letters and speeches that the resolution is an outdated measure. The Secretary of State said it today in defence of the motion. If three decades or more render it obsolete, where does that put the New Testament? No doubt the Secretary of State would like to use that argument to reverse the repeal of the Combination Acts, were it not for the fact that they are even older.
Mr. William Hamilton: Perhaps that will happen in the next Parliament.
Mr. Walker: Let us not put ideas into the Secretary of State's head, but, step by step, he might take us down that road.
The Government say that the measure is little used. The Secretary of State gave us some idea of the criteria that the Government use in that assessment. The Low Pay Unit's figures are a little different from the Secretary of State's, but I am prepared to accept his. The unit says that only 16 cases went before the Central Arbitration Committee in 1981 and that there were 25 in 1980. The unit contrasts that figure with 673 cases between 1976 and 1979. The argument that a law or policy that has been determined by Parliament is little used is the type of absurd argument that might lead the Secretary of State to believe that a small number of prosecutions for driving on the wrong side of the road constitutes a good argument for abandoning the statutory requirement for driving on the left of the road.
514
The House has always understood that the presence of a law is deemed to have a beneficial influence on behaviour. Schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975 gave a right of redress when an employer did not recognise observed terms of conditions of employment. Unlike that, the resolution is intended to prevent a wrong from being perpetrated in the first place. It is intended to prevent an employer from winning a contract unless he is prepared to commit himself to behave decently towards his employees. If the resolution had been applied properly by successive Governments, there would have been no cases.
If the resolution is outmoded, little used and of such small relevance, why are we debating it? Why do we not just let it wither away? It is important in the framework of the Secretary of State's philosophy. It is important to the interests that I have mentioned and to many other people who have expressed their anxieties to the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to them.
In his letter the Minister of State said that
"the weight of argument in the representations they"—
the Government—
"received was insufficient to persuade the Government that the Resolution should be retained in the face of strong arguments for its abolition."
I recently tabled a written question to the Secretary of State asking him to list the representations that had been made to him, both for and against rescindment of the resolution. The reply merely listed the organisations that had made representations. The right hon. Gentleman declined to say on which side of the argument they stood. Therefore, I had to do some research myself.
The right hon. Gentleman said that 38 organisations had made representations. I managed to contact 22 of them. Of those 22, only two favour the motion. Those involved were major concerns, such as the Confederation of British Industry, the National Federation of Building Trade Employers, the Electrical Contractors Association, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of District Councils. None of them shares the Secretary of State's view. So who are the people whose voice he reflects? I shall not go through the whole list.
I was unable to contact the Bournemouth chamber of trade. I hope that I am not being unfair to it, but I am prepared to assume that it is on the right hon. Gentleman"s side. I was also unable to contact the journal for the tyre industry. It may also be on the right hon. Gentleman's side. However, the 22 that I managed to contact represent some of the largest organisations, including principal employers' organisations. Precious few of them share the Secretary of State's view.
Mr. John Townend: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many of those organisations have a vested interest and that often the trade associations are run by large firms that are frightened of competition from smaller ones?
Mr. Walker: I am prepared to accept that some of those organisations have a vested interest. Let us consider, for example, the Association of British Dental Surgery Assistants. With reference to the low pay of its members, it said:
"Without some fair wages legislation in general terms, or in specific terms within the National Health Service Act to cover dental surgery assistants, it is likely that a considerable number of dentist employers may not observe the pay scale agreed by their own professional organisation and which is incorporated in their NHS fees provided by public funds"

515
In other words, it fears that its bosses—the dentists—will snitch away the money which the NHS is forking out for the surgery assistants. Of course those people have a vested interest, and the House has a responsibility to recognise and reflect that interest.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to quote from letters that I have been sending out. He has also been doing some research and has told us about the reports that he has received. Perhaps he would be kind enough to tell us whether he has been in touch with the Engineering Employers Federation, the Institute of Directors, British Shipbuilders, the British Institute of Management, the Association of Independent Businesses, the National Chamber of Trade, the Shiprepairers and Shipbuilders Independent Association, the Association of Independent Radio Contractors Ltd., the Housing Corporation. I could go on.
Mr. Walker: I could extend that list. If you, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister would like me to do so, I shall. I said that I had contacted 22 bodies and that 20 of them did not share the Secretary of State's view. Understandably, the Minister of State has chosen one of the two who agreed—the Engineering Employers Federation.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the British Institute of Management. It is not in favour of the motion. It is divided. It told me on the telephone recently that it would prefer, not the rescindment, but the amendment of the resolution. That is different from what the Minister of State suggests. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not been listening properly to the views that have been expressed. Perhaps the Minister and the Secretary of State have not listened at all.
Mr. Alison rose—
Mr. Walker: No, I have given way a great deal. No one can complain that I have been reluctant to give way.
Mr. Alison rose—
Mr. Walker: Very well. I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman who wishes to flourish a letter.
Mr. Alison: The final result from the British Institute of Management, which the right hon. Gentleman said was divided, is that the majority recommend repeal.
Mr. Walker: We are now getting information from the right hon. Gentleman. The day before yesterday the institute told me on the telephone that its members were divided on the issue.
Mr. William Hamilton: In view of the provocation that my right hon. Friend has had from the Government Front Bench, will he now spell out in great detail the number and the names of the organisations that oppose the Government's policy on this matter?
Mr. Walker: Better than that, why does not the Secretary of State do what I asked him to do in my written question? Why does he not fulfil his duty to the House? When right hon. and hon. Members legitimately ask for information that the Department has, why does it not publish that information in the Official Report? When I was a Minister, I always thought that the convention was that if information was available to the Department, it
516
should be provided if asked for by a right hon. or hon. Member. Is the Secretary of State now suggesting that I am misleading the House?
Mr. Tebbit: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a good deal of information in the possession of the Department of Employment has been given by people who do not necessarily wish it to be released to others.
Mr. Leighton: Rubbish.
Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman may say that it is rubbish, but if the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) goes back over his own record at the Department—if he does not do so, I may—he will find that on a number of occasions he declined to answer questions on similar grounds.
Mr. Walker: Of course, there are times when people and organisations inform Ministers and Departments in confidence and before publishing their views the Minister would quite properly have to seek their approval. In this case, however, as the Minister has given the names of the organisations he must have known that we would seek to discover by our own means what they had said. He should certainly have expected these questions to be asked. The whole House requires the answers. Who said what? If the Secretary of State says that he is acting in the light of representations, we are entitled to know who made what representations. He cannot invoke in defence respondents who are not prepared to have their views put on public record. If the views were given in confidence, the Minister cannot invoke them in aid.
If the Minister had given me the information in the first place, it would not have been necessary for me to try to get it by my own devices. I did not have time to consult all the organisations, but of the 22 that it was able to contact 20 said that they did not share the Secretary of State's view and did not support the motion.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: It might be of service to the House if my right hon. Friend would read out the 22 names that he has and tell us the replies. He could then read out the rest of the names and the Minister could state "Yes", "No" or "Divided". We would then have a clear picture and we could get on with the debate.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect, is it not the Chair's job to try to safeguard the time of the House? If Ministers and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen wish to quote Government documents, will you direct that all that information should be laid on the Table and placed in the Official Report so that no time is wasted and we are all apprised of the facts?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his help. I do not know whether the Minister or the right hon. Gentleman intends to persist in this argument, but a large number of Members wish to take part in the debate and if long speeches are made from the Front Benches it will not be possible for all hon. Members to be called.
Mr. Walker: I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The organisations are listed in a written answer in the Official Report of 13 December. I shall be more than happy to tell my hon. Friends the names of the 22 that I contacted.
The Minister has been less than honest with the House.
Mr. William Hamilton: That is typical.
Mr. Walker: The Minister advances arguments based on representations that he is not prepared to disclose to the House.
I wish to refer briefly to a related matter and to apologise to the Secretary of State. An early-day motion appears on today's Order Paper signed by 89 of my right hon. and hon. Friends, denouncing the Secretary of State for not making available information that is in his office and is relevant to the debate. I refer to the levels of statutory minimum remuneration in each of the wages councils industries. The Secretary of State referred me to the Library to do my own research. In private conversation today, however, he reminded me that he no longer has statutory responsibility for signing wages councils orders. To that extent, I apologise to him and to the House. Nevertheless, that in no way diminishes the substance of my case against him—that he has information within the Department which should be made available to all hon. Members but has refused to disclose it. It would have been highly relevant to the debate to know the rates of payment in the 50 or so industries covered by wages councils.
The only other defence advanced by the Minister of State in his letter was that
"the Resolution only applies to Government contracts, and Government Departments will of course continue to act responsibly in placing contracts".
Will they indeed? What about the placing of subcontracts? Who will monitor them? If the same standards of behaviour are to apply whatever the decision today, why should we get rid of the resolution? Who is the Minister trying to mislead? If contracts are to be placed with the same sense of responsibility as they are now, there is no purpose in the motion.
I understand that all local authority contracts contain a fair wages clause. If the House approves the Secretary of State's motion, what will be the position of local authorities if they continue to insist on including such a clause? Will they fall foul of the Secretary of State for the Environment and expose themselves to penalties if they insist on behaving like decent employers and not choosing the lowest undercutting contractor?
I quote again from the speech of Mr. Harold Macmillan in 1946:
"For the moment, therefore, this Clause is not very important, but the time may come when the bubble is broken, when we shall have some new economy drive—originating, no doubt, from the Bench on which the right hon. Gentleman sits since that is the usual tradition—with the Treasury trying to cut down the expenditure of Departments by forcing them to take contracts brought down somehow or another to the lowest possible figure. When that happens this Motion … will no doubt be, as it was intended to be by those who framed it 40 years ago, once again the great protection of the standard of life of the mass of the wage earning classes and of the long built up traditions of cooperation between industry, both from the employing and from the working side."
How prophetic that was. Those few sentences give a greater insight into the Government's real purpose than any of the deceptive and misleading nonsense in letters from the Minister of State or in the speech that we had to listen to today. Of course the Treasury is applying the pressures that Mr. Macmillan forecast and chopping the budgets of Departments. We have had interminable debates about such cuts. The real background to today's debate is exactly that, not the pseudo nonsense that we
518
have heard so far. The House is being asked to kill off what an outstanding and distinguished former Conservative Prime Minister described as
"the great protection of the standard of life of the mass of the wage earning classes".—[Official Report, 14 October 1946; Vol. 427, c. 633.]
That is what today's vote will be about. Whatever else the repeal is intended to achieve, an important part of the Government's purpose is to open the public sector to private contractors without regard to scruples.
The Secretary of State for Social Services is on record as saying:
"We remain committed to more contracting out where that saves the NHS money."—[Official Report, 13 July 1982; Vol. 27, c. 839.]
Already the Health Service has significantly increased the contracting out of cleaning, laundering and catering services. Other Government Departments have followed suit. Local authorities are being subjected to pressure to get them to use private contractors for refuse collection, building maintenance, printing, street cleaning and so on. Public sector employees will be made redundant to open the way for private contractors who, by exploiting the hunger of the dole queue, will undercut the rates established by the collective bargaining to which the Secretary of State pays lip service but constantly seeks to destroy.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way. I have already given way a great deal.
We have seen symptoms of the next step on the road with the threatened attack on wages councils. The process is already under way with the swingeing cuts in the inspectorate of the wages councils. The Secretary of State talked glibly about people pricing themselves into jobs. He really means that they should price their mates out of jobs. As the number of jobs falls and the number of jobless continues to rise, the policies that he is pursuing can only set worker against worker. No doubt that is one of the results that he hopes to achieve.
The abolition of the fair wages resolution will lead, inevitably, to many of the most vulnerable workers being without protection against unscrupulous employers. It will put pressure on good employers to behave like bad ones. It will unleash a wave of competitiveness based not on design, quality, price or service but on the cutting of the living standards of working people. Not least, it will do untold harm to industrial relations and the collective bargaining institutions that have been built up painstakingly over many years. If the motion is carried the country will learn the hard way that the repeal of the fair wages resolution can only recreate the circumstances and conditions which made it necessary in the first place.
I ask the House to contrast the dignity, honour and compassion with which Mr. Harold Macmillan approached the subject in 1946 with the cynical, callous and squalid attitude of the Secretary of State for Employment. I hope that hon. Members will realise which is the right example to follow.
5.51 pm
Mr. Reg Prentice: Unhappily, every industrial relations debate has two features. One is that Opposition speeches slavishly follow the TUC line in every detail; every sentence, phrase and word could be

519
taken from a trade union brief. The Opposition fail in this important area to live up to their responsibilities as elected Members of Parliament and, presumably, as an alternative Government. They do not put an independent view on any matters affecting industrial relations.
Mr. William Hamilton: Like the right hon. Gentleman is going to do now.
Mr. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman says that that is what I am going to do.
Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman is supporting that lot.
Mr. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman encourages me to take a small ego trip. The last time that any criticism of the trade unions was uttered by a Labour Party spokesman on employment matters was when I was Shadow Minister of Employment, which is now over 10 years ago. I challenge any Opposiion Member to find in Hansard any reference to industrial relations from the Opposition Benches which departs from the trade union point of view.
Mr. Hamilton: There are hundreds of them.
Mr. Prentice: No serious political party should be a slave to vested interests to that extent. The more modest the measure—and the measure before the House is modest—the more hysterical the language.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) might have been about some great issue in which the rights of trade unionists were being threatened in some way. They are not. The Opposition are reflecting the trade union message, and therefore we should examine the trade unions. Unfortunately, the trade union leadership in Great Britain is reactionary. It is always living in the past and talking about the class war battles of past generations instead of facing up to the problems of 1982.
The fair wages resolution was born not in 1946, but in 1891. The 1946 version was an amendment. In 1891 trade unions were weak. Trade unions in the public sector, and firms with contracts with the public sector, were virtually non-existent. Trade unionism was strong in certain small areas—largely among highly skilled, well organised workers. It had grown up during the middle of the nineteenth century. Most of the less skilled workers did not become organised until the 1890s. In 1891–15 years before the legal framework provided by the Trade Disputes Act 1906—such a resolution was needed.
There may have been a case for it in 1946. The right hon. Member for Doncaster quoted Mr. Harold Macmillan. In that quotation Mr. Macmillan said that the resolution was not needed much then, but that it might be needed in the future. It has not been needed all that much since. The figures given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State show how little it has been used recently and how few cases there have been in 1981–82. The Secretary of State did not give a breakdown between low and high-paid workers. It might be interesting to have such a breakdown, because, although I have not done any research, my impression is that most cases in 1981–82 related to contracts with British Aerospace, shipbuilding and other engineering firms which employ skilled and highly paid workers. The rhetoric to which we have just listened is, therefore, even less relevant than it might have been.
There are two other reasons why I believe that the attitude of the unions and the Labour Party is so out of
520
date. First, any debate on industrial relations is held against a background of heavy unemployment throughout the industrial world, due to many causes which we understand only barely and which will probably be with us for some generations. It imposes a duty on Goverments, employers, trade unions and every responsible person to adapt their thinking to that background of heavy unemployment.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster spoke about worker being set against worker. If there is heavy unemployment and more people looking for jobs than there are vacancies, of course worker is set against worker. It is a fact of life; not the deliberate policy of Government, employers or anyone else. Against that background, legislation artificially protecting particular groups of workers may well increase unemployment.
We have heard the wage rates of young workers in Great Britain compared with those in other European countries, such as Germany. We should consider why there is heavier youth unemployment in Great Britain than in other countries. There is a conflict between attempting to push up wages and improve conditions and seeking full employment. It should be more openly discussed within the trade union movement. The first priority is either the improvement of wages or the fight against unemployment. They cannot both be first. The trade unions, and therefore the Labour Party, fail to recognise and discuss those facts.
I wish that that and many other aspects of unemployment could be discussed in a less partisan atmosphere in which we were all trying to find new answers to these appalling problems. If there were less reliance on the fair wages resolution and more reliance on collective bargaining, the job factor could be taken more into account both by unions and employers. We could then discuss whether we should accept low or nil pay increases to protect jobs, and it would not be complicated by the fair wages resolution.
That argument should be used when discussing the future of wages councils, although that matter is not before the House. We should not make such matters taboo and be afraid of discussing them. Trade unions, above all, should not be afraid of free collective bargaining; nor should employers' organisations. I deplore the attitude of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers. Its job is to enter into collective bargaining and it should not rely on outdated legislation. My remarks are as much a criticism of employers as of unions.
Governments consult, and it is sensible to do so. On the whole, decisions are better decisions if they occur after consultation. Consultation surely means seeking the views of those who are affected. One takes account of those views and possibly amends the original proposals if the views and their merits advanced in consultation are sufficiently strong to lead one to have second thoughts. That does not mean dictation by outside interests. Surely democracy does not mean Government by pressure groups. I accept that pressure groups have a legitimate role in putting forward their views for consideration by Ministers, but Ministers must take decisions and be responsible to the House thereafter.
One of the many unsatisfactory aspects of the TUC's leadership is that it does not accept that that is what consultation is about. When it talks about consultation, the very least that it means is some sort of bargaining process. It expects to do a deal with the Government in the way that it would with employers. At best, it expects something

521
more than that. It would like the sort of social contract that it had in the early 1970s. The right hon. Member for Doncaster referred to that. He talked about the Labour Government of 1974. I was a member of that Government, so I share responsibility for anything that happened when they were in office in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman and others.
The right hon. Gentleman said that, after the Labour Government took office, there was no need for a long period of consultation on their new legislation because before the election, when the Labour Party was in Opposition, it had had long consultations with the trade unions and had made public the text of the social contract. That is true. But who else was involved in the consultation process? Was the CBI or the British Institute of Management involved? Were any of those who had a right to be consulted involved in the process?
Tripartite discussions went on between 1972 and 1974. They involved the TUC, the Labour leadership in the House and the Labour Party outside the House, which was represented by certain members of the National Executive Committee. I took part in those discussions. I remember well that time and again we were expected to accept and rubber-stamp the views of the Jones-Scanlon axis. Those views were later rubber-stamped by the TUC general council and the TUC conference. They were expected to be rubber-stamped by Parliament after the Labour Party had won a majority at the general election. That was the social contract. It included many things, apart from employment provisions—for example, expensive commitments to food subsidies and pensions.
When the Labour Party is in Opposition it follows slavishly what the trade unions say. In the early period of the 1974–79 Labour Government the then Administration followed detail by detail the consequences of the social contract, however damaging they were. They were most damaging to the country, and the trade unions did not deliver their side of the bargain, which was pay restraint. When the Government changed in May 1979 we were no longer bound by the social contract. That was one of the greatest improvements.
Since May 1979, the TUC, as a powerful group representing many who have the right to be heard, has been welcome in consultations. However, it is regarded as being no more powerful than other groups in society which also have a right to be heard and whose views should be considered in the course of decision making. That is what the TUC cannot take. That is why Mr. David Basnett is so confused when he utters illiterate nonsense about civil disobedience. The TUC still has not learnt to live in a world in which it is not locked into the processes of government. That is a tragedy. I speak as someone who has been a trade unionist since leaving school.
I want to see the trade union movement play a useful role in society on behalf of its members. Unfortunately, it is becoming more and more out of touch with its members and more and more irrelevant to their needs. That is because it has not learnt to live in the latter part of the twentieth century.
6.5 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: Having heard from the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) of the benign activities of Jones and Scanlon, I
522
can only say "Please come back Jones and Scanlon." If they did, life would be much better. I wish that they were exercising the authority and influence that they had during the days of which the right hon. Gentleman was speaking.
The fair wages resolution has an excellent and immaculate pedigree. All our decent, civilised and humane predecessors supported it. I can think of no more dramatic contrast than that between the attitude of our humane predecessors and the brutal and callous approach of the present Government. The Government are opposed to "fair" wages. Presumably they want unfair wages. They want an unfair society, and that is the sort of society that they are introducing.
I, too, refreshed my memory of previous debates. There have been three debates on the fair wages resolution. The first one took place on 13 February 1891. The then Member for Tower Hamlets, Poplar, Mr. Buxton, introduced the resolution. He said that the
"State … shall set a good example."
In fact, he said that it should set the best example. He added:
"the State, as a great employer, cannot fail to have a very considerable influence on the rate of wages throughout the country."
Since then the State has become a much larger employer, as the Secretary of State admitted. It was said that the approach of the Government should at once be a reproach and a warning to others. Mr. Buxton spoke in terms of approbation of the London county council and the London school board. He talked about rates of pay being acceptable and fair and not below the minimum generally accepted as current.
In that debate the Government Front Bench spokesman was a Mr. Plunkett. What a difference between those who graced the Treasury Bench in those days and the oafs and cretins we find occupying it now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to withdraw "cretin".
Mr. Leighton: The First Commissioner of Works, Mr. Plunkett, said:
"I need hardly tell the House that I am not going to say one word against the trade unions."
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw "cretin".
Mr. Leighton: I do so unreservedly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps "moron" is acceptable.
Mr. William Hamilton: "Cretin" is not in the book.
Mr. Leighton: Mr. Plunkett added:
" I know full well the great services that they have rendered not only to their own members but to the community at large."—[Official Report, 13 February 1891; Vol 350, c. 620–40.]
What a contrast between the attitude of the Government in those days and that of those who now disgrace the Department of Employment. In those days the Government's idea was to set a good example. They now set a bad example, and their object is to force down wages.
The second debate on the fair wages resolution took place on 10 March 1909. I note that the Secretary of State is leaving the Chamber. He might like to bear in mind that the debate took place when the Liberal Government of Mr. Asquith was in office, and the then Mr. Winston Churchill was President of the Board of Trade.
John Hodge said that there was no question of unfair competition when architects, lawyers and other professional men were engaged by the Government. In

523
that debate, the new amendment to the fair wages resolution dealt with hours and conditions as well as wages. The point was made strongly that it was unfair to what were called good employers to allow unfair wages. It was in the interests of the good employer not to be undercut by the bad employer.
Eighteen years later, Mr. Sydney Buxton, who had introduced the fair wages resolution, was Postmaster General. He said that the resolution had benefited workmen without harming employers and that the Government should not take the lowest tender, but should ensure that contractors paid decent wages.
Mr. Buxton said that he had recently cancelled a Government contract because the employer concerned had not paid decent wages. He recommended that when there was no recognised pay rate, there should be a minimum wage. That is the first time that I have ever heard mention of a minimum wage. Mr. Buxton told the House that his personal insistence on a minimum wage for a Government contract doubled wages, especially for women workers.
The Minister of State will be interested to know that the famous F. E. Smith took part in that debate. He said that he "generously and unreservedly accepted" the fair wages resolution. He spoke of
"pure economic laws are subordinated to considerations of flesh and blood".
It would be nice to think that present Ministers were worried more about ordinary flesh and blood than some dogmatic economic consideration.
F. E. Smith said that economic laws
"must give way to the broad claims of humanity".
It would be nice to see some humanity on the Government Front Bench. The most inhuman Minister has departed. The one that remains has some humanity, but the Secretary of State for Employment has the opposite view. Perhaps that is why he has just left us.
Mr. John Hodge quoted the Prime Minister of the day as having said:
"It is the duty of the Central Government and of the Municipal Government, as employers of labour, whether directly or indirectly, to set an example to other employers of labour, and in their dealings with their workmen, whether in regard to the wages, the hours of labour or the conditions of labour, to reach the highest standard obtainable in a particular industry."—
Would it not be nice to hear something like that from this Government? We shall not hear it from this Prime Minister or from this faction that is disgracing the Conservative Party.
Another Member of Parliament, John Ward, said that he was
"delighted to find that the old stale arguments about political economy and the law of supply and demand no longer finds any place in the debates of this description where there is a demand for better conditions of labour."—[Official Report, 10 March 1909; Vol. 11, c. 416–47.]
All has now changed. There is now a group of counterrevolutionaries on the Front Bench, and they have changed round completely from their predecessors' attitude. Their idea is that because a crisis exists, for which they are largely responsible, it must be resolved at the expense of workers' wages, especially the low-paid.
The third time that the House discussed the matter was in 1946. The Minister of Labour was George Isaacs—a very good Minister. He was also the general secretary of my trade union—NATSOPA—now merged into SOGAT '82. NATSOPA has produced many fine men, and he was certainly one of them. He explained modestly in the debate that he was only the midwife to this resolution, because
524
it was an all-party proposal. He explained that the Conservative Government of 1937 set up a committee to examine the operation of the resolution. That led to the coalition Government in 1942 issuing a White Paper that pledged to bring in the resolution at the end of the war. George Isaacs said that the new resolution was
"better than those we have had before, and it may last a few years before we need to bring it up again."
He meant that it would last a few years before they needed to improve it again. In those days workers' conditions were improved step by step.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) mentioned the response on the Conservative Benches. Harold Macmillan conceded
"for the moment, therefore, this clause is not very important."
That was because we had a benign, decent, civilised and humane Labour Government. Mr. Macmillan, having conceded that, said:
"But the time may come … with the Treasury trying to cut down the expenditure of Departments by forcing them to take contracts brought down somehow or other to the lowest possible figure. When that happens this Notion … as it was intended to be by those who framed it 40 years ago, once again the great protection of the standard of life of the mass of the wage earning classes and of the long built up traditions of co-operation between industry, both from the employing and from the working side."—[Official Report, 14 October 1946; Vol. 427, c. 630–33.]
That was said by a Conservative Member in 1946.
It has been claimed that the resolution has not been used very often. In that case, why is it necessary to rescind it? However, the resolution used its teeth a little more after the case of Crittal Hope Ltd. and the pay board award on 24 April 1974, which allowed comparisons not only with national minima but with plant and company agreements. The Central Arbitration Committee made 673 awards between 1976 and 1979, although the numbers have dropped since then.
Why are the Government bringing forward this idea tonight? The Secretary of State did not tell us. He talked about everything but the real motive for destroying the fair wages resolution. Why break the consensus that has united all parties hitherto? No one has ever contested the matter, so why are the Government doing it? Why are we destroying arbitration as a means of settling disputes? This is not legislation; it is simply a resolution. The only way to enforce it, when a complaint goes to the Department, is to send it first to ACAS and then to the Central Arbitration Committee. Arbitration is good for industrial relations.
I may be contradicted, but I believe that the only reason for the proposal is that the Government are going in for widescale privatisation. They wish to contract out many of the jobs that are now carried out by Government and local authority employees. They do not want fair wages. They want a scramble of undercutting. We have begun to see that in the National Health Service and in some local authorities. I am sure that some Conservative Members are only too keen to see the privatisation of catering, cleaning, refuse collection and building maintenance. Conservative Members are nodding their heads gleefully. That is what it is all about.
Mr. Colvin rose—
Mr. Leighton: No, I shall not give way. If the Minister tells me that I am wrong, I shall gladly give way to him. The Government want lower wages and worse conditions. Their priority is to depress wages.
Mr. Colvin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because his right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) refused to do so on the same point. The hon. Gentleman talks about undercutting and depriving people of fair wages. He cited the example, as did his right hon. Friend, of the National Health Service. I understand, on good authority, that if more of the services in the NHS were privatised, the NHS could save £400 million in one financial year. The hon. Gentleman talks about not paying people enough money. But if what I suggested were done, the NHS would be able to pay every nurse another £1,000 a year. What is wrong with that?
Mr. Leighton: Perhaps we are now coming to the truth. We are learning what it is all about. I shall listen carefully to some of my hon. Friends who know a great deal about the Health Service.
The only idea that Conservative Members have for solving their economic difficulties is to cut wages. They have no other ideas. They use the euphemism "moderation in pay bargaining". Since May 1979, when this regime came into being, we have lost about 35 per cent. of our competitiveness. How will the Government rectify that loss in competitiveness? The sole idea is to cut wages. That is why the fair wages resolution is to be abolished.
Mr. Best rose—
Mr. Leighton: I shall not give way.
Under the young workers' scheme, employers are to be subsidised to pay people less than £40 per week. That is what the Government want. They want this country to compete with countries abroad, but their only intellectual offering is that we should have a work force on coolie wages. That is their sole idea. We have heard nothing else.
The Government are even willing to denounce an ILO convention. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that we are the first country ever to denounce an ILO convention.
Mr. John Townend: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the proposal of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) to have a 30 per cent. devaluation, with wage restraint, would in fact mean a reduction in real wages? Is that not what the Labour Party is advocating?
Mr. Leighton: I do not think so. The situation is extremely difficult, but if the hon. Gentleman reads the document he will see that taxes, such as VAT, are to be cut, and that would compensate workers. I do not believe that it would lead to a cut in living standards.
I come back to my argument. As far as I know, we are the first country to denounce an ILO convention. It is a bad example. I think it was Milton—not Milton Friedman but the poet Milton—who talked about England setting an example to other nations. We are setting a bad example. The Government's economic policy has collapsed. It is in a state of utter failure. Indeed, the economy is so bad that they cannot afford to pay the low wages that are being paid at the moment. Wages in this country are about the lowest in the Western world. They are the lowest in the Common Market, except for Ireland. Nevertheless, the Government want to solve the crisis by cutting wages.
I could understand the Government's attitude if the cause of our problem was high wages. I am indebted to the Library of the House of Commons for a document dated 24 November. It showed that take-home weekly pay, at
526
constant 1981–82 prices, for 1980–81 was £103–12. In the subsequent year, 1981–82, it went down to £100–53. In 1982–83, it was £99–50. So real wages are going down. Thus, the cause of our economic problems cannot be high wages.
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has made a study of these matters, as has the London Business School. It apportions blame for our loss of competitiveness in the following way. To
"policy effects spending, tax and interest rates"
it apportions 41 per cent. of the blame. It apportions 32 per cent. of the blame to the fact that the exchange rate is too high. It apportions 20 per cent. of the blame to oil price increases and the world recession. Then the document comes to real wages:
"Real wages growing faster than trend—O".
Thus, wages have no part of the blame. Nevertheless, the Government's only idea is to reduce wages. That is the real reason for abolishing the fair wages resolution. It is a heartless, callous and brutal approach, and I hope that it will be reversed as soon as possible.
6.27 pm
Mr. Keith Best: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) for his historical meanderings, which, of course, are entirely irrelevant to this debate. To quote persons who have spoken in the House in times which were entirely different cannot add one jot or tittle to the debate. With respect, I fear that he has wasted much of the time of the House.
I deprecate the hon. Gentleman's method of adding a soupcon of intellectual content, in which my right hon. Friend's speech was said to be lacking, by throwing in the odd personal insult in an endeavour to enhance his argument. He accused Conservative Members of wanting to cut wages. That was his specific allegation. What was the Labour Party's incomes policy all about? I am sure that I shall encourage the hon. Gentleman to leap to his feet and intervene in my speech to say that he voted against each of the incomes policy proposals that were put forward by the Labour Party.
Mr. Leighton rose—
Mr. Best: I shall not give way.
Mr. Leighton rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Best: The hon. Gentleman has to learn the hard way. He has to learn that when he does not extend the courtesy of giving way to Conservative Members, he will be riled and not be able to intervene.
Mr. Craigen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish that the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) would get it right. My hon. Friend was not a Member of the House at that time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that that is a point of order, but I thought I heard the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) encourage the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) to leap to his feet. Perhaps that is why he did so.
Mr. Best: I might have encouraged the hon. Gentleman to leap to his feet, but I was horrified to think that he might say something as well. I leave him on one side.

527
When I first came into the debate I was confused about the Opposition's motives for wanting to defeat the motion to rescind the fair wages resolution. I was confused even before I heard the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker). I make no criticism of the feeling behind his speech. He speaks with great fervour. The only thing that I felt sorry for during his speech was the Dispatch Box.
Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's speech not only must Conservative Members be confused, but Labour Members as well, about why the Opposition are seeking to oppose the motion. To hear the right hon. Gentleman, one would think that if the resolution to rescind the fair wages resolution is passed tonight there will be an industrial Armageddon waiting just round the corner. We shall have to wait and see whether that happens.
The Opposition's confusion is manifest not only from the speeches that we have heard so far but from the Order Paper as well. What do we find on the Order Paper? The first amendment was tabled by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and other of his right hon. and hon. Friends. I appreciate that we are not speaking to that, but it is relevant, because it shows that on that amendment the Opposition are seeking to support the Government's view, whereas on this amendment they are not. On one amendment they are seeking to have the fair wages resolution reaffirmed. On this one they are saying that there should be further consultation before it is either reaffirmed or not. What better evidence could there be of the total confusion in the minds of the Labour Members?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) has said that the fair wages resolution has an impeccable pedigree. It first came to light, not in its present form but in its original form, in 1891, when it was largely the product of a Conservative amendment in the true tradition of the reforms that were put forward by Peel and subsequent Members of Conservative Administrations in the nineteenth century to ensure that those who were least able to look after themselves in an industrial society did not suffer. People were taken out of the mines, children were given better working conditions, and so on.
The 1891 fair wages resolution was in the true tradition of the Conservative Party and it was designed to help sweated labour. It cannot be—perhaps it is—that Labour Members are seeking to say that the position that obtained in 1891 is exactly the same as that which obtains in industrial life today. The purport of everything that has been said so far is that because it was good in those days it must be good now. It is the true dinosaur attitude which one unfortunately finds so often among Labour Members.
In 1891 there was no really effective trade union movement—only an incipient one. There was no effective collective bargaining. Indeed, for a long time collective bargaining was a criminal offence, until the Conservative measure in 1875. Therefore, the position was entirely different.
Labour Members say how necessary this fair wages resolution is. Let us look at the reality. How often has it been used? On average, there were only two claims every year until 1975. What about the point that I raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when I intervened in his speech? Of course an arbitration by the Central Arbitration Committee is not enforceable at law.
My right hon. Friend said that it would be extraordinary for the Government to continue to employ a contractor who did not observe an arbitration finding. That may or may not be the case. However, there is certainly no
528
obligation for that position to obtain. An award of the Central Arbitration Committee does not become an implied term of a contract of employment. Where was the voice of the right hon. Member for Doncaster or any of his right hon. or hon. Friends saying that to ensure the effectiveness of the fair wages resolution it should be an implied term in a contract of employment? There is nothing there.
Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no obligation on a firm found to be out of order by the CAC to observe the CAC award. The fair wages resolution of this House has the status of law, and the hon. Gentleman should know that.
Mr. Best: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman does not answer the point. It does not become an implied term in a contract of employment. It does not become enforceable by the parties in contractual law. If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he does not understand what the fair wages resolution is all about. However, I know better than to make such an unfair criticism, because the right hon. Gentleman knows his subject extremely well, and we all take pleasure in listening to him when he comes to the Dispatch Box. As I say, all that suffers then is the Dispatch Box.
Are Labour Members really saying that if the motion were passed tonight to rescind the fair wages resolution, they would be impotent to deal with cases of unfairness, of unequal bargaining power leading to certain members of the work force receiving lower wages than they should, perhaps as a result of a local agreement not in line with a national one? Are they saying that they would not be able to raise such matters in the House? Of course not. It is nonsense to argue in favour of the retention of this resolution in the way that Labour Members have done so far.
In so far as the resolution has forced up wages in the past—there is some evidence of that—I am sure that some Labour Members will accept that where wages are forced up jobs can be destroyed. It may be that the need to ensure better pay is more important than the need to ensure that some people remain in employment. I am not prepared to make a judgment on that, but it might go through the minds of some Labour Members.
There can be a direct link between increased wages which price companies out of the market and destroy their profitability and the loss of employment from those companies. What better evidence could we have of that than the disaster in Britain in the five years between 1975 and 1980, when unit labour costs rose by 88 per cent., while in Japan they did not rise at all? That is a measure of the way in which we have been pricing ourselves out of the competitive market. If the rescinding of this fair wages resolution tonight will ensure that that is less likely to happen, it must be a good reason for seeing it disappear off the face of the resolutions of this House.
There is, however, something far more fundamental than that involved. This resolution offends against the capacity of parties to enter into a contract freely for the payment of services, materials or whatever. It must be right that in contractual law those people should be able to enter freely into an agreement and come to it of their own volition. There may be unequal bargaining power, but I suspect that that is not so much the case now as it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago. The position is changing rapidly.

529
Surely the endeavour of this House should be to ensure that parties to a contract can enter into it freely and with equal force behind each, rather than try to interfere with the contract itself, which is what the fair wages resolution would seek to do, although, as I have already said, it is not enforceable in any event.
It is unfortunate that some Opposition Members are much more concerned about the level of wages than they are about people having a job. That is understandable. It says something about the origins of the Labour Party, born out of the trade union movement. One should expect Opposition Members to be more concerned about wages, for which the trade union movement has consistently fought hard, and not so much about the retention by people of jobs even if the jobs are low paid. The fair wages resolution, as it stands, can inhibit employment for the reasons that I have mentioned.
"Of course, we need to have profitable firms before they can pay any wages at all."
Those are not my words. They were expressed by Sir John Boyd in August this year. It does not need a Conservative Back-Bench Member to relate the axioms of modern industrial life. Conservative Members have to ask whom the Opposition represent when they seek to have this resolution reaffirmed. Do they represent the unemployed? No. I have already stated that the resolution can inhibit employment. Do they represent the low-paid? No. Nearly all the recent cases have been made by the trade unions on behalf of highly paid members of those unions. Do they represent the young? No. There is considerable youth employment in this country. In other countries, when young people enter employment they do not expect to receive the level of wages paid to those who have been working longer and who are more experienced. Germany is a good example.
It was The Economist in December last year which mentioned that young people entering employment in this country received a higher proportion of adult wages than in any other Western country. That is the nature of the problem. Do the Opposition even represent themselves? I have severe doubts. The right hon. Member for Doncaster entertained the House, as he always does. Does he really believe what he stated? Perhaps more important is whether his hon. Friends believe that he believes it himself. I have considerable doubts.
It is instructive that not one instance has so far been given from the Opposition Benches of how a person not covered by a national agreement might suffer as a result of this fair wages resolution being rescinded. I can only hope that if the Opposition are serious in opposition to what the Government are doing they will refer to those cases. Times have changed. This fair wages resolution belongs to the nineteenth century, where it had its birth, as do the arguments of the Opposition.
6.43 pm
Mr. David Penhaligon: The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) has accused Opposition Members of indulging in the unfair practice of quoting people from a long time ago in different situations as an argument against the Government. One of those called in aid has been the former Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan. He was quoted only a few weeks ago as saying
530
"We are back in the age of witch doctors who tried to make the weather by making the right kind of speeches to their constituents."
There have been one or two witch doctor type speeches in the House over the past few months, including today.
One of the main duties of Parliament is to offer at least minimum protection to people in a whole sphere of human activities. It is one of the duties of the House, which I believe is usually carried out; it offers protection to people when they are purchasing goods. People are given the right to demand a reasonable standard. Similar protection is offered in the law of contract. I would argue if minimum protection should be offered in relation to wages. The motion before the House denies that.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman talks about minimum protection. The fair wages resolution is not concerned with minimum protection. It is involved with bringing wages up to whatever level is regarded as comparable with what is found generally. There is nothing minimum about that.
Mr. Penhaligon: That is not the information that I have been given from one of the lower wage areas of the country. If that is a problem, there should have been some modification of the resolution. It should not be used as an excuse to take away minimum protection. Mr. Buxton, who has already been mentioned, said in 1909:
"What really happened in those days was that the various Departments looked primarily, and looked practically only to the solvency of the contractor; they washed their hands of everything else".—[Official Report, 10 March 1909; Vol. II, c. 427.]
The result was that they took the lowest tender irrespective of the conditions of labour under the tender. We appear to be getting back to that position. Mr. Macmillan stated in the House at a time when I had just passed my second birthday:
"I think that, broadly, the Motion is in conformity with the general wish of the House, and represents the last stage of a very long tradition of plans and Clauses of this kind."—[Official Report, 14 October 1946; Vol. 427, c. 630.]
Here we are today destroying it. One of the duties of the House is to provide some minimum protection. If the Secretary of State chooses to go through his mail, he may discover some correspondence with me about a tyre fitter in my county. Tyre fitters are not covered by wages councils. They are not covered by fair wage resolutions. They are part of the free market, the solution to our employment problems. This gentleman, aged 24, writes an articulate letter without any spelling mistakes, which is probably more than I could manage. He explains that as a single man who has been employed on a job for four or five years he is paid £42 a week. That is top line. I am not talking about take-home pay. I have the pay documents that can be shown to anyone who doubts what I say. I would have mentioned the gentleman's name but he has asked me not to do so. He is afraid of losing even that miserable employment if his identity is revealed.
I wrote to the Minister explaining my belief in minimum protection. I asked whether it was possible for the Government to consider extending wages councils to this type of employment. The reply suggested that the young man was rather lucky to be receiving £42 a week and that if he had been paid less there might be more tyre fitters employed in my county. That is a disgraceful attitude which I do not comprehend. The move by the Government has exposed more people to becoming what can only be described as exploited in my county and in

531
other remoter areas such as Anglesey where unemployment is endemic. Those are the areas where the Government have reduced individuals' rights.
Mr. Michael Martin: If the tyre fitter had been a young married man with a family, the State would be subsidising his employer. The man would be entitled to claim family income supplement and rate and rent rebates. The danger under the Government's proposal is that more people will have to claim State benefits.
Mr. Penhaligon: I wrote to the gentleman explaining that to him. He thought, however, that this would be a complicated means of obtaining an increase in his income. The hon. Gentleman is, however, right. There is some truth in the allegation that to those with children earning between £40 and £90 a week it makes no difference what one is paid. That is a subject for another day when we discuss the way in which the supplementary benefits system works. Some unions exploit their monopoly position in an unjustifiable way. I believe that the Government are right in that matter.
Ironically, the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) did not talk of the wages within the printing industry, about which he is an expert. If the Government were doing something about that, there might have been something to be said about this resolution. What the Government will not acknowledge is that there are employers who ruthlessly exploit a situation which is available to them and in a way that some hon. Members find unsatisfactory.
Some employers have written to me arguing in favour of wages council type regulations, for without them they would be forced to exploit because the shop down the road would have an economic advantage.
I received a letter from one of my farming constituents a few weeks ago referring to the youth opportunities programme. After a tirade in the opening paragraph, in a lingo that I understood rather better than would most hon. Members, he said: "Mr. Penhaligon, I want you to get me a free boy. Harry up the road got a free boy, and Bill down the road got a free boy. Where's my free boy? They tell me down the labour that they've run out of free boys. I am quite prepared to have a free maid if that's all they've got left". That is the ludicrous situation into which one can get without any minimum protection.
I informed the Minister in my letter of the situation in some of the more remote parts of the country. By this proposal, he is making the situation even worse than before.
Mr. Tebbit: Wherever abuses of the youth opportunities programme are found, we terminate them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would admit that his tyre fitting constituent would not be helped by the fair wages resolution.
Mr. Penhaligon: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the second point. I am worried about the fact that the abolition of the resolution will put far more of my constituents in the same position as the tyre fitter. That is why I oppose this motion.
As far as the youth opportunities programme is concerned, I accept that the local office of the Management Services Commission tried very hard and in this case the gentleman did not get his free boy. One
532
suspects that there are constituents who have free boys or free maids, but I doubt whether they are daft enough to explain to their Member of Parliament in such blunt terms exactly why they wanted them.
On previous occasions, I have managed to acquire some statistics on low pay in my county. The situation is not that different in other remote parts of the United Kingdom. The average pay in my county is less than 80 per cent. of the national average. In the areas where there is no protection, one knows from personal and bitter experience that the situation is a good deal worse than that.
When I noticed that the resolution was to he debated, I contacted some of the bodies in my region that were affected by it. I approached the local branches of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, which is vigorously opposed to what the Government are doing.
It is said that this resolution does not often come to arbitration. That is undoubtedly so. Regional organisers of the employers' federation tell me that as many as 20 times a year, if it were not for the resolution, they would have lost an argument with an employer. The strength of the resolution is not that local branches can take employers to arbitration, but that they can, with no publicity, no aggro and no public embarrassment, say to an employer "Look, my friend, this is the law. I must tell you on behalf of the employers of this county that if you do not begin to obey this law we will take you through this process". The employers in my constituency do not want to be the subject of public embarrassment and they react by paying the minimum rates.
What are the minimum rates in the building industry? What is this law protecting? It gives protection to a skilled man such as a mason, who has completed an apprenticeship, to the extent of £80.80 a week. We are not talking about people on £250, £300 or £500 a week, which is what some people in the printing industry receive. We are talking about £80 a week for a man who has completed an apprenticeship. We are also talking about £73 per week for what people in the building industry call "unskilled" labour, and if anybody knows anything about building in reality that type of work is not totally unskilled.
These are the minimum rates we are defending These are the minimum rates the Minister is seeking to abolish. These are the people who, because of the removal of the fair wages resolution, will be paid less. I cannot understand how a Government who represent some of the more remote areas in the United Kingdom can believe that they will do anything for the economy in areas like mine by lowering already inadequate wages.
I am not trying to pretend that everybody should be paid £160 per week. We are talking about people who are on miserable wages of £80 and £78 a week, and it takes the law to protect them at that level. The Minister smuggly, in effect, tells the House that by making those wages lower it will improve the economy of my locality. There is no doubt that wages will be reduced.
The Government have got this wrong. There is no doubt about that. I suspect that some of the Government's supporters from the more remote parts of the country do not know what the Government have proposed today, and are not aware of the effect that it will have.
The Minister said earlier that given the chance in 1985 he will abolish the whole fabric of wage councils. There is no doubt that the wages councils are the safety nets on which a large number of people in some of the more remote areas of the country rely for their living standards.

533
If it was not for the wages councils, the wages of workers in agriculture, shops and hotels would be considerably less than they are now.
There is no point in the Minister pretending that a union can come to the rescue of these people. In some of the remoter areas, a large employer is someone who employs three, four or five people. The unions are not interested in such small membership potential, but, even if they were, what can one do when an employer employs only three or four people? It is the responsibility of the State to provide the most vulnerable in our society with some protection.
The Minister, by deliberate intent today, after three years of effort, has succeeded in taking away protection from yet a few more people. It is a disgrace. The right hon. Gentleman ought to recognise it. For some of the low-paid workers in Britain, this is singularly the most disgraceful piece of legislation that the Government have proposed. The weak shall be exploited even more than they are now. I am amazed that the Minister can stand at the Dispatch Box and defend such legislation.
6.58 pm
Mr. John Townend: The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) will know that I do not intend to criticise in any way the trade union movement. I was surprised at the vigour with which he accused the Government of wanting to drive down wages, thereby reducing the standard of living of the people of this country.
We have had a number of quotations from Prime Ministers. I should like to give a quotation from the former Labour Prime Minister speaking on American television, who said:
"Do you know that the standard of life of the British people has been cut by something like five per cent. this year. I think it's a remarkable achievement. We're doing it to try to get rid of inflation".
Mr. Radice: What was the level of unemployment then?
Mr. Townend: I am talking about driving down wage rates. It ill behoves the hon. Member for Newham, North-East to accuse us of having that motive, bearing in mind the record of the Labour Government.
During the past 15 years there has been a negative return on investment in the Western industrialised world. This is the longest period in history when there has been no real return on capital. During this period, the cost of labour has become progressively more expensive. Those facts are not unconnected with the deepest world recession that we have seen since the 1930s and growing unemployment. In fact, in many areas labour has started to price itself out of the market.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that unemployment is a tragic problem. It is in no one's interest to have a high level of unemployment. It is a waste of resources and it is terrible for the people concerned.
We may disagree about the means by which we should reduce the problem. Some Conservative Members believe that people should be allowed to price themselves back into jobs through the free working of the labour market. The problem is that there are far too many restrictions and rigidities in the market which artificially keep wage levels
534
above the market clearing rate. It is in that context that we should consider the motion, which I welcome. It is the beginning of what I hope will be a continuous process of removing Government interference from the free working of the labour market.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best), in that I am opposed to the resolution in principle. I see no reason why the Government should interfere with and dictate to a specific and limited number of firms that seek to obtain Government contracts. There is no reason why the Government should interfere with the wages and conditions of employment in those firms. In a free society, this should be a matter between the employer and his employees or their trade union representatives.
If Government interference is necessary, why should it be restricted to firms that apply for Government contracts? The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) made a valid point when he said that there should either be no wages regulations or they should apply across the broad spectrum of industry for all categories of worker. In their employment legislation, the Labour Government tried to move in that direction, with quite harmful results in many instances. They certainly forced wages up and reduced the number of jobs.
According to clause 6 of the resolution:
"The contractor shall be responsible for the observance of this Resolution by sub-contractors employed in the execution of the contract."
It is wrong that one firm should become involved in the wages, terms and conditions of employment of another firm.
That clause adversely affects the interests of small firms which, often due to economic pressures, must pay lower wages than larger firms if they are to survive. The other alternative is to shut down and to declare their workers redundant. In addition, they are often discouraged from applying for tender documents because of the way in which the regulations affect them, particularly when there are no set wage rates for an industry, which then comes under clause 1(b), which states:
"In the absence of any rates of wages"
that industry would observe
"conditions of labour which are not less favourable than the general level".
Under that clause, the firms would take account of the average level, not the minimum level, and many small business men are worried about how they obtain that information.
All parties in the House pay lip service to the cause of helping small firms. Everyone recognises that small firms can provide more jobs. It is, therefore, in all our interests if small firms obtain a larger share of Government contracts. I am sure that the Government's decision will encourage small firms to tender even though they may not have done so in the past. When we consider how little the regulations have been used, there is no argument for saying that they should be left on the statute book. Our aim should be to reduce the bureaucracy of these outmoded regulations.
There is a further advantage. If there is pressure on labour costs, and if the motion helps to lower tender prices, it will make more money available for the granting of further contracts and additional jobs. It will enable small employers to reconsider the rate paid to apprentices, because in that area we are way out of line with our industrial competitors. At the end of the war, a first-year

535
apprentice in the building industry got 15 per cent. of a skilled man's rate. Today, the starting rate is about 50 per cent. That is completely uneconomic for many small employers, and it has resulted in a significant drop in the number of apprenticeships.
I, like the hon. Member for Truro, represent a rural constituency which has many small builders, electricians and painters. When I asked whether they had any apprentices, I was told "No, Mr. Townend, we cannot afford them. In their first year, they produce very little compared with the cost of wages and materials." I am convinced that if we were more in line with our industrial competitors, and if the starting rate for an apprentice was 20 to 25 per cent. of a skilled man's rate, the number of apprentice opportunities would begin to rise.
Mr. Penhaligon: I largely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I say that as someone who has worked in engineering. However, I hope and pray that that is not used as an excuse to abolish the entire wages councils structure. Indeed, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), as the former Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, has recognised that problem. I hope that this will not be used as an excuse to abolish the protection that now exists.
Mr. Townend: I shall come to the wages councils in a moment, but I point out that the principal trades that use apprentices are the building and engineering trades, which are not covered by the wages councils.
I notice from one of the amendments put down by the Opposition that they are trying to get the fair wages resolution extended to local authority contracts. There is no doubt that one of their reasons for this is that it would help local authority direct labour organisations, which in many cases are less efficient than the private sector and more expensive. It would enable them to compete more effectively with the private sector. If the amendment is accepted, it will force up costs to the public sector and reduce job opportunities for small contractors.
It is interesting to note that the GLC is proposing some new regulations. Whatever the decision tonight, and even if we revoke the resolution, the local authorities will still be empowered to put these restrictions into their contracts. If the Opposition's suggestion is accepted, local authorities that did not want to include these restrictions in tenders would have to do so. It would be another case of a reduction in local autonomy, which is strange coming from the Labour Party, which has criticised the Government on numerous occasions about this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey said that the speech of the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) made it seem as if he were expecting Armaggedon. He exaggerated the problem when he talked about driving down wages and penalising the poor. If the Government's proposition is accepted, the only difference will be that Government contracts in the public sector in the future will be carried out in the same way as are private sector contracts today. The terrible things that the right hon. Member for Doncaster said would happen if this is accepted do not happen in the private sector. He overstated the case.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his courage in taking what is a relatively small step. I am surprised at the heat raised in the debate over this small step to free the labour market. I hope that it will
536
be the first of many such steps, and I trust that in due course, when it is possible under our commitment to the International Labour Organisation, my right hon. Friend will be in a position to deal with the much more serious damage caused by the wages councils. They have a much greater effect on employment than the fair wages resolution.
I come from an area involved in the tourist industry. It has been put to me on numerous occasions in the past two or three years, both by the local chamber of trade and the local hotels and boarding house keepers' associations, that they would be able to provide a considerable number of jobs for young people if it were not for the very high starting wages insisted upon in the wages council regulations.
If my right hon. Friend cannot take any action on this matter until 1985 because of our international obligations, as he told me in a letter, would it be possible to consider taking limited action by removing the under-21s from the jurisdiction of the wages councils? I am convinced that the 18 to 21-year-olds have suffered more from these regulations than any other category. I have it on good authority from business people in my constituency that if this change were made they would be able to provide a considerable number of extra jobs.
7.14 pm
Mr. Jim Craigen: I never underestimate what the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) has to say, because I am well aware that his kind of thinking has not inconsiderable influence on the policies of the Government. I find it interesting that he was arguing for Government intervention to assist more firms to get Government contracts, but I was alarmed at some of the messages that he was sending out in code to the Employment Ministers on the Front Bench.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) overstated the case when he spoke about low pay in his county. I have been to his part of the country on holiday. It is a very beautiful area. Later, I was somewhat surprised when I visited it as a member of the Select Committee on Employment to find that it has the lowest pay of any part of the United Kingdom. I am therefore the more concerned about some of the points that the hon. Member for Bridlington raised.
Of all the problems that the Secretary of State for Employment must have on his desk at the moment, why should he bother with the abandonment of the resolution? The Employment team has spent much time telling us that the resolution is outdated and is not important, and that the motion is introducing no more than a belated spring cleaning exercise—just tidying up the shelf.
However, I do not underestimate the Secretary of State. This is part of an orchestrated attempt, linked with a series of other Government measures, to press down earnings and conditions, as though they were pressing grapes. It is even more serious when we have a motion such as this introduced in almost indecent haste.
The resolution is of advantage to employers as well as of benefit to employees. In effect, we are being asked today to pass the 1982 "unfair wages resolution", because the Government are giving the signal that the cheap and the cheat now have free rein. The resolution has set an example over the past 35 years, but over the past 91 years it has been something of a safety net.

537
It is ironic, reading the Conservative Party election manifesto, to find reference to the need for incentive in British industry. The abandonment of this resolution is hardly designed to do that. It will add to the considerable souring that we already have in industrial relations. Moreover, today's action signals that the Government no longer consider it necessary or appropriate to abide by what is negotiated as fair in an industry in the award of Government contracts.
Reference has been made to the renunciation of ILO convention 94. Its abandonment also flies in the face of the European social charter on conditions of work and the right to fair wages. I hope that the United Kingdom delegation at the Council of Europe will make appropriate protests on this aspect of today's decision.
Of course, the Secretary of State for Employment did not pay much heed to the views expressed by the TUC. He said that he expected it to oppose the abandonment of the fair wages resolution—and rightly so. However, the CBI was somewhat equivocal in the evidence that it gave to the Government on this matter.
I thank the Secretary of State for the reference that he made to the Select Committee on Employment. It would have been useful, if Ministers had appeared before the Committee in advance of this debate, to tease out some of the issues that are not properly aired during a debate. They can be gleaned only in the process of an investigation such as is possible through the Select Committee procedure.
The Department of Employment provided members of the Select Committee with a number of papers, including a copy of a letter that the Secretary of State received from the director-general of the CBI dated 9 July. It was interesting that, in that letter, Sir Terence Beckett said:
"a strong case has also been made for retaining at least the first limb of the Resolution, thus enabling awards to be made by reference to the rates of pay and terms or conditions established by negotiation, and preventing employers from competing unfairly for Government contracts".
That is significant. At the end, Sir Terence adds:
"I am sorry that we have not been able to give a less equivocal recommendation on the Government's proposal".
I received a letter from the Scottish and Northern Ireland Plumbing Employers' Federation, which was dismayed by the move. The industrial relations officer writes:
"the Scottish and Northern Ireland Joint Industry Board, which is the recognised body for the negotiation of rates and conditions of employment in the Plumbing Industry and is representative of both sides of Industry … was dismayed that the Government has decided to rescind the Resolution and I have been instructed to write to all Scottish Members of Parliament to express the Plumbing Industry's opposition to the abolition of the Fair Wages Resolution."
Another paragraph in Mr. D. Wilson's letter is significant:
"some firms in the Industry are not complying and continue not to comply with the Industry's Working Rules in operating, in particular, the Holidays with Pay, Sickness Benefit and Pension Schemes which are obligatory on all firms employing plumbing labour."
There is the voice of another employers' organisation. A letter was sent to Scottish Members of Parliament—the House will gather that we are a busy part of the United Kingdom—by the president of the Electrical Contractors' Association of Scotland, Sir James Morrison-Low, Bt—hardly a member of Militant. He said that the rescission was a retrograde step, and he pointed out:
538
"The 600 member firms of this Association collectively undertake 90 per cent. of all electrical installation work in Scotland and in the course of so doing train skilled journeymen who go on to employment in many other sectors of industry."
He also said:
"The significance of the Fair Wages Resolution is that it recognises the value not only of industrial agreements but of all other work carried out to regulate industries such as this and which provides stability and maintains standards."
Employers' organisations were putting forward that view. They are speaking from practical knowledge of the problems that they are up against. However, perhaps the Low Pay Unit got to the heart of the matter and the real reason why the Government are seeking to rescind the fair wages resolution. Its director, writing to hon. Members in November, said:
"The Fair Wages Resolution is not a means of fixing minimum wage levels unilaterally. It requires only that the two sides to the contract accept as fair the wages set by negotiation between employers and workers in the trade concerned."
The document that the director, Mr. Chris Pond, wrote about—the "Abandonment of the Fair Wages Resolution"—was a succinct account of the history and of the dangers facing us if we abandon the fair wages resolution.
Reference has been made to the young workers scheme, which ironically sets a ceiling to the maximum wages that young workers can earn without the employer losing subsidy. It is strange that the Government, who are so concerned about public expenditure, should admit in a Statutory Instruments Committee the other week that nine out of every 10 young workers who obtained jobs through the young workers scheme would have been employed by the employer in any case. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment said that the Government know that they are carrying "dead weight". The dead weight exists not just in the young workers scheme! It is strange that we should pay millions of pounds for a scheme that is only 10 per cent. effective. However, there are all sorts of strange happenings under present employment policies.
A significant point was made by the Secretary of State today when he talked about encouraging more bargaining at the place of work. The Government have shown no great enthusiasm for the extension of industrial democracy in industry. On the contrary, they seem to have an aversion to extending worker participation in management. The Secretary of State's remarks about the need for more enterprise bargaining will make interesting reading in Hansard. In those comments were new messages for the negotiators on both sides of British industry.
The abandonment of the fair wages resolution marks another aspect of the doctrine of immiserisation that we are experiencing in the lifetime of this Government. There is a trend towards lower standards and morale in industry. The repeal of the 1946 fair wages resolution demonstrates that narrow doctrine is now replacing the bipartisan vision which resulted in the resolution immediately after the war.
7.28 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). I congratulate him on succeeding to the chairmanship of the Select Committee on Employment. No doubt he will find it difficult to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). The hon. Gentleman is not a fisherman, like his predecessor. However, we look forward to proceeding constructively under his chairmanship and if his chairmanship is as

539
constructive as his speech we look forward to a fruitful future together. It was in character that his was the first speech from the Opposition Benches that did not hurl invective and insults across the Chamber at the Minister. I suppose that it is a sorry reflection on the state of the Labour Party that Labour Members need to hurl insults. No doubt they have one eye over their shoulder watching Militant Tendency and other organisations that are trying to bring them down. As those insults were designed for the record, to be read outside the House, I thought that I would put on record the fact that Labour Members made them with smiles on their faces, no doubt caused by the tongues in their cheeks. Outside the Chamber we are usually the very best of friends.
The speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) was interesting, as speeches from the Liberal Bench always are. It was a total waste of time listening to him because he got the whole thing wrong. His speech was about minimum wages. This debate is not about minimum wages but about comparable rates of pay. As for references to free boys or free girls, or for that matter free meals, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that nothing in this life is free. Everything must be paid for by someone. It is for facing up to that reality that we must applaud the Government's action.
It is 91 years since the fair wages resolution was introduced by a Conservative Government and, Parliament permitting, a Conservative Government will end what may appear to be to some people a safeguard for fair wages—not minimum, but fair wages—but to most people a way of destroying jobs by law. In 1891 the Conservative Government introduced the fair wages resolution to combat sweated labour, although in its present form it dates only from 1946.
Labour Members may not have noticed that times have changed in the past 91 years. The fair wages resolution in today's highly competitive economic climate does more harm than good.
The fair wages resolution is at best an irrelevance. It has rarely been used—except when incomes policies have been in force and distorted the labour market—and because the Government do not have an incomes policy we do not need this relic of the last century. If the Labour Party intends to have an incomes policy and can use that as an argument for retaining the fair wages resolution, it should say so now because hitherto it has been notably silent on the subject of incomes policy.
Until 1975 claims made under the fair wages resolution averaged only two a year. A peak was hit during the economic shambles of the years of the Labour Government in 1976–78 when 1,020 claims were made, of which 677 were referred to arbitration and 545 were established. The Labour Government were not entirely to blame for the number of claims made because the Tories' 1972 wages freeze led to a spate of claims in 1974–75. We should not think that those claims were made on behalf of downtrodden minority groups of exploited workers. As has been said, about 90 per cent. of claims submitted have been by major unions, such as the AUEW, APEX and ASTMS, on behalf of their members in the engineering, shipbuilding and aerospace industries in order to circumvent pay controls.
Conservative Members believe that the fair wages resolution is harmful because it kills off jobs. It forces up pay, and this is a principal cause of high and rising
540
unemployment, particularly among the younger generation. The resolution's narrow emphasis on pay comparability has bidded up the price of labour making firms bidding for public sector contracts less competitive and making it more difficult for individuals to price themselves into jobs, which should, of course, be today's objective.
The fair wages resolution is also incompatible with the principle that pay and conditions of employment should generally be settled between employers, employees and the trade unions on terms which suit their circumstances. Such negotiations must take into account not only the circumstances of the job but the productivity, profitability and efficiency of the firm concerned. Relating pay by law to other firms in the area may be totally unrealistic.
I should like to read from the much quoted 1944 White Paper on employment policy, Cmnd. 6527, which recognised that
"increases in the general level of wage rates must be related to increased productivity due to increased efficiency and effort."
From what Labour Members have said today, one would think that their view on that had changed but the leader of the Labour Party said in 1975 that
"excessive wage settlements … can contribute to the level of unemployment."—[Official Report. 1 July 1975; Vol. 894, c. 1173.]
I do not see why they should have changed their views on the subject.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned that clause 4 of the fair wages resolution gives workers the right to belong to unions. If it had also given workers the reciprocal right not to belong to unions, perhaps the attitude of Conservative Members to the resolution would have been different.
Parliament likes precedents. The precedent for the rescinding of the fair wages resolution is the abolition of schedule 11 of the Employment Protection Act. Schedule 11 was basically the same as the fair wages resolution except that it covered all sectors of employment and enabled virtually anybody who felt he was not getting the going rate to refer the case to the Central Arbitration Committee. In 1980 Parliament repealed schedule 11; rescinding the fair wages resolution is a further step in the right direction.
I agree with the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for abolishing the resolution, but I question whether we are right to extend the benefits of rescinding it retrospectively. At the end of his statement he said that if the motion is approved the resolution will remain in force until 21 September 1983 but that from that date the Government will not only stop including fair wages clauses in any new contract they let but will release their contractors from any such obligations in contracts then existing. I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend will say whether he genuinely feels that this type of retrospective legislation is a good idea. No hon. Member likes retrospective legislation, and this is perhaps one aspect of the rescinding of the measure that we should reconsider.
I should like to put down two markers for the future—measures along the same lines as the one we are discussing. The first concerns the various fair wages standards embodied in other Acts of Parliament such as in section 15 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949. These impose upon employers a similar legal obligation which could be counter-productive, especially as our civil aviation

541
industry is facing unduly harsh economic conditions with cut-throat competition, overcapacity, rising costs and a world recession. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will no doubt realise from his days in BOAC that section 15 is unnecessary. To my knowledge, it has never been used. There is no point in having legislation that is not used. Even so, it still exists as a threat. That is one very good reason for repealing it.
My second marker looks to 1985, which is the earliest date at which, because of international conventions, the Government can take another step to abolish an institutional way of pricing workers, particularly young workers, out of jobs by scrapping the 34 wages councils which dictate the pay and conditions of nearly 3 million workers. The electorate and the Boundary Commissioner permitting, I shall be sitting in the House in 1985, on the Government side, and I hope to see such a measure proceed. I should certainly vote for it with the same enthusiasm as I support the Government this evening.
7.40 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I cannot join the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin)in his enthusiasm to see wages councils disappear. However, I heard what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) had to say to the Secretary of State. If that legislation were to be removed from the statute book it would represent the culmination of the step-by-step approach adopted by the Secretary of State to weaken living and working conditions and to depress the wages of some of the most vulnerable and difficult to organise sections of our community.
The Secretary of State wants to see the employer and the individual negotiating freely without any interference from a third party. What a splendid, noble attitude. Great. Let us see what the Government are doing. By pure chance, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has just received a reply to a question that he tabled. He asked
"the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will publish in the Official Report the letter from Mrs. J. Bridgeman, an official of his Department, to the Director General of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive of 30 November; and if he will make a statement."
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), replied:
"It is crucial to the battle against inflation that wage settlements in the public sector are realistic. This is particularly relevant in the bus industry where revenues have been falling but costs in recent years have risen much faster than the cost of living generally."
I immediately declare an interest as a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union and secretary of the parliamentary group.
The Under-Secretary of State's reply continued:
"The Passenger Transport Executives are currently at the initial stages of an important new pay round, the effects of which will be reflected in the level of services that can be afforded and the price the public will be asked to pay. Letters which I approved were therefore sent by my Department on my instructions to each of the Directors General drawing attention to the need to negotiate realistic and sensible settlements.
The text of the letter to Manchester was as follows:
"You are already well aware of the importance of containing costs when there are so many difficult problems for public transport; and above all, given the very large element of labour costs involved, the need to avoid excessive pay settlements that can only mean a reduction in services or pressure on fare levels.
542
However, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you now because he understands that the passenger transport industry is in the early stages of its pay round and he believes it would be highly damaging for the industry if excessive and unjustified pay awards were to harm the prospects of getting public transport on a more stable basis in the coming year".
That is a fair sign that the Government may be a little perturbed and may just be trying to influence the decision. Perhaps that is right for a Government.
The letter continued:
"'He has therefore asked me to remind you of the downward trend of other recent settlements, the fall in the inflation rate, and the need for perhaps PTEs to negotiate sensible and realistic pay settlements in this context. The Government believes that within its own sector the increase in the pay bill ought not to exceed 3½ per cent. I should be interested to hear how you yourself see the pay prospects in the coming year. You will wish to bear in mind that the Secretary of State has already indicated the sort of protected levels of expenditure—
"protected" should probably be "projected"—
"'he has in mind, and these clearly cannot accommodate excessive wage increases without corresponding damaging effects on fare levels and service levels.
It is therefore of special concern that your Executive appears to be negotiating about a level of settlement of the order of 7 per cent. which in no way reflects the falling trend elsewhere. Perhaps you could advise me of your reasons for doing so'."
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe has said, it is thuggery behind the scenes.
Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having quoted the parliamentary reply that I received tonight. Against the background of that reply, does he agree that it is an abuse of language for the Government to talk of free collective bargaining? Is it not a shocking form of pressure on negotiators that such a letter should go out from a Minister?
Mr. McNamara: That is the point that I was making in reply to what the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West and the Secretary of State had said. They said that they believed in two equal partners negotiating. In the past, people have referred to the Secretary of State's "bovver boots".
Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman must recollect that the Government are the means by which taxpayers' money is passed to the employer in this case, in some degree. Therefore, the taxpayer has a justifiable interest in what is going on. To some extent he is inevitably a party to any negotiation, because he is to a considerable extent the paymaster. It is right to point out the implications for those who would be thrown out of work if there were excessive wage settlements. Ultimately, those settlements will be made between the parties and they must not expect, as I have said, to be immune from the financial consequences of them.
Mr. McNamara: The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he wants free collective bargaining between the two sides and then say that the Government will interfere and, after the parties have agreed, say that they are not prepared to underpin the wage agreement. If they are going to do that, they should enter into the bargaining process. However, they seek not to do that, but to hide behind the organisations that they have set up. If they do not approve of the settlement, they will then say that they were not responsible. If the other fellow acts contrary to the Government's interests, there will be

543
disguised thuggery behind the scenes. That is disgraceful and a monstrous invasion of free collective bargaining—if that is what it is supposed to be.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State should say clearly whether he agrees with the terms of the letter that has been quoted? Does the Secretary of State accept that this represents a grave interference in free collective bargaining? How can the Secretary of State speak of free collective bargaining and at the same time support such intervention?
Mr. McNamara: I gather that the Secretary of State supports what the Under-Secretary of State said. I accept what my right hon. Friend has said about the effect of the Government's actions. This is not free collective bargaining. The Government are leaning very heavily on those involved. The letter says that the Government would like to know what the intentions are and tells Manchester to bear those factors in mind. My word, that is leaning heavily, as if any negotiator would go out of his way to forget the points that the Government have in mind.
There has been much talk today about the lack of need for the resolution. It is said that it is archaic and out of date and that there is no longer any need for it. However, I shall read out an extract from a brochure produced by my union. The article is entitled:
"Pay doubled when the TGWU pressed for Fair Wages",
and says:
"Four days' holiday a year sound horrific but that's all that night cleaners employed by contractors at the Ministry of Defence in Whitehall were getting in the mid-70s. One week they decided they'd had enough and joined the TGWU to get something done. A couple of weeks later, their annual holiday entitlement multiplied and their pay doubled, from £22 to £46. It seemed like a fairy story at the time. But it wasn't.
The TGWU and the TUC had been pressing the then Labour Government to extend the 1949 Fair Wages Resolution which requires contractors taken on by local and national government to pay rates no less favourable than for comparable jobs outside.
In 1975 the Labour Government passed the resolution in the House of Commons extending this 'fair wages' system.
It stated that all contracts for cleaning Government buildings should make the contractor pay his workers at least what is paid to local council cleaners and give them the same paid holiday."
From what has been said by my union, I understand that the Government have been somewhat reluctant to state whether the undertaking that was given to contract cleaners of Whitehall that they would always get the grade A local authority rate should be maintained. I should be obliged if the Minister of State would confirm whether, at least in Government Departments, contract workers will receive the local authority grade A level of pay.
There is a real need for the resolution. My union believes that there may be as many as 100,000 members who will be directly affected if the resolution is done away with. They are involved in construction, cleaning, refuse collection and catering. If the resolution is revoked, our members will be affected, especially by cowboy contractors.
The wage element is predominant in the service industries and the contractors will try to win the contract by reducing costs. They will do that by cutting the wage element. The wages of ordinary people will therefore make up the profits and subsidise the Government.
Doing away with the resolution will be the green light to those Tory councils which still have fair wage agreements written into their standing orders and contracts to amend those standing orders and to remove the fair
544
wage clause from their contracts. That will apply in both local and central Government. It will affect the wages and conditions of our members and those of other unions.
It is not widely recognised that more than cleaners, refuse collectors and others in the service industries will be affected. The effect will spread into the manufacturing industries. The important point about the fair wages resolution is that it affects firms that supply goods as well as those that supply services. Moreover, there is an indirect effect on subcontractors and suppliers even though they are not in an immediate contractual relationship with the Government. They, too, are expected to work to fair wage resolution standards.
The effect of abolishing the resolution will spiral from central Government to local authorities to Government agencies in both service and manufacturing industries. When we add that to the anti-trade union and anti-working class legislation that the Government have introduced, we are witnessing the substantial weakening of the ordinary working man's ability to be at one with his employer. His strength came from his collective strength through membership of a trade union.
One side of the balance is being deliberately crippled by the Government's employment legislation, this proposal and other measures which weaken the trade unions and the collective strength of workers. That applies to the unskilled and those who have no recognised craft, such as labourers and contract cleaners. The motion affects those workers who are least able to protect themselves.
Abolition of the resolution will also put at risk those employers who try to maintain a reasonable standard of conditions for their workers when they tender for Government or local government contracts. In many service industries, the only thing that the employers will be able to cut is wages. If that happens, employees will suffer a considerable reduction in their living standards.
It is nonsense to suggest that reducing wages increases job opportunities. Reducing wages reduces purchasing power. That means that the employee has insufficient money to buy the goods and services that his fellow workers provide. Rather than increasing prospects, reducing wages induces a downward spiral. Both demand and job opportunities diminish.
The procedure of the fair wages resolution whereby one first approached the relevant Government Department, then ACAS and eventually the CAC meant that there could be plenty of negotiation. The strength and justification of the fair wages resolution lies not in the number of cases that have gone to the CAC, but in the number that have not gone there. The resolution existed to create an atmosphere and a framework in which people knew, when they negotiated or tendered, that they could go through a somewhat drawn-out procedure to discuss matters. That created a climate for industrial peace. Now, Grunwick-type disputes will spring up continuously. Employees will find themselves increasingly forced to join unions and to take strike action to get their rights recognised.
One of the most interesting features of the resolution, as I demonstrated with my earlier reference to cleaning ladies, is that it has helped to restore the status of women in society. It has ensured that, even if they worked part time, they are not exploited. Removal of the fair wages resolution is an anti-feminist gesture that will annoy many women. It will mean that they will be exploited as m the past. The protection that the TGWU, through the fair wages resolution, has been able to afford will disappear.

545
The Government have advanced many arguments in favour of the motion. They argue that the resolution has been used by well-organised trade unions. Of course it has—that is what trade unions are for. They take note of the resolution, they examine the circumstances of their members and say "This is a way of getting at the employers." They recognise it as an opportunity to achieve good wages and conditions for their members. Of course we use the resolution. Why should we not? That is what it is for. It exists to protect the living standards of our members. We are right to use it. We want to keep the resolution in force, not because it is anachronistic but because it is highly relevant to many workers.
The Government say that there are no sweated industries left and that this is all a thing of the past. The work done by the cleaning women in Whitehall and in the contract cleaning and service industries is certainly sweated labour. Very often such work is carried out by mothers in single-parent families, old-age pensioners, widows and women who have never had an opportunity to gain skills. When members of my union are expected to clean 70 offices in Whitehall in one night shift, that is certainly sweated labour.
Far from being an anachronism and irrelevant to today's society, something used only by trade unions and therefore no longer necessary, the fair wages resolution is extremely relevant to our needs. With a pool of unemployment approaching 4 million, it is certainly relevant to ensure that employers cannot fish into that pool to find those who will work for the least pay in their desperation to find jobs and thus to ruin the opportunities not only for the others in the pool but for those at work. We must ensure that people receive reasonable wages and can make reasonable choices to extend the area of economic activity. We all know that the Government's monetarist policies are failing, but this is even worse because the Government are now looking to the unemployed to subsidise their failing policies.
Even more important, the legislation was first introduced as a result of an attitude towards people. It arose from the feeling that no matter how poor or unskilled a person, if he was employed directly or indirectly by the Government he was entitled to be treated with dignity and fairness. The Government could then say that they were the best employers and that anyone working for the Government would work for fair wages. The present Government, however, like the classical economists, take the view that man is no more than a tool, a cog in the industrial machine. He is simply part of the equation and does not really matter. They will go for the cheapest and easiest solutions because workers are only human beings and do not really matter. That has been the Government's philosophy on wages, employment and trade unions throughout their period of office.
The motion is just one further extension of a deliberate attack on the collective strength of working people in their trade unions and their organisations and in their desire to obtain for themselves and their families decency and dignity in their ordinary working lives.
8.3 pm
Mr. James Hill: We have heard some interesting and well thought out speeches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), with
546
his experience in the Department of Employment and his unique view of the Labour Party in Government, made a particularly well-rounded and informative speech which will be essential reading for everyone tomorrow.
Criticism has been directed at my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The impression was given that in some arbitrary way he had cancelled convention 94 without any reference to the House. As everyone knows, however, it had to be cancelled before this debate could take place as the fair wages resolution is geared to that convention.
We have heard a great deal about low-paid workers and employers who oppose the rescinding of the resolution but very little about the convention that is the nub of the whole process. The convention has been described as a small matter, covering only a small number of people. Article 1, however, covers not only
"the expenditure of funds by a public authority"
but
"the employment of workers by the other party to the contract".
As has been mentioned, the contract may relate to
"the construction, alteration, repair or demolition of public works",
but it may also go beyond that industry. Article 1 also refers to
"the manufacture, assembly, handling or shipment of materials, supplies or equipment"
and to
"the performance or supply of services".
It is thus clear how wide the scope could extend if it were given full rein.
My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State knows of the difficulties that I have experienced with the national dock labour scheme. The dockers argue that they should do all the handling and shipment of containers. Clearly, in the case of a Government or public authority contract, matters of that kind might also be covered.
Clause 2 states:
"Contracts to which this Convention applies shall include clauses ensuring to the workers concerned wages (including allowances), hours of work and other conditions of labour which are not less favourable than those established for work of the same character in the trade or industry concerned in the district where the work is carried on".
I expected this to be raised by the Opposition as one can see how a cosy cartel could grow up and a monopoly wage be developed. A group of powerful employers could take examples of work in their district with perhaps very generous allowances, hours of work, and so on, and thus exclude the small employer from competing.
There has been much talk about the low-paid, but workers in manufacturing, construction and demolition are not lowly paid. They are highly skilled workers. I should have thought, therefore, that the Opposition would have wished to get rid of the cosy cartel of employers so that high wages or allowances could not be used to exclude other firms which might be able to employ more workers or certainly some of the lower paid categories which would be excluded by the larger firms. As the Opposition did not raise that, I thought it only my duty to bring it into the debate.
I can understand why the employers wish to keep the cartel in its present form. I am not sure, but I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is trying to break up what seems to be a monopoly in certain areas of Government work. If that is so, and if at the same time it is argued that the fair wages resolution is now dated and no longer protects anyone but a collective cartel, mainly

547
of larger employers, I believe that my right hon. Friend is on the right track. I have no doubt that in the old days it was possible to have a Government contract, sub-contract most of the work and make an incredible profit. Those days are over.
The artisan, carpenter and bricklayer are in great demand and can almost decide their own wage packets. That happens in the construction industry in my area. A builder friend of mine wanted a first-fixing carpenter. He went to the jobcentre and was sent four men. The first could not fix toffee on a handkerchief. The three others were available for work, but not at the rate of pay being offered in my area. Being unemployed men with two, three or four children, the allowances are such that it does not pay them to have a job. Employers in this wonderful cartel cannot give better wages to the artisans. There are no artisans available. I cannot speak for all areas, but if people in the construction industry are prepared to move south there is no doubt that it is a good area.
Mr. Michael Martin: I should not like the hon. Gentleman to give the impression that that applies to construction workers all over the country. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some parts of my constituency there is a 30 per cent. unemployment rate? Large numbers of unemployed people belong to the construction industry, and I am sure that they would be glad of the opportunities that exist in the hon. Gentleman's part of the world.
Mr. Hill: It is extremely difficult for men to move their families. Some of them are tied to council accommodation and we know how difficult it is to transfer from the North to the South.
I am anxious that the Secretary of State should be allowed to obtain better value for taxpayers. We are all taxpayers, but, unfortunately, some of us are prepared to pay more and more for less and less. I have heard that it is verboten for some reason to mention wages councils. The abolition of the fair wages resolution tonight would be the first step in the abolition of wages councils in 1985.
In my constituency there is a club which employs a steward and his wife. Unfortunately, the last round of wages council pay increases was too much for the club to afford. Any hon. Members who have experience of service industries will know that the wages council brings out first a green form. That is a warning to the employer. The employer looks at his staff numbers and the proposed wage increases. In the service industries such as catering, there is a tendency to balance the wages increase by releasing one or two employees.
If we are taking the first step towards the abolition of wages councils, I hope that I shall be here to support the Government in 1985. I appreciate the Opposition's fear that the abolition of wages councils will mean that everyone will be working for £15 or £20 a week. That is not likely. There are not sufficient people available in the service industries. However, it would be better for many small leisure service employers if the wages council system could in the interim be streamlined. It may be suspected that the abolition of the fair wages resolution is intended to help the privatisation of certain public sector industries. I am not sure how far the ILO convention 94 goes. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said that if the fair wages resolution was abolished there would be an increased privatisation of refuse cleaning departments and general services to
548
hospitals. I do not believe that the fair wages resolution affects any of that. I am sure that the Minister will tell us how far it extends. Does it cover parts of local government, the National Health Service and Whitehall? How far is Whitehall covered by the manufacturing provisions?
Many hon. Members have not been aware of the impact of the fair wages resolution, and some of us have only heard about it recently. We know about wages councils and realise the dangers of creating more unemployment because of the lack of liquidity in certain industries. Not many hon. Members know the finer details of this resolution, but if we are to abolish it perhaps we do not need to know.
A defence of employers seemed strange coming from the Opposition. I can see their point of view. If I were running a construction firm, I should like a set wage throughout my area because it would set the standard. A major employer in the construction industry such as—
Mr. William Hamilton: Costains?
Mr. Hill: I had in mind Wimpey, but there are many others. Such an employer could set the standard for the entire district. From then on no small firms could secure any contracts because they would be priced out
This is a good programme for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. He has many problems to overcome. Many pyramids have been built in the past and the FWR is nearly 100 years old. It was given the breath of life in 1946 and now its days are numbered. We shall be the first State to leave the convention. However, the whole of Europe is still under the cloud of recession. There are those who have expressed the hope that the Council of Europe will take up the case. Some Labour Members are members of the Council and I am sure that the case could be taken up at that forum. I do not know how far it would go because I do not know what support Labour Members would get from the other 20 nations.
Time has gradually overtaken the usefulness of the FWR, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is proposing to rescind it, with the aid of a vote at 10 o'clock.
8.20 pm
Mr. Michael Martin: I shall draw on some of my experiences as a full-time officer representing poorly paid workers. The importance of the fair wages resolution lies not so much in the way in which it can be used but in the fact that it is available. It was an important part of my negotiations with employers.
When legislation was available—for example, schedule 11, the FWR and the Employment Protection Act 1975—I was able to demonstrate to an employer that the union would win the case if the issue went to a fair wages council or if we pursued it under schedule 11. Most reasonable employers would accept that and would not waste their time by taking the matter any further. That refutes the Minister's argument that only a few cases have been taken the full distance. That has not happened because there are good trade union relations in many industries and many employers are prepared to accept a reasonable argument.
I am sorry that the resolution is to be removed. It gives some assurance to the low-paid in our society that the Government of the day are prepared to try to ensure that they have a minimum wage. Conservative Members have argued that the FWR is not the setter of minimum wages.

549
However, when Government employees' wages are compared with private employees' wages in an equivalent industry, we find that Government employees are receiving the basic wage. We are talking not about the average wage, but the basic wage. Government Departments, Government agencies and local authorities are known for paying the national rate, whereas in private industry, especially the engineering sector, the national agreement is usually the basic to which everything else is added. In local government and Government Departments the basic is the actual wage. This means that we are talking about basic wages.
We are approaching Christmas, which is a Christian festival. Every day in this place we start with a Christian prayer. Every Christian I know would argue that a worker is entitled to dignified conditions and a decent wage. The Government of the day should always take that argument on board.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) mentioned the construction industry. I was never employed in that industry, although when I was a metal worker my company sometimes sent me out on a construction contract. Most private construction companies usually work on a 5 per cent. profit margin when they put in a tender. Many construction companies have gone to the wall during the recession, because their margins are so low. They argue that they must work on such margins because, if they do not, their competitors will beat them to contracts.
One safeguard that a construction company has is that it has an idea of the basic wage for the job. Therefore, it can calculate labour costs before putting in a tender. Any large contract worth discussing is usually with the Government or a local authority and is subject to a strict tendering procedure. Therefore, construction firms must get their sums right before they put in tenders. We are endangering not only employers in general, but the very people whom the Tory Party has been trying to protect during the years—the small business man and even some large business men.
One of the construction industry's present worries is labour. We went through all the arguments about lump labour in debates on the Employment Bill in Committee. I do not wish to go through all of them again, but the danger of lump labour especially affects electricians and heating and domestic engineers. In such jobs, all that the skilled man needs to go on a building site is a bag of tools. The danger is that more people—those who are here today and gone tomorrow—will go on to building sites. It can take months before it is known whether a person has done a good or a bad welding job. Before anyone knows whether the job has been done safely, a fatality may have occurred. We shall have more cowboys on building sites.
Another problem worries legitimate building contrac-tors. The Inland Revenue will be given more headaches if cowboy operators are on the site one day and off the following week. There is no way in which the Inland Revenue can get the full amount of tax due from them.
When a person is employed from week to week as a normal employee, if business gets slack, a good employer still tries to keep him on, but lump labour is off the site as soon as the job is finished. That means that it is difficult to get people off the dole.
550
A few days ago the House discussed the problems of female labour and how it was affected by the recession. Employees of Government contractors in the building, printing or defence industries have good, strong negotiating positions. The women who are being exploited are employed in the catering industry or in jobs such as cleaning. It is hypocritical to say that we wish to do more for women and at the same time to take away any safeguards that they may have.
I am not ashamed to say that, were it not for the cleaning job that my mother had, at times my family would not have had a proper meal on the table. My mother had to endure many indignities and much hardship because, when she was bringing up the family, she could work only at certain hours. She could not leave home at 7 am and return at 5 pm. She had to get up at 5.30 am, come back at 9 am to send the children to school, and then go out again at 5 pm, by which time the eldest child was home from school and could look after the younger children. Some unscrupulous employers know that that is the position of many women in our society, and there is no doubt that they exploit those women. It is unfair to abolish this resolution without at least providing protection for such women. If the Government are serious when they say that they wish to give equal opportunities to women, they must consider that factor.
Sometimes the words "equal opportunities" roll off the tongue too easily. It is all very well, in a highly paid industry, to give women equal pay, but in the poorly paid industries women are on a treadmill and they cannot be compared with someone else in a similar industry unless the Government take a responsible line and ensure that we have some legislation to help them.
As a very new Member of Parliament I took part in the debate on schedule 11. I expressed anxiety that the Government were endangering some sections of the community by abolishing that schedule. The Government were worried, because of the previous wage restraint, that work forces were using schedule 11 to get round the social contract. Many of those workers would have preferred to be involved in normal negotiations rather than to look for loopholes.
The problem with the abolition of schedule 11 was that many charitable institutions performed an identical job to that done by the health services and social work departments. Those institutions included the Cheshire homes, the Jewish old people's homes, Church of Scotland homes, Church of England homes and many Catholic institutions. They advertised for people with nursing qualifications to work in old people's homes or in schools. Those organisations do not have the expertise to become involved in day-to-day negotiations. However, because many of the positions offered were on a live-in basis, with flats supplied by the employer, the institutions had to negotiate what they would charge the employee for heating, lighting and rent. The beauty of schedule 11 was that if, as a full-time officer, I went along to such an establishment, I could point to the Whitley council agreements and tell the institutions that not only did the Health Service have certain wage rates for nurses, matrons or superintendents, but that it made certain charges for accommodation, heating and lighting. That helped employers who knew nothing about negotiation—most of whom were fair-minded people—but who were prepared to pay wages and provide conditions equal to those in local government or in the Health Service.

551
By abolishing the fair wages resolution and schedule 11, we shall endanger people who do not have the muscle or the will to take industrial action. People who work in charitable institutions do not want to get involved in industrial action. Therefore, we are going down a road which will endanger workers whom this Government say that they admire. If the Government want more such workers, they will have to give them some protection.
In an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) I said that if workers fall below a certain wage, the State should step in with rent and rate rebates and family income supplement. Society would have to subsidise unscrupulous employers. In my opinion, it is wrong for the Government to use taxpayers' money in that way. It is also wrong that many workers should have to undergo the indignity of having to make claims when, if they are employed, they should be getting a reasonable rate for the job.
Conservative Members have been reluctant to talk about wages councils. The Minister has said that he would like to do away with them, but that he cannot do so until 1985. However, he is going the right way about it. The figures that I got from the Library show that in 1979 there were 177 inspectors for wages councils, covering 2·7 million workers. In March 1982, the number was down to 119. The Minister should come clean and tell us exactly what he is up to.
8.37 pm
Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) made an interesting and informative speech, based on personal knowledge, which always adds force to an argument. I was struck while he spoke, as I have been throughout the debate, by the irony that the Opposition are arguing, in effect, that the lot of working people on Government contracts—we are talking about Government contracts, because that is what the fair wages resolution relates to—will deteriorate catastrophically if there is no compulsion to make pay and conditions match those of the relevant parts of the capitalist private sector. That is the gist of their argument. That is their case. However, most Opposition Members spent a good deal of time and many words avoiding the implications of their arguments, although I absolve the hon. Member for Springburn from that, because he acknowledged that fact early in his speech.
I am happy to acknowledge the covert, perhaps unconscious, tributes that were paid by the Opposition to the advantages that private enterprise brings to its employees.
Nevertheless, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to seek to dispense with the fair wages resolution. As he made plain when he opened the debate, the resolution is a net disbenefit to the economy and therefore to working people.
The first reason for that is that the fair wages resolution cuts across the free bargaining process in which employers and employees make their own arrangements to fit the circumstances of their firm. The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) needed all his intellectual subtlety to construct out of that a support for the collective bargaining system. The fair wages resolution substitutes a form of enforced comparability for the proper and flexible practice of relating pay to productivity and the
552
other factors which are relevant to the businesses concerned. That has nothing to do with bargaining, free, collective or otherwise.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) was indignant at the suggestion that part of the reason for this measure was that it would allow free collective bargaining to operate more certainly. He said that Governments intervened by the back door and set standards for parts of the public sector when they were negotiating wages. However, they must do that because they are directly involved. They are not intervening in something to which they are a third party when the money that is to be dispensed in any settlement comes from the taxpayer via the Exchequer.
My second reason for supporting what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is seeking to do is that the fair wages legislation militates against competition which gives the opportunity for firms and individuals to price themselves into work and offer a more economic service. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) read out a list of organisations which oppose what my right hon. Friend is seeking to do. He explained that one of them consisted of employers who did 90 per cent. of the work in the public sector already. That fact was assumed to add validity to their argument, though I am not sure what that 90 per cent. represented. However, the truth is surely that the present arrangements suit very well those who already have the contracts. Of course they do not want any change in the situation which would make it possible for smaller firms to come in and compete with cheaper service.
Springing from that is the third reason why I believe my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right. Everybody knows that public sector funds are necessarily limited. It is thus destructive of employment if the cost of a public project is inflated by the fair wages resolution because there will be fewer projects and fewer jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said, there would then be fewer chances for people to come off the dole queues.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), who is back in his place, took much pleasure in horrifying himself with expectations of wage cuts among the low-paid. The hon. Member for Mary hill did the same but with considerably less relish.
That brings me to my fourth and most important reason for supporting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. When the fair wages resolution inflates wages—if it does not do that on occasion, there is no purpose in having it—it is not the low-paid who benefit, even in the short term, because the device has generally been used by the better paid with strong union representation to raise their remuneration and improve still further their terms of employment.
Low pay is usually associated with particular types of work that stretch beyond the public sector into the private sector. Much has been heard in this debate of cleaning ladies, but such as they get little benefit from the resolution. Indeed, "fair wages resolution" is a misnomer. What is really at issue is not fairness but comparability. I have a great deal of sympathy with Opposition Members when they talk about the genuinely low-paid, but comparability is the crucial factor across an industrial sector where wages are low, and the only effect of the fair wages resolution is to leave them low.
It is significant that many of our effective competitors, not noted for low wages or inefficiency—Germany,

553
Sweden and Switzerland—have not adhered to the ILO convention at any stage. It is time, for the reason stated from the Government Benches, that we joined them by rescinding the resolution.
8.46 pm
Mr. John Grant: I apologise for not being present for a great deal of the debate. I was, however, here at the outset. I shall therefore be brief.
I have a long-standing interest in this subject. For three years I had ministerial responsibility within the Department of Employment for this area of activity, especially for wages council matters. It is appropriate that only this week the Government have been reported to the Council of Europe for failing to meet their obligations under the European charter for the low-paid. It is timely that the complaint, lodged by the Low Pay Unit, an independent body, comes as the Government prepare to use their majority to get through Parliament tonight the abolition of the fair wages resolution and the denunciation of the related ILO convention.
The decision follows the steady erosion of protection for the low-paid. There has already been reference to schedule 11. The decision follows the erosion that started with the Employment Act 1980, which removed the across-the-board fair wages provisions in industry. It weakens the position of these workers still further. Despite what the Secretary of State said in reply to my intervention, I am certain that there is a good deal more to come.
The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) suggested that the fair wages resolution prevents competition. It does nothing of the sort. The resolution protects the wage levels of workers on public sector contracts. It stops second rate contractors using cheap labour to undercut their rivals when they tender for central and local government work. I do not see how that squares with unfair competition. The resolution was approved in 1946. It was hailed at the time by Mr. Harold Macmillan as the protector not only of living standards but
"of the standards of competence and honour of industry as a whole".—[Official Report. 14 October 1946; Vol 427, c. 633.]
Mr. Macmillan was rather prophetic. He warned that some future Treasury sponsored economy drive would turn the screws on departmental contracts and the resolution would again be the great protector of living standards and of co-operation within industry
Mr. Macmillan's brand of Conservatism is now dead and buried. Today's harsh and abrasive style is reflected in the Secretary of State's letter to employers and unions, in which he asserted bluntly that social and economic conditions had changed considerably so that the protection was now undesirable, and the right hon. Gentleman repeated that today.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the statutory minimum requirement for wages and working conditions priced workers out of jobs. It would be surprising if that never happened, but all efforts to produce worthwhile and objective evidence of that on any scale have failed. The Secretary of State tonight spoke about evidence, but when he was challenged he had nothing to say about the actual evidence. There is none. What is more significant—I rely on the findings of the Low Pay Unit and its representation to the Council of Europe—is that about 3½ million adults
554
in Britain are now earning less than the 68 per cent. of average earnings, now estimated at £93 a week, which the Council of Europe has defined as fair remuneration.
The claim of the Low Pay Unit in 1979—I do not think the Government are challenging this—was that one in every 10 male manual workers was below the defined level, and last year the proportion was one in six. Manual women workers were similarly adversely affected.
The worst hit areas are those covered by the wages councils, which set limited statutory rates for about 3 million low-paid workers in industries such as distribution, hotel, clothing and catering. There is well-founded anxiety that this resolution is the forerunner of a more sweeping attack on the whole wages council system.
The Wages Inspectorate of the Department of Employment has already been slashed and is less able than ever to cope with the increasing illegal underpayments that are taking place. The number of inspections of premises has decreased and the morale of the officials in the inspectorate is at a low ebb.
The Secretary of State's attitude has understandably encouraged Conservative Members who are campaigning vigorously to abolish the wages council system. It has taken a long time for the trade unions to overcome their traditional hostility to the wages councils. The contention was that workers would not bother to join unions where wages councils would operate on their behalf. That position has changed and they now support the councils, whatever their level of enthusiasm. They find it uneconomic to recruit and service workers, who very often are scattered throughout a multiplicity of small firms. Unionisation in those areas remains low.
It is fair for the Secretary of State to say that the fair wages resolution may have had rather less importance in practice than Mr. Macmillan anticipated all those years ago, but if the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to follow his natural instincts and abolish the wages councils, there will be even more serious and far-reaching consequences for these poorly paid and badly organised workers.
The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has proposed—it was put cautiously in its most recent annual report—that it might carry out an inquiry into the function of wages councils. If that took place, the Secretary of State would not get the answer that he wants. We know the answer that he wants. He wants to get rid of them. He has quite pointedly ignored that recommendation. There is no progress in that respect.
The fair wages resolution will go out of the window tonight. We know that the Government will use their majority. We shall not get a result similar to that in the wee small hours of this morning. This is a very different situation. Any critical position adopted by the Council of Europe under the Charter, which is the economic and social counterpart of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to the Government's position on the fair wages resolution, will be brushed aside. Those affected at their places of work in these circumstances do not have industrial muscle and political clout.
The Government are not impressed and do not care. There will be no Tory revolt tonight. The Government, who declare their dedication to helping the worst off in our society, will have demonstrated once again the hollow sham an outrageous claim. I doubt whether Mr. Harold Macmillan will tonight be proud of his latter-day counterparts.
8.54 pm
Mr. William Hamilton: The public must be wondering what on earth we are up to by spending a whole day on the fair wages resolution at a time when 4 million people are on the dole and the number is increasing hourly. They may well ask "What the devil are they doing down there?" Knowing the Government's record, it is reasonable to suppose that they are not doing this to improve the prospects of the workers about whom we are talking. They are removing such protection that exists.
As the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) said, we are talking about people, many of them women, who are badly organised and have little trade union clout. They are the very people to whom this House should be giving maximum protection.
We have heard about the long tradition underlying the fair wages resolution, which goes back to 1891. It is a long and honourable history, and it has been sustained by successive Governments—Tory, Labour and Liberal—over the years. Many people who supported the ruthlessness of the capitalist system, such as Harold Macmillan, shrunk from its more extreme consequences and well understood the cruelties and inhumanities within that system. Even the Tory Government of 1970–74 never took this kind of action. That reflects the basic inhumanity and harshness of the present Government.
When a crime is committed, the police look for motives. I look for a motive tonight. It is perfectly clear. The Government object to anything other than the forces of a free market, be it labour or capital, to determine wage levels. If the workers sink below starvation level, the Government's attitude is "Too bad, mate".
If such a doctrine is accepted, it paves the way for the extension of private enterprise in the public sector. During the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), a Conservative Member spoke about private contracts in the Health Service. In his view, if private contractors were allowed to get their clammy claws on Health Service contracts, £400 million would be saved which could go towards nurses' pay. What a load of rubbish. Does anybody think, even assuming that the £400 million can be saved in that way, that this Government, with the present Secretary of State for Social Services and the present Prime Minister, would automatically transfer the money to the nurses? All the evidence points to the contrary.
The low pay review has been quoted today, and it gives an example on page 10 of a management study of an NHS hospital where a private contractor was employed to clean the hospital. The costs were £78,900 more to clean the hospital than direct labour charges would cost. Nevertheless, the private contractor was given the job. That was reported in The Guardian on 16 July 1982.
Presumably local government contracts will be covered by this resolution. A case is quoted in the Labour research department document "Public or Private". It quotes the example of Pritchard Maintenance Services Ltd, employed by Wandswoth council to clean the borough streets. In its first four months of operation, the company had to forfeit £4,000 of its payment because of bad work.
The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) talked about competition bringing down prices, as if both these things were necessarily desirable and would automatically increase efficiency. Some of the laundry firms that have
556
been invited to put in bids for doing the laundry of hospitals have made it clear that they are not prepared to take soiled laundry. Anybody who has seen a soiled sheet from a hospital knows that that is the crux of the matter.
The laundry people employed by the NHS have one of the most filthy jobs in the hospital service. I have a relation who does this job, so I know what I am talking about. I have told him that if the Government get their way and put the laundry work out to private contract he will probably be out of a job. Laundries are inadequately unionised, and the union will be split up, with a separate union dealing with the laundry people in Newcastle, a different one in Edinburgh, another in Plymouth and so on. That will make it much easier for unscrupulous private contractors to beat down the wages of the unorganised laundry workers.
The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) poured scorn on the Opposition because we are defending something that was started in 1891. The Ten Commandments date from 2,000 years ago. Will the Prime Minister now say "Two thousand years ago? Let us scrap the Ten Commandments"? She has already done so. The same could be said of the Sermon on the Mount.
If we are to use the argument that something is wrong because it is out of date, we had better look at the statute book because there are books and volumes of it going right back to Magna Carta on which our freedoms are based. Let the Tories use that argument.
The document from which I have been quoting shows clearly that many organisations today believe that the resolution is highly relevant to the present circumstances, and the Minister knows that. The Secretary of State was shot down in flames by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster. He produced evidence of massive support for our view and relatively little support for the Government's view. I should like the Minister to give the names and number of organisations that support what he will do tonight. We can then compare them with the relative strength of the organisations that oppose it. It is clear that the fair wages resolution has been acknowledged as a means of improving industrial relations and strengthening collective agreements.
Some hon. Members seem to think that the fair wages resolution takes the place of free bargaining. In fact after the bargaining has taken place and when the trade unions and employers have agreed on the wages scale, it is stated what the minimum will be below which they shall riot go. If one takes away that support, unscrupulous employers could have their way. By heaven, there are many unscrupulous employers around. They are the people who will be laughing tonight. I shall give two examples. I could give names and addresses.
I took up one case with the Department and got no change at all. The only job that a young lad aged between 19 and 20 from Cowdenbeath could get was as an apprentice butcher with a firm in Kinross, which is miles up the road. He had to pay £4 or £5 a week in bus fares to get there. That employer worked the lad all hours of the day and night. He was never paid overtime, although he worked overtime. He was paid £1 an hour. The Minister said to me "Too bad, mate." The wages council offered no protection and no inspector.
The other example is of a son of a friend of mine who lives in Thornton, in Fife. He left school and could not get a job. He did a year's training course in catering at Kirkcaldy technical college but still could not get a job.

557
Therefore, he went along to the local hotel and did a few hours' work on banquets and so on at £1 an hour. He was so exploited that he gave up the job.
When the boy went down to the exchange, the people said "Oh, you gave up your job, so there is no dole for you." That would not be covered by the resolution as it was not a public contract. However, the employer could have been a private catering contractor in the National Health Service. The boy could have been paid low wages by that employer and if he left that employer he would have been told the same at the employment exchange: "No, you have left your job, so no unemployment benefit for you."
Those examples show the inevitable consequence of what the Government are doing. It is a carte blanche for the most undesirable, unscrupulous and exploiting employers in the country. There are thousands of them just waiting for this opportunity. The Minister poured scorn on us. The traitor who left us talked about us being the mouthpieces of the trade unions. Let me say to him and the Government that we are proud to have our origins in the trade union movement. The only way that workers can protect themselves from unscrupulous employers is by organisation in trade unions.
Mr. Alison: I do not want to raise unnecessarily a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman should reconsider his use of the word "traitor" in respect of my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) and withdraw it.
Mr. Hamilton: I shall try to think of a more appropriate word, but I cannot at the moment. Meanwhile, I withdraw it. There must be more appropriate words that come within parliamentary courtesy, but I cannot think of one at the moment.
The motion fits in with the Government's philosophy. They seek to convince people that most of our problems stem from the greed of labour, that the Government are blameless, and that if only labour would behave and work for nothing, or something near it, our problems would be solved. They say that only the greedy trade unionists are creating our problems. The rescission of the resolution is part and parcel of that. The Secretary of State is the mouthpiece and the favourite son of the Prime Minister because he uses the same jargon as she does. People are told "Get on your bike if you want a job", or it is said to that lad in Fife "Accept a pound an hour from that unscrupulous hotel owner or else you will get nothing—no dole, nothing at all. Accept those exploiting wages or do without."
There will be no protection for any worker. The Government's move today is a prelude to getting rid of the wages councils. It is part of the Government's slave-driving philosophy.
9.10 pm
Mr. George Park: The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) said that he did not know how far this fair wages resolution went, but that it was a good idea to abolish it. That about summed up the opening speech by the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman pushed to one side the long history of the fair wages resolution, the fact that it was adopted unanimously in the House and that it was strengthened by Governments of various complexions, and even by a coalition Government. We were told that times have changed and
558
it is now an anachronism. Times have changed. We have never before experienced such unemployment, which is due to the Government's policy.
I listened carefully to discover why the Secretary of State was so eager to introduce the motion. All I heard was a series of condemnatory assertions. That is the only way that I can describe them. We were told that the fair wages resolution imposed on employers a level of wages about which they had no say; impeded competitiveness and destroyed jobs; priced people out of jobs; brought less responsibility to wage negotiations; and interfered with free wage bargaining. Those are samples of the flimsy back-up produced by the Secretary of State to support his views.
When referring to free wage bargaining there was an implication that all workers in this country belong to trade unions. Would that it were so. In fact, only half of them belong to trade unions. The fair wages resolution protects those who are not members of trade unions. It is hard to organise groups such as industrial cleaners or catering workers into trade unions. It is difficult for trade unions to get them into organisations.
It is no accident that the building industry has been mentioned time and again during the debate. The industry is wide open to shoddy work and fly-by-night operators. Therefore, it was no surprise to me when my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) produced evidence of building trade employers who were completely against what the Government are trying to do today.
The fair wages resolution—this has not been touched on very much—has over the years contributed to good industrial relations. The existence of the fair wages resolution has often meant that matters that might otherwise have erupted into industrial disputes have been taken to the arbitration committee and settled quietly, and the job has gone on.
The Secretary of State lauded the refuse collectors in Birmingham for taking on the job of collecting the rubbish. He mentioned only incidentally that 200 fewer would be required. In discussing the economies which would result, I did not hear him take into account the benefits that would have to be paid to those 200 workers who will now be on the dole.
The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) used an expression that is common usage among Conservative Members—"pricing oneself back into a job". I have always wondered what that means. Recently, I have heard of people who are so desperate for work that they have found out the rate for a job and offered to do it for less. Obviously, a young single man with no family commitments can offer to do the job for less than a married man. However, if the married man is left on the dole, the Government will have to pay even greater contributions in benefits. That is the only interpretation that I can put on that expression.
I can only think that the motive behind the Government's action today is that it is to be a set piece at the Tory Party conference. The Secretary of State for Employment will stand up and say "I have set you free." He has set the cowboys free. Perhaps that is why he feels so at home with what he is doing today.
9.15 pm
Mr. Eric G. Varley: Every Opposition Member who has taken part in the debate has said that this

559
is a sad day for the House. It should be a day of shame. We have noted the Conservative Members who have taken part in the debate. When we have employment debates we are usually graced with the presence of the chairman of the Conservative employment group, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), but today he has not shown his face in the Chamber. Indeed, the hon. Members for Chippenham (Mr. Needham), for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) and for Beeston (Mr. Lester) have not taken part in the debate because they do not want to have anything to do with it.
The contributions that have been made by Conservative Members have come from the Thatcherite wing of the Conservative Party; from the kind of hon. Member who voted against the Home Secretary last night. The motion is entirely in keeping with what the Secretary of State for Employment, the Prime Minister and their colleagues want to see. They want the resolution to be rescinded, and they want those on low pay to suffer even more.
We had the usual sanctimonious speech from the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice). I am getting a bit fed up with him lecturing us about how good he was on industrial relations. It is difficult to believe that he was nurtured and sustained as a Member of Parliament for many years by the Transport and General Workers Union. It is difficult to believe that the same right hon. Gentleman voted against the Tory Industrial Relations Act 1971.
It is difficult to believe that the right hon. Member for Daventry was in the same Cabinet room when the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act was authorised. According to the Secretary of State for Employment and his colleagues, that was all the work of the devil. It is also difficult to believe that the right hon. Member for Daventry voted for the Employment Protection Act, for the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act, to establish the National Enterprise Board and the British National Oil Corporation. Now he wants us to take him seriously on these issues.
Mr. Prentice: I should love to have the opportunity to debate each of those points with the right hon. Gentleman, but clearly there is no time now. When I occupied the position enjoyed by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) as Shadow Secretary of State for Employment I criticised the Government of the day, but I was also prepared to criticise the unions when I thought that they were wrong. Has the right hon. Gentleman ever criticised the unions from that Dispatch Box since becoming the Shadow spokesman?
Mr. Varley: The right hon. Gentleman has not been following events. If he believes that we mirror everything that the TUC wants, he has not been following any of the debates or looking at the comments made by the TUC.
We have not today been debating what some people regard as the major issues of the moment, such as disarmament, which is incomparably the most important issue facing the nation. We have not been debating mass unemployment—a situation which has deliberately been created by the collapse of the economy. In about 40 minutes' time we shall divide on a motion which proposes to remove from the most vulnerable workers in the country the protection that they have enjoyed for about 100 years.
Tory Members of Parliament will vote to allow unscrupulous employers to reduce the wages and to worsen the conditions of employment of those whom they employ.
560
So far, and especially recently, only a tiny minority of employers have behaved in that way, but when the House decides to rescind the fair wages resolution many more employers will behave badly. The fair wages resolution was intended not only to protect workers from exploitation but to maintain a standard of work and to protect enlightened employers from unfair competition based on wage undercutting.
It seems almost incredible that, after nearly 100 years during which Britain has operated some form of fair wages resolution, the Secretary of State for Employment should introduce such a mean-minded and spiteful motion. I said "almost incredible". We ought not to be surprised at anything that this Secretary of State will do to weaken the safeguards for and conditions of work of ordinary working people.
The Secretary of State said that the abolition of the fair wages resolution was first mooted in September 1979 by his right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. However, that Secretary of State abandoned the idea. He saw the sense of retaining the resolution. That is not true of this Secretary of State. It is entirely within the character and temperament of the knee-in-the-groin bovver boy who now heads the Department of Employment to seek out the weakest section of our working community for a going over.
We are told that there will be a reshuffle any day now. I hope that as long as this Conservative Government exist the present Home Secretary will remain in his post. But if he goes, there is no doubt who will be the candidate for Home Secretaryship. We shall have hanging and flogging before we can bat an eyelid. The Secretary of State rubs his hands in glee at the prospect.
The right hon. Gentleman gave no reason for rescinding the fair wages resolution, but he says that there are two reasons for doing so. His first reason is that the resolution no longer fulfils its original purpose of combating low pay. His second reason is that it is little used.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) gave many examples to rebut the first reason that the Secretary of State gave, based on information that was supplied by the Department of Employment. I shall give just one example. I need not do so at any length, as it has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen).
I have seen correspondence between the Department of Employment and the Scottish and Northern Ireland joint industry board for the plumbing industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill did not point out that it is not an insignificant body. It represents 1,000 firms. It is vehemently opposed to the abolition of the fair wages resolution. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Employment and received a reply from the Minister of State, who said:
"We do not believe that abolition of a little used and outdated measure will have the adverse consequences you fear "
The board went to great lengths to point out that abolition would have exactly the impact that it had described to the Secretary of State. It said:
"The joint industry board has been concerned for some time that some firms in the Industry are not complying and continue not to comply with the Industry's Working Rules in operating, in particular, the Holidays with Pay, Sickness Benefit and Pensions Schemes which are obligatory on all firms employing plumbing labour."

561
As I have said, this is not a small federation. It is a reputable federation of employers representing 1,000 firms.
It is true that relatively few breaches of the fair wages resolution have been taken to the industrial courts and the Central Arbitration Committee in recent years. No doubt that is why the Secretary of State and the Minister of State say that the measure is now little used, but that does not mean that it has been ineffective.
Mr. McNamara: It is a deterrent.
Mr. Varley: As my hon. Friend says, it is a deterrent. It has deterred backward and rogue employers who would otherwise undercut wages.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of the effectiveness of the resolution, the Government persist in their plan to abolish it. They fail to understand—or, more likely, refuse to acknowledge—that the resolution is now incorporated into the arrangements and practices of certain industries and acts as a safety net for workers employed in them. Nowhere is the resolution more important than in the construction industry. In many cases the mere threat of a breach of the resolution is enough to make employers desist from undercutting wages. The resolution thus ensures that the workers continue to receive the recognised rate for the job.
There is not a shred of evidence to support the Government's view that the operation of the fair wages resolution has disrupted collective bargaining. The opposite is nearer the mark. It has established the rate for the job and supported collective bargaining. The existence of the resolution has served only to bring wages and conditions up to the recognised general level. For that level to be exceeded has been the exception. On most occasions wages have merely been brought up to the agreed level.
It would be far more honest for the Government to admit what everyone else knows. They wish to abolish the resolution because they are no longer prepared to safeguard the interests of workers employed by those who have or will receive Government contracts. In doing so, they are renouncing what successive Governments have always recognised—that protection and safeguards are needed for those who are unorganised and, in the main, low-paid.
The Government have not only failed to produce any coherent reasons for abolishing the resolution; they have failed to consult industry and the trade unions properly in accordance with the ILO convention. It is no use the Secretary of State sitting there with a pained grimace on his face. He knows that what I say is true. Under ILO convention 94, before moving to rescind the resolution the Government are expected to consult representative organisations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster outlined the widespread objections that were sent to the Department of Employment. By no stretch of the imagination can the Government claim properly to have consulted the TUC. On 25 May the Secretary of State wrote to the TUC inviting its views. Shortly after that the TUC replied that it opposed abolition and asked that the whole matter be reconsidered. Two weeks later the Secretary of State wrote again to the TUC, saying that he would give "due weight" to its views. Almost immediately
562
thereafter, without giving the TUC a chance to make representations to him, and without taking any further evidence from it, the Secretary of State announced on the eve of the Summer Recess, in answer to a planted written question, that he intended to go ahead with abolition.
That is not consultation. It is diktat—a mere perfunctory exchange of correspondence which the Secretary of State believes will fulfil the obligations under the convention. It is the minimum required to pave the way for the miserable motion that we are debating.
The Government could not provide any good reasons for rescinding the fair wages resolution. In those circumstances, we can only assume that they are motivated by a desire to cut the cost of any contracts that go to the private sector and that they hope to do so at the expense of wages. I am in favour of cost cutting through greater efficiency, investment and the introduction of safe technology. Any benefit that the Government or Treasury obtain from the abolition of the fair wages resolution will be at the expense of wages and the conditions of employment of people working on Government contracts. The Government want savings on the contracts that they award, but it will not be as a result of any improvement in efficiency, investment or new technology; it will be as a result of cut-throat competition between employers for the cheapest available labour. By rescinding the resolution the Government are giving the green light to reactionary employers.
Many Opposition Members have mentioned Mr. Harold Macmillan's words when he spoke at the Dispatch Box in 1946 in support of the fair wages resolution. His words were true then and they are true today. The low-paid need fair wages most. In industries where the workers are highly organised and the trade unions are recognised by employers there is no need to go to the Central Arbitration Committee. There is mutual respect and collective agreements are observed.
Trade unionism is at its weakest in the lowest paid industries, and it is in those industries that the fair wages resolution has been most beneficial. Every objective analysis shows that the provisions of the fair wages resolution have been very successful in protecting those earning below average wages.
The Government's industrial relations policy is based on mass unemployment, but the fair wages resolution has not hindered good industrial relations. On the contrary, its existence has helped to ensure that agreements are not undercut at the expense of some employers and employees. It has provided employers with protection from damaging industrial action. The independent Central Arbitration Committee has reported more than once that the fair wages resolution has provided a means of solving disputes without recourse to damaging industrial strife.
The Secretary of State, in his pleasing and inimitable style, proposes to press ahead and rescind the fair wages resolution after 91 years of operation. There has been no clamour or great representation from any section of industry asking the Secretary of State to get rid of it. It has had no damaging effects on the economy. On the contrary, in the main it has been beneficial. It has not benefited the higher paid; it has protected the low-paid. It has not distorted the labour market. It has been good for industrial relations.
The Government want to put the clock back a century for workers employed on Government contracts. It will leave them open to a reduction in wages and conditions of

563
employment. Their conditions will no doubt deteriorate. Inevitably, some employers will be encouraged to abandon collective agreements in the search for Government contracts.
I have been handed a copy of the statutory notice that has to be displayed in factories and workplaces throughout the country when employers enter into Government contracts. It says:
"The contractor shall pay rates of wages and observe hours and conditions of labour not less favourable than those established for the trade or industry in the district where the work is carried out … The contractor shall at all times during the continuance of a contract display, for the information of his workpeople, in every factory, workshop or place occupied or used by him for the execution of the contract a copy of this Resolution."
No longer will that take place.
I know that the Secretary of State travels around the country a great deal during weekends. I hope that wherever he goes over the next few months there will be an arrangement for him to visit a factory where one of these notices is displayed. There can be a little "taking down" ceremony and then he can wear it as a badge of shame.
The Secretary of State is spearheading the abandonment of a measure that has enjoyed a long tradition of all-party support in the House. Some of the weakest and lowest paid will suffer. To judge from what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, he takes pride and joy in the action that he takes. That is typical of him.
Great damage will be done. Great damage has been done to our economy over the past three and a half years. During that period 2 million have lost their jobs and about 1 million have been out of work for more than a year. We know that 20 per cent. of our industry has been destroyed. Practically everyone pays more tax. However, none of that is as mean, despicable and contemptible as the motion that we are debating. That is why the Opposition will vote against it.
9.37 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): A stranger to our proceedings who listened to the debate throughout would have heard for hour after hour the passionate and vehement attacks on what the Government are proposing to do and could be forgiven for imagining that we were about to unleash on the British people some unthinkable act of despotism or barbarity. Judging by the way in which the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition and the way in which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) replied to it, the impression has been given that we are about to reintroduce hanging for sheep stealing. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield, with a piece of subliminal black propaganda, managed to suggest that my right hon. Friend is about to hang us all.
The level of denunciation from the Opposition is not in touch with the real world. My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) was right to say that the more modest the measure the more hysterical the language. That applies in this instance. I must start by asking the House to place the motion in its proper perspective in relation to the real world.
The 1946 resolution, which the Government are inviting the House to rescind, is the last in line of three such resolutions originally concerned with sweated labour conditions in the nineteenth century. The first one,
564
incidentally, was introduced by a Conservative Government in 1891. Each successive resolution in the line of three has had progressively less to contribute in the sphere of fair wages and conditions for employees.
The reason for that is that other factors, such as the growth of trade unions or even the development of employment protection legislation, have appeared on the employment scene and have moved progressively towards the centre of the stage. Indeed, the very first clause of the current resolution, under which contractors are required to observe terms and conditions for employment established by the trade or industry in the district by representative joint negotiating machinery or arbitration, shows how deeply a trade union or other representative negotiating framework is presupposed by the resolution. Therefore, at its best the resolution is merely an appendage. If that was true in 1946, when the work force was about 43 per cent. unionised, it applies with even more force now, when the figure is nearer 50 per cent. More significantly, over 70 per cent. of all workers now have their pay determined by some sort of collective bargaining arrangement.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) tried to argue that the fair wages resolution was a prop for free collective bargaining, but his argument does not stand up to an examination of the facts. I have been glancing through a summary of the Central Arbitration Committee's fair wages resolution awards for 1981–82. In at least two of the 22 awards, the companies against which the award was made paid rates in accordance with national agreements, reached between the Engineering Employers' Federation and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. In another case, involving Cammell Laird, the CAC accepted that the award might affect internal differentials, but the company was paying wage rates in line with national agreements. Far from the fair wages resolution being a prop of free collective bargaining, on the contrary it tends in many ways to undermine it.
Mr. Harold Walker: I quoted the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, one of the largest employers' organisations in the country. The fair wages resolution was a buttress—my word, not its—for collective bargaining in the construction industry.
Mr. Alison: Whatever the arguments in favour of the idea that the fair wages resolution is a buttress, they are belied by what has happened with award claims taken to the CAC.
When one adds to this perspective the fact that the resolution applies directly only to central Government contracts, the limited character, indeed the veritable modesty of our motion's implications, becomes even clearer. Workers employed on Government contracts are only a relatively small proportion of the work force. The Government have acted and will continue to act responsibly in placing contracts. There will be no relaxation of the standards with which Government contractors are expected to comply.
I remind the House that in practice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why change it?"] I shall try to answer the question, "Why change it?" if I am given the chance to proceed with my speech.
In practice the Government will continue to set an example, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) asked us to do. The example is a good one.

565
It is that those placing contracts should not attempt to interfere with the pay and conditions agreed by contractors and their employees. We hope that other public sector employers will behave in the same way.
I urge the Opposition to recognise that we shall continue to act in a completely responsible way over central Government contracts. It should be noted that the fair wages resolution already depends upon the moral rather than the legal authority of the Government. The decision reached by the final arbiter in a question raised under the resolution—the Central Arbitration Committee's decision and its award—is not directly enforceable at law, as my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) reminded us.
Contractors are simply expected to comply with the terms of any award made. If they fail to do so, woe betide their future expectation as Government contractors. Exactly the same sanctions will continue to apply in maintaining Government standards for contractors, whether or not the resolution is enforced.
I remind Opposition Members again that the level of claims and awards since 1946, when related to the number of firms in the economy—of which there must be well in excess of 500,000—places the whole operation in the realm of the indisputably marginal. In the entire period from 1946 to 1975—some 30 years—only 65 claims were made, of which only 13 were established in whole or in part. I concede that there followed a span of four years when the claims went up a little: 122 in 1976, 328 in 1977, 570 in 1978, and 135 in 1979. But in 1980, claims again dropped back to 50, of which only 12 were established, and in 1981—the last complete year—only four claims were established out of a total of 50 made.
Some hon. Members might argue that the relatively small number of claims shows that the fair wages resolution is successful in promoting good practice, but that argument cannot be sustained. The facts show exactly the opposite, which is that it is redundant. That can be seen in the fact that there was a relatively large upsurge of claims in the four years between 1975 and 1979. Those were the years of the Labour Government's four phases of incomes policy. The figures show—this is an important part of the argument—that when normal collective bargaining is superseded, there is a tendency for fair wages resolution claims to burgeon and to develop.
In 1975, only six claims were received. In July of that year the White Paper "The Attack on Inflation", with its proposal for a £6 a week maximum increase, was introduced by the Labour Government. As a result of that in 1976 the number of claims jumped from six to 122. In 1977, the White Paper "The Attack on Inflation after 31 July 1977" was introduced with a 5 per cent. or £4 a week maximum. The minimum allowed was £2·50. What a marvellous bonus that was for the low-paid in the face of the prices and incomes policy. That is what the Labour Party was talking about before the recent National Health Service dispute. As a result of that, the number of claims in 1977 shot up to 328.
In 1978, the Labour Government published the White Paper "Winning the Battle Against Inflation". The total increase for any group compared with the previous year was to be not more than 5 per cent. The health workers have done well under the Tory Government compared with the latter phase of prices and incomes policy of the
566
previous Government. Due to the 5 per cent. maximum increase across the board, the number of fair wages resolution bids leapt from six in 1976 to 570. It was only in 1979, when we got rid of the prices and incomes policy, that it began to drop again.
The clear conclusion to be drawn from the figures is that, marginally, the fair wages resolution tends to be resorted to when normal free collective bargaining is inhibited. It is difficult to see how a party such as the SDP, which has now officially and openly espoused the policy of regulated wages and prices, can advocate the retention of a device such as the fair wages resolution that has been used most actively in the past 10 years to buck the prices and incomes system.
This might be the appropriate time for me to try to scotch one myth that has found repeated expression in Opposition Members' speeches today. The myth is that by rescinding the resolution we shall be attacking the low paid, or at least removing from them a real protection. However, that argument cannot be sustained. The fair wages resolution compares the pay of workers in the same industry or occupation. Therefore, it cannot be instrumental in raising the general level of pay in traditionally low-paid industries or occupations.
Mr. Michael Martin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Alison: No. I must get on with this part of the argument.
That can be illustrated by examining recent awards. In 1981–82, there were about 20 awards that were not related to absolute pay levels. Two awards found breaches of the resolution in claims involving workers earning up to £10,000 and £6,192 a year respectively. One found a breach for those in the range of £62 to £94 a week. A similar spread is found among claims where no breach is found. Two awards found no breach with earnings in the range of £74 to £96 a week. Four awards found no breach among workers whose earnings were at a maximum of £7,000 a year or more.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry asked about the spread of low pay that was to be found in Central Arbitration Committee fair wages resolution awards for 1981 and 1982. I have studied the list carefully. I have it here, and it is an exhaustive one, giving all 22 awards. Of the 22, only two awards put in by bodies of workers came remotely near the level of weekly pay which is a feature of the wages council sector. On average, they were at least £20 or £30 a week above the average for the wages council sector. Therefore, the argument that the awards were a protection for the low paid is absolute nonsense.
I recognise that one danger in the argument of irrelevance of the fair wages resolution is that it could be stood on its head. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), with his subtle approach, said to me, "If it is doing no harm and is not very effective, why not let it wither on the branch?" The answer is not grounds of ideology, but the fact that it has a direct bearing upon jobs.
To sustain my argument, I should like to make one quotation. It comes from a letter written to my Department by the industrial relations director of Courtaulds. I know that the right hon. Member for Doncaster will remember the letter, because it was quoted in the debate in Parliament in 1980. It relates to the decision to try to do away with schedule 11 of the 1975 Act. It said:

567
"The 'handing down' of wage awards, from remote central bodies, creates in employees' minds the vision of a bottomless pit of wealth, irrespective of the circumstances of their particular enterprise and totally at variance with the Government's philosophy based upon 'ability to pay'. No amount of explanation of the economic facts of life can stand up against the background of an apparent source of cash unrelated to the workplace circumstances … Because substantial pay increases can be achieved through the easy route"—
described in the letter—
"it becomes extremely difficult to carry out effective bargaining on a productivity basis within individual companies or workplaces: instead of the exchange of commitments, which is an essential element in true bargaining, we have a virtual one-way traffic in increased pay".
The essential message in the passage I have quoted is that the kind of provision which the now inoperative schedule 11 made, and which the resolution makes, produces an obstacle to employment. I heard the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice), from a sedentary position, asking me what evidence that showed. It is corroborated by one of the cases which came to the CAC and which resulted in an award in the 1981–82 phase. As a result, the company had to declare redundant two of its 14 workers, because of a wage award which it could not afford.
Mr. Harold Walker: In 1980, the Government got rid of schedule 11. If it had the effect that the Minister describes, will he explain why Courtaulds, since then, has shed thousands of jobs? The man-made fibre industry has lost more than 20,000 jobs, and the Government have created an additional 2 million unemployed. If schedule 11 was a barrier to full employment, will the Minister say why its removal had those consequences?
Mr. Alison: There is nothing that I should like more than to enter into a general debate with the right hon. Member for Doncaster about the extent to which the failure to maintain relations between pay and productivity has put the British competitive position in hock to our foreign competitors. That is what it amounts to.
In the course of quoting the letter from the industrial relations director of Courtaulds, I was talking about the abolition of schedule 11. An interesting point, therefore, arises in connection with what the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) said in his intervention. He seemed to be fulminating on low pay grounds about our motion to do away with the resolution. Therefore, he will presumably support the Opposition in resisting the abolition of the resolution and oppose the Government's motion. However, he should realise that the abolition of schedule 11 which took place in 1980 is exactly the same in principle as the abolition of the resolution that we are seeking tonight, although immeasurably wider and more far-reaching. What are we to make of what his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said on 17 December 1979? He said:
"I welcome clause 16, especially the proposal to abolish schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975, which has been grossly abused by some unions".—[Official Report,17 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 130.]
Will the hon. Member for Truro go into the Lobby tonight with the Labour Party in support of the fair wages resolution when his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale supported the abolition of schedule 11 which is the fair wages resolution writ large? I urge the hon. Gentleman to think hard and long before he votes with the Opposition tonight.
Mr. Penhaligon rose—
Mr. Alison: I want finally to say something about the allegation that we have not been—
Mr. Penhaligon rose—
Mr. Alison: I am sorry, I have little time left. [Interruption.] The noise is affording me a useful opportunity to find a piece of paper.
The allegation has been repeatedly made—the last occasion was by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield—that we have not been doing what we should have done in terms of consultation. I do not understand why the TUC complains that we have not properly consulted it. If it had wanted more, it could have asked for that. We wrote to the TUC in March on another ILO matter—a draft White Paper on the Government attitude towards the ILO conventions and recommendations adopted by the ILO conference in 1981. Owing to a misunderstanding the TUC thought that it was not being consulted properly and it asked for a meeting.— [Interruption]—I hope that the right hon. Members for Chesterfield and for Doncaster will listen carefully to what I have to say.
The TUC asked for a meeting specifically to talk about an ILO recommendation and a convention. That meeting was willingly granted and the TUC came along. It was able to give me its views clearly. It was Bill Keys and one or two others who came to see me. I reported to the Secretary of State, who considered the representations that had been made to me. As a result, a small change was made in the White Paper relating to the subject that we discussed.
If the TUC had asked for a meeting to discuss the rescission of the fair wages resolution and the denunciation of ILO convention No. 94, it would have been willingly granted. However, Len Murray, when he wrote to ask for the meeting to which Bill Keys came to talk to me about the ILO, said in his letter that he hoped that the Government would talk to him at the same time about another matter which it was proposed to denounce, referring to the fair wages resolution motion.
When they came along to discuss the ILO Bill Keys concentrated entirely on the ILO's views on collective bargaining and did not bother to mention the fair wages resolution. However, that meeting took place, they said they wanted to talk about it, but did not do so. There could not have been a greater opportunity for consultation than when they came into the Department to speak to me. Quite apart from the letters that have flowed backwards and forwards, they had an opportunity to talk to us but they did not bother to do so. Therefore, I can unreservedly ask the House to support the motion for the abolition of the resolution and to resist the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 300.

Division No. 35]

[10 pm

AYES

Abse, Leo

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Adams, Allen

Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

Allaun, Frank

Bidwell, Sydney

Alton, David

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Anderson, Donald

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

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Ashton, Joe

Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

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

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Buchan, Norman

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Beith, A. J.

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

569

Campbell, Ian

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Canavan, Dennis

John, Brynmor

Cant, R. B.

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Carmichael, Neil

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

Cartwright, John

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Clarke, Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

Kerr, Russell

Cohen, Stanley

Kilfedder, James A.

Coleman, Donald

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Kinnock, Neil

Conlan, Bernard

Lamond, James

Cook, Robin F.

Leadbitter, Ted

Cowans, Harry

Leighton, Ronald

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

Lestor, Miss Joan

Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

Crowther, Stan

Litherland, Robert

Cryer, Bob

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Dalyell, Tam

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Davidson, Arthur

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

McCartney, Hugh

Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Deakins, Eric

McElhone, Mrs Helen

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Dewar, Donald

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Dixon, Donald

McKelvey, William

Dobson, Frank

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Dormand, Jack

Maclennan, Robert

Douglas, Dick

McNally, Thomas

Dubs, Alfred

McNamara, Kevin

Duffy, A. E. P.

McTaggart, Robert

Dunnett, Jack

McWilliam, John

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Marks, Kenneth

Eastham, Ken

Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

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

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Maxton, John

Evans, John (Newton)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Ewing, Harry

Meacher, Michael

Faulds, Andrew

Mikardo, Ian

Flannery, Martin

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Ford, Ben

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Forrester, John

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

Foster, Derek

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Foulkes, George

Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

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

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Freud, Clement

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Newens, Stanley

George, Bruce

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

O'Neill, Martin

Golding, John

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Graham, Ted

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Grant, John (Islington C)

Palmer, Arthur

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Park, George

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

Parker, John

Harman, Harriet (Peckham)

Parry, Robert

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Pavitt, Laurie

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Penhaligon, David

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Haynes, Frank

Prescott, John

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Heffer, Eric S.

Race, Reg

Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

Radice, Giles

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

Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

Home Robertson, John

Richardson, Jo

Homewood, William

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Hooley, Frank

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Howells, Geraint

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Hoyle, Douglas

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Huckfield, Les

Robertson, George

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Rooker, J. W.

Janner, Hon Greville

Roper, John

570

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Tilley, John

Rowlands, Ted

Tinn, James

Ryman, John

Torney, Tom

Sever, John

Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

Sheerman, Barry

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

Short, Mrs Renée

Wardell, Gareth

Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

Watkins, David

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Weetch, Ken

Silverman, Julius

Welsh, Michael

Skinner, Dennis

White, Frank R.

Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

Snape, Peter

Whitehead, Phillip

Soley, Clive

Wigley, Dafydd

Spearing, Nigel

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

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

Spriggs, Leslie

Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

Stallard, A. W.

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Wilson, William (C'try SE)

Stoddart, David

Winnick, David

Stott, Roger

Woodall, Alec

Strang, Gavin

Wright, Sheila

Straw, Jack

Young, David (Bolton E)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Mr. George Morton.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

Aitken, Jonathan

Chapman, Sydney

Alexander, Richard

Churchill, W. S.

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Ancram, Michael

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Arnold, Tom

Clegg, Sir Walter

Aspinwall, Jack

Cockeram, Eric

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

Colvin, Michael

Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

Cope, John

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

Cormack, Patrick

Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

Corrie, John

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Costain, Sir Albert

Banks, Robert

Cranborne, Viscount

Bendall, Vivian

Critchley, Julian

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Crouch, David

Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Dorrell, Stephen

Berry, Hon Anthony

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Best, Keith

Dover, Denshore

Bevan, David Gilroy

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Durant, Tony

Blackburn, John

Dykes, Hugh

Blaker, Peter

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Body, Richard

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Eggar, Tim

Bowden, Andrew

Elliott, Sir William

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Emery, Sir Peter

Braine, Sir Bernard

Eyre, Reginald

Bright, Graham

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Brinton, Tim

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

Farr, John

Brooke, Hon Peter

Fell, Sir Anthony

Brotherton, Michael

Fanner, Mrs Peggy

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Browne, John (Winchester)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Bruce-Gardyne, John

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

Bryan, Sir Paul

Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

Fookes, Miss Janet

Buck, Antony

Forman, Nigel

Budgen, Nick

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Bulmer, Esmond

Fox, Marcus

Burden, Sir Frederick

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Butcher, John

Fry, Peter

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

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

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

571

Glyn, Dr Alan

Mellor, David

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Goodhew, Sir Victor

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Goodlad, Alastair

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Gorst, John

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Gow, Ian

Miscampbell, Norman

Gower, Sir Raymond

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

Moate, Roger

Greenway, Harry

Montgomery, Fergus

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

Morgan, Geraint

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Grist, Ian

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Grylls, Michael

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Mudd, David

Hamilton, Hon A.

Murphy, Christopher

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Myles, David

Hampson, Dr Keith

Neale, Gerrard

Hannam, John

Needham, Richard

Haselhurst, Alan

Nelson, Anthony

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Neubert, Michael

Hawksley, Warren

Nott, Rt Hon John

Hayhoe, Barney

Onslow, Cranley

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Osborn, John

Heddle, John

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Henderson, Barry

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Hicks, Robert

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Parris, Matthew

Hill, James

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Patten, John (Oxford)

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Hooson, Tom

Pawsey, James

Hordern, Peter

Percival, Sir Ian

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Pink, R. Bonner

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

Pollock, Alexander

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Porter, Barry

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman

Proctor, K. Harvey

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Rathbone, Tim

Jessel, Toby

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Renton, Tim

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Rhodes James, Robert

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

King, Rt Hon Tom

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Rifkind, Malcolm

Knight, Mrs Jill

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Knox, David

Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Lang, Ian

Rossi, Hugh

Lawrence, Ivan

Rost, Peter

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Royle, Sir Anthony

Lee, John

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Scott, Nicholas

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Luce, Richard

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Lyell, Nicholas

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

McCrindle, Robert

Shepherd, Richard

Macfarlane, Neil

Shersby, Michael

MacGregor, John

Silvester, Fred

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Sims, Roger

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Skeet, T. H. H.

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Smith, Dudley

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

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

McQuarrie, Albert

Speed, Keith

Madel, David

Speller, Tony

Major, John

Spence, John

Marland, Paul

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Marlow, Antony

Sproat, Iain

Marten, Rt Hon Neil

Squire, Robin

Mates, Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

Stanley, John

Mawby, Ray

Steen, Anthony

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Stevens, Martin

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

Mayhew, Patrick

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

572

Stokes, John

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Stradling Thomas, J.

Wall, Sir Patrick

Tapsell, Peter

Waller, Gary

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Walters, Dennis

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Ward, John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Warren, Kenneth

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Watson, John

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Wells, Bowen

Thompson, Donald

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Wheeler, John

Thornton, Malcolm

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Whitney, Raymond

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Wickenden, Keith

Trippier, David

Wiggin, Jerry

Trotter, Neville

Wilkinson, John

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Williams, D. (Montgomery)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Winterton, Nicholas

Viggers, Peter

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Waddington, David

Younger, Rt Hon George

Wakeham, John

Waldegrave, Hon William

Tellers for the Noes:

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Mr. Carol Mather and

Walker, B. (Perth)

Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 235.

Division No. 36]

[10.14 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Chapman, Sydney

Aitken, Jonathan

Churchill, W. S.

Alexander, Richard

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

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Ancram, Michael

Clegg, Sir Walter

Arnold, Tom

Cockeram, Eric

Aspinwall, Jack

Colvin, Michael

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

Cope, John

Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

Cormack, Patrick

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

Corrie, John

Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

Costain, Sir Albert

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Cranborne, Viscount

Banks, Robert

Critchley, Julian

Bendall, Vivian

Crouch, David

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

Dorrell, Stephen

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Berry, Hon Anthony

Dover, Denshore

Best, Keith

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Bevan, David Gilroy

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Durant, Tony

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Dykes, Hugh

Blackburn, John

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Blaker, Peter

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Body, Richard

Eggar, Tim

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Elliott, Sir William

Bowden, Andrew

Emery, Sir Peter

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Eyre, Reginald

Braine, Sir Bernard

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Bright, Graham

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Brinton, Tim

Farr, John

Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

Fell, Sir Anthony

Brooke, Hon Peter

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Brotherton, Michael

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Browne, John (Winchester)

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

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

Bryan, Sir Paul

Fookes, Miss Janet

Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

Forman, Nigel

Buck, Antony

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Budgen, Nick

Fox, Marcus

Bulmer, Esmond

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Burden, Sir Frederick

Fry, Peter

Butcher, John

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

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

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Glyn, Dr Alan

Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

Goodhart, Sir Philip

573

Goodhew, Sir Victor

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Goodlad, Alastair

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Gorst, John

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Gow, Ian

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Miscampbell, Norman

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

Moate, Roger

Greenway, Harry

Montgomery, Fergus

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

Morgan, Geraint

Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Grist, Ian

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Grylls, Michael

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Mudd, David

Hamilton, Hon A.

Murphy, Christopher

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Myles, David

Hampson, Dr Keith

Neale, Gerrard

Hannam, John

Needham, Richard

Haselhurst, Alan

Nelson, Anthony

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Neubert, Michael

Hawksley, Warren

Nott, Rt Hon John

Hayhoe, Barney

Onslow, Cranley

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Osborn, John

Heddle, John

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Henderson, Barry

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Hicks, Robert

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Parris, Matthew

Hill, James

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Patten, John (Oxford)

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Hooson, Tom

Pawsey, James

Hordern, Peter

Percival, Sir Ian

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Pink, R. Bonner

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

Pollock, Alexander

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Porter, Barry

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman

Proctor, K. Harvey

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Rathbone, Tim

Jessel, Toby

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Renton, Tim

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Rhodes James, Robert

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

King, Rt Hon Tom

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Rifkind, Malcolm

Knight, Mrs Jill

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Knox, David

Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Lang, Ian

Rossi, Hugh

Lawrence, Ivan

Rost, Peter

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Royle, Sir Anthony

Lee, John

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Scott, Nicholas

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Luce, Richard

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Lyell, Nicholas

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

McCrindle, Robert

Shepherd, Richard

Macfarlane, Neil

Shersby, Michael

MacGregor, John

Silvester, Fred

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Sims, Roger

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Skeet, T. H. H.

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Smith, Dudley

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

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

McQuarrie, Albert

Speed, Keith

Madel, David

Speller, Tony

Major, John

Spence, John

Marland, Paul

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Marlow, Antony

Sproat, Iain

Marten, Rt Hon Neil

Squire, Robin

Mates, Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

Stanley, John

Mawby, Ray

Steen, Anthony

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Stevens, Martin

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

Mayhew, Patrick

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Mellor, David

Stokes, John

574

Stradling Thomas, J.

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Tapsell, Peter

Waller, Gary

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Walters, Dennis

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Ward, John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Warren, Kenneth

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Watson, John

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Wells, Bowen

Thompson, Donald

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Wheeler, John

Thornton, Malcolm

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Whitney, Raymond

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Wickenden, Keith

Trippier, David

Wiggin, Jerry

Trotter, Neville

Wilkinson, John

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Williams, D. (Montgomery)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Winterton, Nicholas

Viggers, Peter

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Waddington, David

Younger, Rt Hon George

Wakeham, John

Waldegrave, Hon William

Tellers for the Ayes:

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Mr. Carol Mather and

Walker, B. (Perth)

Mr. Robert Boscawen.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Dormand, Jack

Adams, Allen

Douglas, Dick

Allaun, Frank

Dubs, Alfred

Alton, David

Duffy, A. E. P.

Anderson, Donald

Dunnett, Jack

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Eastham, Ken

Ashton, Joe

Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

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

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Beith, A. J.

Evans, John (Newton)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Ewing, Harry

Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

Faulds, Andrew

Bidwell, Sydney

Flannery, Martin

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

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

Forrester, John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Foster, Derek

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Foulkes, George

Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

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

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

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Freud, Clement

Buchan, Norman

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

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

George, Bruce

Campbell, Ian

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Golding, John

Canavan, Dennis

Graham, Ted

Cant, R. B.

Grant, John (Islington C)

Carmichael, Neil

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

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

Cartwright, John

Harman, Harriet (Peckham)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Clarke, Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie)

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

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

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Cohen, Stanley

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Coleman, Donald

Heffer, Eric S.

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

Conlan, Bernard

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

Cook, Robin F.

Home Robertson, John

Cowans, Harry

Homewood, William

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

Hooley, Frank

Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

Howells, Geraint

Crowther, Stan

Hoyle, Douglas

Cryer, Bob

Huckfield, Les

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Dalyell, Tam

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Davidson, Arthur

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Janner, Hon Greville

Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Deakins, Eric

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

John, Brynmor

Dewar, Donald

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Dixon, Donald

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Dobson, Frank

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

575

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW>

Kerr, Russell

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Kilfedder, James A.

Rooker, J. W.

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Roper, John

Kinnock, Neil

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Lamond, James

Rowlands, Ted

Leadbitter, Ted

Ryman, John

Leighton, Ronald

Sever, John

Lestor, Miss Joan

Sheerman, Barry

Litherland, Robert

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Short, Mrs Renée

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

McCartney, Hugh

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Silverman, Julius

McElhone, Mrs Helen

Skinner, Dennis

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Snape, Peter

McKelvey, William

Soley, Clive

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Spearing, Nigel

Maclennan, Robert

Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

McNally, Thomas

Spriggs, Leslie

McNamara, Kevin

Stallard, A. W.

McTaggart, Robert

Steel, Rt Hon David

McWilliam, John

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Marks, Kenneth

Stoddart, David

Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

Stott, Roger

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Strang, Gavin

Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

Straw, Jack

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Maxton, John

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Meacher, Michael

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Mikardo, Ian

Tilley, John

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Tinn, James

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Torney, Tom

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Warden, Gareth

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Watkins, David

Newens, Stanley

Weetch, Ken

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Welsh, Michael

O'Neill, Martin

White, Frank R.

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Whitehead, Phillip

Palmer, Arthur

Wigley, Dafydd

Park, George

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

Parker, John

Williams.Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby

Parry, Robert

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Pavitt, Laurie

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)

Penhaligon, David

Wilson, William (C'try SE)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Winnick, David

Prescott, John

Woodall, Alec

Price, C, (Lewisham W)

Wright, Sheila

Race, Reg

Young, David (Bolton E)

Radice, Giles

Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

Tellers for the Noes:

Richardson, Jo

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Mr. George Morton.

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Resolution of this House of 14 October 1946 relating to Fair Wages Clauses in Government contracts be rescinded as from 21 September 1983.

Fair Wages Resolution

  HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND (No. 1)
  Resolved,
  That in pursuance of the provisions of section 3 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 and of section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981 the maximum annual amounts of the periodical payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, as amended, and the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 of the said Act of 1981 shall be varied as from 1st December 1982 as follows:
  (a) for paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1939, as amended, there shall be substituted the following paragraph;
  '(1) The annual amount of any periodical payment made to any person by virtue of his past membership of the House of Commons shall not exceed £2,016 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £3,730 per annum whichever is the less:
  Provided that if, having regard to length of service and need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £3,894 or such sum as, in their opinion, will bring his income up to £5,608 per annum, whichever is the less.'
  (b) for paragraph 2 of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
  '(2) The annual amount of any periodical payment to any person by virtue of her being a widow of a past Member of the House of Commons shall not exceed £1,008 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £2,722 per annum, whichever is the less:
  Provided that if, having regard to her husband's length of service or to her need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £1,944 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £3,658 per annum, whichever is the less.
  (c) in paragraph 2A of that Schedule for the words 'the annual amount of any periodical payment' to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words:
  'the annual amount of any periodical payment made to any such widower shall not exceed £1,008 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £2,722 per annum, whichever is the less:
  Provided that if, having regard to his wife's length of service or to his needs the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £1,944 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £3,658 per annum, whichever is the less.'
  (d) in section 2(1) of the said Act of 1981, for the words from the beginning to the end of paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the words:
  'the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 shall be—
  (a) £1,176 if the payments are made to a past Member; and
  (b) £588 if the payments are made to the widow or widower of a past Member.'—[Mr. John Parker.]

  HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND (No. 2)
  Resolved,
  That one-tenth of the sums deducted or set aside in the current year from the salaries of Members of Parliament under section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, and one-tenth of the contribution determined by the Treasury for the current year under section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, as amended by the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981, be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948.—[Mr. John Parker.]

Polling District (Kellingley)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
10.27 pm
Dr. Edmund Marshall: On 7 May this year, 30 of my constituents who reside in the Kellingley area of the parish of Beal, which lies in the Selby district of North Yorkshire, signed a petition to the Home Secretary which was worded as follows:
"We, the undersigned electors in the Goole parliamentary constituency, hereby make representation to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in accordance with section 11(4) of the Representation of the People Act 1949, to the effect that the present polling arrangements for the parish of Beal, within the Selby district and the Goole constituency, do not meet the reasonable requirements of electors resident in that parish, and we request the Secretary of State to direct Selby district council to create two separate polling districts within the parish of Beal, with boundaries as shown on the attached plan."
On that plan was clearly marked a dividing line passing across the half-mile belt of open countryside which separates the village of Beal itself from the area in the parish of Beal but around the Kellingley colliery, where there has been considerable residential development during the past 15 years as the colliery has expanded.
On the 1983 draft electoral register 235 names are included for the Kellingley area compared with 269 for Beal village, making a total of 504 for the parish of Beal as a whole. It is therefore true to say that the electorate of the parish of Beal is really separated into two distinct residential communities of comparable size, and the petitioners' request is quite simply that those two communities should each be allocated a polling district and a polling station of its own.
At present there is one polling station, at Beal village hall, for the whole parish. While that is undoubtedly a convenient polling station for the 269 electors who live in Beal village, it is certainly not convenient for the 235 who live at Kellingley. It is on the side of the village of Beal away from the direction of Kellingley. Many of the electors who live in Kellingley would have to go about a mile to the present polling station in Beal. Although there is a half-mile belt of countryside separating Beal village from Kellingley, distances between particular residences in Kellingley and the polling station in Beal village can be considerably more—I would estimate about a mile at most.
The Kellingley community lies round the colliery which has developed alongside the A645. The village of Beal is quite separate from that main road. The only public transport between Beal and Kellingley on weekdays is an hourly bus service, which is so timed that passengers have only three minutes between the scheduled arrival of the Kellingley bus in the middle of Beal village and the departure of the bus back. To expect people to get off the bus, go to the polling station, vote and to catch the bus again within three minuted is to expect the impossible.
Therefore, the voter from Kellingley who does not have his own transport has to wait, after voting, for an hour for the bus back. I have explained the distance between Beal and Kellingley and it is certainly far too far for elderly or infirm residents to walk. Even fit people would find walking along such open roads very unpleasant in bad weather. Furthermore, Kellingley residents in general have hardly any other reason to visit Beal village, where there is now no school and no church of any denomination.
578
Indeed, ecclesiastically, Kellingley is part of the Church of England parish of Kellington, in the diocese of Wakefield, while Beal village is part of the Church of England parish of Birkin, in the diocese of York. Kellingley and Beal village are in two separate dioceses. It is my general impression that the residents of Kellingley do most of their local shopping in the town of Knottingley, which is in the opposite direction to Beal.
All told, the only general links between Kellingley and Beal village are that they are parts of the same civil parish and at present have the same polling station at Beal village hall. I cannot accept that the number of electors in Kellingley—235—is too few for them to have a polling district of their own. Many other rural polling areas, including nine elsewhere in my constituency, have electorates of fewer than 235. I remember how, in the Louth constituency, where I was first a parliamentary candidate many years ago, there was a polling district at a place called Muckton that had fewer than 30 electors.
In my present constituency, there are only 52 electors listed on the 1983 draft register for the polling district of Eastoft in the borough of Boothferry, and only 70 on the 1982 draft register for the polling district of Birkin, which lies adjacent to Beal in the Selby district. If it is argued that some rural polling districts have small electorates simply because they are whole parishes by themselves, and that there is some requirement, therefore, to have a polling station in each parish, I would point out that the single parish of Snaith and Cowick in my constituency, in the borough of Boothferry, has three polling districts in the parish, one of which, East Cowick, has just 210 names on the 1983 draft electoral register. That polling station at East Cowick is nearer to the polling station at neighbouring West Cowick than Kellingley is to Beal village hall. I do not wish to give the impression that I believe that East Cowick residents should have to vote at West Cowick, but I simply cite that as an example of separate polling districts within the same parish, where the case for such separate polling districts is not as strong as at Kellingley and Beal.
In general, I state it as an overriding principle that the strength of our democracy depends in part on the provision, by local authorities and by the Home Secretary, of separate polling stations wherever there are separate communities. We need to provide polling stations for the convenience of the electorate in even the most rural and remote areas. We must make it as easy as possible for electors to be able to exercise their franchise. The value of democracy is far more than the cost of providing such facilities.
The petition from my constituents at Kellingley was transmitted on 9 May to the Minister of State. I am pleased to see him here tonight. His first step was to consult the local authority—Selby district council—about the petition. I do not quarrel with the way in which the local authority was consulted in the matter—after all, elections are almost always organised by local authority officers—but I stress that the submission of the petition to the Home Secretary was intended to enable him to decide on this matter independently of the local authority.
It would make a mockery of the statutory provision for petitions such as this one if a Conservative Home Secretary were simply to rubber-stamp the decision of a local authority. It would be even more of a mockery if a Conservative Home Secretary rubber-stamped the decision

579
of a local authority in which the largest political group was the Conservatives. All the same, I hope that the Home Secretary on 26 October declined the petition in this case.
I shall now consider what may have been the Home Secretary's reasons for that decision. First, there is the question of what building might be used as a polling station for a separate polling district at Kellingley. There is no school, no community centre or church hall which might be used for that purpose. Indeed, the only possible non-residential building in the area that could be used as a polling station is the new medical centre constructed in the past three years by the National Coal Board near the main gate of Kellingley colliery.
Only one room would be needed for a polling station in the centre, which is quite separate from the colliery. It would be unusual for a polling station to be located in private industrial premises, but it would not be unique. I recall one polling station in the Louth constituency which was in a farm office at Barnoldby-le-Beck.
I appreciate that the National Coal Board might be wary about allowing the medical centre to be used as a polling station, especially because what little traffic the polling station might generate would have to pass through the main colliery gates. However, I feel sure that a suitable working arrangement could be agreed if the board were properly approached by officials from the local authority and the Home Office. This is a case of "Where there is a will, there is a way."
If it does not prove possible for the medical centre at Kellingley to be used as a polling station, an alternative would be to use a room in a private house. That has been done elsewhere. Another possibility, which is successfully practised elsewhere, is to use a mobile polling station—a caravan. I understand that caravans are used elsewhere in the Selby district. Plenty of open space is available in the vicinity of the Oval and Shaftesbury Avenue at Kellingley for such a caravan to be parked.
From all these considerations, I cannot believe that the reason for the Home Secretary's refusal of the petition is that it is impossible to find a polling station at Kellingley. If it is agreed that there should be a polling station there, I am sure that it will be possible to find accommodation for it.
I understand that Selby district council is reluctant to provide separate polling facilities at Kellingley because it might set a precedent that it would then have to follow elsewhere in the Selby district as new communities grow in connection with the development of the Selby coalfield. After all, the growth of Kellingley is due to the development of the colliery there.
As the majority of residents associated with coal mining are generally supporters of the Labour Party, the prospect of an influx of Labour voters into the Selby district may alarm the Conservatives who have held sway in the district, many people would say, for far too long. If such alarm exists, however, it should not be translated into a deliberate policy of making it more difficult for electors in developing communities to exercise their democratic voting rights.
In the normal course of events, the growth of population in the Selby district as a result of colliery development should lead automatically to an increase in the number of polling stations and Kellingley should be regarded as the first of many in the district. I cannot believe that a Conservative Home Secretary, in the exercise of his discretion under section 11(4) of the 1949
580
Act, would wish to appear to be making it more difficult for voters associated with the coal mining industry to cast their votes by refusing them a convenient local polling station.
Therefore, I ask the Home Secretary, through the Minister of State, to look again at the situation at Kellingley. As I have said, I believe that there is a strong case for providing an extra polling station for this clearly defined, separate community. The consequences of refusing the petition would be bad for the health of our democratic system in that part of the country and for the standing of the Home Secretary in the way in which he deals with petitions of this nature.
10.42 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): Few hon. Members have a closer acquaintance with the intricacies of our electoral law than the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall). It is an illustration of the value of our democratic arrangements in this country that he can raise in the House today a matter relating to a relatively small geographical area in his constituency but of considerable importance in the parish of Beal, which includes the hamlet, if that is the correct word, of Kellingley for which he requests the provision of a polling station.
I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said, with his usual clarity. It may be helpful if I begin by summarising the provisions of the law which govern the designation of polling districts, the siting of polling places and the procedures by which these arrangements can be challenged by local electors.
First, of all, I must make it clear that what I have to say applies only to the polling arrangements for parliamentary elections and that the Government have no power at all to intervene in the arrangements for local authority elections. For parliamentary polling arrangements, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us, section 11 of the Representation of the People Act 1949 provides that it is the duty of each district council in England and Wales to divide the parliamentary constituency into polling districts. The district council is also responsible for appointing a polling place for each polling district. In this case, the polling place is located in the parish of Beal and in the village of Beal.
The 1949 Act recognises that polling arrangements will have to vary from area to area according to local circumstances. Factors such as transport facilities, to which the hon. Gentleman very relevantly referred, the distribution of population and the availability of buildings for use as polling stations will differ from one constituency to another, and what is suitable and practicable in a town may not be suitable or practicable in the depths of the countryside. For these reasons, the law does net attempt to regulate the size of polling districts or the siting of polling places. The local authorities are free to make such polling arrangements as they think suitable provided that they exercise their powers, to use the words of the 1949 Act,
"with a view to giving all electors in the constituency such reasonable facilities for voting as are practicable in the circumstances".
They are words that I think Parliament was wise to use, having regard to the almost infinite variety of geographical factors and circumstances that apply throughout the 640 constituencies into which the country is divided.

581
There are further rules. In a county constituency, each parish or community must, unless there are special circumstances, be a separate polling district or districts; the polling place must generally be within the polling district.
The Act also provides that, where local electors are dissatisfied with the parliamentary polling arrangements made by the local authority, 30 or more of them may make representations to the Home Secretary that the arrangements do not meet their reasonable requirements. After considering the representations, the Secretary of State has the power, if he thinks fit, to direct the local authority to make any alterations he thinks necessary in the circumstances.
Such a case has arisen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency where, as he has said, a group of electors in the polling district of Beal are dissatisfied with the polling arrangements made by Selby district council.
The parish of Beal is also a rural polling district with 489 electors. The hon. Gentleman has made the point that those electors are more or less equally divided between Beal and the separate hamlet of Kellingley, which is in a separate diocese. There are two main centres of population: Beal village in the north and Kellingley, about half a mile away to the south. The polling place is in Beal village.
In May this year 30 electors from the Kellingley area of the polling district exercised their rights under the 1949 Act and made representations to the Home Secretary that their reasonable requirements were not being met by the existing polling arrangements. They requested my right hon. Friend to direct Selby district council to create a separate polling district for the Kellingley area on the grounds that it is inconvenient for them to travel to Beal village to vote. I have listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said about the bus service. I agree that a three-minute turn-round is not reasonable to enable people to vote. It would require an hour before the return of the bus.
In support of his constituents' petition, the hon. Gentleman has pointed out that over the past 15 years Kellingley has grown into a distinct community in its own right connected with the colliery. It has an electorate of 233 compared with 256 elsewhere in the polling district and it is separated from Beal by half a mile of open countryside and is served only by an infrequent bus service.
Following normal practice, we wrote to Selby district council asking for its observations on the petition. The council replied to the effect that in March 1980 it had considered a request from a local councillor that a separate polling district be created for Kellingley but had had to reject the request because there was no building in Kellingley suitable for use as a polling station. The hon. Gentleman has suggested on his constituents' behalf that the National Coal Board premises in Kellingley could be used as a polling station. He knows that that has not met with its consent. He has suggested also the medical centre, although it is within the colliery gates. The district council took up this suggestion, but the board refused to allow its premises to be used.
In the absence of a suitable building the only alternative would be to set up a temporary polling station in Kellingley during elections. I disgress to say that
582
sometimes a room in a private house is used as a polling station. In my rural constituency there is more than one such polling station. This is a satisfactory arrangement but it requires the consent of the householder. If the hon. Gentleman could find someone able to provide that sort of accommodation on these rare occasions, the right course would be for him to approach the Selby district council and invite it to reconsider its decision.
The council considered the possibility, but it decided for a number of reasons that a temporary polling station would not be suitable. There are already five polling districts within the local authority area where temporary polling stations are used because there are no other facilities available. The council has bought specially adapted caravans for use in three of these districts. In the other two districts the number of electors involved is small and ordinary touring caravans are used that belong to council officials.
If a separate polling district were created for Kellingley, an additional caravan would have to be acquired. Apart from the expense involved, the council is unwilling for practical reasons to use further temporary stations if that can be avoided. The council has only one vehicle capable of carrying caravans and this same vehicle is required for the delivery of polling booths throughout Selby district. The delivery and siting of the five existing temporary polling stations already puts pressure on transport and labour in the days before an election, especially since caravans need to be protected against vandalism if they are left on site for too long.
A further problem is that entering a caravan is often difficult for the elderly and completely impossible for anyone in a wheelchair. We know that people rightly take much more interest in these matters than used to be the case. Many disabled electors quite naturally prefer to cast their vote in person rather than by post or proxy. My Department has made it clear to local authorities that the long-term objective should be for every polling station to be capable of easy access by the old and disabled. Temporary polling stations should not be used unless there really is no alternative.
For all these reasons Selby district council takes the view that it is unwise to encourage the use of temporary polling stations in areas where the existing facilities may be considered adequate, especially since the demand for such polling stations is likely to increase with the closure of village schools. The problem of distance is common to many, perhaps most, rural areas and there are other parts of Selby district where voters have to travel further than the electors of Kellingley to reach a polling station.
The district council accordingly advised us that in its view the polling arrangements for the electors of Kellingley were the best practicable in the circumstances.
When the council's comments had been received, my right hon. Friend gave the petition his careful consideration. The petitioners' case rests on the inconvenience that electors from Kellingley experience in travelling to Beal to vote. I do not underestimate the inconvenience and I understand the way in which the hon. Gentleman rightly put his case. As he has said, the present polling arrangements are not ideal, but local authorities are not required to provide ideal facilities for voting, only
"such reasonable facilities as are practicable in the circumstances."
There is no evidence, for example, of an unusually low turnout at parliamentary elections or that the present

583
arrangements are not meeting the electors' "requirements". The problem of distance is common to many rural areas and, generally speaking, people living in the country accept the need to travel to visit shops, post offices and doctors' surgeries, for example. I should be surprised if in Kellingley it were not possible for someone who really wanted to vote to find a lift if he or she were unable to use the bus or to make his or her own way to Beal. The half-mile between Kellingley and Beal village cannot, therefore, be considered excessive in a rural constituency. However, it is not ideal for us to say this. This is really a matter for the Selby local authority, which knows so much more about local conditions than my right hon. Friend can. If a separate polling district were created for Kellingley, a temporary polling station would have to be used. That would involve the district council in additional expense and would have the further practical disadvantages to which I referred.
In the circumstances, my right hon. Friend concluded that it would not be right for him to direct Selby district council to create a separate polling station and he accordingly rejected the petition.
584
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's arguments. I shall consider them with more time when I have had an opportunity to read them in the Official Report. Selby district council might consider the matter differently if the hon. Gentleman could find a private house where the householder was willing to provide the necessary accommodation. That is not impracticable, and I have experience of it in my constituency.
I hope that I have been able to set out the reasons why my right hon. Friend, having considered the petition, in the exercise of his appellate jurisdiction from the decision of Selby district council, felt unable to accede to the wishes of the petitioners. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who raised the matter with his usual clarity and knowledge, will feel that my right hon. Friend had reasonable grounds for not meeting the wishes of his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Official Referees
  Official Referees
  Stype Investments Ltd.
  Stype Investments Ltd.
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Universities (Researchers and Lecturers)
  Universities (Researchers and Lecturers)
TRADE
  Angola and Cameroon (Exports)
  Angola and Cameroon (Exports)
  Africa (Exports)
  Africa (Exports)
  Japan (Imports)
  Japan (Imports)
  Electronic Components (Import Duty)
  Electronic Components (Import Duty)
  Malawi
  Malawi
  European Community (Manufactures)
  European Community (Manufactures)
  Import-Export Statistics
  Import-Export Statistics
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Yorkshire Electricity Consultative Council
  Yorkshire Electricity Consultative Council
  Design Registration
  Design Registration
  Shipping (United Kingdom Standards)
  Shipping (United Kingdom Standards)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Textile and Clothing Imports
  Textile and Clothing Imports
  Steel Imports
  Steel Imports
ENERGY
  Queen's University, Belfast (Research Funds)
  Queen's University, Belfast (Research Funds)
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Canada
  Canada
  Swanscombe, Kent
  Swanscombe, Kent
  Chile
  Chile
  British Indian Ocean Territory
  British Indian Ocean Territory
  Foulanchor
  Foulanchor
  International Year of Disabled People
  International Year of Disabled People
  Jaguar Cars
  Jaguar Cars
  Command War Headquarters
  Command War Headquarters
  Angola
  Angola
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  "General Belgrano"
  "General Belgrano"
  Exocet
  Exocet
  Charity Commission
  Charity Commission
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Shoplifting
  Shoplifting
  Police-Community Liaison
  Police-Community Liaison
  Prisoners (Detention)
  Prisoners (Detention)
  Catapults
  Catapults
  Residential Care Premises
  Residential Care Premises
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Glue Sniffing
  Glue Sniffing
  Police Recruitment
  Police Recruitment
  Ethnic Minorities (Resettlement)
  Ethnic Minorities (Resettlement)
  Republic of Ireland Citizens
  Republic of Ireland Citizens
  Licensed Premises (Exclusion Orders)
  Licensed Premises (Exclusion Orders)
  Community Policing
  Community Policing
  Violent Crime (Aid to Victims)
  Violent Crime (Aid to Victims)
  Criminal Statistics
  Criminal Statistics
  Remands in Custody
  Remands in Custody
  Nationality
  Nationality
  Criminal Proceedings (Payments to Witnesses)
  Criminal Proceedings (Payments to Witnesses)
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
  Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
  Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Riot (Damages) Act 1886
  Riot (Damages) Act 1886
  Noting Hill, London (Incidents)
  Noting Hill, London (Incidents)
  Poles (Political Asylum)
  Poles (Political Asylum)
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Police Pay
  Police Pay
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  International Year of Disabled People
  International Year of Disabled People
  Parkhurst Prison
  Parkhurst Prison
  Betting Shops (Television)
  Betting Shops (Television)
  Prostitution
  Prostitution
  Rape
  Rape
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Alfreton Building Society
  Alfreton Building Society
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Married Man's Tax Allowance
  Married Man's Tax Allowance
  Betting Duty
  Betting Duty
  Pay As You Earn
  Pay As You Earn
  Diplomatic Missions (Rates)
  Diplomatic Missions (Rates)
  Widows Pensions
  Widows Pensions
INDUSTRY
  Cellular Telephone System
  Cellular Telephone System
  British Companies (Contracts)
  British Companies (Contracts)
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Small Firms (Patenting)
  Small Firms (Patenting)
  British Telecom (System X)
  British Telecom (System X)
  Agricultural Engineering
  Agricultural Engineering
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Textiles and Clothing
  Textiles and Clothing
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Average Earnings
  Average Earnings
  Wage Increases (Statistics)
  Wage Increases (Statistics)
  Manpower Services Commission (Schools)
  Manpower Services Commission (Schools)
  Fair Remuneration
  Fair Remuneration
  Minimum Wage Rates
  Minimum Wage Rates
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Wheat (Exports to Cuba)
  Wheat (Exports to Cuba)
  Butter (Manufactured Foods)
  Butter (Manufactured Foods)
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Pesticides (Safety)
  Pesticides (Safety)
  Fish (Guide Prices)
  Fish (Guide Prices)
  Artificial Insemination Service
  Artificial Insemination Service
WALES
  Linitis Plastica
  Linitis Plastica
  Dinorwic Pump Storage Scheme
  Dinorwic Pump Storage Scheme
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  International Year of Disabled People
  International Year of Disabled People
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing Resources (Newham)
  Housing Resources (Newham)
  Empty Factory Premises (Rating)
  Empty Factory Premises (Rating)
  Epping Forest District Council (Planning Appeals)
  Epping Forest District Council (Planning Appeals)
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  International Year of Disabled People
  International Year of Disabled People
  Sheltered Housing
  Sheltered Housing
  Falmouth Container Terminal
  Falmouth Container Terminal
SCOTLAND
  Industrial Derelict Land
  Industrial Derelict Land
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Solvent Abuse
  Solvent Abuse
  International Year of Disabled People
  International Year of Disabled People
  Elderly Persons (Death Rate)
  Elderly Persons (Death Rate)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Teacher Trainers
  Teacher Trainers
  Deaf-blind Children
  Deaf-blind Children
  Free Milk
  Free Milk
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Schools
  Schools
  Bangor Bay (Breakwater)
  Bangor Bay (Breakwater)
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  International Year of Disabled People
  International Year of Disabled People
  Sinn Fein
  Sinn Fein
  Further and Higher Education
  Further and Higher Education
  Swinnerton-Dyer Committee
  Swinnerton-Dyer Committee
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Angola
  Angola
  British Nationals (Foreign Detention)
  British Nationals (Foreign Detention)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Treaty of Tlatelolco
  Treaty of Tlatelolco
  Sir Rex Hunt (Statement)
  Sir Rex Hunt (Statement)
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Diplomatic Immunity
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Disablement (Prevention)
  Disablement (Prevention)
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
CIVIL SERVICE
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
TRANSPORT
  Assisted Cycle Project
  Assisted Cycle Project
  Water Transport (Guidelines)
  Water Transport (Guidelines)
  London Transport (Exhibition)
  London Transport (Exhibition)
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  International Year of Disabled People
  International Year of Disabled People
  Noise Insulation (Birmingham)
  Noise Insulation (Birmingham)
  Land Compensation (Birmingham)
  Land Compensation (Birmingham)
  Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive
  Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive
  Container Terminal, Falmouth
  Container Terminal, Falmouth
  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Transport Supplementary Grant
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  International Year of Disabled People
  International Year of Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Disablement (Prevention)
  Disablement (Prevention)
  Elderly People (Meals)
  Elderly People (Meals)
  Inequalities in Health
  Inequalities in Health
  NHS (Consultants)
  NHS (Consultants)
  Waiting Lists (Hammersmith and Fulham)
  Waiting Lists (Hammersmith and Fulham)
  Private Hospital (Hammersmith and Fulham)
  Private Hospital (Hammersmith and Fulham)
  Overseas Visitors (Health Treatment)
  Overseas Visitors (Health Treatment)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Deaf-blind People
  Deaf-blind People
  Hearing Therapists
  Hearing Therapists
  Industrial Injuries (Claims)
  Industrial Injuries (Claims)
  Heating Allowance
  Heating Allowance
  Housing Benefit Scheme
  Housing Benefit Scheme
  Drug Addiction
  Drug Addiction
  Family Benefits
  Family Benefits
  Welfare Milk
  Welfare Milk
  Retirement Age
  Retirement Age
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Unemployment (Study)
  Unemployment (Study)
  Health Authorities (Private Contractors)
  Health Authorities (Private Contractors)
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  Health Service Commissioner (Report)
  Health Service Commissioner (Report)
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Emigration
  Emigration
  Local Authorities (Personal Care)
  Local Authorities (Personal Care)
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Residential Care
  Residential Care
  Day Care Places
  Day Care Places
  Local Authorities (Holidays Provision)
  Local Authorities (Holidays Provision)
  Day Centre Places
  Day Centre Places
  Adult Training Centres
  Adult Training Centres
  Invalidity Allowance
  Invalidity Allowance
DEFENCE
  Job Dispersal (Cost)
  Job Dispersal (Cost)
  Naval Strength
  Naval Strength
  British Aerospace
  British Aerospace
  Woolwich Arsenal
  Woolwich Arsenal
  Woolwich Common
  Woolwich Common
  Falklands Campaign (Bombs)
  Falklands Campaign (Bombs)
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Senior Officers (Retirement)
  Senior Officers (Retirement)
  Falkland Islands (Forces' Mail)
  Falkland Islands (Forces' Mail)
  HMS "Plymouth"
  HMS "Plymouth"
  Foam Mattresses (Replacement Cost)
  Foam Mattresses (Replacement Cost)
  Harrier Aircraft
  Harrier Aircraft
  "General Belgrano"
  "General Belgrano"
  Argentina (Exocet Missiles)
  Argentina (Exocet Missiles)
  Falklands Campaign (Helicopters)
  Falklands Campaign (Helicopters)
  Argentine Warships
  Argentine Warships
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Local Authority Housing: Sales to Tenants
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their estimate of the additional numbers of families who will benefit from the extension of the right to buy their own dwellings to those living in leasehold council houses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, we estimate that some 50,000 public sector tenants in England and Wales will become eligible for the right to buy from those provisions of the Housing and Building Control Bill that extend the right to buy to properties where the landlord does not own the freehold.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can he confirm that, where tenants are leasing houses, local authorities are definitely able to sell these properties, and how quickly can the sales go through, possibly in anticipation of legislation?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, yes, I do so confirm. Where the local authority is prepared to sell voluntarily and the terms of its lease permit, there is currently no problem. It can, for example, grant similar terms as to discount to those eligible under the right to buy. The difficulty arises in those cases where authorities are reluctant to sell, and the fact that a dwelling is leasehold is at present a loophole which enables them to deny the right to buy.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister tell the House whether the sale of these extra houses will help in any way at all to keep down rents of council tenants who cannot afford to buy and who, as the Secretary of State has already announced, will have to pay a further 85p per week increase from next April?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the proposals in the Bill will have absolutely no effect whatever on that point.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether those properties that have now been transferred to private ownership are being better maintained and, therefore, whether the life of those houses is being extended?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I have no information on that point. I think that as to that one would have to make one's own deductions.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that under the projected legislation the charitable trusts—particularly the Sutton Housing Trust, of which until recently I have been a member—are profoundly disturbed at the idea that they may be required to sell any houses that have been provided under their trust deed? In the case of Sutton, it flows from the will of Mr. Sutton, who died in 1894; he left his fortune to a charitable trust for,
"the provision of low rented dwellings for occupation"—
Noble Lords Noble Lords Reading!
Baroness Denington: My Lords, it continues:
"for occupation by the poor of London".
I beg the House to bear with me one minute.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I wonder if it would help the noble Baroness if I were to point out that the next Question on the Order Paper is the very one which I think concerns the point that is troubling her.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister, in order to give a balanced view, could indicate to the House whether the increase in the purchase of houses from local authorities has also led, peculiarly enough, to an increase in the number of tenants requiring housing from local authorities?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the statistics for which the noble Lord asks me are not to hand immediately, but I have said many times in the past, and I say yet again, that the purchase of a home does not affect one way or the other the availability of the number of dwellings to rent, because the people who buy their homes are those who live in them and who have, in the main, lived in them for many years. The fact that they then proceed to occupy, and contine to occupy, as owner rather than as tenant makes the dwelling neither more nor less available to the general pool of rented accommodation.
3.5 p.m.

Charitable Housing Associations: Sales to Tenants
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their estimate of the additional numbers of families who will benefit from the extension of the right to buy to the tenants of certain dwellings let by charitable housing associations.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, we estimate that Clause 2 of the Housing and Building Control Bill will extend eligibility for the right to buy to secure tenants of approximately 80,000 dwellings owned by such bodies in England and Wales.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, again I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government can identify the charitable institutions affected by the possibility of tenants purchasing their properties, and can he say how tenants can best find out whether or not they will benefit from the right to buy?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, unlike the right-to-buy arrangements for housing associations in the 1980 Act, which confers the right by a reference to public subsidy to "an association," the right in buy in Clause 2 is "dwelling specific". If the dwelling has been funded with housing association grant, the right to buy arises. Charitable associations will, in responding to a notice from a tenant claiming the right to buy, be obliged to confirm whether the specific dwelling falls within the terms of Clause 2, and in any case of doubt the housing corporation and my department will be ready to assist.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, are the Government aware that a number of charitable housing associations were formed and founded specifically for the purpose of providing a pool of housing to be available, for instance, to homeless families in grave housing need, many of whom in the past have not been on the waiting lists of local authorities? Are they also aware that if this pool is diminished by compulsory sales, there will be very many fewer vacancies in future for the particular type of family and person in the greatest need?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I think it might be helpful if I were to remind your Lordships that, as regards the number of dwellings—and this is only an estimate but it is one that I do not think will be far out in the end—out of the 300,000 charitable-provided dwellings it is anticipated that some 80,000 will be affected by these proposals. Further, I would say that the right to buy in this case will not apply if the charity has provided the land, if the charity has provided the building, if it has funded the construction or conversion, or if it has merely received housing association grant to repair or improve property provided by charitable funds, even if the amount of the housing association grant is substantial.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, were not the housing association grants made unconditionally, and does not the state have a means of clawing back surpluses through the Grant Redemption Fund, which has been discussed at great length in this House? Is it necessary to have these two things cutting into the work of charitable trusts?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, arising from my noble friend's question, I think it is necessary for me to say that charitable investments are being fully protected by these proposals. Only a minority of dwellings
712
subject to the right to buy under Clause 2 will have had charitable funds invested in them, and the amount will not normally be more than 10 per cent. of cost of provision. We propose to make administrative arrangements to ensure that where charitable funds have been spent on the provision or improvement of a dwelling which is sold under the right to buy, the charity will recover, as a minimum, a sum which fairly represented the modern value of its investment. The Secretary of State for the Environment will, where necessary, abate his recovery of housing association grant so as to achieve this.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, is not the question of whether a house is sold a matter for the owner—that is to say, the charity organisation—and not for the Government?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it really is not for the Government at all. It is, if you like, the morality of the right to buy about which we are talking. Many of us feel that that right to buy is as important to those who occupy accommodation provided in this way as it is in any other way.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister saying that it is not the Government that is bringing in the new Housing and Building Control Bill?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I really do not think that that requires an answer, but if the noble Baroness insists, the answer is, of course not.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that anyone who accepts a Government subsidy may be directed to sell the property?
Lord Bellwin: No, my Lords, I tried to spell it out carefully, and if the noble Lord tomorrow will read in Hansard exactly what I said he will see that it covers the point he raises.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I apologise to the House for looking as though I wanted to jump the gun. I did not, and I thank the noble Lord for correcting me. May I ask the Minister whether he realises that housing trusts are very distressed about what looks as though it is going to be the moral requirement on them to sell houses which have been provided under the terms of the charitable trust under which they must work and do work, very loyally and carefully? This would be a requirement to sell houses that, under their trusteeship, have been provided, by no matter what monies, to rent to lower paid people who need to rent and cannot buy.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, then we come to the whole issue of the right to buy, and the tightness or otherwise of that. The figures I quoted which illustrated that there are some 80,000 out of 300,000 such dwellings, as the noble Baroness mentioned, put the matter in perspective.
Baroness White: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister agree that he should also be sensitive to the right to give?
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, if the figures that the Minister has just given show a 25 per cent.

713
reduction in houses being provided by charitable housing associations, does he not consider that it is a moral issue that the independence of housing associations, and the ability of their trustees to exercise their own judgment, is in jeopardy? Would he not also accept that the trustees of charities have obligations in perpetuity? Can he inform your Lordships how this difficult legal problem will be overcome and solved by the Government?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I enumerated the circumstances in which the right to buy under this clause will not apply. I feel sure that when the noble Baroness reads those again carefully she will not be as anxious as she clearly is at the present time.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister realise that 80,000 out of 300,000 is, on any view, a very large percentage? Does he also realise the difference between local authorities which have a social obligation, and trustees who have obligations under a trust? Does he think that it is proper that beneficiaries under a trust which is a charitable trust should be given the opportunity, which can be enforced upon trustees, of purchasing accommodation which is supposed to be there on the basis of charitable trusts for the poor?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I think we have to bear in mind two points. First, that what we are talking about here is giving the right to buy to those who live in this accommodation, and I do not see for myself why they should be denied the same right as so many other people have who are tenants of accommodation. Secondly, I enumerated the circumstances in which that right to buy will not apply, and that is quite an extensive list, especially as we are talking here solely about accommodation which has been provided with public funds.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, bearing in mind the noble Lord's stress on the importance of the right to buy. does he feel that there should be an extension of the right to buy to tenants of tied accommodation, or does he feel that the right of employers to protect their interests is superior to the right of charitable interests to provide accommodation for the needy?
Lord Bellwin: No, my Lords, I think, with respect, that that goes beyond the Question.

The Steel Industry: Future Plans
3.15 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans are being considered for the future of the public and private sectors of the British steel industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the British Steel Corporation
714
are at present making heavy losses, and urgent action is being taken by the corporation's management to stem these losses. In addition, the Government are considering with BSC management whether the future plans for the corporation should require all five major integrated steelworks to stay open. A Government statement on this will be made before the Christmas Recess. In the private steel sector a number of rationalisation schemes, involving support under the Government's Private Sector Steel Scheme, are currently under consideration.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the basis of Great Britain's industry can in no way recover without the British steel industry? Is he further aware that Great Britain has adhered to the edicts of the EEC Commission and has savagely reduced British steel production, while other members of the Commission have in no way adhered to those requests, and indeed some of them are increasing their steel production, which, of course, is bound to have a deleterious effect on Great Britain's industry? Will the noble Lord say what the Government are going to do about it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that it is right and proper that the steel industries throughout the European Community should reduce their capacity in the same proportion that we have reduced ours. We have heard a good many fine words about intentions on this in the Community. We shall be watching to see that those fine words are turned into fine action, and we are particularly concerned about the position of Italy.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Minister aware that I am not particularly—and I do not think that the British steel industry, both private and public are—very much concerned whether or not now we adhere to any EEC edicts from their Commission, when it makes no endeavour or effort to get other countries to comply with them but seems to concentrate on Great Britain? The fact of the matter, therefore, is that our Government ought to concentrate on seeing that the great needs of our nation, which can be provided on the basis of British steel, are given top priority, and that that great industry ought also to be given top priority to provide a successful future for British industry.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is mistaken in imagining that there is any difference between ourselves and the European Commission on this matter. The Commissioner who is concerned with these matters, Count Davignon, is of one mind with us that there must be equal misery for all in this matter, and he is determined to achieve that.

Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions
3.18 p.m.
Lord Beloff: 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 progress

715
has been made during the last nine years in the talks in Vienna on the Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the area of reductions has been agreed; that all participants with forces stationed there will share in the reductions; and that the first reductions should be made by United States and Soviet forces, with reductions in the latter being greater. It has also been agreed that the end result should be for each side's combined ground and air forces in the area to be limited to around 900,000, up to 700,000 of whom could be ground forces.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what, then, are the obstacles to these reductions actually taking place?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there are two obstacles. First, there is not yet base data agreement, by which I mean that the Eastern side dispute the West's figures for the Eastern forces. Secondly, as I have told the House many times before, there is no agreement on effective verification measures.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while welcoming the report, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that many of us are opposed to SS20s just as much as to nuclear arms in this country? But in view of the fact that the Soviet Union has now proposed to reduce the number of SS20s by 50 per cent., has proposed to withdraw its missiles largely from Central Europe and has proposed no first use of nuclear weapons, is there not now an opportunity for fruitful negotiations with the Soviet Union at Vienna?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord and the House will well know that the MBFR talks have nothing whatever to do with nuclear weapons. However, there is no doubt, in my mind at least, that one of the objects of the Soviet Government and their allies is to confuse the strategy of the opposite bloc, and neither have I any doubt that by this offer they think they have done so.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, is it not a possibility that in these protracted negotiations in Vienna undue emphasis has perhaps been put on the achievement of exact parity? For instance, does it matter if the Russians have a considerable advantage as regards tanks provided we have enough anti-tank weapons with which to knock those tanks out? Is not the only thing that really matters the achievement of some kind of conventional defence in the West which is able, on the face of it, to resist any attack by conventional means from the other side?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the allies are constantly reviewing the size, shape and concept of their operations and equipment, including anti-tank weapons and their forces, and have not been inhibited in so doing by the existence of these negotiations. That does not in any way detract from the need to seek to preserve security at lower and equal force levels. That is the approach which the alliance is supporting in all the current negotiations, including these talks, to
716
which Her Majesty's Government remain fully committed.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the very existence of these talks, alongside the IMF and START talks, is a sure sign of the desire of the West to reach agreement on these matters against a most agile and dangerous opponent, who seems very often to be able to persuade people who should know quite well that we are very interested in reaching agreements ourselves?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for that supplementary question. He is, of course, absolutely correct.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, accepting that the Minister is right in saying that the two biggest problems in the MBFR talks are the data problem (that of the agreed assessment of mutual forces) and verification, may I ask him what further steps the Government have in mind to resolve those two matters, which have been at the base of our disagreement for about nine years? Further, would he consider recommending a freeze on force levels on both sides as well as giving support for a nuclear test ban treaty?
Lord Skelmersdale: As I have said already, my Lords, a nuclear test ban treaty is rather wide of the Question. On the substantive point raised by the noble Lord, after long negotiations such as these it is often forgotten why they originated in the first place. The Eastern bloc never wanted them, for the simple reason that, as is well known, they have superiority of forces in the area and have never wanted to negotiate that away. These talks were proposed by the West as long ago as 1968 but did not start until 1973. That was simply as a quid pro quo for getting the Helsinki Conference off the ground, which the Eastern nations wanted very desperately. As for the other part of the noble Lord's supplementary, at all these international meetings we lose no opportunity to kick against what I am afraid is a rather swollen door.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, if there is any failure at all, may it not be due to our representation at these conferences? Would it not be more advisable to send over there to talk to the Russians people who are against British expenditure on defence, which may have some impact on the Russian mentality? Would that not be a good idea? In any event, may we have some information about the costs entailed over the nine years of this farce?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not think talking about avoiding war should be considered in terms of cost; it is vital to all our lives. While the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has much more experience of Government that I have, I do not recommend the strategy: when in doubt, change the team.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the Government consider the following proposal for breaking the deadlock on data; forget all about our present differences on how many men each side has, pull an equal number out of the hat—which undoubtedly will be below the number on the lower side—agree to go

717
down to that number, institute inspection and then, if the inspection reveals cheating, tear the whole thing up?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that is precisely what the Eastern bloc require, so a strategy on those lines would be falling directly into their hands, and I do not recommend it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that a proposal emanating from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would hardly likely be intended to aid the Russians? Would he not further agree that the length at which these discussions take place and the total ineffectiveness of the multilateral discussions which have been going on for so many years, in both the conventional and nuclear areas, strengthen all the time the beliefs of those of us who believe in unilateral action?
Lord Skelmersdale: On the principle that that was a question, my Lords, this is the answer. One of nature's most effective beasts of prey is the spider, yet it spends 90 per cent. of its life sitting absolutely still. In this, as in so many other cases, I believe in following the example of the true professional.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to explain why on-site verification is still considered to be of such fundamental importance, bearing in mind that the numbers of troops and quantity and types of weapons can be accurately assessed by satellite observations?
Lord Skelmersdale: Alas! my Lords, I am informed that that is not the case.

Business
3.27 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Bellwin will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Rate Support Grant (England) 1983–84.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening.
The Committee stage of the National Heritage Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour. During that adjournment the Second Reading and remaining stages of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill and the Company and Business Names (Amendment) Regulations 1982 will be taken.
I should like to say a word about today's business. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, will not now ask today's Unstarred Question which appears on the Order Paper. It will, I understand, be appearing, possibly in a slightly different form, on 22nd December.

Cornwall County Council Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
London Transport (Liverpool Street) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 37 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended until the Christmas Recess so far as is necessary to give Her Majesty's Government power to arrange the order of business; and that Standing Order 43 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the same period.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

International Transport Conventions Bill [H.L.]
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the International Transport Conventions Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clauses 16 to 19 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Social security adjudications]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 60, line 46, leave out from ("from") to end of page 61, line 3 and insert ("the appropriate panel constituted under that Schedule").
The noble Lord said: I hope that your Lordships' Committee will permit me to speak to Amendments Nos. 121, 130, 131, and 133 together. These amendments are all related, and I would assure the Committee that they are purely drafting

719
improvements to clarify in the Bill the provisions concerning the constitution of tribunal panels. Instead of specifying amendments to paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the Social Security Act 1978, there has been inserted a replacement paragraph, but I would assure the Committee that there are no substantive changes from the existing print. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 61, line 4, leave out ("of social security appeal tribunals").
The noble Lord said: With the agreement of your Lordships' Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 123, 141, and 145 together. These three amendments provide a new definition of the word "president", and so avoid the need to refer to him at each point by his full title. The amendments also correct defective references on page 61, at line 4, and on page 63, at line 7. All of these are purely drafting changes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 61, line 12, leave out from ("as") to second ("chairmen") in line 13.
The noble Lord said: With the leave of your Lordships' Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 124, 135. 136, and 142. All these amendments are intended to clarify the point that all appointments of regional chairmen will be full-time appointments. All these amendments are purely drafting changes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 61, line 15, at beginning insert ("Subject to regulations under paragraph 16 of Schedule 8 to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1982,").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to make clear the requirement that part-time chairmen should be lawyers of at least five years' standing, and this will be subject to transitional regulations which will be made under paragraph 16(1) of the schedule. We propose in the regulations that existing chairmen of supplementary benefit appeal tribunals and national insurance local tribunals who are not legally qualified may be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, or the Lord President of the Court of Session, as chairmen of the new social security appeal tribunals for a transitional period from the commencement of the legislation. That will allow the existing lay chairmen to be retained for such period as may be specified. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 61, line 16, after ("tribunal") insert ("under subsection (2C)(a) above").
The noble Lord said: This amendment, too, is intended to clarify a point, which is that the amended subsection 97(2D) of the Social Security Act 1975 applies only to subsection 91(2C)(a))—that is, in this
720
particular case, to part-time chairmen. Full-time and regional chairmen are required to have longer experience than the five years that are here specified for part-time chairmen. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 61, line 20, leave out ("by") and insert ("of").
The noble Lord said: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 127, 128, 134 and 153. These four amendments are purely drafting improvements, or corrections of minor drafting errors. Amendment No. 127 substitutes the conventional expression "decision by" by the expression "decision of", relating to an adjudication officer. Amendment No. 128 corrects the definite article, in this case the word "the". Amendment No. 134 omits a redundant provision, and Amendment No. 153 is a consequential amendment to the repeals schedule. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 61, line 23, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment a moment ago. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 61, line 31, at end insert—
("4A. In section 115(2) of that Act (tribunals) for the word "local" there shall be substituted the words "social security appeal".").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 129 and 146. These two amendments specifically provide that for the references to "local tribunals" in the provisions of the Social Security Act 1975 to which they relate there are substituted references to "social security appeal tribunals". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): Before calling the next amendment, I have to point out that if Amendment No. 131 is agreed to. I cannot call Amendment No. 132.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 130 and 131:
Page 61, line 38, leave out ("In") and insert ("The following paragraph shall be substituted for").
line 39, leave out from beginning to ("below") at page 62, line 1, and insert—

("1.—(1) The panels referred to in section 97(2A) of this Act shall be constituted by the Secretary of State for the whole of Great Britain, and each panel shall act for such area as the Secretary of State thinks lit, and be composed of such persons as the Secretary of State sees fit to appoint.

(2) The panel for an area shall be composed of persons appearing to the Secretary' of State to have knowledge or experience of conditions in the area and to be representative of persons living or working in that area.

(3) Before appointing members to a panel, the Secretary of State may take into consideration any recommendations from such organisations or person as he considers appropriate.

(4) The members of the panels shall hold office for such period as the Secretary of State may direct, but the Secretary of State may at any time terminate the appointment of any member of a panel.

(5) Subject to sub-paragraph (6)").

The noble Lord said: I hope that I may have the permission of the Committee to move these two

721
consequential amendments, Nos. 130 and 131, en bloc. They are both consequential upon Amendment No. 121, to which I spoke earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 133 to 136:
Page 62, line 4, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)").
line 13, leave out ("qualified person to act as").
line 15, leave out ("qualified persons to act as regional chairmen and") and insert ("regional and other").
line 20, leave out ("regional chairman or a").
The noble Lord said: I hope that I have the permission of the Committee to move Amendments Nos. 133 to 136 en bloc, since I spoke to these amendments on Amendments Nos. 121, 124, and 128 respectively. I hope that it is in order to move the amendments en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 62, line 36, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 137 I should, with permission, like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 138 and 139. These amendments provide that the clerk to an appeals tribunal should be provided by the Lord Chancellor's office, rather than by the DHSS as provided in the schedule. In a recent case a social security commissioner stated that the clerk's role is,
"somewhat analogous to that of a clerk to magistrates. His position however differs from that of a magistrates' clerk in that, not having any legal qualifications, he should not tender any advice on the law".
Some clerks, not unnaturally, find this a rather frustrating position to be in and intervene, quite improperly, in proceedings. What is more, the clerk to social security appeals tribunals is increasingly drawn from the local office dealing with the case before the tribunal. It must surely be wrong for one party to the case to provide the clerk to the proceedings. This would be inconceivable in a magistrates' court. How can a tribunal be seen as impartial if the clerk comes from the department against whose decision the claimant is appealing? Ideally, in the long term, we should like clerks to be responsible to an independent body such as a much-strengthened Council on Tribunals. In the meantime, we feel that they must at least come from the Lord Chancellor's office. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I appreciate the noble Lord's concern to ensure the independence of the tribunal clerk, but I should explain that the role of the clerk, particularly clerks to SBATs, has changed greatly over the years. Since the publication of the Bell Report, in particular, they have not been expected to intervene or give advice during tribunal hearings. Their role is a purely administrative one—and the changes being made in the present Bill will emphasise this. The appointment of a president and regional chairman, and of legally-qualified chairmen, should ensure that the clerk's role is restricted to administrative matters. The president will be consulted on the appointment of
722
clerks and may make representations concerning their dismissal if he thinks that necessary. Making the Lord Chancellor responsible for clerks would not improve these arrangements in any way.
The fact that in future all chairmen will be legally qualified will also help to ensure that in future clerks do not take any active part in the tribunal proceedings and, in particular, are not responsible for summarising the findings of the tribunal or recording their decisions except in a purely clerical capacity. I would point out that the Lord Chancellor's Department is a small one and it is not the normal practice for it to take over the responsibility for clerks for the wide number of tribunals in which the Lord Chancellor has an interest. A significant number of administrative staff would be required for these duties, and the DHSS provides an appropriate source for them. It could be likely to be difficult for the Lord Chancellor's Department to recruit and retain enough suitable candidates and to provide them with appropriate career opportunities. I would also emphasise that the changes we are proposing in the adjudication system will not be made overnight. It will take two or three years to implement them in full. It is our intention to review the arrangements when they have been operating for a few years to ensure that they are working satisfactorily. That, I suggest, would be an appropriate time to consider whether the changes suggested by the noble Lord will be appropriate. I hope that, in the meantime, he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I take the point about the relative smallness of the Lord Chancellor's Department. The noble Lord has given the Committee an assurance that the clerks will be involved purely in administrative matters—that is, as amanuenses—and that the department plans a review of the new system after two or three years. I think that two or three years may be a little long, and those of us who are interested in these matters will certainly want to keep an eye on how the system is working. In the meantime, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: I have to point out that, if Amendment No. 140 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 141 and 142.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 63, line3, leave out from second ("a") to end of line 16 and insert ("social security appeal tribunal as constituted under section 97 of and Schedule 10 to this Act")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 140. This amendment would replace medical appeal tribunals with social security appeal tribunals. Medical appeal tribunals consist of a legally-qualified chairman and two doctors. We wonder whether the decisions currently made by medical appeal tribunals, which are on entitlement to certain disability benefits, could not just as well be made by social security appeal tribunals. Medical questions would, of course, still require medical judgment, but we wonder if this could not be achieved by way of a medical report in which a lay tribunal could judge. If this were possible, it would

723
save significant amounts of money and there would be little diminution of standards. In other words, is it really necessary to have medical appeal tribunals as well as social security appeal tribunals? I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I hear what the noble Lord says in connection with this amendment and I accept that, in principle, such a system might be feasible, but I very much doubt whether it would be either practical or desirable. It would mean that lay tribunals would have to determine medical questions on the basis of medical advice. Both the claimant and the department would probably have to field their own medical representatives, and the tribunal hearing would therefore become adversarial and the lay tribunal would sometimes be faced with having to decide between conflicting medical opinions. I think that such a system would be far less likely to be satisfactory than the existing, longstanding arrangements under which a legally-qualified chairman sits with two eminent medical consultants on the medical appeal tribunal, which is charged with looking at the facts impartially,
However, we are looking at the whole system of medical adjudication at present to consider what scope there may be for improvements, and the possibility of greater reliance on a lay adjudication system can and will be considered in that context. I would add that we should also, of course, be wanting to hear the views of the Council on Tribunals in regard to this matter. I hope that for these reasons the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Banks: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply and encouraged by the fact that the Government are going to review the possibility of greater reliance on lay tribunals. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, may I ask my noble friend whether the Council on Tribunals has already been consulted upon this and other provisions of this schedule? It would seem to be much better that they should be consulted before rather than after we make the enactments.
Lord Trefgarne: We keep ourselves constantly informed of the views of the Council on Tribunals, if I may say so. At least one member of the council is also a Member of your Lordships' House and volunteers his views on these matters from time to time—to the great advantage of your Lordships. We are certainly aware of the views of the council on these matters.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 141 and 142:
Page 63, line 7, leave out ("of social security appeal tribunals")
line 14, leave out from ("as") to ("chairmen") in line 15.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 141 and 142 together. They are both consequential. I spoke to them on Amendments Nos. 123 and 124 respectively.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 63, line 16, at end insert—
("(5) No person shall be appointed to the panel mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) above unless he is a barrister, advocate or solicitor of not less than 7 years' standing.")
The noble Lord said: This schedule already includes provisions which specify the qualifications and experience required of the president and regional and other full-time chairmen of SSATs and MATs, and of part-time chairmen of SSATs. The amendment makes similar provision for the chairmen of MATs. It specifies that they should have at least seven years' standing as lawyers. This puts them on an equal footing with regional and full-time chairmen. Chairmen of MATs preside over tribunals with two leading consultants as members, and it is therefore necessary that they should have appropriate seniority and experience. I beg to move.
Lord Winstanley: On a point on information, may I ask the noble Lord a question? I appreciate that it probably is wise to have this provision, and that the barrister, advocate or solicitor should be of not less than seven years' standing, but I wonder whether there is any provision as to the upper age limit—whether, perhaps, he should be of not more than 70 years' standing, for example.
Lord Trefgarne: When we say "of seven years' standing", we mean seven years' practice in the appropriate profession. Seventy years' standing in the appropriate profession would be a very long time indeed, but perhaps a mere bagatelle to some of your Lordships.
Lord Winstanley: And the upper age limit?
Lord Trefgarne: There is no upper age limit as far as I know.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 63, line 16, at end insert—
("2A. Sections 105 and 106 of and Schedule 11 to the Social Security Act 1975 shall be repealed and for the reference to "Attendance Allowance Board" in section 37(2) of that Act there shall be substituted "adjudication officer".").
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to abolish the Attendance Allowance Board and to shift the responsibility for adjudication to medical boards and medical appeals tribunals, thus simplifying the administration and appeals procedure of this important benefit. This is an amendment of some substance. The Attendance Allowance Board was established in the early 1970s to administer attendance allowance when this benefit was introduced; it was modelled on the Supplementary Benefits Commission, which has now been abolished. It is significant that when mobility allowance was introduced a few years later no quasi-independent administrative body was established. The DHSS established a mobility allowance unit. Decisions are taken by the Secretary of State and appeals are taken through medical boards and medical appeal tribunals.
Decisions on the attendance conditions for attendance allowance are taken at least in theory by

725
the nine members of the Attendance Allowance Board. Seven are doctors, two are lay people. In fact, the vast majority of cases are decided on behalf of the board by delegated medical practitioners. However, the delegated medical practitioners rarely, if ever, see a claimant. This is done by a totally different examining medical officer. This seems to me to call into question the necessity of the DMS and indeed of the board itself.
In the first few years of the benefit's administration an unprecedented degree of intervention was required by the commissioners. From December 1971, when the allowance was first payable, to March 1974, 365 applicants were given leave to appeal to the commissioner on a point of law. This was an average of over 100 a year. Only 17 were unsuccessful. In more recent times, in 1979, 12,536 claimants received a rate of attendance allowance on review which they had initially been refused. The DHSS say that this figure cannot be broken down further to show the number of successful reviews excluding those simply due to worsening conditions. But even allowing generously for such a proportion of cases, a success rate on review of 75 per cent. requires some explanation.
It seems to me, frankly, that the Attendance Allowance Board is a cumbersome, bureaucratic structure with little to recommend it. The Government have shown a keen interest in both the demise of quangos and in the growth of self-certification by claimants. The easiest way of dealing with the adjudication process would surely be for initial assessment to be done by the claimant's general practitioner. The standard form of medical report required from each applicant's doctor asks a series of questions designed to establish the capacities of the applicant. It asks, for instance, if a person can, without assistance from another, get into bed, turn over in bed, walk, and so forth. These are all matters which could be decided by an insurance officer. Insurance officers might want medical assistance and evaluation, as they sometimes do in relation to a decision on entitlement to sickness benefit, but there is no very good reason why the decision itself as to entitlement to the benefit has to be made by a doctor or by a board of doctors.
I started and I end by saying that this is an important benefit. It is of vast assistance, quite disproportionate to its cost, in keeping elderly people together in their own homes when one of them is fit and the other needs constant care and attendance. Such an object is surely in accordance with the importance attached by the Government to care in the community which we have recently debated in your Lordships' House. Therefore, it seems fundamental to me that questions of eligibility and adjudication should be simplified and speeded up, and take-up improved. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: The question whether someone is eligible for attendance allowance is mainly a medical one since the most difficult issue is whether the medical conditions for attendance allowance are satisfied. It requires skilled medical assessment to decide this, and lay adjudication officers would not be competent for example to interpret the medical advice that they receive where the case was not clear cut. I also believe that it would be a mistake to discount the accumulated wisdom of the Attendance Allowance
726
Board which has been in existence for more than 10 years. However, as I mentioned earlier, the whole system of medical adjudication is under review at present and the future of the Attendance Allowance Board will be considered in that context. I hope that I need not go further than that and that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am not entirely happy with what the noble Lord has said. It seems to me that the procedure suggested by me would be perfectly adequate. I do not want it to be thought at all by the Committee that I am trying to interfere with the attendance allowance; in fact, I think its use should be extended and that is what I was striving to achieve. In view of what the noble Lord has said however on a review of the whole question of adjudication procedure, probably it is not necessary for me to press this amendment at the moment. I should like to read what he said and think about it, and possibly come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 145 and 146:
Page 63, line 16, at end insert—
("8A. In paragraph 9(a) of Schedule 13 to that Act (procedure) for the word "local" there shall be substituted the words "social security appeal".")
line 16, at end insert—
("8B. In Schedule 20 to that Act the following definition shall be inserted at the appropriate point—

" "President."

The President of social security appeal tribunals and medical appeal tribunals." ")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 145 and 146. These are consequential and I spoke to them earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 64, line 35, leave out from ("In") to end of line 36 and insert ("subsection (1)(b) of section 15 of the Social Security Act 1980 (appeal to Social Security Commissioner) for the words "if he refuses leave." there shall be substituted the words "subject to and in accordance with regulations".")
The noble Lord said: This amendment provides for regulations to be made concerning the procedure for making applications for leave to appeal to the commissioners. The intention is to enable applications for leave to appeal which are in time to be made first to the chairman of the tribunal and, only if the chairman refuses leave, to the commissioners. Applications for leave to appeal which are out of time will be made direct to the commissioners. This will bring all the arrangements for leave to appeal into line with those which apply to appeals from medical appeal tribunals, and avoids placing an unnecessary burden on the commissioners. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 64, line 43, leave out from ("determined" ") to end of line 44.
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed

727
to prevent the deletion of paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 2 to the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act, which only recently passed through your Lordships' House. The sub-paragraph which the Government now want to eliminate gives a right of appeal to an employee over the amount of supplementary benefit which he or she has been paid and is subsequently shown not to have been payable because the employer should have paid sickness pay. I shall be interested to hear from the noble Lord why the Government want to make this change so soon after the passing of this Act. Certainly a sufficient time cannot have passed to give a balanced view of the operation of this right of appeal. On the face of it, there seems no reason why it should not remain on the statute book to be exercised in circumstances where an employee feels there are grounds for doing so. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I think that I can satisfy the noble Lord on this matter because I believe his amendment is based on a misunderstanding. The repeal of paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 2 to the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982, which is what this provision effectively achieves, does not alter the existing powers of review or rights of appeal of claimants in any way. The reason for repealing this provision is quite simply that it is no longer needed. We have taken equivalent powers elsewhere to provide appropriate powers of review and appeal. That is in the revised subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, which is revised by paragraph 9 of this schedule. Furthermore, we are also repealing in this Bill Section 14(2)(d) of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982 to which paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 2 refers. So I am afraid that the proposed amendment is in any case slightly-defective. I hope that in the light of what I have said earlier the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his detailed explanation of the Government's view on this matter. I shall read what he has said and if, on reading it, he convinces me in the same way as he did when he was on his feet, I shall be happy and shall not revert to the matter. But I reserve the right, obviously, to return to the matter on Report stage, subject to reading what the noble Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 8. as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Renton: I do not wish to detain the Committee for long, but I must draw attention to the fact that this schedule has been an extremely difficult one to understand. I feel very sorry for the draftsman in view of the instructions that he must have been given. There are six pages of detailed legislation by reference, and a great many references to previous legislation. Without the help of the notes on clauses one could not possibly have understood it, and of course one has to face the fact that not everybody will have the notes on clauses when this Bill becomes law. I would have thought that with this schedule, as indeed with some of the earlier
728
schedules to the Bill, it might have been helpful for us to have had keeling schedules. They would have been fairly long, but they would have enabled us to see exactly what was being done; and some of the amendments which have been tabled by noble Lords opposite might not have been necessary.
I must add one more general comment, and that is to express the hope that there will be consolidation of at any rate this Part of the Bill with previous legislation at the earliest opportunity after the Bill is passed into law.
I have one detailed comment which arises on page 60, where we find that the Social Security Act 1975, referred to on the previous page, and the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, also referred to on the previous page, are to be read as referring to adjudication officers and social security appeal tribunals respectively, instead of to the references made in those earlier statutes. But, using reasonable diligence—and I have tried to do this thoroughly—I cannot find any consequential textual amendments which bring the texts of those previous Acts into line with what is proposed in subparagraph (3) (a) on page 60. It may be that this is a point which has escaped the notice of even my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, who is so very diligent in these matters. If he cannot give me an answer now I hope he will ask the draftsman to turn his mind to the matter.
Lord Trefgarne: My noble friend really asked me two things, following the strictures. He asked first for an assurance about consolidating legislation. I cannot give him an assurance in the terms in which he asked for it, but I hope that this will be possible, speaking personally, in the reasonably near future.
As to the final point made by my noble friend, I do not think it would be helpful if I expanded on all this at the present time. In any event, I should like to consider this more carefully in the light of what has been said by my noble friend. If he will allow me, I will write to him before the next stage, and if he remains dissatisfied he can then raise the matter on another occasion. Having said that. I hope he will allow the schedule to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton: I beg to move that the House do now resume for the Statement.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Rate Support Grant (England) 1983–84
4.3 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with your Lordships permission, I should like to read a Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in another place. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the rate support grant settlement in England. In my Statement to the

729
House on 27th July I set out proposals for the main elements of the rate support grant settlement for 1983–84. I have today tabled the main RSG Report. I am placing in the Library copies of the detailed material being sent to local authorities today.
"The Government have three main objectives. The overriding one is to achieve further real reductions in local authorities' current expenditure. We need also to recognise the efforts that most authorities have made to find economies, and we must increase the incentive for all authorities to spend at target, by increasing the grant pressure on the high spenders.
"As well as the main report for 1983–84, I have also tabled today the first supplementary report for 1982–83. The main effect of this report is to reduce block grant for authorities budgeting to overspend both their target and grant related expenditure assessment.
"The holdback for 1982–83 amounts to £308 million. Authorities were warned about the holdback scheme before they drew up their budgets, and they took their decisions in that knowledge. This report implements the scheme. It also adjusts relevant expenditure, and grant, to reflect a number of changes, mainly in the usual variable items caused by interest rate changes.
"I turn now to the main report for 1983–84. The current expenditure provision is £19·7 billion. It is about 3 per cent. more than the equivalent figure in authorities' budgets this year. The aggregate Exchequer grant is £11·8 billion. Although the percentage is lower, the grant is some £300 million higher in cash (almost 3 per cent.) than in last year's settlement.
"There are no major changes to the methodology of grant-related expenditure assessment. Some useful improvements have been made, including 1981 census data, in consultation with local government. There are no changes in the main grant distribution mechanisms. The distribution of block grant between classes of authority is similar to that last year.
"I am now confirming the expenditure targets for all authorities. Since July inflation has fallen and interest rates have dropped, but I have not reduced the targets I announced then to reflect that. A few targets have been raised following minor changes to the methodology. None has been reduced.
"Most low-spending authorities and those that have complied with this year's guidelines are given targets which allow a 4 per cent. cash increase over their budget this year. Usually, authorities spend less than they budget for. In these cases the new target will be a small increase beyond 4 per cent. over actual spending this year. In the light of the current economic trends' it is fair, and it rewards efforts to economise. By contrast, the target for most over-spenders represents a 1 per cent. cash cut from their budget this year. That is tough, but rightly so; because these are authorities which have made no real effort to reduce spending so far, and where the scope for reductions is greatest.
730
"I believe that most local authorities will act responsibly, and will plan to hit their targets. This year and last, two-thirds of authorities budgeted to avoid grant holdback. But we also know that a less responsible minority exists. Pressure must therefore be increased on the highest spenders. The grant holdback scheme achieves this. For each of the first two percentage points of spending above target, there will be a loss of grant worth a 1p rate at ratepayer level. For each subsequent percentage point of overspending, there will be a loss of grant worth a 5p rate. This will help authorities which narrowly fail, but it becomes increasingly severe for overspending at all levels above 2 per cent.
"For the first time since 1945, current expenditure by local government has been shifted to a downward trend. This settlement builds on that. We have not yet achieved the rate of reduction we originally asked for when we took Office. We have made a start, especially with manpower. Local authorities have now reduced manpower by about 5 per cent. since 1979. The Manpower Watch figures, also published today, show that we are back to the level of 1972. We have eliminated the growth in manpower that followed reorganisation. The issue here is not the creation of unemployment: it is the reverse. The fact is that high rates have forced the wealth-creators in our society to reduce staff in order to maintain jobs in local government.
"Any objective survey of a proper cross-section of authorities will show that as a result of this settlement, rate increases next year should, for most authorities, be nil or in low single figures. If authorities spend at target, in many cases rates could actually be reduced. That is the prize offered by this settlement. There is no excuse for overspending this year. Authorities have had more notice than ever before. In the overwhelming majority of cases ratepayers will know that excessive rate increases are the result of excessive spending by their authority."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I, first, thank the Minister for his Statement, and say it is a great pity that the material of the Statements he has to make do not equal the tone in which he gives them. The tone is very good; the material is awful and unfortunate. When the present Secretary of State took office, the rate support grant was 61 per cent; in other words, there was a 61 per cent. grant from central Government to local government. It will now be 53 per cent. as set out in this Statement, but it could be even less than 50 per cent. after the penalties for overspending which have been spelled out to us.
As to these penalties, they are dramatically punitive. For example, if an authority like Sheffield continues at its present spending level it could cost £20 million, which is £40 per week per person. That would be the penalty. That is for spending at this year's level by a sober Yorkshire authority—as I am sure the Minister will appreciate—which is not given to exotic financial eccentricities. But it is not only the Labour councils that are feeling the pinch. Anybody listening to the "Today" programme this morning would have heard

731
what the councillors from Surrey and other Tory areas thought; and, also, the Association of County Councils, which is not a Labour-controlled body, refers to the targets as being arbitrary, unnecessary and unfair. These penalties are for exceeding the targets which were first set out in the 1982 Act on local government and they have been built on ever since. Many inner city authorities, with their hard-pressed social problems, will be faced with a 1 per cent. cash reduction in their 1983–84 budgets, as compared with 1982–83.
In the Statement, the Secretary of State said, "This is tough, but rightly so". I would say, "This is tough, but not rightly so, and quite wrongly so", when we are talking about these very hard-pressed areas. Even the good boys, like Leeds—I am sorry to keep coming back to Yorkshire, but that seems to be a good example—and the shire counties get only a 4 per cent. cash increase on expenditure. Just to show how this is quite out of tone with expenditure in the country today, the CBI is reported in today's Financial Times as stating that pay increases are coming out at 6 per cent. in the present round, which they consider is very good, as it is 1 per cent. lower than last year. Yet the cash increase at the top rate is only 4 per cent., which immediately leaves a gap.
So the consequence of these targets is that there will be more hidden cuts in expenditure. For example, there will be cuts in education, in old people's services, in other social services, in the police—and we hear so much from the Government about law and order—in fire services, in cultural services and in community activities. Almost anything that one can name will suffer cuts through the targets that have been set for this year, and also through the penalties. This will also be at the expense of the already low-paid workers, and in a period of incredibly high unemployment these cuts must add to the problem.
The Statement shows how phoney is the Government's encouragement to spend on capital projects in this financial year. How on earth can they spend on capital projects, even if they have the time to plan them before the end of March, when they will not be able to bear the revenue consequences? The Government are heaping more and more on to the ratepayer—on to both the domestic ratepayer and the hard-pressed industrialist. It really is the height of absolute cheek to say, as this Statement does,
"The fact is that high rates have forced the wealth-creators in our society to reduce staff in order to maintain jobs in local government".
If authorities which are trying to keep down their expenditure are to retain even the most minimal standard of services—and many of them are unable to do that today—the rates must go up. It is because of this that industry and commerce find it difficult to continue.
They are doing this in the prolonged absence of any policy statement on the future of rates. Is this a continued, covert attempt to discredit the rating system and to hasten its demise? It will be interesting to know whether this is so. What local government needs is a healthy financial base. The cumulative onslaught of the Secretary of State's policies must
732
mean a withering away of local government and its services, since local government is becoming more and more the disenchanted pawn of central Government. This is having a disastrous effect on the morale of elected representatives and of officials. What a Christmas present, not only for local government, but also for those millions who used in the past to benefit from it services, and who are paying higher and higher rates for less and less!
Lord Hooson: My Lords, may I also thank the noble Lord for his amiable delivery of what is, obviously, bad news for the ratepayers. I want to concentrate my questions on one very short section of his Statement, which adverts to the suggestion that there should be no rate increases in the coming year and that there could even be a fall in the rates. How can the Government possibly reconcile that expectation with the fact, related in the Statement, that manpower levels are now down to those of 1972? There is a 3·1 per cent. decrease in the central Government contribution, leaving aside the measures to deal with high spenders. There are further duties and responsibilities being put on local authorities. There is the rate of inflation which, though it has fallen, is nevertheless considerable. How can they, therefore, expect no increase, or even a very small increase, in rates without vicious cutting of the services, which would be to the great detriment of the social fabric of this country?
4.17 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made her fairly predictable response and may I, at once, remind her, when she talks about the drastic reduction from a 61 per cent. contribution when we took office, that the record will show that it was the Government which she supported which made in one year, 1976, the largest single reduction ever, when the rate came down by 4·5 per cent. I am sure that the noble Baroness will find that interesting. She said that not only Labour councils but Conservative councils would be hard-pressed and would have to put up the rates. I would only say that the record shows that last year the Labour-controlled councils put up their rates by 31 per cent., while the Conservative-controlled councils put up theirs by 12 per cent. I am quite sure that this year we shall see something not dissimilar. The noble Baroness said——
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point. I should like to say that, on the whole, the Tory-controlled councils are in far less deprived areas, need to make far less expenditure and can tolerate cuts far better than the great majority of Labour councils.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it is the graduated expenditure assessment basis that decides what are the levels of need. That feeds through to the grant, so it is not good enough to say that. The noble Baroness said that, whereas the Statement says. "This is tough, but rightly so", she says "This is tough, but not rightly so". We shall have to see about that. She would not expect me to agree with her. She talked about Leeds being good boys. Leeds used to be good boys. Today they are better than some, but a lot worse than they were at one time. I will not say when that time was. The fact is that

733
I predicted that, if Labour took control of Leeds, within two years the rates would be up 100 per cent. In fact, they were up 88 per cent. So I was out, but not that far out.
The noble Baroness said that the 4 per cent. cash increase was not good and asked how we equated it with the CBI's 6 per cent. reference to pay settlements this year. We are talking about a settlement which will pertain next year. It is not anticipated that settlements will be 6 per cent. next year. They will be less than 6 per cent. next year.
The noble Baroness reeled off—as she always does so well—education and the other items which will have to be cut. But she never mentions the opportunities which exist for local government to provide services at the same or, dare I say it? even higher levels, by means of money which they could save through doing things better. Let me give the noble Baroness just one example, because we do not want a long debate on a Statement of this kind. It is a very dramatic example. The Birmingham workforce, under pressure to contract out the refuse collection service, offered a saving to ratepayers of £3¼ million per year by reducing, at their own suggestion, their workforce of 715 by 263. That is a very massive saving in a very large authority. The same opportunity does not exist in every authority, but in terms of comparatives there are such opportunities and it is up to local government, as I am sure they will and as many do—let me repeat that, as many do—to take advantage of this kind of opportunity. That is why, despite what the noble Baroness said, we shall see at the next round of rate-making many rates established either with no increase or with increases in very low, single figures.
When the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that this was bad news for ratepayers, he would not have expected me to agree with him; nor do I. What the ratepayers have to do is to put pressure on the authorities to look at the kind of opportunities which I mentioned a moment ago, because many others also exist. The fact is that some two-thirds of local authorities are managing to work within the targets. That goes right across the spectrum. Why should they be able to achieve them, while other authorities cannot? The simple answer is that the will has to be there. If the will is there the opportunities are there. The Government hope that this will become more and more widespread.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, spoke also about the further duties on authorities. I absolutely agree. There always are duties on authorities. That is why we take account of the duties which are imposed when making grants. As we go along I hope that we shall reduce some of the obligations upon authorities. The record will show that this has been done. The noble Lord asked me how I can say that there will be little or no increase, in view of what is said in the Statement regarding a settlement. I believe I covered that point in my observations on what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said. I would gladly elaborate upon it, but perhaps today is not the time. I suggest that it is also not the time to go into chapter and verse, tempted though I am, on some of the other observations which the noble Baroness made.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I believe it was on 27th July that we said we would watch with interest the continuing development of this titanic struggle between the two great traditional parties, one entrenched at central level and the other entrenched in some of the most powerful local authorities in the country. Today's instalment has been a breathtaking one. May I ask the noble Lord the Minister to give the House a few more details of how many authorities are going to suffer from the holdback at the higher rate, at the 5p rate equivalent? Can he tell us what kind of authorities they are? It would also be instructive for the House if we could be told what political colour those authorities belong to: how many Labour, how many Conservative, and so on.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the answer lies not with me but with the authorities themselves. I cannot tell the noble Lord what they will decide to do. That is a decision they will have to take based upon what has been said today. I cannot anticipate, other than from the budgets which we have received which give certain indications. It is now up to the authorities to see exactly how the settlement affects them, how the targets affect them, what the targets will then be and what decisions they will have to take with regard to their spending. At the end of the day what decides the issue is how much they spend, because that affects also the grant and the total rate-making ability. I am not prepared today to try to anticipate that. I hope the message will go home and that they will recognise they have a responsibility to everybody whom they represent.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, if that is so. how does the Minister know that the holdback is going to be £308 million?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the holdback refers to the previous year, not to the current year. The settlement covers both the holdback for the previous year and the settlement for the coming year.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I doubt whether my noble friend expects a great whoop of joy from either the ratepayers or the councillors at today's announcement of this settlement. There will be gratitude for the recognition which the Secretary of State expresses of the efforts of the more thrifty authorities to keep within his targets, but those efforts have to be very considerable to earn any reward, and there is no guarantee under the system that the rewards, when earned, will be achieved. But it is the extravagance of the minority of authorities—most, though not all, belonging to the party opposite—which has made it not only feasible for the Secretary of State to take the kind of measures he has been taking over the past years, but politically essential for him to take those measures. I believe that they have to be accepted. However, we must get out of this situation as soon as we can and restore to local government some of the autonomy which the constitution requires for them.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. He is quite right in saying that the efforts have to be considerable to earn the

735
rewards. I accept that entirely. There has been no attempt to say other than that. I hope I did not give the impression that it is easy to do this, particularly in the case of those authorities which have—as many have—for so long run what they call a tight ship and conducted their affairs responsibly. My noble friend is so right in saying that very many of the problems throughout local government are caused by the minority who increase their spending in blatant disregard of. and cocking a snook at, the Government's public spending requirements. They simply could not care less. This is so sad when one considers the proud record that pertained for so long in local government, which never exceeded by more than 1 per cent. over many years the parameters set down by central Government, of whatever colour. This is what should make us so sad when we contemplate a scene where the totality of local government overspends by as much as it does, whereas so many within it spend within the parameters laid down. I am grateful, therefore, to my noble friend for bringing out that point.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question for information. I am not trying to get at anybody. Is any part of local government expenditure on the proper maintenance and repair of rural roads and back streets in urban areas subject to grant, or is that expenditure entirely a charge on the local rates?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the make-up of the grant takes into account the type of expenditure to which the noble Lord referred. It is allowed for in the totality of spending.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the wealth-creators in our society who were having to reduce staff to maintain local authority manpower. Can he seriously sustain that statement? Would he not agree that the reduction in manufacturing employment has been largely due to previous overmanning, to new technology, to the exchange rate and to various factors of that nature? Is he seriously trying to blame local authorities for unemployment in manufacturing industry? If so, I am sure that it is greatly unfair.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the points which the noble Lord makes are major factors in the effect upon unemployment, and there are others which he did not mention. It would be doing less than justice if we were not to recognise that there are many manufacturers and retailers too who have moved out of areas because they could not afford the rates, and who have closed down because they could not afford the extra burden imposed upon them. When rates are increased by 30, 40, 50 or 60 per cent. in one year, when one is trying to operate on the margin in difficult times, it is surely wrong not to recognise that this is a factor in increasing unemployment.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the substance of the Statement he has just made, and the reaction of Her Majesty's Opposition to that Statement, is nothing other than recognition by
736
Her Majesty's Government of the fact that there is no such thing as Government money; there is only one kind of money and that is the taxpayers' and ratepayers' money? It is extremely refreshing for noble Lords on this side of the House to see that recognition reflected in the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the rate support grant.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and entirely agree with him. I see this settlement as offering a great opportunity to local government, and I am sure that the vast majority of those in it will take advantage of that opportunity.

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [H.L.]
4.31 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 149A:
Before Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Fees for certificates relating to notifiable diseases and food poisoning.
.The following section shall be substituted for section 50 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968—

"Fees for certificates under section 48.

50.—(1) Subject to any exceptions which he may specify, the Secretary of State may direct that a District Health Authority shall pay to a medical practitioner for each certificate duly sent by him under section 48 of this Act a fee of such amount as the direction may specify.

(2) The Secretary of State may direct that different fees shall be paid under this section in relation to different circumstances.
(3) A direction under this section may make provision in relation to fees payable after a date specified in the direction.
(4) The date may be before or after the date of the direction but may not be before if it would be to the detriment of medical practitioners.
(5) Before giving a direction as to a fee under this section the Secretary of State shall consult any body accepted by him as a proper body for negotiating fees for medical practitioners.
(6) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the fact that a medical practitioner who gives a certificate under section 48 of this Act holds the office to whose holder the certificate is required to be sent does not disentitle him to payment of the fee (if any) payable for the certificate.".'").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 150A and 154. This clause seeks to substitute a new section for the existing Section 50 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, which covers the fees paid to medical practitioners for notification of infectious diseases and food poisoning. The new section directs district health authorities to pay a fee to medical practitioners and sets out the basis for determining the fee in future. On the reorganisation of the National Health Service and local government it was the intention that health authorities should meet the cost of medical services provided to enable local authorities to fulfil their statutory functions, including those relating to public health.
Statutory cover for certain other fees under the collaborative arrangements is provided by Section 3 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1980, but the fee for notification is outwith that statute because,

737
in law, the obligation to provide the notice rests on the medical practitioner and not on the local authority. Health authorities have been required to reimburse local authority expenditure on notification fees since 1975 on the basis of extra statutory authority given by the Treasury. Subsection (1) of the new clause seeks to legitimise this financial liability upon health authorities and to ease administration by introducing payment directly to the notifying practitioners.
The majority of the section is concerned with future arrangements for setting the fee. The existing arrangements date from as far back as the last century. I hope your Lordships will not wish me to give further detail, although naturally I shall be happy to do so if asked. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: We do not quarrel with this new clause, but can the noble Lord the Minister help in connection with subsection (2), where there is reference to the fact that the Secretary of State may pay different fees,
"in relation to different circumstances"?
I am not quite clear what kind of circumstances would warrant differential fees.
Then, in subsection (5) there is a reference to the fact that,
"the Secretary of State shall consult any body accepted by him as a proper body…".
I wonder whether the noble Lord can give the Committee some indication of who are those "proper bodies".
LordTrefgarne: This new clause reproduces what I understand is already available in current provisions elsewhere in statutes. I will take up the point which the noble Baroness has raised and will let her know if there is anything I can add. That, broadly, is also my answer in respect of subsection (5). This brings the arrangements for settling the fee into line with those for many other fees which are paid.
Baroness Mashamof Ilton: On the first day of the Committee stage I moved an amendment to give the Secretary of State the power to fund special hospital units if the need arose. Then, the noble Lord the Minister said that such an amendment was unnecessary. Why, therefore, is subsection (2) necessary? If it is necessary to deal with general practitioners, as the noble Lord is now suggesting, it makes me believe that I should move my hospital amendment again at Report stage.
Lord Trefgarne: If the noble Baroness wishes to do that, it is a matter for her. I certainly rest by what I said in connection with that amendment. This amendment concerns a wholly different matter. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, subsection (2) reproduces what is available under current legislation, which is exactly what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, under the previous amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 22 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Repeals and Revocation]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 150A:
Page 69, line 22, at end insert—

("1968 c. 46.

Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.

In section 48(2). in paragraph (a), the word "the Area Health Authority within whose area or" and in paragraph (b)(ii). the words "the Area Health Authority for the area".".

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 70, line 44, after ("Treasury,") insert ("and shall be").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment. The repeal as printed would leave Section 100(2) with superfluous words, because "shall be" would appear twice. We seek to amend the repeal so that the substantive subsection reads sensibly and properly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 152 not moved.]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 153 and 154:
Page 72, leave out lines 4 and 5.

line 23, leave out ("(1) to") and insert ("(3) and").

The noble Lord said: These are two consequential amendments. I spoke to Amendment No. 153 when moving Amendment No. 127; and my noble friend spoke to Amendment No. 154 earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
4.40 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DERWENT in the Chair.]
Clause 7.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Schedule 1: Part II [Science Museum]:
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 23, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In selecting persons for appointment to the Board the Prime Minister shall have regard to the desirability of the person's having knowledge or experience of one or more of the following, namely, the fields of research in science and technology covered by the museum collections, design, non-national museums, tourism, commerce and finance.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I would remind your Lordships that at the Committee stage the other day the noble Earl gave an assurance that arrangements would be made for the Victoria and Albert Museum along the lines of this amendment. In view of that assurance, I would wish to withdraw this amendment.
The Earl of Avon: I assure my noble friend that the Government are prepared to accept the underlying principle and will offer our own amendment in substitution at the next stage.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 not moved.]
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 44:
Page 23, line 25, leave out ("general exercise of the Board's functions") and insert ("care of all property in its possession and for the general administration of the Museum.").
The noble Lord said: Again, this was discussed at some length on the previous occasion, and therefore I feel that it is not necessary to have any further discussion, unless any noble Lord wishes to speak.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 49 not moved.]
Clause 9 [The Board's general functions]:
[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment
No. 52:
Page 6, leave out line 4.
The noble Lord said: At the Second Reading debate I did point out that, for some extraordinary reason, whereas the word "enjoyment" was used for one of the objects of the Victoria and Albert and the Armouries, that word was left out when dealing with the Science Museum. I hope my amendment will right that position. I feel very strongly that items of interest in the Science Museum should be equally enjoyed. Perhaps there was a grammatical reason for leaving that out of this clause; I hope my grammar in this amendment will be sufficient. There is no doubt that scientific objects can be enjoyed, and there should be no differentiation between the Science Museum and other museums. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I think the noble Lord, the Deputy Chairman of Committees, put Amendment No. 52, and I believe my noble friend is speaking to
740
Amendment No. 53. I believe Amendment No. 52 was covered on the earlier occasion.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Derwent): Is Amendment No. 52 moved or not?
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: That amendment is to leave out the word "and" in order to achieve the next amendment, which follows on grammatically. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 6, line 5, after ("public's") insert ("enjoyment of and")
The noble Lord said: I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: May I ask the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman what happened to Amendment No. 39? Was it not moved?
I should like to support my noble friend Lord Montagu on this amendment, to which I have added my name, especially as I speak as someone who has little bent for science at all yet has found enjoyment in the Science Museum; I have also seen people with their children finding the Science Museum an absolute delight. That applies to many of the exhibitions and also to what takes place in the museum. I did have the pleasure of having quite a lot to do with it when I was a Minister at the Department of the Environment. If this was a deliberate omission—no doubt the noble Earl will tell us the reason—I find it strange, because it is following a sort of tradition that science has to be dour, grave, unamusing and unenjoyable whereas the other museums concerned with pictures, costume, music or the arts in some form or other, one can enjoy. I think this amendment is important; it is not just a trivial matter for laughter, though it is in one way, and it does seem to expose an attitude which I think we should be doing our best to undermine in this Bill.
Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd: As the first Minister of Education to have had a scientific education, I support this. I hope that the noble Earl will have good news for us.
The Earl of Avon: The Government do, of course, accept that enjoyment should be clearly reflected in the words used, and we do accept the principle of the amendment. I would say to the noble Baroness that in no way was this omission deliberate in the sense she mentioned. It was partly a point of grammatical style. What we shall have is "public's enjoyment of … the development of science and technology", and I should prefer to have another look at where to put the word "enjoyment" rather than "enjoyment of development", though if the Committee would like the word "enjoyment" in at that point, I shall be happy to accept that. May I leave it to my noble friend either to accept "public's enjoyment … of the development", or let me try to put it in at another place between now and Report stage?
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I should be very happy to bow to the superior drafting of the noble Earl's

741
experts, and I am glad to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that "enjoyment" will be introduced in a Government amendment at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 54:
Page 6, line 9, at end insert—

("and

( ) satisfy the national interest in the museum's activities and any provincial obligations.").

The noble Lord said: An amendment similar to this was moved on Tuesday with regard to the Victoria and Albert Museum. The noble Earl gave a satisfactory reply and said he would look at it. Unless any other noble Lord wishes to speak to this amendment, I shall be happy not to move it.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.)
[Amendment Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.]
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 57:
Page 6, line 18, leave out from ("things") to ("as").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee; the proceedings went a bit faster than I expected. I do not propose to move this amendment because this is on the same question about admission charges which we discussed on Tuesday, but relating this time to the Science Museum. We had a full debate on it. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, unless any noble Lord wishes to speak, I propose not to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Acquisition and disposal of objects]:
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 59:
Page 8, line 9, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This is also a duplicate of a previous amendment relating to the Science Museum and unless any noble Lord wishes to speak I propose not to move it.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Schedule 1: Part III [Armouries]:
4.51 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 25, line 5, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Prime Minister, who shall have due regard to the desirability of the person's having knowledge or experience of one or more of the following, namely, arms and armour, military history, museums, design, commerce, industry and finance.")
The noble Lord said: Here again, this is an attempt to define the sort of persons required to be trustees in the new Armouries Museum; but again, in view of the
742
understanding which I have with regard to the desire of the Government to have a similar description for the Science Museum and the Victoria and Albert, I shall be happy to leave this to the Government to bring forward an amendment at the right stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I speak only to support the noble Lord's amendment because it will, as he said, bring consistency into the Bill with the other museums.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I find myself in favour of this proposal and at this stage I need not interrupt the noble Earl, but we shall see what he has to say about it first.
The Earl of Avon: I was only pausing for a moment to see whether there were any further suggestions for amendments to the terminology. So far as the Government are concerned, we share my noble friend's feelings and are happy to accept the principle of the amendment. However, it is not clear that all the areas listed in the amendment are relevant to the responsibilities of the Armouries trustees. I am thinking in particular of "commerce" and "industry". We should like to consider this carefully with a view to bringing forward an amendment at a later stage. We would, of course, take into account what was discussed on Amendment No. 4. If your Lordships have any other suggestions regarding deletions or additions, I shall be happy to hear them.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I thank my noble friend. In view of that satisfactory statement we look forward to the Government amendment. I am therefore happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 25, line 5, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Prime Minister").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to remove inconsistencies in the arrangements for the appointment of trustees in the various museums cited in the Bill. There seems no good reason why all the museums cited in the Bill should not have trustees appointed in the same way. Those national museums which at present enjoy trustee status have their trustees appointed by the Prime Minister. The Bill seeks to extend this method of appointing trustees to cover the V and A and the Science Museum.
It is puzzling that a different arrangement is made for the appointment of trustees for the Armouries; namely, that they should be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment. There is nothing personal in this, as I am sure his appointments will be very good; but on the other hand, in some way it demotes the Armouries' status compared with the other museums. I do not think that it can be argued that the different method of appointing trustees is because of the small size of the Armouries. After all, the trustees of the Wallace Collection are appointed by the Prime Minister. My main point, therefore, is that the museums cited in the Bill should be treated in the same way. The trustees should be appointed by the

743
Prime Minister, which has proved so successful for the other national museums. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I think it might perhaps be appropriate on this amendment to say a word about the question of appointments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: May I interrupt the noble Lord because I am completely out of order? I apologise to the Committee. After Clause 12 stand part I should have put to the Committee that Clauses 13 to 15 stand part of the Bill. Therefore, I shall do so now.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I again apologise. We can now continue with Amendment No. 61.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I was referring to the question of appointments and whether they should be made by the Secretary of State or by the Prime Minister. I expressed myself in favour of Amendment No. 60. In doing so. I was talking about the general sense of the amendment—that is. the appointment of a person having knowledge and experience of arms, armour, military history, and so on. It is generally-agreed that that would be a sensible thing to do. In that I did not mean to express approval of the proposal, which is part of that amendment, to substitute the Prime Minister for the Secretary of State.
This raises the whole question of appointments in this country. We are a much over-appointed country and a much under-elected country compared with the United States of America. It may be thought that the Americans go rather too far electing, as they do sometimes by pulling a handle, almost everybody down to the town hall janitor. It seems to me that we do not go far enough. We have established in this country a general proposition of lists of the great and the good from whom leading civil servants draw persons to fill all the positions of influence in the state. This general proposition seems to me to be fallacious, and I do not think it is cured by making the Prime Minister responsible for everything. The procedure which actually goes on, whether the person who technically makes the appointment is the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State, is somewhat similar. As everyone knows there is a sort of trawl. Names are put up at various stages, sifted out and arise, in this case, for the Minister of the Arts. He looks through them and passes on to his own Secretary of State a reduced list, which finally goes on to the Prime Minister who makes the choice. Of course, he or she can choose not to have any of the people and appoint someone else instead.
The whole procedure which goes on throughout the whole appointment business is one about which many of us have grave doubts. I am not sure that it is appropriate on this Bill to raise this general question, but it seems to be a question which ought to be dealt with because the notion that practically everyone in the country holding this type of position over the whole range of appointments is ultimately appointed by the Prime Minister is a thoroughly bad one. The difficulty is that once one gets into the habit of believ-
744
ing that prime ministerial appointment is the only really important thing, then everyone wants to have prime ministerial appointment or they feel rather under-graded. Therefore, if the Bill stipulates the Secretary of State, some people will say, "No, no, others are appointed by the Prime Minister, so this appointment must also be by the Prime Minister". So the whole thing turns on the Prime Minister who, in the vast majority of cases can, in fact, know very little about the people whom he or she technically appoints. The whole system is undesirable and should be changed. I am equally sure that this Bill is not the appropriate occasion to change it. although it is possibly the appropriate occasion on which to air it.
Having said that, my view is that we ought to go a little further down the scale. If I were to amend an amendment—a process which I am not much in favour of—I would substitute the words "Minister for the Arts" for "Secretary of State" in this case. He is the chap who will do the initial solving of lists, and I should prefer that he had not only the actual duty of looking through the names, but was actually responsible for making the appointment rather than pushing everything up to the top stage. Having aired the problem, I do not propose to vote against the amendment.
Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd: I support my noble friend Lord Montagu. The arrangement in the Bill does seem, probably unintentionally, to discriminate against this fine museum and I feel that the Committee would like to avoid that if possible. Can the noble Earl tell us whether he can do anything to meet these views?
The Earl of Avon: I should just like to put the Government's point of view and to say why we have done this, and then I should like to listen to the views of the Committee. Let me say right at the outset that it is not our intention in any way to demote the Armouries or to say that they are of lesser importance than anything else. I repeat: that is not the intention.
The Secretary of State for the Environment is now responsible for the Armouries as an integral part of the work of his department—this is the next point—as he is for the Tower within which the Armouries are and will be largely located. He will, therefore, be well placed to appoint the members of the board of trustees and to approve their choice of Master of the Armouries. Perhaps that does to a certain extent answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, when he suggested the Minister for the Arts. The reason why we are suggesting the Secretary of State for the Environment is that he has had control over the Armouries and he is the Minister responsible for the Tower.
The precedents on this are slightly diverse but the position of the Victoria and Albert and the Science Museums have been quoted, and they are somewhat different, not least because the Prime Minister herself expressed the wish to be involved in the appointment of their trustees. As they are large institutions with wide-ranging interests, it is considered absolutely appropriate to follow the practice in respect of, for example, the British Museum. The Government put forward their proposal because they did not think that the Armouries fell into the same category. However, if

745
the Committee wishes to support my noble friend then of course we would be totally willing to consider the matter.
Baroness Birk: I see a great deal of merit in, and have considerable sympathy for, what my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney has said. Indeed, I had the same feeling when we dealt with the National Heritage Memorial Fund, although we did not seem to get very far and in the end, because in that case two Ministers were involved, we all felt that we would only go forward if there were a prime ministerial appointment. I also feel that there are a great many advantages in having a Secretary of State involved especially if he is interested in the particular subject, museum or gallery.
However, we are in a difficult position as regards this matter. The Master of the Armouries and his staff feel that theirs will be a rather second-class museum in this context if it is not followed through so that, at the same time as the other museums are being devolved, they also are being devolved. As the Minister seems to be open-minded about this matter; as those people feel very strongly about it and will feel extremely aggrieved; and as they are covered in the same Bill, I think it would be better if they came under the same type of selection appointment umbrella.
Lord Craigton: Having listened to the arguments, I am satisfied with the Bill as it is.
Baroness Phillips: I should only like to enter the general argument, but not unfortunately to support my noble friend. There has constantly been propagated the great virtue of election as opposed to appointment. That comes rather oddly from a House whose Members are, by nature, either appointed or are there by the hereditary principle. My noble friend says that it should be elected; at the moment it is not elected. I can only say that, like many other people, I have been elected and I have been appointed and I know which is the better position. If you are appointed you are your own man—you are able to say exactly what you feel without any kind of intimidation or threat. If you are elected there is always the implied idea by the people who have elected you that, if you do not follow their ideas, they will not elect you again.
Our great institutions have always been run very satisfactorily by people who are appointed because of their knowledge or because of their feeling for the particular group to which they have been appointed. It would be rather unfortunate to go into the whole realm of everybody being elected whether it be boards of governors or appointees to boards of trustees, because in the end we shall get somebody for a transitory period, perhaps three years, and not someone who will be there for a lifetime and dedicated to the subject.
Lord Reigate: I should like strongly to support my noble friend Lord Montagu. It seemed to me at first that the argument for having the same status as the others was unanswerable. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned the National Heritage Memorial Fund, in which I took some interest. She will remember that the real reason was not that we had two Ministers who might squabble about everything, but simply and solely to raise the status of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I do not think that the
746
extent of the patronage in this field is such to overburden the Prime Minister. It is extremely important that we should keep the same kind of status for all these authorities.
There is in my view another argument. Frankly, I find armour a very boring subject, but I should have thought that it had much more to do with the Office of Arts and Libraries than it has to do with the Department of the Environment, and on that ground alone I am sure that the Prime Minister is the right person to make the appointment.
Lord Beloff: I should like to support my noble friend's amendment on two grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, spoke about appointment and election. I should have thought that the only bodies of importance in the United States which are not elected are the trustees of the great museums—and the museums are the best run institutions in the United States. As far as appointment-by-whom? is concerned, 50 years ago there was no Secretary of State for the Environment and I would not, as a student of the machinery of government, be certain that in 50 years' time there will be a Secretary of State for the Environment. We may want to alter the situation in that department long before then. We are told that we are legislating for the future. There will, I think, be a Prime Minister, and therefore I support the amendment.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I should like to support the Government's view on this matter having twice been in the Department of the Environment, the machinery of which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, knows so well. The interest shown in the Tower and the Armouries by the Department of the Environment is enormous. There is no question or doubt in my mind that the Secretary of State for the Environment has far more intimate knowledge. If the Prime Minister had to be involved in this matter she, or he, as the case may be, would only have to go to the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment to get the information concerned. Why not leave it as it is, with the Prime Minister in the end getting advice? The Secretary of State is actually, day to day, responsible for all the functions of that wonderful place, the Tower of London, through the various offices involved. I do not think that one need be worried about this point. I have twice been in the Department of the Environment in a very junior, bottle-washer capacity, but I have seen that it works and I would strongly suggest that we leave it as the Government have put it.
Viscount Eccles: Is there an amendment to bring the Tower of London within the purview of the commission? I do not think that there is, but I thought that some people wanted it. In that case, I support the Government because the department's knowledge of the Tower is tremendous and if it is to remain with the department then we must remember that the Armouries are part of it. It seems rather difficult to say to the Secretary of State, "You are responsible for the whole of the fabric of all these buildings but not for appointing the museum trustees". I do not feel very strongly about this. As regards all the appointments with which I have been concerned, which were finally in the gift of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister

747
consulted me as the junior Minister. I have some very interesting examples. I appointed someone as the director of one of our national museums and the Prime Minister of the day, who was the noble Earl's father, sent for me and said, "You cannot have that man". I said, "Prime Minister why not?" He said, "I do not think that you should do so". I told him, "He is an old Etonian". He said, "You can have him".
Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd: I hate to disagree even in the slightest extent with my noble friend Lord Eccles, but he has based his argument largely on the idea that the Tower was not going to be moved to the commission. Maybe the Tower will not be moved to the commission, but many of us feel that as regards the tourist management of the Tower, it would be much better if the commission took over that side of the work. Indeed, I think that the Government in their consultation paper suggested that that might be possible, in which case I suggest that the argument of my noble friend rather falls to the ground.
Baroness Birk: Before any decision is taken and in answer to what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, the fact remains that, though part of the collection is still in the Tower of London—and later on we have an amendment to keep the greater part of the collection in the Tower—nevertheless under the Bill the Armouries have been devolved as a museum on their own. Therefore, as they are a museum, the fact that they are located in the Tower of London and have a connection with it I would suggest, with respect, is irrelevant to the point that we are now discussing as to who should make the appointment. I believe that the method should be consistent with the way in which appointments are made to the other devolved museums.
As regards the Tower itself, as it is a Royal Palace nothing is said in the Bill about it. There are some amendments down to make an enabling clause for Royal Palaces, but I honestly do not think that that is quite relevant to the discussion which we are now having.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: We have had quite an interesting discussion on this point. I moved this amendment in order to bring consistency into the whole matter. Regardless of what the Department of the Environment thinks, I know that the staff of the Armouries feel very strongly that they would like the trustees to be appointed by the Prime Minister. They believe—they may wrongly believe—that they are in some way being slighted and demoted as a result. I hope that the Government will be able to accept this amendment, but, if not, one could perhaps think of a compromise at the Report stage whereby the chairman is appointed by the Prime Minister and the other trustees are appointed by the Secretary of State. I just make that suggestion, which might appeal to the Government. I think that there is considerable support in the Committee for this point, and I hope that my noble friend may be able to meet me on it.
The Earl of Avon: We have not so far had a Division and, as this is a non-controversial matter, I think we ought to see which way the Committee wants to vote
748
on it. By going backwards and forwards I find it hard to make a decision myself. I could consult and come back next time, but why do we not make up our minds now?
5.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 61) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships Divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 83.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Jacques, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Jeger, B.

Ampthill, l.

John-Mackie, L.

Annan, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwiek, L.

Loudoun, C.

Beloff, L.

McCarthy, L.

Birk, B.

Mishcon, L.

Bishopston, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L. [Teller.]

Boston of Faversham, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Oram, L.

Brockway, L.

Peart, L.

Caccia, L.

Perth, E.

Chelwood, L.

Phillips, B.

Collison, L.

Rea, L.

Congleton, L.

Reigate, L. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Richardson, L.

Cork and Orrery, L.

Rugby, L.

Cottesloe, L.

St. Davids, V.

Craigavon, V.

Scanlon, L.

Crathorne, L.

Shackleton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Shinwell, L.

David, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Somers, L.

Derwent, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stone, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Strabolgi, L.

George-Brown, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gormley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gregson, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hertford, M.

Terrington, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Ilchester, E.

Vickers, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacobson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Avon, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Aylestone, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hanworth, V.

Bessborough, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cathcart, E.

Henley, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hives, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Craigton, L.

Hunt, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Daventry, V.

Ironside, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kilmany, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Eccles, V.

Long, V.

Elton, L.

Luke, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lyell, L.

Fortescue, E.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Gain ford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Margadale, L.

Gibson, L.

Marley, L.

Gisborough, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Glanusk, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Merrivale, L.

Greenway, L.

Morris, L.

Gridley, L.

Mottistone, L.

749

Mountevans, L.

Selkirk, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Moyne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Newall, L.

Soames, L.

Northchurch, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Swansea, L.

Orkney, E.

Swinfen, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller]

Portland, D.

Thorneycroft, L.

Renton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ridley, V.

Trumpington, B.

Rochdale, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Vivian, L.

St. Just, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Westbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Wynford, L.

Savile, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 62 to 71 not moved.]
5.22 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 27, line 2, leave out ("9") and insert ("10").
The noble Baroness said: As I have my name to it, may I move Amendment No. 72, which goes with 71 and also with 75?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is the noble Baroness going to move Amendment No. 71?
Baroness Birk: May I move Amendment No. 71?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: No, not really. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu has not moved it. Amendment No. 72 may be moved.
The Earl of Avon: May I intervene? I should be perfectly happy to have the arguments on Amendment No. 72, if it is the will of the Committee.
Baroness Birk: I am grateful to the Minister. This is again a question of inconsistency so far as the Armouries Museum is concerned. These amendments are concerned with bringing its funding into line with the funding of the other museums. Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 are paving amendments to No. 75. There does not seem to be any good reason why all the museums cited in this Bill should not be given the same financial provisions. Those national museums which at present enjoy trustee status are funded directly by money provided by Parliament. This method of funding has always worked well with these museums.
The present Bill seeks to extend this method of funding to cover the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum, but it provides a different financial arrangement for the Armouries and for the armed forces museums; namely, that they may be funded from money provided by their respective Secretaries of State. There may be a good reason for this arrangement so far as the armed forces museums are concerned. That I am not sure about. If not, that could be amended in the same way. But it cannot be argued that the reason for this different method of funding is because of the small size of the Armouries and the armed forces museums, when none is smaller
750
than the Wallace Collection, which is funded directly by money provided by Parliament.
Therefore, I feel that there is no reason why all the museums cited in this Bill should not be treated in the same way. It surely makes sense to give them all the same financial provisions as have proved to be the basis for the present structure and running of our other national museums. If this were done, all the museums cited in the Bill would be required to present their reports in the same way to their respective Secretaries of State, who should be required in turn to present a copy of each report to each House of Parliament. For those reasons, unless the Minister has something that we have overlooked, I cannot see that there is any reason why these amendments should not be accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I must apologise for not having moved the amendment which was consequential on this amendment, but I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and say again that I think that the inconsistency is unfortunate. It would be much better if the Armouries were funded directly from Parliament and not from the Secretary of State.
The Earl of Avon: Of course I appreciate the reasoning behind these amendments which the noble Baroness has explained. They are designed to give the Armouries the same Vote status as is proposed for the V and A and the Science Museum. The provision of a different régime for the Armouries and a grant in aid paid by the Secretary of State rather than supply granted directly by Parliament, I hope your Lordships will not in any way think of as belittling the status of the Armouries. That is far from our intention. The inclusion of the Armouries in this Bill is indication enough of the Government's view of their status.
The proposed finance régime does not reflect on that. However, there are differences between the Armouries and, for example, the V and A. The latter is considerably larger and wider ranging than the Armouries and thus has much greater administrative requirements and resources. The Armouries also have a rather different background in the sense that they are currently part of, and will be sponsored in the future by, the Department of the Environment. In providing vote status for the V and A and the Science Museum we are simply following the precedent set by existing trustee bodies such as the British Museum.
The DoE of course has a large number of sponsored bodies, including the Nature Conservancy Council. All of these bodies, without exception, are funded by way of a grant in aid from the Secretary of State. I doubt whether that is to be held as a reflection on their status or importance. Thus the Department of the Environment's experience is of grant in aid bodies, and given that, and the size and the specialised nature of the Armouries, it is considered entirely appropriate that such a system should be applied.
This is an area in which again there is no right or wrong. It is a question of what is most appropriate in all the circumstances. With this close relationship with the Department of the Environment, and the fact that their experience is grant in aid, I hope that the Committee might feel able to accept what we have.

751
However, I shall listen to the rest of the debate with interest.
Baroness Birk: There does not seem to be any expression of opinion about this matter. In these circumstances—and I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, takes the same view, otherwise he would have spoken—we ought to withdraw the amendment at this stage, read carefully what the Minister has said—because I should like to read it as well as having listened intently to it—and then see how we feel about it and, if necessary, come back on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [The Board's general functions]:
5.28 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 9, line 43, at end insert—

("( ) display a major part of their collection within the Tower of London").

The noble Lord said: The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has already mentioned the close association of the Armouries with the Tower of London. The Armouries is by far the oldest museum in Great Britain, and indeed one of the oldest in the world. Its history and development are inextricably linked with the history and development of the Tower. The Armouries is today a modern comparative museum, which is regarded as the national museum of arms and armour, and which enjoys considerable and increasing international reputation.
However, much of the interest and uniqueness stems from the fact that the basis of its collection is its large holding of arms, armour and related objects, which have for many centuries been stored, preserved, and exhibited in the Tower of London. Some of them were even made within the walls of the Tower of London. Possibly no other collection in the world still preserves such a long and close connection with an historic building. It is surely sensible to ensure that this collection is preserved. The Armouries certainly would be poorer if it was ever entirely divorced from the Tower of London. Indeed, the Tower would be much poorer if it were to lose the Armouries.
These collections are preserved as a very important part of our history, as much so as the Crown Jewels, the yeomen Warders and the ravens, none of which we wish to see leave the Tower. The amendment seeks to ensure, by a provision in the Bill, that the historic connection between the Tower and its Armouries are preserved for future generations to enjoy, while allowing the trustees considerable flexibility to exhibit part of the collections outside the Tower of London should they so wish. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I support the amendment, to which I have put my name. It was probably considered implicit in the Bill that what is proposed would happen, but I suggest it is necessary to include a provision of this type because, as we have said on many occasions when debating the Bill, we are talking not just about now or the near future but the very
752
long-term future. We are anxious to enshrine in the Bill the connection between the Tower and the Armouries, because they are so intertwined, and to ensure that the major part of the collection remains there. The amendment would leave sufficient flexibility for other exhibitions to take place and, therefore, for part of the collection not always to be in the Tower.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have a question, of which I gave the noble Earl notice, that I have been seeking to ask about the Armouries, and this seems the least inappropriate amendment on which to ask it. What is to be the relationship between the Armoury in the Tower of London and the collection at the Wallace Collection? At one time the director of the Wallace Collection was the Keeper of the Armoury of the Tower. It may be that was because he was the preeminent expert in the field in this country. It meant that acquisitions and bequests were co-related. I should be grateful if the Minister would help me on that, and excuse me if I have asked it at the wrong time.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I hope the Government will accept the sense of the amendment, although they may not wish to accept the actual words. They may have to make some qualification: in the event of war occurring, they must have special arrangements—especially in the event of nuclear war—for art objects to be removed from London into a bunker in Wales. I suspect—perhaps the Minister will tell us—that the Crown Jewels are among those objects. Although the population itself is not to be evacuated, art objects are. What sort of judgment one makes of that is a matter for the Government—I think it is the case—and the question is whether the Crown Jewels are among those objects. If they are, then, in accepting the amendment, the Government would have to include words to provide for the eventuality of their movement to Wales in the event of war.
Lord Cottesloe: The Committee was at pains in earlier discussions of the National Heritage Fund to ensure that it was possible—and your Lordships considered it very desirable—that objects of special importance to the heritage, when accepted for the nation, are enabled to remain in the houses to which they belong and in which they have been accumulated. Surely the same applies, in much greater degree, to the objects in the Armouries of the Tower of London.
The Earl of Perth: I hope the Government will find it possible to accept the amendment because, in a sense, the Armouries have had two blows this afternoon. One was on the question of who should appoint the trustees and the other was on the source of funds. Many of your Lordships know that this is a matter about which they are anxious, not immediately but in the future, and that being so, and because I feel one should pay attention to the views of those directly concerned, I hope the Government will accept the amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I support the amendment. Historically and visually one could not have a better place than the Tower of London in which to deposit the finest Armouries in the country.
The Earl of Avon: I say at once to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that these are not intended as blows. As I have been at pains to say throughout our debates on these amendments, the Government fully appreciate the Armouries for the excellent collections they are: it is purely a question of administration so far as we are concerned. The noble Baroness was right to say that it is our intention to keep the Armouries where they are; there is absolutely no question about that.
However admirable and understandable the amendment is, there are difficulties, as several noble Lords have said, about including such a requirement in the Bill. For instance, if it were accepted, it would be necessary to provide the trustees with some means of fulfilling the obligation it would impose in them. There would have to be in the Bill the express right for them to occupy accommodation in the Tower. That, obviously, they will do, but at present it is not, as it were, enshrined in the Bill.
I would, however, assure noble Lords that it is our full intention to enter into an administrative agreement for the trustees to occupy part of the Tower, and we fully expect the trustees to observe the tradition of displaying the greater part of their collection there. While the amendment is not acceptable as it is, I now know, having listened to the debate, the aim of my noble friend Lord Montagu, and I will go back to see whether it is possible for the draftsman to incorporate the spirit of what he wants in the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, raised the point of the relationship between the Wallace Collection and the Armouries. I understand that the Master of the Armouries at present unofficially acts as adviser to the Wallace Collection on the care of the Wallace Armoury Collection. There is nothing formal to put into the Bill, and one hopes that the same sort of relationship, which is really a personalities one, will continue. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, mentioned the collection of jewels and asked whether they would be transported. I have no knowledge of that and I have a slight suspicion that if I had, I should not be allowed to tell him, though I may be wrong. In any event, I shall look into that point as well. I agree with my noble friend on the spirit of the amendment, as the Committee obviously does, and I hope it will be possible to incorporate in the Bill something along the lines proposed in it.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister for those remarks. There is one matter on which I should like to feel clear; perhaps I have misunderstood the position. He referred to the trustees having to ccupy a part of the Tower. The amendment simply says that the major part of the collection should be within the Tower of London. Does the noble Earl mean that the words "within the Armouries" should be added? In that case, I would understand what he was saying, but surely one need not say that the trustees must occupy, say, a part of the Victoria and Albert or part of the Science Museum. I am probably being rather obtuse, but I am not clear on the point.
The Earl of Avon: The difficulty is that the Tower of London remains a Royal Palace in which the Armouries are, so there must be an arrangement with the Tower for the occupation, as it were, of the
754
Armouries, and incorporated with that would be something very much on the lines about which we have been talking. I said that we would see if we could get something in the Bill along the lines of the amendment.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: In view of that very satisfactory reply by the noble Earl, I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Reigate Lord Reigate moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 10, line 36, leave out from ("them") to end of line 37.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment, but the need to probe into the matter has to some extent been answered by the discussion that we had on the last amendment but one. There is an anomaly in the Bill in that the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum are given power to levy admission charges. That power is not given to the Armouries, for the obvious reason that one already has to pay a great deal of money to get into the Tower in the first place, and then one has to pay even more to see the Crown Jewels. But having got inside, one does not have to pay anything to see the Armouries.
I felt that if the Armouries were to be deprived of the kind of income that would go to the other institutions if they were allowed to charge for admission, there should be some recognition that the Armouries should have their fair share of what I might describe as the "lolly" of the entrance money to spend on their own objects and to satisfy their own needs, so to speak. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he can say what provision there is for the Armouries to have their fair share of the admission monies. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My noble friend is quite right, because it would be going around in circles if there were to be a power for the Armouries to charge for admission within the Tower. If we leave the financial arrangements as they are at the moment, the grant in aid will come from the Department of the Environment, which will of course be collecting the money outside the Tower. So if one were to take a separate kitty for the Armouries within the Tower, that would be taken into account in regard to any grant in aid. So, as my noble friend was anticipating, it would be going around in circles if there were such a power.
My noble friend might be comforted by one thing that I should like to say. I understand that the Armouries can charge for any activities in which they are involved outside; such as if they loan objects, or do anything of that kind. They are enabled to charge on those occasions. I hope that that is the assurance that my noble friend was seeking.
Lord Reigate: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Lane-Fox: I should like to ask my noble friend that consideration be given to the inclusion in

755
each report of a statement of action taken by the board to promote the use of such places by disabled people, as well as to a similar provision in other appropriate parts of the Bill.
The Earl of Avon: I fully appreciate my noble friend's point. I shall look into it and see exactly what should be done.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Finance]:
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 75:
Page 12, line 38, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Any expenditure incurred by the Board shall, except so far as defrayed out of other sources, be defrayed out of money provided by Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: I think that we have had a full discussion on this point, and therefore I do not believe that it is necessary to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Establishment of Board of Trustees]:
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 13, line 3, at end insert (", Kew").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 77, and with your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 125, which seeks to amend the Long Title in a similar way. As drafted, the Bill seems to me to imply that the Royal Botanic Gardens are the only botanic gardens in the United Kingdom. I believe that some concern has been shown in Scotland about this point because, as your Lordships are aware, there are Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh. I submit that an amendment is necessary to make clear that the Bill refers to Kew, and also perhaps to Wakehurst Place, if that is necessary—and here I should be glad to have the advice of the Government.
Of course, I realise that the Bill does not extend to Scotland, except in very minor provisions; and that is made clear in Clause 35. Nevertheless, I submit that the correct description should be given. I have not proposed inserting the word "Kew" throughout the Bill, but that could certainly be done by way of drafting amendments at the Report stage, if the amendments now before the Committee were acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Craigton: The botanic gardens are world known. There has never been any confusion, but I think that confusion would be created by the addition of the word "Kew", as though it referred to something new, I cannot agree with the noble Lord.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): I am bound to say that my feelings go along with those of my noble friend
756
Lord Craigton. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, made a perfectly good and reasoned case for inserting the word "Kew", but the Government feel that the right title of the institution is "Royal Botanic Gardens", as stated in the Bill, and we do not see any need to include as well the address, as it were. Indeed, confusion could flow from that because of the fact that the institution is already present at another location—the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned Wakehurst Place, in Sussex—and it may in the future take on further locations; it certainly has powers to do that. If the formal title became "Royal Botanic Gardens. Kew", it would be a little difficult to explain to the uninitiated why an institution that is stated by Parliament to reside at one location was also present at one or more other locations.
If I may put it another way, I would say that by the Bill we are creating a legal entity that in the future may operate at a number of different locations, only two of which, Kew and Wakehurst Place, are at present known. It is not necessary, and indeed it could be confusing, to include the name of one of the locations in the formal title of this legal entity. I hope that in view of what I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will consider withdrawing the amendment.
The Earl of Perth: I have understood what the noble Earl has said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, but would it not perhaps be better if it were made clear that what we are talking about are the Royal Botanic Gardens of England? After all, I am not sure whether the Royal Botanic Gardens of Scotland—in Edinburgh—did not come first. If they did not come first, they are certainly equally eminent. I think that it would be a great pity if there arose a situation in which, when one was talking about the "Royal Botanic Gardens", everyone thought that somehow Edinburgh did not count. So if the Government cannot accept the amendment as it is written, I hope that they will think about changing the title to the extent of adding, "of England". Then it would be possible to go anywhere in England to set up a new location, whether it be at Wakehurst Place, or anywhere else that is suitable.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I, too, rather hope that the Government will find a way of avoiding unnecessarily offending the Scots. The Scots are fairly easily offended, and to go out of our way possibly to offend them on this occasion would perhaps be misguided. Therefore, whether or not my noble friend presses his amendment, it is my hope that the Government will be able to say a few words indicating that they take the sense of what he is seeking to express in the amendment.
While I am talking about Kew, I should like also to express the hope that nothing will be done to change the policy under which the gardens are at present conducted. That policy is admirable in every respect, not only in the way that the gardens are run but in every conceivable way; but also through the fact that it only costs 10 pence to go in. That price has been held at that level for a very long time and I think it would be a very sad thing if the consequence of what we are doing this evening were to be that that price, which has resisted inflation all along, were to take off with

757
everything else. Let us hope that the Government will be able perhaps to give us an assurance on that as well.
Lord Cottesloe: May I suggest that the Government might consider another variant and describe the Royal Botanic Gardens as the "Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew"? The words "at Kew" would be exlanatory and not part of their title—to which some exception might be taken.
Earl Ferrers: With regard to the latter point, I think we should still be in the same confusion if the title was to be the "Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew" which would be the legal entity, whereas in fact the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew would also be operating in Wakehurst Place. I think that to avoid confusion the title would have to be kept as it is. I understand the predicament of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when he reminds us that there is a Scottish Royal Botanic Garden—a very eminent one, too. Following the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, I would not wish to do anything to offend Scotland. I am sure that nothing in this Bill would do that; because one must remember that the Bill makes it clear that its provisions do not extend to Scotland or to Northern Ireland and the Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. At present there is no reason to think that there should be any change in that respect.
When the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, says that he hopes the policy will continue to be the same, I think that we shall probably come to this a little later on, for, of course, the policy inevitably will become the responsibility of the trustees. There is no particular reason to think that it will change. Clearly one cannot give an overriding assurance that it will never change, but it will be the responsibility of the trustees.
The Earl of Perth: I am not entirely happy about this. Do I understand it now that there are two Royal Botanic Gardens of equal status? Or is the noble Earl saying that the Royal Botanic Gardens in Scotland is not really a Royal Botanic Gardens or that we have got to qualify it in some way? This is a Bill which is dealing with England. Why cannot we make it the "Royal Botanic Gardens of England"?
Earl Ferrers: I certainly do not hold any overridingly strong views on it. All that I was trying to explain is that the Bill makes it perfectly clear that it refers only to England and that the Royal Botanic Garden at Edinburgh will still remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Certainly I will look at the point which the noble Earl has put forward. If there are overriding reasons to alter it, we shall certainly take the point into account.
Lord Strabolgi: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and to my noble friend Lord Jenkins for their support. I think that the suggestions that have been made by the noble Earl merit consideration by the Government. The Government should get this right because it is causing concern in Scotland, and I think they ought to be sensitive about it and not assume, as the noble Earl has said, that these are the only Royal Botanic Gardens in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I
758
hope that the noble Earl will consult with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and see whether something to define that these gardens are in England should be put in the Bill. I am glad to note the noble Earl's undertaking and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Schedule 1: Part IV [Royal Botanic Gardens]:
5.55 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 27, line 31, at end insert—
(" . In appointing any member the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the person's having knowledge or experience of one or more of the responsibilities of the Royal Botanic Gardens.")
The noble Lord said: The Committee have already agreed to the principle of prior consultation before appointment and knowledge of itemised subjects that are covered by the institution concerned. In my amendment I have used exactly the same words to begin with:
"In appointing any member the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the person's having knowledge or experience"—
but I have not itemised anything. I have simply said:
"of one or more of the responsibilities of the Royal Botanic Gardens".
The reason for that is really quite simple. Kew covers the whole worldwide field of a very vital world resource: food for man, animals, fuel, oil, insecticides, poisons, chemicals, plants, buildings, furniture—the list of what comes from plants is endless. The items in it become important or less important, and new ones are added as each day passes.
Clause 22 of the Bill, which lays down the board's general functions, some of which I have listed, covers even more. There are functions such as education, quarantine, caring for live plants and relevant libraries and museums, the keeping and using of collections (which include 5 million actual specimens) and, last but by no means least, catering for the enjoyment and education of the public. Such a long list cannot, and should not, be itemised in legislation, as in years to come it might prevent the appointment of an expert in some botanical science, the importance of which or even the existence of which we are not now aware of. So long as there is a changeable list, it is asking too much to expect those in his Ministry who advise the Minister to take on themselves, and to put the Minister in the position of, making appointments without any qualification. I have therefore added this very minor and imprecise statutory obligation which will be not only a protection for the Minister himself but an added assurance over those technical and conservation interests in the furtherance of whose concern Kew plays such an important part. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The concern which my noble friend Lord Craigton has reflected is a very proper one. It is that those appointed as trustees should be fully equipped with the knowledge and experience to

759
participate in the running of the Royal Botanic Gardens. He said that the phraseology of his amendment was deliberately imprecise. In fact, it may be a little too precise. I would tell him that I would be prepared to accept this amendment in principle, but that I should like to have an opportunity to reflect on the exact wording of the amendment to ensure that it is technically correct and that it is drafted so as to cover all the types of knowledge and experience which we shall need, and at the same time is not inadvertently restrictive.
I think that the reference will need to be to the Minister of Agriculture and not to the Secretary of State. I am also a trifle worried about the word "responsibilities"; because if this is taken to refer back only to the list of functions which are at Clause 22(1) it could be too curtailing. For example, experience in finance or management or in industrial relations could all be very useful attributes in trustees and any amendment which is put into the Bill, I would suggest, should not imply an exclusion. It may be that the Minister should have regard to the desirability of the person having knowledge or experience which is relevant to the functions and management of the Royal Botanic Gardens. I think the wording needs to be carefully considered. If my noble friend Lord Craigton would be prepared to withdraw his amendment, I will give this matter more thought and come up with an appropriate Government amendment at a later stage.
Lord Craigton: The Minister has rehearsed all the arguments and difficulties that I had in preparing this amendment. In view of what he has said, I have much pleasure in asking the Committee to allow me to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 79 to 83:
Page 28, line 12, leave out ("as the Board may determine") and insert ("on such other terms and conditions as the Board may determine provided that the remuneration and allowances, terms and conditions are taken as a whole not less favourable than those applying to the Civil Service.")

line 15, leave out ("or (5)")

line 22, at end insert—

("( ) It shall be the duty of the Board, except so far as it is satisfied that adequate machinery exists for achieving the purpose of this paragraph to seek consultation with the recognised trade unions representing the staff with a view to the conclusion between the Board and those organisations such agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the establishment and maintenance of machinery for—

(a) the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment of employees of the Board with provision for reference to arbitration in default of such a settlement in such cases as may be determined by or under the agreements;

(b) the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting the safety, health and welfare of employees of the Board and the discussion of other matters of mutual interest to the Board and its employees including efficiency in the performance of the Board's functions.")

leave out lines 32 to 36.

Page 29, line 5, leave out ("industrial tribunal") and insert ("arbitration machinery' agreed with the recognised trade unions").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lady Birk has asked me in her temporary absence to say that, as the
760
subject of these amendments was fully discussed on a previous occasion, and as the Government gave a number of undertakings in relation to that, the assumption that we make is that it is unnecessary to move these amendments or, alternatively, if it is preferable that they should be moved, one will have the intention of withdrawing them. I am therefore in the hands of the Committee as to whether I should move them and then withdraw them or simply not move them.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): Is it the noble Lord's intention that Amendments Nos. 79 to 83 should not be moved?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: That is right.
[Amendments Nos. 79 to 83 not moved.]
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 29, line 8, after ("functions") insert ("and the current world situation related to them").
The noble Lord said: I have just described some of the functions of the Royal Botanic Gardens. In this amendment—which I believe is, from the world's point of view, a very important one—I want to ensure that this statutory report is wider than a report on the exercise of the board's functions, wide and varied though they are. I want the report to include for the benefit of the whole world what Kew knows and forecasts about the world situation in relation to its functions. There is good reason for this. There is no single authority that knows better than Kew at any time what exactly the world situation is. The IUCN's Threatened Plants Committee is located at Kew with a Wang computer already recording in great detail a quarter of a million plants, 10 per cent. of which are in danger of extinction. At Kew is prepared the red data book which lists endangered species. At Kew is the secretariat of the co-ordinating body of the world's botanic gardens. At Kew is produced the Threatened Plants Committee Newsletter which links the gardens and some 500 world corresponding botanists.
Everything is centralised in Kew Gardens, so it is really the centre of world botanical affairs. If any place has its finger on the pulse, it is Kew. Warnings, encouragement and information coming from Kew carry far more weight than from any other source in the rest of the world. Therefore Kew has, to my mind, an obligation and a duty to mankind that it can fulfil better than anyone else. This amendment will ensure that this obligation, this duty, is discharged. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend is quite right when he says that Kew has its finger on the pulse of what is happening throughout the world. He stressed during his speech on Second Reading the international importance of the gardens in the study of the world plant situation. I would certainly accept that this international role is an important facet of the activities, and must remain so. I remind the Committee that the Bill states in Clause 22(1)—in some detail—the functions of the gardens, and that Schedule 1, paragraph 29, as it stands obliges the board to report regularly on the exercise of these functions. This will inevitably require information on

761
the situation on plants in other parts of the world. I am sure the board will be fully aware of the need to make its account of these matters in the report as comprehensive as it can.
If my noble friend's amendment was adopted, the report would need to go further than this. The board would be obliged to give comprehensive statements of the world's situation in relation to any function which it might have carried out. That in turn might involve them in considerable extra work in assessing and reporting on the world situation. I do not think that that is the intention which my noble friend has in mind, but that would be the result.
The trustees under the Bill as it is at the moment would not be excluded from describing the world situation where they consider it appropriate; but it would be imprudent to place on them a statutory imposition to do this in each of their reports. I hope that my noble friend will think that, in view of what I have said, the Bill would be best left as it is with the obligation not placed upon them to do this in every report but leaving it to the judgment of the trustees whose knowledge and conscientiousness I have no doubt will enable them to do this at every moment where they think it appropriate.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I think that I find myself on the side of the Government in this matter. It appears to me that the purpose of the subsection is to make sure that any question of increasing the fees charged would be subject to very careful attention. I should have thought that, if this subsection were left out, it would leave the trustees a freer hand in the matter. This is one point on which I feel they should not have that free hand. If that is the purpose of the amendment, I would be on the Government's side rather than on that of the amendment.
Lord Craigton: I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was speaking to this amendment. However, I am afraid that I am not entirely satisfied with my noble friend's answer. I know that what is said on the Front Bench is going to be done. If it is all done—and so many of us have heard this so often—that is fine and grand. But if at the gardens anybody with a narrow, restricted view were to read exactly what the Bill as drafted now says, then I really believe that he could restrict that information which is so vital to the rest of the world. We are not talking about Britain; we are talking about world functions. We are talking about the destruction of the forests, and all sorts of things which may not be a function of Kew Gardens but are a function of the connections that they have with Kew Gardens, and it is up to them. They are better able than anyone else to report to the world how things are going on, what is the tendency, what are the trends. I am not satisfied with this situation.
I should like the Minister to take this away and to draft this amendment in a way which makes it absolutely certain that, within reason, the exercise of their functions is in a world context and not in the context of Britain. The way that the Bill is now drafted, that is how it could be read by somebody who wanted to read it that way.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: The noble Lord is quite right. What I said earlier related to the next amendment and not to this one. Therefore may I withdraw what I said and regard it as being said next time?
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for explaining his difficulty. I hope that it will not prevent him from saying what he said again, otherwise I may forget what he said. My noble friend Lord Craigton is always persuasive. Of course, I shall take this amendment back and look at it to see whether there are any ways in which we can meet what he wishes. However, I remind him of this fact: if we put this imposition on the trustees in making their report, the amendment means that the Bill will read:
"The Board shall make to the Minister a report on the exercise of their functions and the current world situation related to them".
If we put that imposition on the trustees, they may well find themselves obliged to go to considerable extra work and expense in order to find out what the world situation is when they come to report on something which they have done which may have an impact or a part to play in the world situation. I would have the fear that my noble friend's words, if put into the Bill, would actually impose something on the trustees which they may not wish and which may prove to be considerably expensive. I should have thought that at present it would be better not to have those words in, but I will certainly consider what my noble friend has said.
Lord Craigton: If my noble friend is talking about extra expense, I must remind him that what we are talking about is saving the world. Man is destroying many of the living things of the world, and, if preventing that involves extra work and extra expense, of course we should be prepared to pay for it. But, in view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to
Clause 22 [The Board's general functions]:
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
On Question, whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.11 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In view of the fact that the noble Lord has not moved his amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has already spoken to it although it has not been moved, perhaps I could raise a drafting query on this clause relating to subsection (8).
Under subsection (1)(f), the board is under a duty to afford for members of the public opportunities to enter. Under subsection (2)(c) the board may, subject to the provisions of this Act, require payment for certain things which do not include entry.
If one compares a similar provision for Clause 2, which is Section 3, one sees there that the board is given a specific power to charge for entry, and the change in terminology would certainly seem to have some legal significance; but when one turns to

763
subsection (8) it says that the Board shall not set without the Minister's consent and the Treasury's approval, the fees charged for such entry.
The noble Earl will tell me if I am wrong, but presumably that entry is the entry referred to in subsection (1)(f) and it presupposes that fees may be charged although, significantly, this clause, unlike similar earlier clauses, does not give power to charge for entry. I wonder whether the noble Earl could help me on that?
Earl Ferrers: I will do my best to help the noble and learned Lord, although if he finds a statute or a Bill difficult to comprehend I am sure I would find it more so. The object of Clause 22 is to permit fees to be charged for entry to any property which is occupied or managed by the board. In this instance, one might readily think of Kew Gardens, where an entry fee is at present charged. On the other hand, under subsection (8) the board cannot fix a fee either for entry into Kew Gardens or possibly into any additional place there. They cannot alter that fee, or make that fee. without having the permission of the Minister, in concert with the Treasury. This means that the Minister is directly answerable to Parliament for any particular alteration in fees that there might be.
One reason for this is that, particularly in the case of Kew, it is considered to be a public park to which the public should have access. If any fees were to be charged which might be so outrageous, if subsection (8) were not included, the board of trustees would have the power to fix those fees at any level they thought right, which would be very damaging to local interests. That is the reason for that subsection, and I hope I have answered the noble and learned Lord's point.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: It was really a drafting point, and I wonder whether the noble Earl would consider what I have said when he sees it in print to see whether the drafting ought to be adjusted?
Earl Ferrers: I shall be pleased to do that.
Viscount Simon: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord has overlooked the last part of subsection (2)(c), which does authorise payment for entry.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I have overlooked a crucial provision in that case. Which one is that?
Lord Reigate: As there appears to be an interval during which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will consider the point that has been made, perhaps I may raise the point as to whether subsection (7) and, to a certain extent, subsection (8) are really necessary. First of all, you bring forward a tremendous Bill to devolve powers to the boards. Can they really not be trusted to decide what shall be the hours of opening? Is it really something which the board of trustees are going to have to discuss with the Minister if they wish to close half an hour earlier? They are hardly likely to close the place for a whole day or anything like that. The Minister has sufficient powers not to renew their appointment, to put it mildly, if they did anything so foolish as that.
764
Also, regarding the hours of admission, is there not a differentiation with the other bodies we were discussing at an earlier stage, such as the Victoria and Albert and the Science Museum? The Prime Minister now has the power to appoint the trustees of the Victoria and Albert. I do not know what her views are of the closing of the museum on Friday instead of what would have been a more acceptable day to most people, such as Monday. I am really protesting, in a way. against the limitation of the trust placed in the trustees.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: It might be appropriate at this point if I were to repeat for the benefit of the Minister and to follow up what I said just now in an out-of-order way. The reason I think it necessary that subsection (8) should remain in the Bill is that, as I said just now, under the present control, the ministerial control, the entrance fee to Kew has remained for a very long time at 10 pence. I think that is still the case. That must have very considerable financial consequences, and if you lift the responsibility from the Minister and place it on the trustees the financial consequences of holding the level at 10 pence will fall upon the trustees. Therefore, since this is a ministerial action, and since it is one of the very few actions of the Minister which I approve of, I should be very sorry to see this beneficent ministerial action removed from the Minister—not through lack of confidence in the trustees, but since the financial consequences of holding the price down must necessarily fall upon the person who insists on such a holding down. It seems to me appropriate, therefore, that the power should remain in the hands of the Minister, and that one should not saddle the trustees with the consequences of a policy which one hopes they would carry out but which they may not have the financial means to carry out if the burden were shifted from the Minister and on to them.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may make a few observations. I am so grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for having repeated what he said earlier. I was so surprised to hear him in agreement with the Government that I wanted to give him an opportunity of repeating it, because that is a great rarity. My noble friend Lord Reigate said that he objected to this because it indicated the Government's lack of trust in the trustees. I do not think he should take that view at all. Kew Gardens, in particular, is a place which local residents and other Londoners value greatly. To them, Kew is a place of rest and recreation which is second to none, and they are deeply concerned that they should continue to be able to gain access to these lovely gardens at a reasonable price. It is not a question of not having confidence in the trustees.
My noble friend may have forgotten a fact which I am quite certain my noble friend Lord Eccles has not forgotten, that when admission charges were placed on museums there was a most unholy row, and there was an unholy row in Parliament. The reason why there was an unholy row in Parliament was that Parliament had a right to make a row. If the trustees raise unduly the entrance fee on these botanic gardens, if this provision remains in the Bill, it will give the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who was one of those who made

765
the row over the museums, an opportunity of making another row over the increased charges to Kew Gardens. I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would be glad of the opportunity of doing that, should that misfortune come about. But that is the reason why we think it is correct to have that provision in the Bill. Therefore, I hope my noble friend Lord Reigate will agree that, on balance, it is a good thing.
Lord Strabolgi: As the noble Earl was trailing his coat, I must respond. As he said, I was very much against entrance charges to museums, but I am not against entrance charges at Kew and never have been. I think that they are essential for various reasons, because, although Kew Gardens is a public park, it is also a museum with very important and rare plants. It is also a place which has to be protected from carelessness and vandalism, and the charges are fully justified there. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkins that it is better for these to be approved by the Minister, so that a balance can be held between the recreational aspect and the other side of Kew, which is so important.
Earl Ferrers: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, kicked the ball into his own goal, because he said that he was against charges for museums, but he quite agrees with charges for Kew, because it is a museum. It is an interesting breadth of view.
Viscount Eccles: I cannot understand why the Minister has this faith in the Minister of Agriculture. I ask your Lordships to look at what happened to the charges at the Tower. There is no museum in the whole country where the charges have been increased more often and to a larger extent. The Labour Party increased them far more than the Conservative Government. I beg your Lordships: Put no faith in Ministers where charges are concerned.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Grants by Secretary of State]:
6.25 p.m.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 16, line 19, at end insert ("including the Reserve Forces")
The noble Viscount said: In this part of the Bill, the Government are taking powers to grant-aid armed forces museums. I know that this is bringing such museums into line with the rest of the Bill, and such matters as the conditions of service of Civil Service employees are dealt with in Schedule 2 and so on. But I suggest that the opportunity should be taken at this point to include all armed forces museums; not only those which happen to employ civil servants, but also those which are staffed by alternative, local authority employees. That is what Amendment No. 87 seeks to do and I hope it is convenient to my noble friend if we take that with No. 86, as they hang together.
There are in Great Britain over 140 army museums, regimental or corps museums, of varying sizes, and they attract between them some 4½ million visitors in any one year. We do not need to be reminded of their
766
value, both in the field of tourism and in maintaining the long and important magnificent military traditions of our country. About half of these museums are staffed by civil servants. No problem arises there, as they will be covered by the terms of this Bill, and the Secretary of State will have power to give them a grant if he wants to do so.
But about half of the remainder are not staffed by civil servants. They are staffed by local authority employees and are in the hands of the civic authority. I should explain that, for some time, the Ministry of Defence has given a great deal of encouragement to such museums to become part of the county council or district council museum service; to join forces and, as it were, to become part of the local authority or county museum. This is a very good thing. But, because there is no Civil Service involvement, they will, as the Bill stands today, be excluded from any possible grant from the Government.
About a quarter of the total are also to be found in territorial army centres. These are often staffed by retired officers, who, in some cases, are known to their friends as "retreads". Therefore, I am particularly anxious that the reserve forces should be written into the Bill, without any question of doubt, so that if there is to be grant aid it will not be possible to say: "We cannot make a grant to this museum, because it applies only to the armed forces." That is the purpose of Amendment No. 86. Knowing the noble Earl's distinguished Territorial Army past, I hope that he will at least feel able to support it.
Many of these museums are very small. They do not have many funds and the régiments which they commemorate may no longer exist. While they may not need immediate aid or grant for their collections, it is important that if, on some future occasion, a grant may be necessary, those museums should then be able to make an approach to the Government. This amendment would have the effect of allowing the Government to designate them and make the necessary arrangements.
It should be stressed that this is only an enabling provision. No duty of any kind will be placed on the Secretary of State to produce money. But it seems wrong that the important work which these museums do in preserving our past, particularly in regard to the material belongings of the armed forces, can be supported only if the museum employs civil servants.
I am not suggesting that the Government should start giving subsidies all over the place, but we heard the other night from the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, about the Duke of Wellington's cloak being attacked by moths. The Government should take powers to help in a matter of that kind. Therefore, I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at this problem. There is no effect on the financial provisions of the Bill. If I have spoken only about the army, it is because I know that a very distinguished ex-sailor is about to speak and, beyond him, we have amendments to deal with the air force. I beg to move.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Sandford: I rise to support my noble friend, who has spoken from a background in the army and in county councils, and to stress that the need for this

767
amendment is every bit as great in respect of the senior service and the district councils. One has only to visualise the kind of arrangements and the flexibility which have to be provided for in respect of the navy—the County of Devon, the City of Plymouth and Devonporr. Hampshire and the City of Portsmouth; Kent, Chatham and the Medway towns—to see that the kind of flexibility which my noble friend is urging is necessary. I am very glad to see that my noble friend Lord Montagu has amendments down which cater for the Royal Air Force.
Lord Margadale: I should also like to support the amendment moved by the noble Viscount. Lord Ridley. In many cases the small museums are a great source of pride to the régiments and greatly help in recruiting for the Territorial Army. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, who is to reply knows a great deal about this, for he is a distinguished London Territorial. I hope he will give it a sympathetic hearing.
The Earl of Avon: Having left my uniforms and various other items to régimental museums, I hope that they will be looked after in the way that noble Lords say. Equally, I should like to add my tribute to all the work they do in the various régimental headquarters. To deal with Amendment No. 86 which has been moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, the term "armed forces" includes—and I emphasise this—the reserve forces. There is therefore no need to make separate mention of them. Should we do so we would have to think of mentioning all the other forces, such as the auxiliaries and the women's side of the services. By inference, incidentally, if one mentioned one force within the armed forces one would have to mention, as my noble friend will appreciate, others. May I therefore reiterate that "armed forces" does indeed include the reserve forces.
Turning to Amendment No. 87, the second amendment to which my noble friend has spoken, Clause 28 seeks to safeguard the position of the staff of armed forces museums who may transfer to direct employment with boards of trustees under the greater management autonomy envisaged in the Bill. In particular it is concerned with the position of those people working in the museums who are civil servants, of whom central Government are currently the employer and whose future position the Government, in their capacity as employer, naturally wish to protect. However, the Government have no such responsibility, and it would not be appropriate for them to assume such responsibility, for local authority employees. The Government therefore do not think it would be appropriate to include museums employing local authority staff in the ambit of this particular clause.
I have listened to what my noble friend Lord Ridley said and also to endorsement from the Navy side by my noble friend Lord Sandford. I should like to have a look at this point in order to see whether there is a solution, in the terms which my noble friend has suggested. However, I do not think that it is appropriate to this clause. I shall be in touch with the noble Lords who have spoken about this point.
Viscount Ridley: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, for his ecnouraging answer and for saying that he will look at the matter. I hope he has taken the points which I made. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 86.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 87A:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Royal Air Force Museums.
.—(1) There shall be a body known as the Board of Trustees of the Royal Air Force Museums comprising the Museums presently known as The Royal Air Force Museum. The Cosford Aerospace Museum. The Battle of Britain Museum and The Bomber Command Museum.
(2) Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act shall (with appropriate modifications) have effect with respect to the Board as it applies to the Board of Trustees of the Science Museum.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 87A and, with permission, to speak to Amendment No. 87B. These amendments are intended to probe the Government's intentions on the future of the Royal Air Force Museums now within the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. With the rationalisation of the trustee status of the Victoria and Albert and Science Museums, it is hoped that a similar status can be evolved for the Royal Air Force Museums at Hendon. But it is not only Hendon; one also has the Cosford Aerospace Museum. In many ways, this now constitutes our National Museum of Aerospace, just as Greenwich is the National Maritime Museum.
May I remind noble Lords how these museums came into being? All the capital was raised from outside. There was no cost whatsoever to the Government. They stood free of debt when they were raised. The understanding was that they became a possession of the nation, to be run as a national museum, enjoying all the privileges and ranking pari passu with all the London-based national museums and galleries. But I have a feeling that this bargain has not been totally observed.
After the Royal Air Force Museum opened, an exhibition hall was opened with money raised from outside, and an admission charge was made. Then came the Battle of Britain Museum. Again money was raised from outside and an admission charge was made. Now a truly vast new Bomber Command Museum is rushing towards completion at Hendon. Again there will be an admission charge. So we are faced with the stupidity of having the vast main museum open free, any exhibition put on in the first extension open to the public being on a paying basis, with the income going to the Ministry, the Battle of Britain Museum charging and the Bomber Command Museum charging, all on the same site. One can imagine the legal, fiscal and administrative problems involved in having three charitable deeds of trust and three sets of trustees. It is tremendously time-wasting,

769
to put it mildly. Some kind of devolution and rationalisation surely must be sensible.
I realise that the amendment is defective since it makes the Bill hybrid. Obviously, therefore, one cannot proceed with it. Nevertheless, I hope that thought will be given to the matter. I know that all the trustees of the Royal Air Force Museum would like to be devolved to a trustee status, perhaps under the Department of Education and Science. Having lost their two museums recently, perhaps the Department of Education and Science would be prepared to accept a new one. It might be some compensation for them. Since we are introducing legislation on museums, I feel that we ought not to waste the opportunity to rationalise this very great museum. It is high time that the present extremely unsatisfactory situation was sorted out. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I appreciate that in tabling these amendments my noble friend has at heart the best interests of the Royal Air Force Museum and the other museums which he mentioned. May I stress, first, that unlike the Science Museum which the noble Lord cited, the Royal Air Force museum, for which this Bill seeks to provide, already have their own boards. The Royal Air Force Museum already has a properly constituted board of trustees. Similarly the Battle of Britain and the Bomber Command Museums have their own boards of trustees. Only the Aerospace Museum at Cosford does not currently have its own board but is run by the board of trustees of the Royal Air Force Museum under a management agreement between the Secretary of State for Defence and the trustees. Although linked to the Royal Air Force Museum by this agreement, the Aerospace Museum is therefore separate. Thus, there are distinct differences in the identities, status and constitution of the four museums which it is proposed should be governed by a new board of trustees.
There are also differences in the way these museums are funded and the extent to which public money is committed to them. The staff of the Royal Air Force Museum are civil servants. I am sure that the Committee will remember that at Second Reading I said that this was one of the museums we were thinking of designating. These civil servants are employed by the Ministry of Defence, and under the provisions contained in the Bill were transferred to direct employment by the board of trustees. Additionally the museum receives a grant in aid from the Ministry of Defence for the purchase and upkeep of the exhibits. The Battle of Britain and Bomber Command Museums, on the other hand, are private trustee bodies and receive, as far as I know, no support from the Ministry of Defence.
Given the different nature of the museums in question and having regard to the fact that three of them have existing boards of trustees responsible for their operation, the Government believe that it would not be appropriate for this Bill to seek to impose upon them the amalgamation of their museums under a single board. I would suggest that it is up to the trustees themselves to negotiate these amalgams and to seek the approval of, probably, the Charity Commissioners.
770
My noble friend also mentioned the idea of the Department of Education and Science taking over the museum. The correct path would be for the trustees of the Royal Air Force Museum to approach the Ministry of Defence and then to see their way forward from there. I understand that in principle we can see no particular difficulty about it. With that reassurance, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: The noble Earl's statement was very interesting and useful. I am sure that the trustees will read his remarks with great interest. However, the complication which he has described is a very good reason for doing something about it. Having heard what has been said, perhaps the trustees will now take some action to resolve the matter. There can be no doubt that it is a complicated and unsatisfactory situation for one of our really important museums. Otherwise, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 87B not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Armed forces museums]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 29, line 37, at end insert—
("Staff
.—(1) There shall be a Director of each designated institution who shall be appointed by the governing body of that designated institution with the approval of the Prime Minister.
(2) The Director shall be responsible to the governing body for the general exercise of the governing body's functions.
(3) The governing body may appoint such other employees as the governing body think fit.
(4) The governing body shall pay to their employees such remuneration and allowances on such other terms and conditions as the governing body may determine provided that the remuneration and allowances, terms and conditions are taken as a whole not less favourable than those applying to the Civil Service.
(5) A determination under sub-paragraph (4) is ineffective unless made with the approval of the Minister given with the Treasury's consent.
(6) Employment with the governing body of a designated institution will be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply, and accordingly Schedule 1 to that Act (in which those kinds of employment are listed) will be construed as if it included a reference to a designated institution.
(7) It shall be the duty of the governing body, except so far as it is satisfied that adequate machinery exists for achieving the purpose of this paragraph to seek consultation with the recognised trade unions representing the staff with a view to the conclusion between the governing body and those organisations such agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the establishment and maintenance of machinery for—

(a) the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment of employees of the governing body with provision for reference to arbitration in default of such a settlement in such cases as may be determined by or under the agreements;

(b) the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting the safety, health and welfare of employees of the governing body and the discussion of other matters of mutual interest to the governing body and its employees including efficiency in the performance of the governing body's functions.")

The noble Baroness said: This is a long amendment but the explanation is very short. The Bill does not make the same provisions for armed forces museums as for the V and A under Schedule 1, Part I, 4. We feel that there is no reason for a different approach and,

771
consequently, this amendment seeks to bring the provisions into line with those of other museums. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: As I said before, there is an essential difference between the armed forces museums which are likely to be affected by this Bill and the other museums to which it applies, in that the armed forces museums are already governed by properly constituted boards of trustees. It is necessary to consider to what extent the Bill should impose conditions on the way in which the trustees carry out their functions. Schedule 2 as it stands is intended to set out the safeguards which, quite rightly, should be provided for the staff of museums who are currently Ministry of Defence civil servants and who may in due course become employees of their respective boards of trustees. It is intended thereby to ensure that their position, particularly with regard to their pension arrangements, is not worsened by such a transfer.
Having said this, the Government realise that the staffs of museums are naturally concerned about the circumstances of their possible future employment. That is why discussions have begun between the Ministry of Defence and the appropriate Civil Service trade unions. It is hoped that these discussions will reasssure staff on these and other matters.
Perhaps I may now comment on specific parts of this amendment. Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of the amendment provide for the appointment of a director of the designated armed forces museums. It is the Government's view that this is a matter for the boards of trustees to decide according to the management needs of their particular institution and is not one that it would be appropriate to impose on trustees. With regard to sub-paragraph (3) the boards of trustees already have the power to employ or appoint staff. Sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) are also contained in amendments to earlier clauses which we have already discussed. Having regard to the fact that there are established boards of trustees, the Government consider that it would not be appropriate to impose such conditions on the terms of employment of their staff. I have pointed already to the safeguards which the Bill provides for existing staff during transition to direct employment by the museums.
Sub-paragraph (6) is already written into the Bill in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2. Sub-paragraph (7) is similar to provisions which the noble Baroness has proposed for the other museums and, as I have already indicated, discussions are being held with the appropriate trade unions on aspects of direct employment. Ultimately, it is for the board of trustees to determine how such matters should operate. I have given the noble Baroness a very full reply so that there will be on record the various points we have to make. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Birk: I would like to thank the noble Earl for that very full reply, which will be of great interest to me when I read it again and also to the civil servants involved. I am delighted to hear that consultations are continuing, and hope that something will be sorted out
772
before Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Establishment of Commission]:
6.45 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 17, line 3, leave out ("Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England") and insert ("Heritage Conservancy Council").
The noble Lord said: The CFAMAHBFE is really too long and it does not flow easily from the tongue. For notice boards, literature and cheques, el cetera, it would be a disaster. What is wanted is a statement to the public in which the commission's concern and interest in the heritage of Britain is conveyed as clearly as possible. If it is right to combine the old-established Ancient Monuments Board established in 1913 and the post-war Historic Buildings Council—established, I believe, in 1952—it is right to give the body a new name. I cannot believe that anyone wants to perpetuate the CFAMAHBFE.
I am attracted to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, as my suggested title does not include the word "England". To that extent I prefer the suggestion of the noble Baroness for the "Heritage Commission for England"—the HCE. That is very good indeed. However, I do not like the active wording of her amendment, because it includes the words, "also known as". This means that in official documents, notices, et cetera, one may still find the CFAMAHBFE, to which would be added, "also known as". I hope that your Lordships will agree to call the body "The Heritage Commission for England" without qualification, and have done with it. If the noble Baroness will agree to that, I should have much pleasure in withdrawing my amendment.
Baroness Birk: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for the opening he has given me for my amendment. The reason I did not entirely like his amendment was because it seemed to give a different nuance to the word "conservancy", and also we have the Nature Conservancy Council. I very much take his point about the clumsiness of the nomenclature at the moment, but it seemed to me that it did explain the nature of the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England—that it is, in fact, the merging together of these two bodies. I felt that ought to be extant for the time being—what happens in the future, I do not know.
It seemed correct to use that as the Long Title or official title, and then to insert wording to the effect that it may also be known as the Heritage Commission for England. I assumed that it would be immediately referred to as the HCE but, nevertheless, one would have on official documents, in the statute and in any explanatory notes and guidelines (and I believe we will need a great many of those before we get to the end of Schedule 4), a title that would make it clear of what the commission comprises. It does cover these two

773
commissions. I did not assume that the Long Title would be used in conversation or as a term of reference; but gradually, as the "Heritage Commission for England"—and I hope that will be acceptable to the Government as well—becomes known as the accepted title, the other title will become obsolete or lose its use.
Lord Craigton: Before the noble Baroness comes to a decision, does she realise that she will be retaining the longer name which we do not like—and that all documents, cheques and notices will not be legal unless they use the long name?
Baroness Birk: Perhaps someone could give some assistance in the drafting here so that we may find an alternative to the words "also known as". I consider that we should not at this stage wipe out the "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England", because it is in the Bill and is what the Bill is all about. Incidentally, in choosing the HCE, I was trying to find something that did not conflict with the National Memorial Trust, which is very important as well. I am sure other noble Lords, or perhaps the noble Earl, can come forward with other ideas which may solve this point.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: There is no doubt that the present name in the Bill is a terrible mouthful, and I am sure something simpler is essential. It is unfortunate in some ways that we are using that rather overworked word "heritage", but I am afraid it is very difficult to find anything else and the public at large does begin to know what it means. I very much hope that the Government will consider some shorter title, and if the drafting is wrong perhaps it can be put right at Report stage. I do hope something simpler will be found than the title in the Bill at the moment.
Lord Reigate: My sympathy is entirely with my noble friend Lord Craigton on this. I have never seen or heard of such an appalling mouthful as originally proposed in the Bill. Think of a telephone operator answering the telephone. It is an appalling thought; the number would be permanently engaged. Nevertheless, I cannot say that I like either his solution or the noble Baroness's solution, which I think is slightly better than his. I do so agree with the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, that the word "heritage" has not been part of our vocabulary for very long. I think one day someone will write a very learned thesis for a doctorate on the origin of the word "heritage" and when it first came into use. I think I am right in saying that it first came into some use at the time of Mentmore, which was five years ago; up till then it had been used merely as an abstract metaphor, so to speak.
When I introduced a Bill to hand over the National Land Fund to trustees the word "heritage" was used in debate, but there was no question of putting it into the Bill. A year later, after the Select Committee in the Commons had reported in favour of it, and had introduced the term "Heritage Fund", it came into common currency. I feel it is extraordinary that the brains of the whole of your Lordships' House, let alone the public outside, cannot think of a name which is simple and yet does not repeat the cliche and cause the confusion that the title of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, might cause.
Viscount Simon: I entirely agree that this very awkward name should be got rid of, but I have doubts about either of the other two names suggested. As the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, said, the heritage is a comparatively new idea; it certainly includes many things besides ancient monuments and historic buildings; it includes pictures and things which belong to the state or are associated with the state. I would have thought "heritage" is really too wide a term to use in the description of this body which is being set up.
The Earl of Avon: I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has finally underlined the difficulties of choosing a new name for this body. It is not an easy thing to decide and it always will give rise to a good deal of debate.
As noble Lords will be aware, the decision document on the proposed new agency specifically asked for ideas for a title. The number of suggestions was less than we expected and quite often it seemed easier to criticise new ideas than to think of ideas oneself. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has really underlined the difficulty, which is the need to keep most of these words there; as you cross them off you get into problems. It is a tricky business, especially when there are other bodies to take into account. Noble Lords have mentioned the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The latter is perhaps difficult, especially as this Bill also testifies that "heritage" covers a rather wider field than the new commission. It is for that reason that the Government have sought to avoid it, while recognising its merits as a well known short word which is descriptive of the field.
While the Government are not rigidly tied to the title of the commission as given in the Bill, they do not consider, with all due respect to my noble friend, and I believe the Council for British Archaeology, whom I seem to recall from his speech on Second Reading supported this title, that the alternative put forward in his amendment is all that much of an improvement. I feel that giving it the shorthand title the Heritage Commission for England is probably more helpful. I have listened with great attention to the ideas and points that have arisen in debate and I will take them back for consideration. Perhaps we can have another look at this at Report stage, along with other suggestions, when we see which way the Committee is feeling.
Baroness Birk: Before we withdraw our amendments, may I ask the Minister this question. This does not solve the problem of finding a different title. Could Clause 29(1) be along the lines: "There shall be a body comprising the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council for England, known as …" then either the Heritage Commission for England or something different? I think we should all think about this, and perhaps the noble Earl would get the brains of his department to look at it again.
I must say in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that if we are going to be particular to that extent, particularly over the word "heritage", we are never going to find a shorter title. The noble Lord, Lord Reigate, is absolutely right in saying that you cannot really answer the 'phone with those initials.

775
What will happen is that some bowdlerised shortening will arise and come to be used instead of something which we think fits. I do not think anything we decide will be perfect, but we have to find the best solution we can.
Lord Denham: It is always difficult to work out exactly the right place to stop. I think possibly we might stop here for the dinner adjournment rather than going on to the next amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is the amendment withdrawn?
Lord Craigton: I withdrew my amendment, but I will withdraw it again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 91A not moved.]
Lord Denham: I was out of order and I do apologise to the Committee. As it is nearly seven o'clock, I think this is probably a suitable moment to take the dinner adjournment. Before I move that the House be resumed perhaps I might intimate to your Lordships that we will come back to the Committee stage of this Bill, if the intervening business is over, at 8 o'clock.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is. That the House be now resumed?
Moved, That the House be now resumed.—[Lord Denham.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am advised that it is in order for me to make a comment and a suggestion on this Motion. I do so because immediately after this Motion two items of business will be taken during the break for supper, and I raise particularly a matter on the first of those two, which is the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill. It has been the practice in this House ever since I came here, and long before that, for non-contentious business to be taken as desired during the supper breaks in a long Committee stage of a Bill. But I think care has to be taken, if I may say so respectfully, not to include items to be taken under these conditions upon which noble Lords would otherwise wish to have a modest time for debate.
The Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill occupied another place for quite some time and although it deals mostly with finance and giving additional borrowing powers to the corporation, matters can be raised relating to the work of the corporation and the use of the moneys to be permitted to it. So there has been a little difficulty this evening about this Bill. I myself desired to take part in the debate upon it and other noble Lords wished to do so, but when we were reminded that the Bill would be taken, along with another item, during the supper break, naturally constraints weighed heavily upon us. I, at least, have not felt free to develop matters that I would otherwise have done.
May I plead with the noble Lord the Chief Whip to take special care to include only non-contentious business, really matters which the usual channels will
776
usually agree on as of minimal importance, and not include in this procedure matters upon which some noble Lords may feel rather strongly. I hope I may be permitted to make that suggestion and so avoid this particular difficulty in future.
Lord Denham: I should hate to be a constraint lying heavily on the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, but business is, of course, arranged through the usual channels, and the way it is done agreed. It has been a fairly longstanding custom during the Committee stage of a long Bill such as this to take business which is broadly non-contentious during the dinner hour. The fact that it has become a custom does not necessarily mean that we should always do it. Obviously we must look at our procedure from time to time and see whether we have it right.
I suggest this is a matter which ought to be discussed through the usual channels, and I will certainly discuss the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, through those channels; and if he has a word with his Whip's office, and any other noble Lord who may feel strongly has a word with theirs, we can discuss the best way to proceed.
I hope that with the assurance that we will look at this question, but without commitment, the noble Lord will feel that he has made his point.
Baroness David: I am very glad that the Chief Whip has spoken in this way and that he is willing to look at this question again, because we have a certain sympathy with my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Obviously we shall leave the subject now, but it can be discussed further on another occasion.
On Question. Motion agreed to. and House resumed accordingly.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
7.2 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. We now know, after the speeches we have just listened to, that we have been allotted only this dinner hour, a maximum of one hour, to discuss the Bill and another piece of business, and that by agreement through the usual channels we are to get this Bill through all its stages in that time. I hope I can rely on the co-operation of noble Lords to achieve this worthy objective.
I chose that phrase deliberately. That part of the Government's revenues which are given to overseas aid—around £1 billion—is, I believe, one of the most important and valuable parts of our contribution to international well-being, with, naturally, a spin-off to our own economy. Within this, the Commonwealth Development Corporation is, I submit, one of the most effective of all agencies anywhere in the world. Other noble Lords will no doubt wish to eulogise it, but, for my part, I will only say that it has been spectacularly successful in its statutory aim of assisting developing countries in the development of their economies through investment in projects which can

777
be either in the public or private sectors and which will increase the wealth of the territories concerned. These projects have to yield a reasonable return to the corporation because of its statutory duty to secure that its revenues are not less than sufficient to meet its costs. This it has done with such success that it has for many years made a profit on its investments which it has been able to plough back into further development projects.
The main objectives of the Bill are simple. They are to revise the corporation's temporary borrowing limits and replace them with a less rigid system and also to increase their overall borrowing limits to enable them to sustain the level of investment for which the demand exists and which both the Government and the corporation itself want to see met further. This will provide them with borrowing limits which should be adequate until the end of the decade.
Clause 1 amends Section 9 of the 1978 Act so as to enable the Commonwealth Development Corporation to borrow from the National Loans Fund. Similar provision now exists in legislation dealing with other public corporations. It would make available to the corporation an alternative source of funds should the Government at some future date prefer market borrowing to be undertaken from the National Loans Fund rather than, as at present, from the private sector. It does not mean that this Government envisage that the corporation should be required to borrow at market rates from the NLF instead of at concessionary rates from the aid programme.
Clause 2 increases the limits on the borrowing powers of the corporation. Section 9 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1978 sets the existing limits to the amounts the corporation may borrow temporarily and otherwise. The temporary borrowing limit has remained at £ 10 million since the corporation was established in 1948. It has hitherto needed to make little use of these borrowing powers because its internal liquidity has largely been sufficient to meet short-term financing needs. It has, however, sought an increase in the temporary borrowing limit, first, because the original limit is now much reduced in relation to the scale of its operations and, secondly, in order to give it greater freedom of manoeuvre in relation to the timing of the market borrowing. While there is not an immediate requirement for an increase in this temporary borrowing limit, the need for such a step may well arise in the near future. It is therefore proposed to bring the provision for temporary borrowing into line with that now commonly used for public sector bodies, by amending the 1978 Act to enable the Secretary of Sate, with the consent of the Treasury, to set a limit on temporary borrowing from time to time.
The limit in respect of sums borrowed otherwise than temporarily was set in 1948 at £100 million and was last raised in 1977 to £500 million, extendable by order to £570 million. Since the Government recently gave the corporation authority to borrow commercially as well as under the aid programme, the CDC'S estimated total borrowings could well approach the £500 million limit within three years or so. The Bill therefore raises the overall borrowing limit—including temporary borrowing and borrowing by subsidiaries or where the CDC has incurred a contingent liability—to £750 million, extendable by order by the
778
Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, up to a maximum of £850 million. As I said, these should provide adequate borrowing powers until the end of this decade.
The rest of Clause 2 is consequential, as is Clause 3, which, within the new overall borrowing limit, increases the limits within which the corporation may borrow from the Secretary of State to £700 million, extendable by order to £800 million.
I should like to conclude by expressing the appreciation of the Government, and I am sure of this House, of the splendid way in which the Chairman of the CDC, the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley. the board and the staff are maintaining the very high standards set by their predecessors over more than 30 years. This Bill will assist the corporation to continue the very real contribution which it makes in the developing countries, and I trust that it will receive the approval of the whole House. I beg to move.
Moved. That the Bill be now read a second time.—[Lord Skelmersdale.]
7.9 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for the way in which he has introduced the Bill. He seemed to do so with rather more zest than did his colleague in another place because on that occasion Mr. Marten said:
"This is a horrible piece of legislation".
That at least struck me as unusual for a Minister when introducing a proposition to the House. But we know what he meant. He meant that it is a Bill which is largely technical, full of figures and dry-as-dust financial provisions. That is what he meant when using the word "horrible".
Those who are acquainted with the work of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, including myself, know very well that behind the technicalities and the statistics is a human story. Indeed, there are thousands of human stories in the many successful development projects which the CDC has sponsored throughout the third world. As the chairman of the corporation, the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, said in the latest report of the corporation;
"CDC has a substantial balance sheet but its prime asset is people".
I have had a number of opportunities over the past 15 years or so to know that that is very much the case. I have been involved with the work of the CDC and I have viewed it in three different ways. Back in 1969, when I was a Minister at the Ministry of Overseas Development, it fell to me in another place to deal with a Bill very similar to that with which the House is now dealing. Secondly, during 1975 when I was in neither House of Parliament I had the valuable opportunity of serving on the board of the CDC for a short period and I found that to be a most enlightening experience. But perhaps most important of all from the point of view of first-hand knowledge was that during a visit to Malawi I saw a number of the CDC projects in that country and I met a number of members of the dedicated staff which the CDC is fortunate to employ. When one sees the type of project that the CDC is successfully operating one comes away full of praise for the work it is doing.
It was of interest to me that the Members of the sub-committee in another place which investigated the work of the Commonwealth Development Corporation also went to Malawi and apparently looked at the same projects as I had the pleasure of seeing. As I have mentioned the report which came from the sub-committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place, I should like to ask the Minister whether he knows when we are likely to get the Government's reply to the many valuable recommendations which the Members of another place put forward in this report. It may be that they have already made their reply and I have missed it, but I think not. It would be valuable if the Minister could let us know either now or in some other way. because it might give your Lordships' House the opportunity for a short debate on the CDC which might compensate to a degree for the limited time that we are able to devote to this particular Bill at this particular time.
I have looked through the recommendations in the report of the sub-committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee and it seems to me at first reading that the long list of recommendations that they make could be implemented without any further legislation. If that is so, then I see no difficulty in agreeing—as we have agreed—to facilitate the quick passage of this particular Bill through the House. But it would be regrettable if, having done that, it meant that any of the recommendations of the sub-committee were held up for lack of further legislative opportunity. In particular—and I should like the Minister to comment on this either now or in some other form—the subcommittee put forward the following recommendation in terms of financial programmes. I am quoting from paragraph 135 of their report:
"We recommend that consideration be given to providing the CDC at least three years in advance with a formal rolling programme. This should state the minimum level of advances from the aid budget and authorised commercial borrowing which the CDC can expect, and should indicate the maximum level of funding on which it is likely to be able to draw from these two sources in those years".
That struck me as a very sensible proposition that was being put forward by the committee. I just wonder whether it will be possible—at first reading it seems to me that it would be possible—to implement that recommendation within the parameters of the financial provisions that are being made in this Bill. But, if not, then it is regrettable that there may be a delay because this Bill is going through in the way it is.
In general, I am clearly, from what I have said about the valuable work of the corporation, thoroughly convinced that the CDC deserves the backing of Parliament in the way in which this Bill proposes. Periodically since 1948, as the noble Minister pointed out, under Governments of both persuasions, the CDC's borrowing powers have been raised, and for two reasons. First to meet the demands of inflation which has been going on throughout that period; and secondly—a happier situation—because the CDC has had an expanding programme. My noble friends and I certainly support the present Bill on those grounds as a further step in financial provision for the CDC, and I suppose that I need say little more than that about the financial provisions.
However, it occurred to me when I recalled the 1969
780
Bill for which I had some responsibility, that the ceiling of borrowing at that time was £225 million and the figure proposed a little more than a decade later in the present Bill is £750 million. That struck me as a rather strong comment on the decline in the value of money in little over a decade. But equally I hope—indeed. I feel sure—that it reflects that the CDC has been pursuing an expansionist policy on progressive lines, and that of course is to be welcomed.
I should like to make a few general comments about the role of the CDC as I have seen it over the last 15 years or so. I recall that in the 1969 Act. to which I have referred, we gave the CDC power to operate in countries other than Commonwealth countries. Up to that point it had been limited to countries within the Commonwealth. I see from the latest report of the corporation a lengthening list of such countries which are outside the Commonwealth network. That is all to the good, although I notice that the House of Commons sub-committee seemed to have doubts about it. I personally certainly have no doubts. I think that it is one aspect of the way in which the CDC has adapted its operations over the years to meet the needs of a changing world.
Of course, the Commonwealth aspect is still of great importance—great psychological importance if nothing else—but from an economic and social point of view I suggest that the differentiation between Commonwealth and neighbouring non-Commonwealth countries is becoming less sharp. I am sure that it was right that the CDC should be given the extra freedom to which I have referred.
I remember also that during the short time that I was on the CDC board we were much exercised about the choice of priorities in the operations of the corporation. I recall that the Ministry of Overseas Development itself at that time was reshaping its policies to ensure that more should be done in the rural sectors of the economies of the developing countries; and also—and this was a matter which my right honourable friend Dame Judith Hart had very much at heart—that aid should be directed towards those countries most in need. I was, therefore, glad to read in the general manager's review in the latest report the following sentence:
"CDC will aim to place not less than half of its new commitments in the poorer developing countries and also not less than half in renewable natural resources projects.".
That reads very well and I hope that the CDC will indeed be able to fulfil that welcome intention. Indeed, I would be happy if they would increase it above the 50 per cent. mark.
The need for that kind of priority in development work has recently been underlined in a report by M. Pisani, who is the Development Commissioner in the European Communities Commission in Brussels. His report, in a document which I think has had too little notice taken of it either in Brussels or elsewhere, points out that the current world crisis is accentuating the differences between the different groups of developing countries. On the one hand, we have the oil exporting countries and those that are newly industrialised; and on the other, we have the poorest countries which have neither oil nor new industries, and the gap between those two groups of developing countries is becoming wider.
M. Pisani's paper says that aid is not going to those who need it most. He quotes that in 1979 middle-income countries were receiving bilateral aid to the tune of 12 dollars a head against only 5 dollars a head for the poorest countries. That is why, taking M. Pisani's analysis, I am glad to read that the CDC is putting emphasis on its work in the poorest countries, and that is why I hope it will increase that emphasis still further.
I conclude with a further reference to the speech with which the Minister for Overseas Development introduced the Bill in another place. He was full of praise, as we all can genuinely be, for the work of the CDC. But then he went on to bemoan the fact that he could not do as much as he would wish, or indeed as the CDC would wish, to help that work forward. And why? It was, he said, because of the many other claims on the aid programme. I have a simple suggestion to make which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will perhaps pass on to his colleague in another place. I think that my suggestion might help him out of the dilemma which seems to be causing him some pain. The answer to his dilemma, I suggest, is simply that the Government should increase the aid programme.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I find it very difficult to believe, in spite of comments that may have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, or perhaps in the other place, that anyone who knows anything about the CDC could possibly object to this Bill. Over the years the CDC has acquired a unique expertise and experience in tropical agriculture and, what is even more important, has gained the confidence of the governments concerned. There have, I think, been many well-intentioned projects in the past which have failed to do any good for the particular reason that they do not have the confidence of governments.
There is also much talk in your Lordships' House about the volume of aid. I believe that the basic problem of development of the third world is not necessarily a financial one. Far too little talk has been on the actual needs of these countries, and I hope that we may have a debate on that in due course. It is only partly, and sometimes not at all, a financial problem.
For 20 years I was a director, and for many of those years chairman, of the Barclays Overseas Development Corporation. In all those 20 years we worked alongside the CDC. It was a very interesting experience. Both of us had to learn very much the hard way and we made mistakes, some of them very expensive ones. But we both learnt a lot and, as I have said, both the CDC and the Barclays Overseas Development Corporation gained experience and expertise which I do not believe any other similar agency in the world has.
I remember in the 1960s, when I was in Nigeria, meeting a very high-powered consultant from America who had been sent out by USAID to advise them on the direction in which they should place their aid. He told me, to my great disappointment, that he was not going to recommend any agricultural projects. He said "If we can get a manufacturing base in
782
Nigeria"—and he used the phrase that they used in those days—"we shall get a trickle-down which will bring prosperity to the rest of the country". This has proved completely false, and I am afraid that in many places they still use the phrase, "Let us work on a trickle-down basis", which I think is an enemy to all development. That is not the philosophy of the CDC. The CDC goes for the improvement and development of agriculture and tropical crops, without which I believe we may in a comparatively short time see the third world more or less coming to a complete halt, possibly with starvation and bankruptcy.
Recently there has been an initiative by the European Parliament over four African countries, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, may mention later on. The initiative says that if they require help in food production, they can have it. I should be interested to know whether there has been any response to that from those countries. But if they do respond, I very much hope that the CDC will be allowed to enter into these projects, because nobody could do it better.
Finally, I find it cumbersome that we must have a Bill coming through two Houses to provide this sort of finance. I well remember being chairman of Barclays International—I wish I still was—and I believe that if the chairman and general manager came to see me even for £250 million the conversation need not have taken longer than about a quarter of an hour. Next day they would have had a one-paragraph letter, and that would be that. However, I think that there is some hope that the CDC may be able to get money from the private sector in due course, and if that is so, I very much welcome it. But tonight let us not quibble about the method; let us get the Bill passed.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, first, I should like to add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord Houghton in protesting at the lack of time which has been given to all the stages of this Bill. I do not in any way criticise the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale; I know that it is not his responsibility. But it is a denigration of the importance of this Bill that it has to be passed through all its stages within 40 minutes. If that is put down to the responsibility of the usual channels, then it is time we had different usual channels.
During the last 30 years or so I have had the pleasure and privilege of visiting many CDC projects. I well remember almost 30 years ago being taken to see a great pine forest that was being grown in Swaziland, where you could see the pine trees from their very early growth through to their full maturity. I have no doubt at all that every Member of this House now—and I stress now—will be in favour of this Bill and a supporter of the CDC.
It was not always the case. After all, this is a public corporation. At its inception there was a great deal of cynicism and criticism from the Conservative Party. Indeed, even the present Government, despite the continued success of the CDC, as one of their first measures, made a cut in the funds of the CDC which in real terms amounted to 34 per cent. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to wind up the debate: has

783
that 34 per cent. cut at the beginning of this Government's life yet been restored, or will it be restored when this Bill becomes an Act?
The CDC is, above all, a bridge between aid and investment. It should be considered as investment. In Questions I have asked in the House I have failed to get through to Members on the Front Bench opposite that this is not a hand-out; that the CDC has always made a surplus every year of its operations. In putting money into the CDC we are indeed investing not only in the development of the poorer countries and thus providing greater purchasing power for them to buy our goods, but also into our own industry. I hope that that lesson has now been learned, as I believe it probably has been by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who, as my noble friend Lord Oram said, opened this debate with so much more enthusiasm than his honourable friend the Minister in another place.
I should also like to take up the point that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. It is, I agree entirely, of the utmost importance that agriculture, the development of agriculture, and agricultural renaissance should precede industrialisation; that industrialisation should be built, as it has been in every successful country, on the surplus provided by agriculture. The CDC is one of the major institutions in this country supporting and developing the agricultural strength of the poorer countries. The more we can do to facilitate and expand the activities of the CDC, the better will be the health of the economies of the developing countries.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, that although I would agree with him that this lesson has by no means been universally learnt by developing countries, it is being increasingly learnt, and there are more and more developing countries that are putting their emphasis upon food production and rural development. The other great benefit which the CDC is giving in its services to the developing countries is the work that it does in technical and managerial training. This is again of enormous importance, particularly in the agricultural world, to the developing countries.
On the other hand, I want to make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. There have to be some political criteria at least in the field of human rights in both investment and in aid. I have not time tonight to go into the details of the criticisms which have been made of the CDC scheme in the Philippines, but I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will spend some little time on at least assuaging our fears about the way in which the CDC has conducted itself in the Philippines, and the place that that project is taking so far as the people of the Philippines are concerned.
I should like to ask the noble Lord another question. The report of the Select Committee suggests that there are years in which the CDC pays more back to the Government than it receives from them. I believe that this is to reduce the debt of the CDC, but I should like to hear from him what happens when the CDC makes a surplus and pays it back to the Government. Would it not be better to increase the funds of the CDC from their trading surplus?
784
In short, it is not enough for us all to join together in unusual unanimity in support of-the Commonwealth Development Corporation. It is one of the major arms of what I again have been trying to get through to Members on the Front Bench opposite: the economic policies which can reverse both the British and the world recession by increasing the purchasing power and the wealth production of the poorer countries. We need to not just praise the CDC but to give it greater opportunities. It needs expansion, not to be judged simply on commercial standards.
Here I have one criticism to make of the Select Committee's Report. In paragraph 70 on page XXV of the report the Select Committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee states:
"To the extent that the CDC acts as a catalyst in promoting the activities of UK companies interested in investing overseas, we consider that it has a valuable role. We think, however, that there may be more scope for project identification to help UK industry to invest in some of the more developmentally important areas of the economics of developing countries, and we suggest that the CDC examine whether it would be possible to put more energy into this type of activity."
My Lords, it is not more energy that is needed. The CDC has plenty of potential energy. It is more money that is needed, and it is more money that is needed from the Government.
This brings me to the point made by the Minister of State in another place in the debate on this Bill on 7th December. The Minister, Mr. Marten, said, at column 780:
"Advances from the aid programme were £30 million in the financial year 1981–82 and are expected to be £34 million in 1982–83. I have informed the CDC that, subject to parliamentary approval. I hope to be able to increase that to £37 million in 1983–84."
I would ask the noble Lord who is to wind up one question: do those figures take into account inflation? If not, they are reductions at the present level of inflation. If they do not take into account inflation, they have already been reductions over the past year. They are reductions this year; they will be reductions next year. I should like to know from the noble Lord whether his honourable friend in another place is putting forward a proposition that the Government are going to increase in cash terms, but reduce in real terms, the funding of the CDC from the aid budget.
Finally, I wonder whether the noble Lord will have time in winding up to discuss the more philosophical question of whether the CDC is rightfully within the framework of the aid programme. Should it not be a part of the Department of Industry, where it would have the benefit of escaping from the constant aid cuts of this Government, and perhaps find a greater understanding of its contribution to the development of the economy of this country and of the developing world?
7.40 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I regret that the business of the House is precluding us from discussing the affairs of the Commonwealth Development Corporation more fully. However, without offering a debate on the subject, it is possible that the House may decide to debate the whole subject of overseas aid, of which the corporation, as has been said, is an important and successful part, and in my view—to

785
answer immediately a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch—should remain. On this occasion I can put my hand on my heart and, in all honesty, thank noble Lords for their concise speeches. I shall try to answer all the points in the short time available, but, if I leave any out, perhaps I may write to the noble Lords concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram—how nice that it was he who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench tonight—asked, with his great authority as an ex-Minister at the ODA, whether we should be able to debate the report specifically and, if so, when. The report was printed, as he knows, only on 19th October and was embargoed, which means that the Government did not have it until 7th December. I must tell him, therefore, that although it might well provide an opportunity for a debate, like Pooh, the Government are still pondering the matter and will take a little time yet on it.
Several noble Lords mentioned the reasons for the Bill, especially the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and I would agree with him that they are inflation and a product of the CDC's own success. I am glad to see that the noble Lord agrees with the Government on the subject of inflation, at least so far as it affects the overseas aid budget, and is prepared, at least on this occasion, to condone what I can only describe as our valiant drive to reduce it. I am sure he is as happy as I am at what we have achieved so far, and I hope he agrees with me that with a bit of luck we shall continue with the steady decline in the inflation rate.
The noble Lord spoke yet again about Mr. Pisani. Some time ago he was kind enough to say that he and I would both profit from reading each other's speeches. During the time of this debate I have cast half an eye on the Official Report of this House for 6th December, col. 7 and following, when the noble Lord asked me a Question specifically about Mr. Pisani. I am glad to see, therefore, that he is carrying on his own PR work, but I am afraid I have nothing to add to the answers I gave on that occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, concluded with a suggestion that the Government should increase the aid budget and asked if I would relay that to my right honourable friend. I have said from this Box on several occasions since I have been lucky enough to be dealing with these matters that as soon as the country can afford it and we get into an equable state—which I am afraid is still some way off—we shall do precisely that. Thus, the point has already been taken, though I shall certainly add the noble Lord's voice to mine.
The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, suggested that one reason for the success of the corporation was that it had had the confidence of successive Governments since 1948. I agree with him and I am grateful to him for having fleshed out my comments on its success in my opening speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, started with a complaint backing up a point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I must tell him that it is my feeling that the time spent on a subject is not necessarily a measure of its importance. I can think of many pieces of legislation and other things in this House which my right honourable friend currently in post at the ODA would almost certainly regard as trifling, and I do not normally use that expression.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Yes, my Lords, but sometimes one measures importance by the degree of attention given to it. The point is that it is important, but it will be seen to be important if we give more attention to it than the opportunity given during supper time in this House by a virtually empty Chamber, while most noble Lords are busily occupied in refreshment elsewhere.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I take that point, as does my Chief Whip, but I still think that the time given to speeches does not necessarily reflect either the time spent on generating those speeches or the importance of a particular subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked in effect whether the limit should be increased or reduced, to which I would say, No; the proposed limit has been set with a view to allowing continuing contribution by the corporation to the development of poor countries and should be adequate for eight to 10 years. Parliament should then have the opportunity to consider again. One must give Parliament that sort of opportunity—to reconsider the budget from time to time—and an increase in the limit would not of itself mean an increase in the corporation's level of activity; it depends on advances to the corporation from the aid programme or the level of its other borrowing which the Government approve from year to year in the light of public expenditure and (I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will agree with me) public sector borrowing requirement considerations.
The existing limit, as we have heard, was fixed at the time of the corporation's creation in 1948 and, as I said earlier, may soon become inadequate. It is now usual for a statutory corporation's limit to be fixed from time to time by the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, to provide the necessary flexibility to enable the corporation to manage its affairs and control its liquidity efficiently as circumstances require. That they are efficient, at it, I do not think any of us should be in doubt.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, referred to the split, if you like, between the corporation's role in the Commonwealth and outside it and I must say that he is partly responsible for that, since the 1969 Act, to which he referred, gave authority to operate in foreign as well as Commonwealth countries. But at the end of 1981 84 per cent. of its investments were still in Commonwealth countries and, at the same date, 68 per cent. of its investments were in the poorer developing countries defined as those eligible for IDA funds.
Lord Oram: My Lords, the way the Minister has spoken in the last few sentences seemed to imply that I was critical of the possibility of the CDC operating in other than Commonwealth countries. I certainly was not and I said the opposite. I approve of it. I would not call it a split and I willingly accept responsibility for having introduced it.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in no way did I think, or I hope suggest, that the noble Lord was critical. I thought he was eliciting information which I was glad to give, and I hope he will accept my reply in that light.

787
Before concluding I should refer to the matter raised at length in the Commons, and raised again this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, about the project at Mindanao. As my right honourable friend the Minister said in another place on 7th December, during the debate on Second Reading, he has seen reports recently on the situation in the project area by the Catholic Institute for International Relations, and the separate report by Amnesty International. He takes these reports very seriously indeed and sincerely respects the concern of those who have written to him. He is equally conscious of the valuable contribution which the corporation's participation could make to really worthwhile development in the area and the benefits which it could bring to some of the poorest inhabitants of Mindanao. On 30th November my right honourable friend met a group of concerned Members of Parliament and representatives of voluntary organisations, together with representatives of the corporation, to discuss the issue. It was a constructive and helpful meeting, in which those who have doubts about and criticism of the corporation participation in the project nevertheless expressed their appreciation of the openness with which the corporation had conducted this particular affair. Noble Lords will know that all projects with a capital sum involving more than half a million pounds are by convention referred to the ODA, and this will continue.
On the subject of surpluses, I would say that the corporation does not pay back to the Government surpluses earned on its revenue account. These are retained by the corporation, and add to its self-generated funds for further investment. So I think that the noble Lord was wrong on that point.
In my opening speech I referred briefly to my noble friend Lord Kindersley, the current chairman of the corporation, but since its inception many noble Lords have served it in their various ways, either directly by serving on the board, or indirectly in Parliament. They have all given the corporation devoted and enthusiastic service, which makes it in quality, if not in sheer volume, one of the most effective aid agencies, national or international, in promoting lasting and genuine development in the poorer countries of the world. I have no doubt that other noble Lords will fill their places in the future—not just yet, I hope, in the case of my noble friend—and, with the aid of this Bill, will ensure that the corporation continues its amazing track record. My Lords, I beg to commend the Bill.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he answer the point I raised as to whether the increase announced in another place in relation to aid funds, over the last two years and for next year, takes into account inflation? In other words, is it an increase, or is it a decrease?
Lord Skelmersdale: I am sorry, my Lords. My information is that the rise in cash to provide, for example, £37 million in 1983–84, represents an increase in the Commonwealth Development Corporation's share of the aid programme. I anticipate that the noble Lord will not be very happy with that answer and, if I may, I shall write to him.
On Question, Bill read a second time: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended, pursuant to Resolution, Bill read a third time.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with my renewed thanks to the House, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Company and Business Names (Amendment) Regulations 1982
7.54 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move. That the regulations laid before the House on 24th November 1982 be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords. I beg to move the Motion in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of the regulations is to make minor amendments to the Company and Business Names Regulations 1981. to give effect to a point that was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, almost exactly a year ago. I am pleased to report that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has no comments to make on the regulations before us tonight.
Before the 1981 Companies Act was considered, the Secretary of State had wide discretion to reject any company name that was considered to be undesirable. The 1981 Act abolished that discretion, but included powers to prescribe, by regulations, a list of sensitive words and expressions which may not be used as part of a company or business name without the prior approval of the Secretary of State. The first list of such words was introduced by the 1981 regulations.
Your Lordships may recall that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Earl. Lord Halsbury, questioned the omission from the regulations of certain words, including "chemist", "chemistry", and related words. I am very grateful to the noble Lords for drawing attention to those omissions, and, after further consideration and consultation with the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, the Government have agreed to the addition of the words "chemist" and "chemistry" to the list of words requiring approval by the Secretary of State.
I should at this stage answer the further query raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, about why such words as "pharmacy" and "pharmaceutical" were also omitted from the regulations. Use of those words in company and business names is covered by the Medicines Act 1968, and it is not appropriate to duplicate this control in legislation relating to companies. However, so far as the words "chemist" and "chemistry" are concerned, it has now been agreed that they are not fully covered by the Medicines Act, and the present regulations correct the omission.
The second amendment covered by the regulations

789
before us provides for inclusion of the words "university" and "polytechnic". That is at the request of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and it will enable control to be exercised where use of the words might imply association with a recognised university or a designated polytechnic. But there may be cases in which the use of the words in company or business names may be unobjectionable, as, for example, if a hotel were to be called the "University Arms".
A further minor amendment is included to correct an error in the wording of the original regulations. The relevant body whose opinion is to be sought by persons intending to use the word "apothecary" was given as the "Worshipful Company of Apothecaries", but that should read the "Worshipful Society of Apothecaries of London".
My Lords, that said, I beg to move.
Moved. That the regulations laid before the House on 24th November 1982 be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House do not propose to dissent in any way from the content of the regulations that have been very adequately explained by the noble Lord. They add to the schedule of the regulations of last year certain words for the use of which companies or firms must obtain the consent of either the Minister of the appropriate department (the name of which appears in the second column of the schedule) or the designated body. I do not think that the addition to the list of the words "chemist", "chemistry", "polytechnic" and "university" will cause any particular tremors of anxiety on this side, or indeed anywhere else in the House.
However, since we are discussing business names, I must ask, what is the purpose and what is the end that is in mind in this connection? What would happen if instructions were disobeyed? Let us say that, notwithstanding the regulations, a firm or company decides to use certain words. What means are there of enforcement of the regulations? What inspections are there? What penalties are attached to a breach?
Your Lordships will recall that during the passage of the Companies Act 1981 some of us on all sides of the House ventured to look somewhat askance at all the provisions of the business names section of the Act. It will be recalled that there were objections from all parts of the House, in particular from those noble Lords on the Benches opposite who had any connection with, or responsibility in, business. Noble Lords simply did not see the sense of abolishing the old business names registry. If the noble Lord peruses once again the columns of the debates that took place in your Lordships' House on this particular section, he will immediately become aware of the miserable inadequacy of the replies that were received from the Government Benches on this subject. There really was no reason given ultimately at all.
The matter becomes of some importance because the business name, whether or not it is approved and whether or not it obtains the consent of the Minister or of the various other bodies listed in the second column of the original schedule, becomes the name that is used by the company—and the noble Lord sets great store
790
by this. But the noble Lord will recall that under Section 29 of the Companies Act firms or companies are required to disclose certain particulars to any-interested party who wants to obtain them. Your Lordships will recall that, under the old business names registry, it was always possible (although the Government said at the time that this was only 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. effective) to find out the particulars which one sought. On this side of the House we warned him at the time that, if the registry was abolished, things would become very difficult.
Now, what has happened since the passage of the Act? The fact of the matter is that the provisions of section 29, which require any firm or company to give a written response to inquiries from any interested party—in the case of a partnership, the names of the partners and so on, and the various other particulars with which the noble Lord is quite familiar—have been virtually disregarded; and I propose to offer the noble Lord proof of this. I should inform the House that I gave his noble friend the Minister of State notice, albeit unofficially, but again confirmed to his private secretary on Monday and Tuesday, that I was going to raise this particular question. I had no response from the noble Lord, possibly due to inadvertence, as to whether he was prepared to deal with if, and so I propose to read to the House, with your Lordships' indulgence, because it is a specific case—and the House loves specific cases as against generalities—exactly what has happened.
I read from a note that was sent to me by a firm called TS Association and Company Limited, who are very prominent management consultants from Oxford. They act on behalf of the following firms: Burmah-Castrol, Total Oil. Conoco, Avis Rent-a-Car and Securicor. among others. Acting on behalf of these clients, they sent inquiries in accordance with Section 29 of the Act, asking to be advised of the particulars that are required by the Act. This is what occurred. I quote from their letter.
"Since last February we advised our clients that they were empowered under the Act to ask for the full name(s) and addresses of the owners of firms seeking credit. Several clients authorised us to act for them in this matter. To date we have written 128 letters on the subject none of which have been answered. A broad poll amongst our clients shows that certainly several hundred similar letters have been sent out but the answer rate appears to have been less than 10 per cent."
My Lords, I quote the next part with diffidence and accept no particular responsibility for it; but it is an expression of view of this firm. They continue:
"The new man at the Department of Trade who replaced Reginald Eyre has not been able to comment and the Registrar of Companies is not interested. The question is where does industry and commerce go from here? Does the new Companies Act have teeth? If so. what remedies are there available against firms which do not comply with Section 29".
I am well apprised, having read the previous debates, of the Government's attitude on this matter. They will say immediately, "Of course, the old Register of Business Names was not more effective, anyway, so nothing has been lost".
That appears to be a little odd because, from further inquiries, it appears that the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry has set up a special business registry and search department in conjunction with

791
other chambers in Birmingham, Cardiff and Merseyside and that,
"this new body has taken possession of the files of the old Registry of Business Names covering all registrations from 1st January 1970 to 26th February 1982."
The letter continues:
"It would be interesting to know what fee was paid for these records but the main point is that the London Chamber of Commerce are offering a search service based on these old files at a charge of £10 or £5 for a no trace."
If it is the case that the old registry was no good and the thing did not work, it is a little surprising that firms are now prepared to pay £10 for the use of the records that were formerly in the charge of this department. So that that particular answer—"Well, the position is now no worse than it was before"—simply does not ride.
I have a straight question to ask the noble Lord and it will be asked increasingly by all business firms and industrialists that seek to obtain the particulars that they require for the purposes of their own businesses in accordance with Section 29 of the Companies Act 1981. The question I have to ask is this. Are the Government going to enforce it or not? If they are going to enforce it, by what means do they propose to enforce it? It is no answer for a responsible Government that is charged with the enforcement of the law—and law and order, I seem to remember, was a very loud cry from the party opposite—to say, "Well, it is no worse than it was before". Otherwise, that brings the law into disrepute. So I do have to ask—and I know the noble Lord has no personal responsibility for it—just what the Government are going to do about it. Industry and commerce will await with interest the answer that is given.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being present when the noble Lord the Minister introduced this regulation. I was occupied some distance away from the House on intellectual property matters, somewhat associated with trade marks, and not very different from business names, and I am very sorry that I was late in arriving. As the noble Lord realises, I spoke at considerable length in the course of the debates on the Companies Act 1981 and I endeavoured to do my best to persuade the Government, with little success, that the business names registry should be kept on. I do not think that at this time of the night it will be proper for me to job backwards into the history of the way in which, as I still feel, the Government introduced something which is somewhat of a disaster for large numbers of business people who want to continue with that registry.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, but perhaps not quite so strenuously, that some branches of industry and some firms of lawyers have not quite settled down to the new régime which has been introduced by the Government. I should like to ask also, if it is relevant on this occasion, whether the Government are going to try to enforce Section 29, which is supposed to be a substitute for what I thought was to be a far more practical and useful business names registry.
792
I welcome these regulations and I think that they show a certain amount of progress. In particular, I should like to make reference to paragraph 3 of the regulations. That assists certain business firms in that it allows those firms which were in being prior to 1st January 1983 to continue as before. I do not propose to enter into any effort of jobbing backwards in this matter but I welcome these regulations, such as they are.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, obviously I am very grateful for this instrument. The problem which I can describe quite briefly is that the Royal Society of Chemistry, which is the chartered professional body for chemists, and the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, which is the chartered professional body for pharmacists, both wish to ensure that the confusion about the meaning of the word "chemist" is reduced and eventually eliminated. We are one of the very few countries where colloquially "chemist" means both the person working in chemistry and the person working in pharmacy. Anyone who goes abroad will know that in most countries there is this clear difference.
While welcoming what the Government have done as a step in this direction, I hope that they will consider what other steps may be taken. Not for one moment would one suggest tearing down the name "chemist" on shop fronts, but one might be able to do this gradually over 10 years, by possibly ensuring that on official correspondence the local chemist refers to himself as a pharmacist. Gradually this style may get adopted. I ask the Government to consider what else they can do to help.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are very grateful for the interest that has been shown in these regulations this evening, and indeed for the robust comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the helpful comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Viscount. Lord Hanworth. I am afraid that I am not able to answer the question which I think the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked me about four times. I could stress to him that the remedies are as set out in Section 29 of the Companies Act 1981. I stress to him that firms who do not reply to inquiries as detailed by the noble Lord about the names which concern them, or indeed the persons with whom they do business, are guilty of an offence. The fine, I am informed, is £200. I am also informed that anyone can prosecute. That is certainly an effective remedy.
Your Lordships will note from Section 28(7) that the fine is £200 on a summary conviction for using sensitive words without approval; that is, a breach of the regulations that are before us this evening. If there is any further breach, there is a daily fine for continued contravention. We believe in enforcing the regulations which back up Section 28. I am sure that your Lordships will agree—and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, put his finger on it—that we simply cannot go backwards to the lengthy and complicated arguments that we had in discussing this problem when we were dealing with the Companies Act in 1981. I was interested in Lord Bruce's comments—I think I quote him accurately—when he said it was always possible to

793
find the particulars sought. Well, the noble Lord gave a percentage of success, and his comments may go some way towards proving whether or not the figures are accurate as to the success of finding out the relevant names that he found under the old system.
I am sure that he and those who were interested in the 1981 Companies Act when it was before your Lordships will agree that we argued this at great length and in great detail then. I believe that your Lordships will agree that tonight, when we are considering these simple amending regulations, is not the occasion to go into these lengthy arguments once again. I shall undertake to bring the comments of your Lordships on this matter—and indeed on the other matters raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth—to the notice of my noble friend. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, made one minor error: my noble friend is the Secretary of State and no longer the Minister of State. Nevertheless. I shall bring your Lordships' comments to his notice. I hope that your Lordships will agree that these regulations are useful, and for that reason I hope your Lordships will agree to this Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
8.16 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[The EARL CATHCART in the Chair.]
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 17, line 4, at end insert—
("(1A) It shall be the duty of the Commission to develop an integrated approach to the recording, conservation, overall management and presentation to the public of the national heritage in England of ancient monuments, archaeological areas and buildings, and areas of special architectural or historical interest (either alone or jointly with any other person or body).").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 92 amends Clause 29 and introduces us to the CFAMAHBFE. That is not a title which will last very long, and it is something on which we must improve, if we can, while the Bill is before us, otherwise telephonists, cheque writers, and others, will do it for us. It introduces us to the commission and gives it a name of a sort. Then, to find out more about it, we have to look to Schedule 3 because there is nothing more in Clause 29. In Schedule 3 we find out about its status, membership, the staff, the way it conducts is proceedings, commitees, instruments, members' remuneration, accounts, information and the House of Commons disqualification. But nowhere in Schedule 3 or in Clause 29 do we find out what this commission is for. Nowhere is set out its aims or its objectives. As we heard over and over again yesterday in that very valuable debate on the quality of legislation, it is rather important in legislation to set out the purposes of the bodies which you are creating. That is what my amendment seeks to do.
It is quite easy to do it because the Secretary of State in his first consultation paper stated quite clearly what aims he had in mind for the commission. He set it out again even more clearly in a second consultation paper. He has set it out yet a third time, and very
794
succinctly and effectively, in the Notes on Clauses. But he has still failed to do so on the face of the Bill. Therefore my amendment seeks to do it for him. In the second line of my amendment I refer to the duty of the commission to develop an integrated approach in the whole matter of caring for the heritage. That is taken directly from subparagraph b. of the Notes on Clauses, where the Secretary of State says that one of the objects in setting up the commission is to obtain the advantages of the fusion of the existing dispersed and diffuse arrangements into a single and single-minded body. If that is so, then for heaven's sake! let us say so. I have put in the word "recording" because this is a function carried out at the moment by the Royal Commission for Historic Monuments and it seems to me it must be integrated with the main general purposes of the commission. I shall be enlarging on that point later when I move my Amendment No. 114.
I refer in this amendment to the presentation to the public of the national heritage, because the Secretary of State in his Notes on Clauses says that one of his aims is to create a commission which will apply "an imaginative approach" to the presentation and management of the heritage. I am advised that you cannot use words like "imaginative" in legislation. That may well be so, but "presentation" seems to me to be a very clear term. It has been used in all consultation documents and we ought to transfer it to the legislation.
I refer finally in the last line of my amendment to the fact that the commission can exercise its functions alone or jointly with any other person. I do that because the Secretary of State has said in subparagraph (d) of Notes on Clauses that he wants to tap the abundant good will in the heritage field through private donations and through voluntary assistance. I think we would all say "Hear, hear!" to that objective. That is the reason for this amendment. The purposes of the commission are admirably stated in two consultation documents and in the Notes on Clauses and we must put them into the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: The Government find this a most interesting amendment and one with which they have a good deal of sympathy. However, as it stands, I do not think it should be accepted but should form a very useful input for further thinking between now and the Report stage. There has been a lot of criticism of the Bill as introduced, on the grounds that Schedule 4 is difficult to understand and that there is no clear statement of the basic policy purposes for the commission. Of course, I fully understand that.
So far as this amendment is concerned, perhaps I might just point out four small matters. To begin with, we doubt whether a general statement is best expressed as a duty: "a purpose", for instance, might be more appropriate. My noble friend has explained why he has introduced the word "recording". However, we feel that the conservation function is a most important one and should take first place. While the concept of developing an integrated approach is important as regards the new commission's work, it is necessary to reflect the close relationship between the new body and the Secretary of State who will himself retain significant functions.

795
The precise drafting of what is needed here needs careful study. The concept of presentation which my noble friend mentioned also needs careful consideration, we believe. I hope that I have said enough to indicate that I am fully sympathetic with the idea behind this amendment. The Government feel that they would like to have another look at it. I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment, with my assurance that the Government will be looking at it closely in the next few weeks and will put forward something which will reflect the concept behind it at the next stage.
Lord Sandford: I should be very glad to settle for that. The only other point I should like to make, in addition to the ones I have made already, is that another group of the bodies with whom the commission must be able to work effectively are the various branches of local government. Having said that, I should be very glad to withdraw my amendment on the understanding that the Government like the general approach and accept that it is necessary to have the aims, purposes, objectives or something of that sort set out at this point in the Bill. On that understanding, I shall be glad to seek to withdraw this amendment and return to the matter at Report stage, preferably on the basis of a Government amendment. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [The Commission]:
8.25 p.m.
Lord Stratheona and Mount Royal Lord Stratheona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 92A:
Page 30, line 43, leave out ("not").
The noble Lord said: As we embark on the consideration of Schedule 3, I have put down this short amendment to probe the Government's conception of the commission's tax status. I think most of your Lordships would agree that it is fundamental to the success of this legislation that the finances of the commission should be on a sound basis. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to explain to us exactly what status the Government envisage for the commission.
First of all, perhaps I might deal with a relatively detailed point. In sub-paragraph (3) it says that rates paid shall be those applicable had the commission occupied the premises concerned for or on behalf of the Crown for public purposes. Could the Minister explain what taxes the commission will have to pay and where the commission will get the money to pay these taxes? We fear that the commission could find itself in a position where it has new imposts to meet and new taxes to pay. In that way it will be diverting funds which were originally provided for the monuments or for the maintenance of historic buildings.
If I might widen the whole question, is the commission going to have to pay 15 per cent. value added tax on all the transactions into which it enters? If so, it is going to find a large number of people throughout the
796
country extremely unhappy at the situation we have created, and that could have a highly damaging effect on the heritage. My understanding of the Bill is that its object is to do precisely the opposite. I believe one could contend that we are trying to achieve exactly the opposite purpose and that the commission will need to be indemnified from taxes. It should be exempt from all taxes, levies, death duties, capital gains tax and capital transfer tax.
Once embarked on this. I could cite a whole lot of examples. I will not detain your Lordships by doing so; but let us think of one or two circumstances. Let us suppose the commission has investments which might have come from voluntary contributions which had been raised either specifically or generally. These investments will yield income, and if the commission has not organised its finances properly so that these investments are paid into a charitable fund which is exempt from taxes, is there not a danger under the provisions of this Bill that such income will be subject to tax? That cannot be the intention of the Government. If they want to encourage voluntary contributions to the commission—and the Secretary of State has said in general terms that that is his hope and his desire—surely they must satisfy those who are going to contribute that their contributions will be free of tax.
It is clear that the commission is hoping to receive gifts from individuals, and these may take the form of money, of buildings, monuments, pictures or objects of any kind, or indeed of cash. Clearly, the commission wants to encourage such gifts. My understanding of the legislation as it stands is that such gifts will be penalised by being subject to tax, and I hope the Minister will be able to confirm whether or not that would be the situation. So far as I can see, there is nothing anywhere in the Bill or in the consultative papers which suggests that gifts or contributions made to the commission will be exempt from capital transfer tax and indeed capital gains tax. Very much later—probably for consideration some time next Tuesday—I have down an amendment which is designed specifically to deal with at least part of the problem, and which concerns the various exemptions which the commission should receive in order to mitigate the damages that these taxes could create.
I have a slight difficulty in moving this amendment in that I do not want to go into a whole lot of detailed examples. I want to stick to the generality, in order to flush out some kind of reply from the Minister. But may I just finish by expressing some misgivings about paragraph 1, which states that the commission "shall be a body corporate". I am not certain what "a body corporate" means, but fear it may mean that they are subject to corporation tax and I sincerely hope that my noble friend will be able to tell me that I am wrong. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: This is an amendment to which, due to an error on my part—it is not the fault of the Public Bill Office—my name was not added as I intended it to be. This is one of the amendments which is the nub of the whole Bill. There are others which are coming later on charitable trusts, and on the whole question of the capital amount which will be put into the commission in order to get them started. As I think emerged from

797
all sides of the House on Second Reading, the main point about this Bill is that this new commission, for which we do not yet have a familiar name, will depend entirely on the resources accorded to it by the Government. The amendment which the noble Lord has just moved is very important in that respect. If you set up a commission in this way and say that they will have to pay taxes, duties, levies or other charges, they are immediately put under a great handicap unless the amount of money put into the commission is enormous. With great respect, it seems to me that the Government have not thought this out very carefully, and that this Bill is being strangled at birth by the Treasury.
On Second Reading, I said—and others said the same—that, unless it could be shown that by setting up a commission of this sort both the historic buildings side and the ancient monuments side would benefit, and that they could attract private investment, contributions and gifts, which were mentioned in the consultation paper, it was very much better to leave the bodies where they were under the aegis of the DoE.
As I pointed out then—and I shall repeat it now. because it is extremely relevant—if you are part of a big department you are able to get a certain amount of financial perks, by way of crumbs, which you cannot get if you are an agency with a very much more limited amount of money, which is a drop in the ocean compared with the vote accorded to a large department.
All these financial amendments, of which this is the first, are of the utmost importance. I find it extremely depressing that, so early in this Part of the Bill—it seems like an entirely different Bill from the one we were discussing before dinner—we have this stranglehold by the Treasury, and this negative approach which will make it extremely difficult for the commission not only to get off the ground but to fulfil any of the tasks which they are meant to fulfil. I know that this applies to every Government, and that departments are always having to fight the Treasury while it puts its claws into them, and the departments very seldom win. But we have to know exactly what will happen and, as the noble Lord said, the whole thing has been left wide open in the Bill.
So it is up to us as a Committee to see that there are adequate resources for this commission to work. It would be quite wrong for your Lordships to accept the commission on these grounds. It will be dishonest, unfair and immoral, so far as the conservation of the heritage is concerned—whether on the ancient monuments side or the historic buildings side—unless we are absolutely convinced that the resources will be there. I know that one of the answers will be that this is what is generally put into this type of clause. But we are trying to set up a new sort of animal, so let us look at it differently and in a more generous way.
Finally, if the Government feel that they are not prepared to do that, they should abandon the whole idea and both bodies should remain where they belong, and they should try to get increases in their subvention. Questions such as the right name and the right functions pale into insignificance compared to the question of the resources that are necessary to enable this commission to work successfully.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: May I support the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, and say how much I sympathise with the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. What surprised me when I read this Bill was to find a subparagraph of this nature in a schedule saying that this commission should not be exempt from tax. As I have not intervened in this debate before, perhaps I ought to say that I do so on a personal basis, in that for the last 25 years I have been concerned; as the chairman of the Brantwood Trust on Lake Coniston in Cumbria, in maintaining and keeping open to the public the old home of John Ruskin. We have had a very considerable struggle in upholding the cultural heritage of the Lake District, as we say, in an old house which has a large number of Ruskin paintings, Ruskin drawings and Ruskin manuscripts.
It seems quite incredible that this commission, with their objects, are likely to be liable to corporation tax. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, mentioned, they will be a body corporate. He said that he did not understand that term. It is a term that is well-known to lawyers like myself, and it means that they may be subject to corporation tax. It seems to me that that is quite wrong and contrary to the general theme of this Bill and its intention of looking after and helping historic buildings.
Lord Kennet: I do not want to burden the noble Earl with too many questions, but I think it would help the Committee to come to a conclusion about what it thinks about the amendment before it if he could answer one more which arises out of sub-paragraph (1) and sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2—that is, the two subsections on either side—and which is part of the question of the status of the commission. However, if the noble Earl thinks that the question would be better put on the later Motion, That this be Schedule 3 to the Bill, I will repeat it then. The question is this. How is one to reconcile the statement in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 that,
"… the Commission's property shall not be regarded as property of. or held on behalf of. the Crown".
with the statement in sub-paragraph (3) that,
"any hereditament occupied by or on behalf of the Commission shall … be treated as if it were occupied by or on behalf of the Crown".
Which is the fact?
The Earl of Avon: This is an intricate subject. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Cockfield is no longer a Minister at the Treasury, otherwise I might have had some nice, whispered comments from him. If I may answer the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, the aim of setting up the commission is intended to be progress. I assure the noble Baroness that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would not have taken on such an idea had it not been with the aim of benefiting generations to come. In no way is it intended to be a stranglehold.
My noble friend's amendments raise some difficult questions in the nature of the commission's position in regard to taxation. These are issues which the Government are considering very carefully. Some are easier than others. For example, the question of relief from capital transfer tax has been agreed and the Govern-

799
ment propose to bring forward an appropriate amendment on Report. It would have been equally nice to have been able to accept my noble friend's amendment on this, but I am told that there is a technical problem. Many of the other issues are much more difficult and I am afraid that the Government have not finished their consideration of them. They are trying to reach a view on the best way to proceed quickly and to make their position clear at the next stage, including making necessary amendments, where appropriate.
There is to be a series of amendments on this question. I hope this evening to be able to listen to the various debates relating to money matters on the various amendments which will be helpful in reaching a solution. The noble Lord, Lord Rennet, asked me a specific question to which I shall return on a later amendment.
It is not a very satisfactory answer for my noble friend, except that he has drawn out of me the absolute assurance that all these matters are being given immediate consideration and that we shall be bringing forward an amendment on capital transfer tax. The noble Lord asked me a specific question about a corporate body, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, gave him the answer. A corporate body does not, I understand, necessarily pay corporation tax, whereas a body does—and vice versa—to a degree. But it need not be corporation tax.
Baroness Birk: Before the noble Lord who moved the amendment replies, I want to put something straight. The Minister explained that the Secretary of State has no intention of putting a stranglehold on this. Let me make it clear that that is not what I meant. I believe entirely in the good faith of the Secretary of State on this Bill. On many other aspects of policy, like rate support grant and housing, I disagree with him very strongly. However, what he has done regarding the heritage is admirable and I am sure that he wants this agency to work properly. Unless, however, he can come to some arrangement with the Treasury about it and unless that door can be pushed back very hard, with all the goodwill in the world it is just not going to work. That will be the stranglehold upon it, not the one which the Minister wants to put upon it.
As the noble Earl was good enough to tell us that all these matters are still being worked out, one suspects that the Bill is being knitted as it goes along. In many ways this is an advantage because it means that from time to time we can all put in our stitches and knitting needles. One hopes that there will be a chance of flexibility and that some of the ideas being put forward will be taken on board and will not disappear. We hope that they will be in the Bill before it leaves this House. The amendments are, after all, coming from all parts of the Committee. There are no party dividing lines.
Lord Kennet: The answer given by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, shows that the commission is being launched upon the legislature without very much thought behind it. May I say with all modesty that I do not think many Governments, modest in my criticism though I intend to be, would think of launching a
800
powerful new quango of this nature which tears up 100 years of law and sets the whole business of the preservation of the heritage on a new tack without having decided whether or not it should be exempt from tax.
May I express the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, will persist in his amendment? In my individual judgment it would be better that until the Government can produce reasons why the quango should be taxed it should stand free of tax in its passage through the legislature. Let us therefore omit the word "not". If the Government had not made up their mind in the first place, why did they say "It shall not be exempt from any"—I repeat "any"—"tax, duty, rate, levy or other charge whatever, whether general or local"? I submit that it would be healthier for the future of the quango if at this stage this draft legislation—and it is draft legislation—were to read "The Commission shall be exempt from any tax, duty, rate, levy or other charge whatever, whether general or local", and if the Government were then to propose that it should be subject to this or that tax, levy, el cetera, when they have found the reasons for saying so.
Viscount Eccles: This is a very serious matter. Unless we settle where the money is to come from we shall not know whether the commission will be a success. The question of taxation might very much change the amount of money which the Government have to provide. Since I am told that the Report stage will be within a week of our return after the Christmas Recess, can my noble friend give us an assurance that we shall have the amendments relating to finance when we come back on 19th or 20 January, not a day or two before the Report stage?
The Earl of Avon: My noble friend has very much got my own thinking in mind. I was feeling very much embarrassed that we have not got further. It is absolutely my intention to convey his message to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and say it is fundamental to the progress of the Bill that we should have that information.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: May I briefly support the suggestion which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, as to the strategy which the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, might consider for dealing with the matter? In view of the frank indication by the Minister that these tax matters have not been fully considered, it seems to me that the cleanest thing to do would be to exempt the commission from all these taxes. The Government could later put in such taxes as they think are necessary. To leave in this clause seems to me to be the wrong way to proceed and I believe that to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, would be the cleanest way of dealing with the matter.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: May I venture to put the other view? The prima facie position should be—should it not?—that no body is exempt from taxation unless a case is made out for it, otherwise there is an economic distortion. From what the noble Earl has said, it seems to me that there is a good case

801
for exemption. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Lord in whose name the amendment stands will not press it.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: First, I want to express my gratitude for the support I have received from all sides of the Committee. This is an extremely serious matter, and it puts me in a difficult position. I am very tempted by the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. There is no doubt that, when you are dealing with a Government, it concentrates their mind wonderfully if you move an amendment against them which they have then got to put right. I have to say to the noble Earl on the Front Bench that I find it rather extraordinary that in this Committee, quite late at night, we are being asked to consider a Bill while apparently the Government have not thought of something as fundamental as the tax status of the commission they are proposing to set up.
The Earl of Avon: I did not pick up the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. We have of course thought about it very deeply. It is the difficulty of coming to a decision, which is slightly different, which is exercising the mind of the Government.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, it is not much good thinking about it. The Government have written all this verbiage which we are having to wade through tonight. We are wasting a great many people's time because adequate thought has not been given to it and because it has not been clarified.
I am not a combative person, and I want to keep the Treasury out of this matter because I have had enough experience of the Treasury, and I say that in all deference to my noble friend Lord Cockfield who is sitting there. For goodness sake let us keep the Treasury clear of this if we possibly can. I know that my noble friend is trying to be helpful. I feel that the statesmanlike thing for us to do is to withdraw the amendment now—but, by heaven! my noble friend had better watch out for the next round.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.52 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 92B:
Page 31, line 6, leave out ("13 members") and insert ("such extra number, not being less than 13, as the Secretary of State may. after consultation with the Commission, determine.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with the number of commissioners. While I am against overloading any commission or committee, I nevertheless believe there is a danger if one makes the whole thing too small. It is already evident that the functions of the commission will be wider than the Bill at present envisages. I see the Bill, even before it goes to another place, embracing a much wider field of responsibilities and work. There will be a need for more skills and that probably means a need for more commissioners with those skills.
I should point out that the Historic Buildings Council has 20 members, and I have never heard anyone say that that number was too large or unwieldy. One has to take into account that at
802
meetings of almost any commission or body, one or two people are usually unavoidably absent. The Ancient Monuments Board has about 18 members. There is also the problem that this commission is a merger of two bodies which cover a very large range of subjects. I shall be coming later to the question of committees, but we are now talking about the commission itself. The commissioners have to be able to cover historic houses, archaeology, ancient monuments and a number of other subjects.
This is more in the nature of a probing amendment, but I would like there to be no fewer than 13 and perhaps not more than 18 or even 20 members. I do not feel very strongly about any particualr number but having only 13 members is limiting it rather at this stage. When we come to the question of committees responsible to the commission, the work of the commissioners is going to be quite considerable. Also, when we come to the question of the remuneration of commissioners, they are certainly not going to be paid the equivalent of doing a full-time job, but it does mean that one must have people to parcel out work so that more aspects of the work of the commission are carried out thoroughly, I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I wonder whether I may intervene here, because I would like to hear the comments of other noble Lords once I have said what I have to say. The Government were not surprised to receive an amendment relating to the size of the commission. It is difficult to achieve a balance between the conflicting demands, and after some consideration the Government have decided that an upper limit of 13 members is a little too restrictive and propose to bring forward an amendment to increase the number.
The Government have in mind 17 members, although before making any final decision I am sure that the Secretary of State will wish to consider the views expressed here today. Although the Government have decided to increase the ceiling on members, they still hold firmly to the view that the upper limit should be fixed and not be variable at will, as the amendment suggests. There is a limit to the flexibility that should be provided in this respect, and the range from 8 to, say, 17 members provides ample flexibility. The constraints on size caused by the fact that the commission is a managerial body will not go away. Given the assurance that we will bring forward an amendment to increase the upper limit on the number of members to 17, I will be interested to hear how the Committee feels about this question of flexibility.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I should like to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, but after hearing my noble friend Lord Avon I believe that he has now moved more in our direction. Given the enormous scope of the new commission's activities in respect of the Historic Buildings Council and so on, it must not be forgotten that there will be enormous demands on the commission and the commissioners. There will also be new elements, particularly on the commercial side, tourism and education, and these must be satisfied within the commission. I think there must be a great advance on the figure of 13 members, and if my noble friend will bring forward an amendment for this number I will be delighted to support it.
Baroness Birk: In view of what the noble Earl has said, I am quite satisfied. We will see what the Government come forward with at the Report stage. Meanwhile. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 92C:
Page 31, line 13, leave out ("the history of architecture") and insert ('"history, planning").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I will speak also to Amendment No. 92D because they are closely linked. The aim of these amendments is to broaden the present narrow references to include, in the first place, history and planning, and, in the second place, education. It is the question of history with which we are largely and widely concerned because from history itself stems archaeology, architecture and many other things. Therefore, by inserting history and planning in place of "the history of architecture" the schedule is made rather wider.
It is also important to add planning, which is far less restrictive than simply town planning, because planning in its widest sense very often comes into the working and plans of the commission. There is not only town planning but also country planning and rural planning—and all of those would be covered by this amendment.
The second amendment is to insert the word "education". This is something that is essential if interpretation is to be effective and to indicate how important education is in the type of conservation and work we are talking about. Unless adults and children are educated and helped to understand what this work is all about, the commission is not going to get the kind of support that will be necessary—not only now but in the medium and long term. These seem to me to be quite non-controversial amendments. They simply clarify matters and pin-point some important words. I hope that the noble Earl. Lord Avon, will be able to accept them. I beg to move.
Viscount Eccles: I would like to support the point about education because I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness has said. I also think that nowadays one should have somebody who knows something about the media and publications. It is clear to me from experience of the British Museum that someone who knows about publishing and who could advise not only on scholarly but also on popular publications as well, is a great advantage.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: As my name is down to this amendment, which we welcome very much as a principle which was not included in respect of the museums we discussed earlier, perhaps I may say that, while the list is not correct, with a little more thought it could be made excellent, and it is to be hoped that the ideas contained in these amendments can be incorporated.
Viscount Ridley: Before the Minister replies, I wonder whether I could add a word in support of the amendment, partly because I am about to move an amendment on a very tedious matter of local government. Two of its most important functions are
804
planning and education. Therefore, I am not so far as I usually am from the noble Baroness's views. If she in turn will support my amendments. I will be happy to support hers.
Lord Kennet: We support the noble Baroness's amendment.
The Earl of Avon: These two amendments are designed to widen the scope of expertise and knowledge to which the Secretary of State will need to have regard in selecting persons for appointment as members of the commission. I think I should emphasise that the list must not be read as closing the door on expertise that is not listed. While I can see the attraction of making the amendments proposed, I would like to make one or two points about them. The existing list of items seeks to include only those kinds of knowledge or experience which, taken as a whole, are relevant to the matters with which the commission will be concerned.
If I may take first history, the relevance of history is uncertain, and to this degree when I come to planning I am going to argue the other way. Few people are likely to be expert in the whole field, and even those who are expert on a particular period may know little or nothing about its monuments or buildings. So we feel that history is a little bit too wide. However, the word "planning" is not qualified. There could. I suspect, be many types of planning which have nothing to do with monuments and buildings. I think this will please my noble friend Lord Ridley; we were thinking of putting in "town and country planning" rather than just "planning".
Then we come to education. While the commission will certainly be concerned with education, we were wondering whether the topic deserves a specific mention in connection with the appointment of members of the commission. I have now had the added endorsement from my noble friend Lord Eccles that it does, so I think we will have to take that very much to heart. I have listened with great interest to the comments of the Committee and I recognise there is a case for us to look again at the list. I shall be interested to hear the noble Baroness's comments on the suggestion of "town and country planning", and on trying to find some form of limitation on "history".
Baroness Birk: I thank the noble Earl very much for his sympathetic explanation with regard to the Government's thinking on this matter. I will take the other side of the coin now in pressing for consideration of including the word "history". One thing that has bothered me slightly about this shopping list—and I entirely agree with the noble Earl—is that if we go on and on putting everything in, there is a danger that we might get a commission of a great many people with very narrow fields of expertise, and that anybody who is a generalist, with a creative type of mind with something to add, who does not fit into a particular slot, will not be able to be on the commission. I think the door must be left open.
The noble Earl said that there are many types of history; so there are. I am referring to somebody who, whatever period they may be dealing with, has a particular approach; the fact that he or she is an

805
historian means that they have a particular approach and type of mind, which I think is very important on this sort of commission. In other words, they would, perhaps, take an even broader view than somebody concerned only with the history of architecture, or concerned with ancient monuments and so on. It seems to me that history is something which is totally and absolutely relevant to the whole set-up of this commission and the things with which it is going to deal. I would like the noble Earl to take that back and consider it. The list in the Bill, the Government are saying, is not a complete list, it is not a completely inclusive list; you can go wider afield and you will be able to get the person who is not a completely committed specialist.
On the planning side, I think "town and country planning" would probably cover the point. I do not know whether it would cover all sorts of other visual things with which one may be concerned. In the future, when aviation is even more important, when we have helicopters jumping all over the place to a greater extent than today, perhaps the word "planning" might be better in a Bill which is going to have to last well into the future before we get any changes in it. On balance, I feel that the more comprehensive word "planning" is probably preferable to "town and country planning".
The noble Earl has said that he will take in education. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on his point about the media and publication. I do not think one need always put that in, if it is something that is taken into account. That is why I do not want a completely exclusive list. I would like to know that the Government would not be asking for names, asking civil servants, for instance, to put up names just on special areas. I think that might be a mistake in the end.
The Earl of Avon: As I expressed our view on the museum side, we are very much against that. That is what we want to steer clear of. Of course, I am very happy with history because that would qualify me. I hope I can say that with my tutor, the noble Lord, Lord Dacre, sitting behind me.
Baroness Birk: I take it that the Minister is now going to take all this back and look at it again; that nothing that has been suggested this evening will be ruled out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 92D not moved.]
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 92E:
Page 31, line 14, after ("tourism,") insert ("local government.").
The noble Viscount said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Sandford I beg to move Amendment No. 92E and, if I may, I will take with it—I hope this will be popular with the Committee—Nos. 96C, 96G and 103F, because I think they are all related to the same point. That is the involvement of local government in the membership and the activities of the new commission.
I think it must be acknowledged that local authorities have a wide involvement in the preservation of our heritage and, indeed, a very good record in
806
the achievement of that. But I believe that, to secure the optimum utilisation of all the available expertise and the contribution which local authorities can, and will, make to the commission, it is necessary to include a person with knowledge of local government in the membership of that commission. While such a representative may also have experience of all the other fields that we have already debated and, I am glad to say, are being taken back for further thought, I am concerned that direct and relevant experience of local government should, if possible, be brought into the commission. This group of amendments is designed purely to secure that.
We have already discussed planning and education and I shall not repeat what I have already said. I merely add that, as far as I can make out, town and country planning, or planning, is an art and not a science. All 56 million people in this country believe themselves to be expert planners, or so one would think from discussions on the subject, and if one includes planning one must include almost anyone who wishes to belong.
The other amendments provide the commission with the opportunity to use this expertise, to which I have already referred, on a statutory basis. I am sure that the Government will argue that there is nothing to stop the commission from doing this anyway, but the statutory powers of local authorities over museums and ancient monuments should be formally linked to an effective partnership between the commission and local authorities. There can be no doubt that this should be so in the future and have a proper statutory base.
The extensive responsibilities of local authorities for archaeology and the conservation of buildings and museums put them in a very good position to administer these matters, whether or not on an agency basis, and the commission would be able to give the necessary assistance where it wanted to. There is no time to go into detail but I shall just give one small example of this. In my county of Northumberland there are a great many bridges in active use as part of the highways system. No fewer than 19 of these are ancient momuments, and scheduled as such, and in addition 48 are listed buildings. That shows the type of involvement that the highways authority has with the heritage. The aim of the amendments is purely to reinforce the Government's very good concern to secure the effective execution of heritage functions and to obtain the advantages of all the existing sources which we have for the conservation of our heritage. These amendments are meant to be constructive. I hope that, the previous amendments having been withdrawn, my noble friend will agree that there is scope here for discussions and perhaps further thought. I beg to move.
Lord Sandford: I support my noble friend in his plea that there should be adequate scope in the relevant parts of the Bill for the full involvement of local government. One need only ask where we would be with the conservation of the City of York if it were not for the city council. How could the City of Chester be conserved if it were not for the city council, or the City of Bath? What about the conservation of the villages of the Cotswolds if it were not for the involvement of the

807
county council of Gloucestershire; the field monuments of Wiltshire if it were not for the county council, or the stone circles of Devon if it were not for the county council?
It is not, of course, that there has to be someone on the commission specifically representing local government and nothing else. Fortunately there are plenty of historians in local government, plenty of architects in local government and plenty of conservationists in local government. Therefore, someone can be appointed to the commission who is in local government and has other interests too. But it would be fatal to the working of the commission if there was not a single member on it who did not have active experience of local government in some shape or form. In order to secure that it seems to me that we must have the proposed words in this part of the Bill.
Baroness Birk: Plea bargaining has paid off. In supporting the noble Viscount and Lord Sandford in this amendment. I would add that it is extremely important—when we are all the time asking local government to fork out both resources and personnel, in intention and activity, in a whole variety of aspects right across the field of the heritage, whether archaeology, buildings, town planning, conservation areas, or whatever it is—that if local government is asked to participate it must not only feel involved but be involved at the highest level. It would be a grave mistake to leave it out. The Minister may say that there is no doubt that local government would be included and that someone would be on the commission who perhaps had some of the other talents that were needed as well as local government experience, a local government posting at the time or a position on local government. But I do not think that that would be good enough for the statute.
In my view, the words must be spelled out so that the people in local government can both understand and see that they are part of this commission, otherwise it will be extremely difficult not only to get the co-operation which we have had up to now. but to increase it, which is what everybody wants to see done. It is in areas of local government that one can often get the co-operation and increase the interest of local people in a way that central Government or central agencies cannot do. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Kennet: We, too, obviously support this amendment. It stands on its own feet as good reasoning. I would not go quite as far as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in his uncritical enthusiasm for the role of local government in the preservation of our heritage. He asked many pertinent questions about where should we be if it had not been for the city council and the county council in York. One might equally ask what would the coast of Cornwall have looked like had it not been for the Cornish County Council? What, for instance, would the future of Beverley have been if there had never been such a thing as the Beverley District Council? What would the centres of, for example, Worcester, Poole or Peterborough look like now if it had not been for the interventions of the relevant local government units in the past?
The Earl of Avon: Of course, I well understand the desire to involve local authorities in the work of the commission, and to establish good relations between them from the start. Local authorities will continue to have a vital role to play in the presentation of the heritage, a role which we all value.
However, the Government are doubtful that this amendment is the right way in which to achieve this co-operation. Members of the commission should be appointed for their individual skills and knowledge, for the expertise they can bring to the work of the commission. The paragraph in Schedule 3 which this would amend points up the main areas we have been discussing, both academic and other, which should ideally be represented on the commission. It does not prescribe that certain groups or institutions should be represented in their own right. Indeed. I firmly believe that that would be wrong. We have. I think, got a moderately good consensus going through the Committee that we should not make nominations. Although this is not exactly a nomination. I feel that, if this were in. it would be virtually impossible not to have a member of local government on the commission. The commission's job is not to satisfy outside interests, but to preserve the heritage, and its members should be chosen with this in mind. Of course we appreciate the work done by the county councils.
This amendment would mean that someone should be appointed simply to represent local government, without reference to the heritage. I do not believe that that would be right. By all means let someone from local government who has relevant experience or knowledge be appointed. But I cannot agree that experience or knowledge of local government in itself should be a suitable basis for appointment as a member of the commission.
I should now like to deal with Amendment No. 96C, to which my noble friend also spoke. This amendment would enable the committees which the commission is empowered to set up to discharge any functions which the commission cared to delegate to them. This would change the character of the committees. I should like to explain.
We have always recognised that the need for the commission to be an efficient management body, able to organise its work effectively, would inevitably mean a smaller board than could cover all the experience and skills which are now available through the Historic Buildings Council and the Ancient Monuments Board and which the commission would undoubtedly wish to tap. Hence the power of the commission to set up committees to advise them on any of their functions.
However, it is a different matter entirely to suggest that the commission ought to be able to delegate its functions to these committees. This would run counter to one of the principal reasons for setting up the commission, which is to bring the presently dispersed bodies involved in this part of the heritage together into one body. The advantages of providing a coherent public sector focus in this way are clear and it would run counter to that concept if the commission were allowed to delegate their functions to committees of their own appointing.
My noble friend then went on to deal with

809
Amendment No. 96G, upon which I should like to comment. This amendment which is taken with Amendment No. 103F seeks to enable the commission to arrange for a local authority to discharge any of the commission's functions in the same way as a local authority can do now with another local authority under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972.
This general issue is not a new one and in principle the Government have no objection to entering into management agreements with local authorities or transferring to them monuments currently in the nation's care, provided that it is sensible and appropriate so to do. This approach, under which there have been a number of negotiations recently, will not be invalidated with the advent of the commission. Indeed, the commission will have powers to enable them to enter into agreements with local authorities without the benefit of these amendments.
We feel that the first amendment is unacceptable, as it provides that the commission should be given unlimited powers which would enable them to abrogate their responsibilities or to delegate functions which they will exercise only on behalf of the Secretary of State. There is a very distinct difference between entering into agreements to "contract out" tasks, while still retaining responsibility, and passing over functions in their entirety, and, in the case of functions being exercised on the Secretary of State's behalf, it would of course be the Secretary of State who would have to decide on any different delegation arrangements. Thus, leaving aside any question of whether the local authorities would have powers to undertake any of these functions, the amendment is in this sense unsatisfactory.
But the real reason for asking my noble friend to withdraw these two amendments is simply that they are unnecessary. It is intended that the commission will have power to enter into agreements and, in respect of the second amendment, to make such arrangements as they see fit as to the management and custody of property they acquire. Nothing which it might be proper for the commission to delegate or transfer or enter into management agreements about appears to be excluded, and I would certainly hope that any local authority which was interested would discuss that interest with the commission. The Government have made clear throughout the consultation and discussion on this issue their acknowledgement of the importance of the role played by local authorities in preserving our heritage.
We come back, therefore, to the original amendment and the question whether the words "local government" shall be included or not. I really rest on what we spoke about throughout the first day of the Committee stage, which is that we do not want to be quite so precise nor to set a precedent for nomination.
Lord Kennet: Before the movers of this amendment make up their minds what to do, may I urge upon them that they should lean in whatever way they think best? We have here a very detailed list of the qualities which are to be represented on the commission; namely, archaeology, architecture, the history of architecture, the preservation or conservation of monuments or buildings, tourism, commerce and
810
finance. If we are going into that degree of detail, I cannot see the slightest justification for excluding local government. Indeed, I think that its exclusion would be a glaring error. Therefore, I think that it would be more becoming if the Government could accept this obvious addition to the list. If they cannot, I hope that the noble Lords who tabled the amendment will come back to it at a later stage, if they do not indeed insist on it now.
Viscount Ridley: The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said exactly what I wanted to say. I do not think that my noble friend Lord Avon has hit any of my arguments on the head at all. If we are to write tourism into this part of the Bill, why not write in local government? If we are to write in archaeology, why not write in something else? If we are to define the experience of members of this commission, we have to do it much more carefully than has been done. We have taken just a few examples at random. I very much hope that, bearing in mind the amendments which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, withdrew, my amendments can also be considered. If not, I shall certainly be prepared to come back to this in a much more savage frame of mind on Report. I cannot speak for my noble friend Lord Sandford. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment, but not for ever.
Lord Sandford: I shall gladly come back savagely. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Dacre of Glanton Lord Dacre of Glanton moved Amendment No. 92F:
Page 31, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
("(4) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, the first appointments to the Commission as Chairman. Deputy Chairman or other member, shall be for not less than four or more than six years; and all subsequent appointments shall be for five years.")
The noble Lord said: There are several amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Blake and myself. These are amendments discussed and agreed in the British Academy, which supports archaeological works throughout the country as well as abroad through its archaeological institutions, and ' which also funds the Council for British Archaeology.
The amendments emanate in general from a fear, which is widely shared and which has been expressed by some noble Lords, that the gap caused by the dissolution of the Historic Buildings Council and the Ancient Monuments Board may not be adequately filled by the new commission unless it is both strong and independent. This particular amendment appears to raise a small point, but it has relevance to the terms of the appointment of the members of the commission and to their security during their period of office.
The amendment is designed simply to allow the institution of a rotation of members and to prevent, as it were, the whole army coming in at the same time and going out at the same time and requiring to be replaced at the same time. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I should like to support this amendment. It has been the experience, particularly of new bodies set up, that this has always been a

811
problem that has had to be put right later. It is much better to put it right at the beginning. It is important that all the commissioners do not retire at the same time, to be replaced by a completely new team. One has to have an overlap for continuity, so that the commission can do its work properly.
The Earl of Avon: May I come in here? Perhaps I might state the intention at the moment, because I think this will make a little difference to our considerations. What is written at the moment is "up to five years". The "up to" provision was made with it in mind that all the terms need not be the same. What we are looking at in this amendment is a period of four to six years rather than "up to five years". In point of fact we are restricting the lower limit and adding one year to the top limit.
Flexibility of appointment is important and we want to ensure initially that the chairman and members of the commission would be able to serve for a reasonable length of time, to ensure some stability in the early days. But we also want the commission to be able to make use of the knowledge and expertise of those who, for one reason or another, are not able to serve for a fixed and unvariable period. There may be perfectly good reasons for this—future commitments, for example, which will mean that in two years, say. the person concerned would be unable to devote sufficient time to the commission. It really would not be sensible if the commission were unable to make use of the services of people in this position, if they are the right people for the job, just because they cannot do it for five years. And it is not satisfactory to depend in such circumstances on the person resigning.
I believe, as I said in our discussions on the museums, that the Secretary of State needs flexibility, and he needs more flexibility than this amendment would allow. As it stands, the amendment does not make a stipulation, as the existing provision does, that chairman, deputy chairmen or members shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of their appointments. That of course would have to be added. What I should like my noble friend to consider is whether the four to six year period is better than the up to five years, which would allow a margin of more flexibility.
Baroness Birk: I am not sure that the amendment achieves what the noble Earl wants it to achieve, which is that we should have differing periods so that everyone is not in together and out together. If it shall be for not less than four or more than six years, there is nothing to stop appointments being made for five years. The noble Lord needs to add something more to it to make it clear that there should be differing periods of time so that, as he rightly says, it would not be all in and all out at the same time.
I do not think that the amendment fulfils what the noble Lord requires. Nor does the Government idea of up to five years. That suffers from exactly the same fault. Again you can make it all for four years, or all for five years. If we are going to—and this seems to be the general feeling; certainly the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, seemed to take the same view as I do about
812
it—aim for differing periods of starting so that everybody does not come out or go in together, then that has to be made clearer than in either what the Government are saying or what is in this amendment.
Viscount Eccles: I want to ask only one question of my noble friend. Can a member be reappointed after five years?
The Earl of Avon: Yes, he can.
Lord Dacre of Glanton: I think that the main point of flexibility is agreed by all speakers. The noble Earl has said that this will be taken into account, and therefore I would ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 32, line 2, leave out from ("Commission") to end of line 3 and insert ("think fit").
The noble Baroness said: To save time, I will, with permission, speak also to Amendment No. 94A; although my name does not appear to that amendment. I would willingly have put my name to it because it deals entirely with the same point, which is the question of pensions.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 is to bring the arrangements for dealing with the staff of the new commission into line with the provisions for the museums. In particular, the amendments would allow the staff of the commission to retain their current pension arrangements and remain members of the principal Civil Service pension scheme. That, not unnaturally, is a major point of concern to the staff.
It would be wrong if the Bill made different arrangements for members of staff transferred out of the Civil Service as part of the same Bill: that is, between those who go to the devolved museums and those who go to the commission. As the Bill currently stands, staff moved out of the Civil Service with the museums—the Armouries and Royal Botanic Gardens—will remain in the principal Civil Service pension scheme, whereas stafftransferring to the commission will not be allowed to do so. The amendments seek to remove that anomaly.
A major question is the cost of setting up a pension fund for 1,000 staff, which I believe is the number at present thought to go to the commission. The staff in the commission, currently DoE employees, will then be able to stay with their own pension fund. However, that will not be so for staff, also DoE employees, transferring to the new commission.
Amendment No. 94A, which is crisper and shorter. I think I am right in saying provides more or less for the same thing, but in addition it makes it clear that for the commission to have set up a full-blown pension scheme would imply the establishment of a department with special skills, and probably also the appointment of a commissioner with specialised knowledge of this field, if the board is not to have to rely entirely on its staff for advice. This, again, comes back to the point of the pattern set up for the museums under the Bill. The commision will have quite enough

813
on its plate without taking on the tremendous task of dealing with its own pension fund, which would require millions of pounds to be installed in it at the outset.
Viscount Hanworth: I find it extraordinary that a difference should be made between the museums and the commission. So far as I can gather, the best that the Government can do to justify it is to say that the functions of the commission are not the same as those of the museums—that it will be much more executive and managerial, with a strong public voice—and that Ministers have been at pains to ensure that it has an adequate degree of independence. I should have thought that the whole of that was almost irrelevant; it is certainly no justification for it.
Apart from that, let us think a little about the civil servants who are being transferred to the commission. No doubt one of the reasons they joined the Civil Service when they decided what they wished to do was the fact of an indexed pension at the end of their career; security was important to them. What are we doing? It is very difficult indeed to sack a civil servant, especially one who has been employed for a long time; but the Government, by this Bill, are simply selling them down the river.
The Earl of Avon: Nonsense!
Viscount Hanworth: That is what they are doing, and I feel that, in fairness to those people, the amendment should be agreed to. I know what the Government are going to say. They are going to say that the terms of the offer of pay should be, taken as a whole, not less favourable to the person to whom the offer is made than the terms on which he is employed on the date on which the offer is made. Well, that sounds all right. What price an indexed pension?—something which one might have relied upon throughout almost the whole of one's service career.
Then we get another charming little paragraph:
"In determining whether the terms of the offer are more or less favourable to that person than those enjoyed by him on the date of the offer no account shall be taken of the fact that employment with the Commission is not employment in the service of the Crown".
I suspect—and I may of course be wrong—that that is one effort to start to get rid of indexed pensions.
Lord Gibson: I should like to support the concept of following the pattern of the museums. If in fact it was proposed to give the new commission the power to determine the pay and the grading of its own staff, with the freedom that I should like to see it given, then I should be much more inclined to support the proposal that the staff's pensions should be funded separately, But since they are tied in with the rest of the Civil Service, because of the Treasury consent that is necessary for the determining of their pay and emoluments, it seems to me only logical that they should be tied in as regards their pensions as well.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: Somewhere in the Bill there is a note that there will be 3,000 fewer civil servants around when the Bill comes into force. I think that the civil servants who are now being discussed are
814
those whom noble Lords might feel are at the moment in London, and are senior civil servants. But I would ask the Committee please to remember that many of the staff covered in this connection are very modest people, who are perhaps custodians of ruins, gardeners, and so on, and who at the moment are civil servants. I would plead that the commission must have some flexibility in employment of that kind of labour in the future; otherwise the costs of the commission will be far greater than they should be.
The Earl of Avon: I am most disappointed in the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I had hoped that she would speak to Amendment No. 93 alone, because I am happy to say that I accept it. But if we may now move forward to Amendment No. 94, I shall go into more detail.
These amendments arise from an understandable concern about the pay, terms and conditions of service of the commission's staff. Broadly similar amendments were put down in relation to the four trustee bodies, and noble Lords will recall that many of the issues involved were given a thorough airing at the time. The position of the commission and its staff is of course slightly different from that of the trustee bodies, and I shall briefly explain why here, too, we do not like these amendments, before I turn to that part of the amendment which is specific to the commission and which seeks to bring it within the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.
The amendment tries to ensure that future staff will be employed on terms not less favourable than those applying to the Civil Service at the time. This "no worsening" condition will of course be applied to those staff who transfer to the commission when it is first established, and we have made that clear all along.
What we do not think we can do, though, is to bind the commission for ever to the Civil Service on matters of pay and conditions of service. It is essential to the efficient management of the commission that it should have some flexibility in the establishing of grades and pay scales. The commission will employ many specialist staff, and the members of the commission will be the best people to decide, subject to the normal central control, how such staff should be remunerated. Of course, the commission would, as a good employer, have regard to the going rates of pay for similar jobs, which in some cases may well include comparisons with the Civil Service. It will be as anxious as are noble Lords to offer a package of pay and conditions which will attract and keep qualified, high calibre staff.
On the question of consultations with trade unions representing the staff, I do not think that I can add anything to what I have said. It is important, of course, for the commission to establish suitable arrangements for negotiations with the unions representing its staff, indeed it is in its own interest to do so, for the commission will need the wholehearted support of all its staff, particularly in the difficult, early days when it is first established. While therefore I recognise the desirability of the substance of this part of the amendment, I think that it is not right to include it in the Bill. In part it is also unnecessary, since the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 lays down the procedures for establishing safety committees involving the staff and unions.
I turn now to the sub-paragraph in the first

815
amendment and the identical second amendment which provide that the staff of the commission continue in the principal Civil Service pension scheme rather than empowering the commission to make its own pension arrangements. The Government have given careful thought to the pension arrangements of all the bodies in the Bill. For the trustee museums there is the clear and decisive link with existing trustee museums which make it appropriate that their staff continue in the Civil Service pension scheme. The commission's case, however, is rather different. Setting up this new body will create a new public sector focus for the heritage whose central tasks will be the better preservation and presentation of the heritage. The advantages of a single specialist agency include greater freedom to operate in a way which combines the best of the public and private sectors. If this is to be achieved, it is clear that the commission will need some flexibility in its staffing arrangements. It needs the flexibility to adapt to changing conditions and changes in the approach it takes to its responsibilities. This is not necessarily a question of short-term flexibility but rather a longer-term ability to change if that proves to be necessary. Staying with the principal Civil Service pension scheme would not provide that flexibility.
The Government have not, however, lost sight of the need to protect the interests of staff, particularly those who will transfer from the Civil Service. The express provision that the terms that the commission offer should be not less favourable than those existing on the date of the offer demonstrates that. Indeed, it is probably unlikely that the commission could depart significantly from the principles of the Civil Service scheme and still ensure that terms of service on transfer were no worse. The Government intend, therefore, to recommend to the new commission that it adopt a pension scheme analogous to but separate from the Civil Service scheme. By adopting a "by analogy" scheme, the commission would get a ready-made pension scheme incorporating all the important features of the Civil Service scheme, including index linking, and one which will allow for the transfer of benefits from the Civil Service. The scheme will, however, be the Commission's own and will be able to accommodate whatever pay and grade structures it eventually decides, with agreement, will be most appropriate. The "by analogy" pension scheme is not a new idea. It operates very successfully at present in bodies such as the Natural Environment Research Council and the Nature Conservancy Council. In the light of these explanations and, I hope, my assurances, I hope that amendment No. 94A will not be pressed.
Baroness Birk: In order to clarify matters and to get this out of the way, the only amendment that I have moved—although I did speak to the others to save time, which, obviously, was a mistake—is Amendment No. 93.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 32, leave out lines 4 to 21 and insert—
("(4) The Commission shall pay to their employees such remuneration and allowances on such other terms and conditions
816
as the Commission may determine provided that the remuneration and allowances, terms and conditions are taken as a whole not less favourable than those applying to the Civil Service.
(5) A determination under sub-paragraph (4) is ineffective unless made with the approval of the Minister given with the Treasury's consent.
(6) Employment with the Commission will be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply and accordingly in Schedule 1 to that Act (in which those kinds of employment are listed) "Commission of Ancient Monument and Historic Buildings for England" shall be inserted after "British Museum".
(7) It shall be the duty of the Commission, except so far as it is satisfied that adequate machinery exists for achieving the purpose of this paragraph to seek consultation withthe recognised trade unions representing the staff with a view to the conclusion between the Commission and those oganisations such agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the establishment and maintenance of machinery for—

(a) the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment of employees of the Commission with provision for reference to arbitration in default of such a settlement in such cases as may be determined by or under the agreements;

(b) the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting the safety, health and welfare of employees of the Commission and the discussion of other matters of mutual interest to the Commission and its employees including efficiency in the performance of the Commission's functions.").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 94 formally.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): I have to point out that if this amendment. No. 94. is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 94A.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I think that my noble friend may want to put one or two further points of clarification to the noble Earl before she makes up her mind whether or not to press this amendment. One thing that occurs to me is what will be the nature of the proposed pension scheme. It is the case that Civil Service pension schemes are unfunded. There is no collection of monies which are built up in order to meet requirements of a current nature. Civil Service pension schemes are met out of current revenue by means of Government guarantee. One of the great difficulties we are running into all over the place as a result of the creation of various quangos and public service corporations is the collection of vast sums of public money which are washing all over the place because all these pension schemes are. in fact, unfunded pension schemes, and in my view this is undesirable.
I would de-fund all the public corporation pension schemes and make them payable from current revenue in exactly the same way as Civil Service pension schemes are funded. They do not have any of this absurd collection of funds against future contingencies. It is important to know whether the proposal of handing over the pension schemes to the trustees means that the trustees, like every other public corporation, will have to collect money which they will have to invest, and so on. This creates a frightful economic and financial problem because the money has to be invested all over the place and that creates problems all over the place.
Trustees all over the country are busy investing or disinvesting, and the consequence for the economy of the country is becoming quite disastrous. The Government are completely out of control, because they are in

817
effect out of control of these various pension funds. If as a result of this Bill we are going to create yet another separate pension fund, the real question I put to the noble Earl is this. Is this going to be yet another funded pension fund with an accumulation of monies which the trustees are going to have to invest, or is it going to be analogous to the Civil Service pension fund which at the moment is totally unfunded?
The Earl of Avon: If I may respond to that point very quickly, it is going to be an unfunded scheme and the costs, if there are any, as it were, will be taken out of grant in aid and will be taken account of.
9.47 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The Committee have been discussing questions of substance and importance. The point that I am going to raise is a minor drafting one but cumulatively of great significance. I do not generally like to raise a drafting point unless the matter is already before the Committee's consideration. But the words to which I should like to refer are the words at the end of subsection (5) of the amendment:
"given with the Treasury's consent".
I do that in the light of the consensus of opinion expressed in the debate yesterday in your Lordships' House that there should be economy in legislative enactments.
The noble Baroness is quite right that that is a phrase that one can say is time-honoured. It is certainly a phrase to which the Treasury is deeply attached and occurs already in the Bill and in countless Acts. If one could get rid of it, I think one could save several pages of the statutes in each Session. It ought never really to be necessary to have it in an Act of Parliament. It is a matter of internal Government machinery and it ought to be and is in fact automatic for a spending department faced with the preceding words, to consult the Treasury. The Treasury are deeply attached to the phrase because they think it concentrates the mind of the spending department. Of course, the normal machinery of Government should do that. This adds nothing to it. As I said, the noble Baroness, in framing the amendment in this way, is framing it in the normal way, but I would ask the noble Earl if the matter could be considered again by the legislation committee, by the draftsman and by the Treasury.
The Earl of Avon: I shall certainly undertake to bring that point to the attention of the parliamentary draftsman.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: We are discussing Amendments Nos. 94 and 94A simultaneously in our consideration of Amendment No. 94. Having listened to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who moved the amendment, there are a couple of questions which have occurred to me.
First, are we not in a situation where we are trying to legislate for two rather different groups of people? On the one hand we have those who are at present civil servants who are going to be transferred into the commission. Clearly, they need to have conditions which are at least no worse than they have at the present time. Then we get the dreaded word
818
"flexibility", which any ordinary person is thoroughly in favour of; but anybody who has spent any time in this House is inherently suspicious when that word is used by the Government, because it usually means the Government want to be free to do whatever they want to do at a given time. I would wish to see the commission being able to be flexible about the pension arrangements they make in the future, but are we not trying to protect those who are transferred from an existing pension scheme? That is my first question.
My second question, which goes along with that, is this. The noble Lord said that there are various analogous schemes which are satisfactory. I do not know what his definition of "satisfactory" would be, but can he give the Committee any indication of how many people are needed to administer those analagous pension schemes? One of the worries that a number of us have about setting up a separate scheme here is the amount of plain, old-fashioned donkey-work that necessarily will be involved in running the thing as a separate affair, even if it is run on the same basic lines. I believe that, if the noble Earl could give us some help on those two issues, we might find it easier to go along with his suggestions.
The Earl of Avon: On the question that my noble friend first raised, I was following what he said and agreeing completely, but I am afraid I rather missed the actual point of the question. The basic concept here is that it is not a worsening proposition and he is quite right to say that we should look to the future as well as where one wants to offer the commission a little more freedom. I understand that, so far as the Natural Environment Research Council and the Nature Conservancy Council are concerned, these are going very successfully at the moment, and my understanding is that they take about three people to look after them.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: I think that I had perhaps better just come back to make the position quite clear. The point is that we are trying to protect those staff' who are being transferred. That is understood, but do we not probably need a separate régime for any new staff that the commission takes on subsequently, and one that would give them the flexibility that perhaps they need? Would the noble Earl be receptive if we were able to devise an amendment at a later stage which would make that possible?
The Earl of Avon: Yes, I should certainly like to see what the noble Lord has in mind. Perhaps I may just say again that the Government intend to recommend to the commission that it should adopt a pension scheme analogous to, but separate from, the Civil Service scheme. By adopting an analogous scheme, the commission would get a ready-made pension scheme, incorporating all the important features of a Civil Service scheme. I should like to read carefully what he has said, and perhaps he will be good enough to do the same: then we shall see what situation we can reach.
Baroness Birk: We have had a very long and, I hope, fruitful debate on this subject. There is a great deal for us all to read, and particularly as regards what the Minister has said. We are concerned, when we come

819
back on Report, that this should be spelled out in rather more detail, taking into account what has been said tonight, so that we know exactly what type of pension scheme is envisaged for the commission, what will be the financial responsibility of the commission and what benefits will accrue to those concerned. I personally do not feel that we can take it any further tonight and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 94 A not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 94B:
Page 32, line 21, at end insert—

("(9) Staff may be seconded from departmental duties for temporary employment on urgent work for the Commission and as such shall not be regarded as employees of the Commission.").

The noble Baroness said: The principle involved, that staff may be seconded for temporary employment, seems important and, again, makes for flexibility in regard to the commission, as well as reducing the need to have a larger permanent staff than is absolutely necessary. As an example of what secondment could do. it could ensure the completion of the re-survey of listed buildings of special architectural and historic interest, which has been going on for a very long time. I remember supervising it in the department. It is being done over the whole country, with help from elected local authorities and other bodies. The original survey started in 1947 and was completed in the 1960s, the first time round, and the re-survey should not take too long to finish. As these lists are the essential tools on which almost everything in the conservation field depends, it seems right to do this.
At the moment, the department is supposed to be completing this re-survey and is not handing it to the commission. It has taken a long, slow journey through the department, and I should have thought it was something which could be entrusted almost immediately to be completed by the commission, with the necessary staff seconded. This is a very important and urgent example of how secondment would work, but it also has wider possibilities for the future. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I should like to support this amendment, it is very important that the commission should get the experience of listing as soon as possible, because, in the long run, it is a job which they should do in order to take them out of the political arena. But it is very important not to interrupt the listing which is going on at the moment and which has been speeded up, thanks to more staff being put on to the job by the Secretary of State, as he announced 18 months ago. It is important that the commission should take the listing under their wing as soon as possible and, if it can be done through delegation, so much the better.
The Earl of Avon: I very much take the point about the listing and will ensure that the word of the noble Baroness and my noble friend are taken into account. If I may be more specific about the amendment, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining it, as I was not very clear at the beginning as to its intention. I am
820
happy to say that we already have the power to second people to the commission, and it is quite clear that such people continue to be civil servants while on secondment. I hope she will find that this makes the amendment unnecessary.
Indeed, we are able to go further than the amendment suggests, and might well wish to. and second staff not only for urgent work, but also because they have some special skill which would be of use to the commission for a short time. But. as I said, this is provided for. It happens already, and very successfully, between Government departments and other public sector bodies, and I should not like to suggest, by including a provision on the lines of the amendment, that existing practice may not be within existing powers. I hope that the noble Baroness will be happy with that answer, and I promise to look into the listing for her.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister for that reply. If he can direct me to the point in the Bill where this is covered. I shall probably quite happily withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Avon: I do not think it has to be in the Bill, because the civil servants can do it, anyway. This is something which is done with public bodies, anyway, so it does not have to be in the Bill.
Baroness Birk: Is the Minister giving an undertaking that this opportunity for secondment will be open to the commission? We are dealing with an entirely new animal, so one naturally wants to see that things that are not in the Bill will be written in.
The Earl of Avon: Indeed. I can do so. This is part of the Secretary of State's general powers. If I may repeat what I said, it happens already, and very successfully, between Government departments and other public sector bodies, and it is our intention that it should happen with the commission.
Baroness Birk: Due to the speed of the runner, I think that that answer is satisfactory. Certainly, for the time being. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 96A:
Page 32, line 48, at end insert—
("(7) If any employee of the Commission is made redundant and that employee has been a Civil Servant the Secretary of State shall bear directly that portion of any redundancy payment appropriate to the length of his employment in the Civil Service pro rata with the length of his employment as an employee of the Commission.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that, as with Amendment No. 94B, the noble Earl will be able to tell us that this amendment is unnecessary. All we are aiming to do is to make sure that the commission is not lumbered with a potentially onerous obligation in respect of redundancy pay for people who have been working for another department before the commission took them on. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I can understand my noble friend's concern to avoid reducing the amount of money which would be available for the commission to spend directly on the heritage, but it would be wrong

821
to alter the general arrangements under which staff costs should be borne. I can, however, assure my noble friend that any costs of this nature, and staff costs generally, will be a factor which we take into account in determining the level of the grant in aid. As I assured the House during our Second Reading debate, the Government are not embarking on a cost-cutting exercise. We shall have regard to all the commitments and liabilities of the commission. We do not consider that there is any risk of the commission's activities being significantly affected by any obligations to pay redundancy compensation.
I hope that reply will please my noble friend and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: As I understand if, the noble Earl is saying that if the commission had to meet redundancy payments it would be funded by the Government in respect of that part of the redundancy payments which referred to the previous employment of a particular employee. If that is what he is saying. I am grateful to him and am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennet: Before the amendment is formally withdrawn, may I ask the noble Earl whether that is what he is saying?
The Earl of Avon: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dacre of Glanton Lord Dacre of Glanton moved Amendment No. 96B:
Page 33, line 34, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This clause as drafted, being permissive, not mandatory, seems superfluous. I suggest it is essential that such a commission as this, which in its own membership is a good deal smaller than the bodies which it replaces, should be supported by expert committees, and that the text of the clause should insist upon this; in other words, the clause should be mandatory. Therefore I beg to move that the word "may" should be replaced by the word "shall".
Baroness Birk: I very strongly support the amendment. If this amendment had not been put down by the noble Lord and his friends—I do not mean to co-opt myself on to the board of the British Academy—I should have put one down myself. This is an extremely important matter. The people concerned, particularly those on the Ancient Monuments Board, are worried that they will be swallowed up by the commission and will disappear. For high quality people to be involved, over and above the small number who will be on the commission, it is absolutely essential that there should be mandatory committees on which there will be scholars who at the moment are involved with the Ancient Monuments Board and with other bodies connected with archaeology, scholarship, architecture and everything else.
A great many other areas have already shown themselves in the "shopping list" which we discussed earlier. This indicates how important it is that there should be committees at work. It should be laid down in the Bill that the committees should be there. This should not just be left to what may appear to be the whim of the commission. It makes the committees
822
appear to be (although they may not be) of not such a prestigious or high a level as they would if it were laid down in the Bill that committees should be set up.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I, too, strongly support the amendment. Needless to say, there is a certain amount of apprehension among those who are concerned with the heritage about the form that this new commission will take. One way in which we could allay their fears is to use the word "shall" rather than "may", because during this transitional period, while the commission is finding its feet, the best possible way in which it can step into the future with the confidence of all concerned, and carry on the good work of this Historic Buildings Council and the Ancient Monuments Board, is for it to feel that such committees will exist. Although I am sure it is the clear intention of the Secretary of State that these committees will be set up it would be much better, so far as the Bill is concerned, if this were to be mandatory rather than permissive.
Lord Kennet: I would like to enter a word of caution. Here we come to the beginning of a series of amendments, which continue with increasing tempo through the rest of the schedules, and which tell the commission how to run its own business. It seems to me that the sole advantage of this commission is that it will be conducting its own affairs free of the Whitehall undergrowth and free of the sometimes deadening hand of ministerial and Treasury control. It seems inconceivable that the commission would not want to have outside committees to advise it. If the Secretary of State puts the right people on the commission—and if we cannot trust him to do that we should not have a commission at all—then they should be trusted to decide what committees they want.
One further point. A moment ago. the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, said that while the commission is finding its feet, it will need these committees. We can all agree on that, but one day it will find its feet and the statute will still be there—saying that it "shall" have committees even if after a year or two the commission finds that it does not need them. I would be for leaving matters as they stand.
Lord Gibson: I said at Second Reading how much we on the National Trust hope that the Historic Buildings Council will be continued under another name and that as little change as possible will take place, because the council has worked so well and we have so much for which to be grateful. While that certainly is our hope, nevertheless in pursuance of, to me, the much more fundamental matter which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has put forward, I feel strongly that the commission ought to be left alone as much as possible to make its own arrangements. I hope that we shall bear that in mind as we go along at every stage.
The Earl of Avon: I was interested by the comments of the last two noble Lords because they were very much similar to the start of my own remarks. This amendment seeks to remove from the commission its powers to decide how best to arrange its affairs in respect of obtaining the best and most appropriate range of expert advice. I question the right to make

823
such an imposition. The responsibility for carrying out the function of the commission has been firmly placed, rightly, on the commission in the shape of its members. The members of the commission will themselves represent a wide range of talents and expertise. We consider that it does not make sense to impose on the members a flat requirement that they should establish advisory committees.
The slight problem we have anyway with this amendment is that it may indeed have the effect of requiring the commission to establish a committee to cover each of the commission's functions. I am sure that is not what my noble friend intends, and we can get around that. Even though the Bill gives the commission a discretionary power to establish advisory committees, the advisory function will be one of the most important aspects of the commission's work. I am sure that, like noble Lords, the commission will feel the need to make use of the best expert advice available in the many fields in which it will be operating. Surely it should be for the commission to decide to establish committees in the same way as does the Nature Conservancy Council, which has discretionary powers to establish advisory committees in respect of its specific functions. I do not know what my noble friend will do, because we seem to be slightly split in the Committee. Should he want to press ahead, I would ask him to change his amendment from "shall" to "one or more committees", which would avoid the other point I have mentioned. But perhaps, in the light of what other noble Lords have said, my noble friend may feel that it is not necessary to press his amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Earl did not answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennef, how far is this sort of provision really necessary? Even if sub-paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) might be considered necessary, what about subparagraph (3)? Surely that goes without saying if the rest is enacted?
The Earl of Avon: I think I did answer the noble Lord, Lord Kennet; he nodded at me when Lord Simon was speaking. We agree that this particular amendment is going too far. How far on the others, we shall come to as we go along.
Lord Dacre of Glanton: I am sure the commission will set up specialist committees; I cannot see how it would function properly if it did not. Perhaps it is true that we are being unnecessarily restrictive. I must admit I would prefer to see in the Bill a mandatory clause requiring that committees be set up. I am not prepared for my own part to press this. Compromise has been suggested; I wish I could think of some compromise. If I may leave it with the noble Earl to consider, we can think about it again at Report stage. For my part, I would be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 96C not moved.]
Lord Dacre of Glanton Lord Dacre of Glanton moved Amendment No. 96D:
Page 33, line 41, leave out ('"such").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 96D and 96E are in effect the same; they go together. As it stands, this clause seems too restrictive and seems indeed to imply distrust of the commission, whose authority on this occasion seems to be unnecessarily limited. If the commission can determine salaries—Schedule 3, paragraph 4(4) says,
"The Commision shall pay to their employees such remuneration and allowances as the Commission may determine"—
why may it not equally determine expenses? This seems to me eccentric. I would like to move this amendment merely as a tidying amendment.
The Earl of Avon: This amendment would enable the commission to pay the members of any advisory committees it sets up whatever expense allowances it wished. There are many matters which we think it right to leave to the commission to decide as it thinks fit, but this and the level of remuneration generally. I am afraid are not among them. The commission must get the Secretary of State's approval, given with Treasury consent, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, dislikes so much, to rates of pay it proposes for its staff and the remuneration it proposes for its own members.
In the case of expense allowances payable to Committee members, it is the usual practice for them to be set by central Government to ensure that they are more or less the same for all similar public bodies and committees. This is really the point. I do not believe it would be right that there should be different rates of expenses for undertaking very similar functions, or that a body should be able to pay particularly high rates. I believe this is sensible control and not the Government being difficult. I hope that, with that explanation, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dacre of Glanton: In view of that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 96E:
Page 33, line 41, after ("expenses") insert ("or loss of earnings").
The noble Baroness said: I am in a little difficulty here. I have a feeling that the amendment is incorrect: that expenses are not an alternative to loss of earnings; that loss of earnings are an alternative to remuneration. Perhaps the Minister can answer the amendment as it is and then I can see whether I am right or wrong. If I have made a mistake I will withdraw the amendment. I have a feeling that it should be "expenses" and "loss of earnings". I think the alternative to "loss of earnings" is "remuneration."
The Earl of Avon: I have no such fears as the noble Baroness raises, so perhaps I could tell her what I feel about this anyway, and she can come back. The whole question of remuneration and honoraria has been very thoroughly aired in relation to the trustee museums in the Bill and I promised then to consider what might be done in the light of the views expressed. The concept of reimbursement for loss of earnings, in the case of

825
members of advisory committees, is one for which I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness. But there are fairly wide ramifications and I hope she will agree that I should include it in the general further consideration we are giving to remunerations.
However, the similar Amendment No. 96H which seeks to extend reimbursement in respect of loss of earnings to members of the commission is not in our view appropriate. Paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 provides that the commission "shall" pay to members of the commission such remuneration and such allowances in respect of expenses as the Secretary of State may determine. Remuneration is in the Government's view entirely appropriate for members of the commission who will be responsible for a large executive management operation. But where a person is being paid for services it clearly cannot be right for him to be compensated also for loss of earnings elsewhere. I would not propose to include such a proposition, if the noble Baroness agrees, in the further studies we shall be making. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Baroness on this amendment and also on Amendment No. 96H.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister very much and I shall be happy if this can be taken into, as it were, the global review that he is to make of honoraria; and when we come to it I shall not move Amendment No. 96H. I therefore withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 96F, 96G and 96H not moved.]
Lord Dacre of Glanton Lord Dacre of Glanton moved Amendment No. 96J:
Page 34, line 41, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Commission").
The noble Lord said: This is in the nature of a question. The amendment has been tabled because we do not understand why the auditors should be appointed by the Secretary of State when they in fact report to the commission. If they report to the commission can they not be appointed by the commission? Is this not showing distrust of the commission and restricting its powers again?
The Earl of Avon: A common theme running through many of our debates is the need for the commission to have a certain degree of financial freedom. The Government have a good deal of sympathy with this view, but only to the extent that it is compatible with the necessary proper degree of central supervision. Where, like the commission, a body is substantially funded by Government it is essential that there should be systems in place to enable a proper account of the expenditure of that public money to be given. One of the most important checks on expenditure is that provided by the auditors. In these circumstances it is standard practice that the Government should appoint auditors for a body which is not subject to full audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It provides a very proper degree of central supervision where taxpayers' money is concerned. I can see no reason in this case to depart from this practice and I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with that explanation.
Baroness Birk: We are not really talking about whether the accounts are approved by the commission or the Secretary of State; it is that the commission, as I understand it, should appoint its own auditors. I cannot see why the commission should not appoint its own auditors. It should be given that independence. Whether the accounts are then seen by the Secretary of State is another point.
The Earl of Avon: All I can do is reiterate what I have already said; namely, that this is the normal practice for bodies of this type.
Lord Dacre of Glanton: With that I suppose we have to be content. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 [The Commission's functions.]:
[Amendment No. 96K not moved.]
10.20 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 96L:
Page 17, line 8, after ("conservation") insert ("and in cases where that is not possible the investigation and recording").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 96L. Amendment No. 96L, together with Amendment No. 96M and a later amendment, are all concerned with rescue archaeology. Their purpose is to make explicit that the functions of the commission cover, so far as is practicable, archaeological sites as a whole and not solely those with existing statutory protection such as scheduled ancient monuments and designated archaeological areas. Scheduled ancient monuments—there are about 12,000 or 13,000 at present, with a possible eventual total of perhaps 18,000 according to stated policy—and designated archaeological areas (there are none at present or perhaps 10 initially all in towns, and apparently to be mainly in black spots) account for only a tiny part of the archaeological heritage. Present practice is to support the rescue archaeology of unscheduled and undesignated sites as far as is practicable. The Government's intentions regarding archaeological sites as a whole are unclear and should be clarified.
Whatever the outcome, it is essential that the functions of the commission with regard to such sites should be defined. It may be argued that scheduled ancient monuments are, by definition, of national importance and as such constitute a sufficient reservoir. This is not a contention which would be accepted by any professional archaeologist. The existing list goes back a century; many of the sites on it have been destroyed or seriously damaged despite being scheduled; many of the sites are patently not of national importance and, most important, the list is unrepresentative and omits great numbers of sites of outstanding importance. No one in fact knows how many archaeological sites there are in England. A figure of 250,000 is certainly an underestimate; 500,000 may be an exaggeration, It is clear that existing legislation gives virtually no protection to this heritage as a whole. It is therefore vital that the commission should be empowered to react as far as practicable to the needs of the archaeological heritage. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: The noble Earl must surely know that there is considerable disquiet in archaeological circles about the problem of rescue archaeology. Although the Government and previous Governments have sometimes quite generously given money for rescue archaeology when new motorways and so on have been built, one of the chronic problems has been that no money has ever been provided to display those objects once the rescue archaeology has taken place. So it is important that the archaeologists are now looking towards the commission as being a strong and responsible body through whom rescue archaeology can be carried out and recorded.
The Earl of Avon: I take to heart the points made by the noble Baroness and my noble friend. The Government have a good deal of sympathy with the aim of these amendments and would have no quarrel in principle with the concept that the commission's functions should in part be exercised for the purpose of conservation through investigation and recording, or for the purpose of conservation of archaeological sites. However, as the noble Baroness will have noticed, there are a large number of amendments down in respect of Clause 30. including a complete new version of the clause. I will, of course, deal with each amendment as it arises, but it is clear from both the quantity and quality of the amendments that we shall have to study them carefully to see how we might improve our drafting. It will, I hope, be agreeable to the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment at the moment knowing that we shall take her remarks completely to heart. I should also like to say to my noble friend Lord Dacre that we will take into account Amendment No. 96K. which in fact he did not move.
Baroness Birk: With that in mind, in moving Amendment No. 96L, I did, in fact, speak to Amendment No. 96M; they are very' much intertwined, as the Minister probably noticed. Amendment No. 96L is concerned with investigation and recording where conservation is for any reason impossible. Amendment No. 96M deals with archaeological areas and sites. But in view of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 96M not moved.]
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 96N:
Page 17, line 10, after ("areas") insert ("and designed landscapes").
The noble Lord said: I think that it is very desirable at this stage in the Bill at Clause 30 on the commission's functions to draw attention to "designed landscapes", for their care must surely be one of the functions of the commission. I know that my noble friend Lord Strathcona has tabled other amendments later on this subject and, indeed, "'designed landscapes" is really a shorthand for "gardens, parks, designed landscape or other land with special architectural, historic, artistic, arboricultural, silvicultural or horticultural interests". So that is what it is trying to cover.
It is perhaps too easy to shove off all these allied interests and to say that they are the preserve of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew. But the point is that the commission must pull together all the different interests that affect the landscape; a particular example is those landscapes adjacent to historic buildings, sometimes when historic buildings are no longer there. I believe that responsibility for landscape should definitely be one of the functions of the commission. I beg to move.
Lord Sandford: As a fellow of the Landscape Institute, I should certainly like to support this amendment.
Lord Gibson: I also should like to support this amendment. I have nothing to add to what the noble Lord has said, but I think that it is extremely important.
The Earl of Avon: I share the view of its importance and I am delighted that my noble friend described to me "designed landscapes", because I was not absolutely sure of the definition of what he calls his shorthand. We have some slight reservations about widening the commission's remit, but. with the support that the noble Lord obviously has for this, we shall look into it very carefully and see how it can be included.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I thank the noble Earl very much indeed. In view of his confirmation that he will look at this again, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 96P:
Page 17, line 10, at end insert ("and objects in any museum in its care.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, perhaps I may explain to the noble Earl what I have in mind. There are many Department of the Environment properties which at the moment have small museums attached to them. I refer to places like Hadrian's Wall; and many site museums are attached to the ruins of abbeys, and so on. I believe that perhaps if it is not the provision to widen too much—or perhaps it goes without saying that it is already covered—it is important that objects rather than just buildings, landscapes and everything else we have been discussing shall be part of the commission's responsibilities. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful, again, to my noble friend for his explanation. I believe that it is already covered, but I shall, of course, check on it and again take it into consideration if it is not listed for our further consideration.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I thank the noble Earl very much. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 96Q:
Page 17, line 12, leave out ("education and instruction") and insert ("educational facilities for both children and adults and interpretation").
The noble Lord said: Noble Lords will, of course, have heard with great pleasure the emphasis which this Bill has put on education in all ways, but I believe it is important that educational facilities are provided at all necessary levels and, indeed, that interpretation is also provided. Interpretation may be new jargon in the world of heritage, but it is a very important point. It concerns explaining, in particular to children, how things worked in the past. Interpretation of a building often has to be tailored to the nature of the monument concerned. So I believe it is very important that "educational facilities" goes in and also that interpretation for both adults and children is mentioned. I beg to move.
Lord Sandford: Once again, I should like to support my noble friend. Everybody welcomes the emphasis on the presentation of the heritage. That falls into two parts, education and interpretation. They both need to be mentioned. It is also important to get the formulation right. Just the bare phrase "education and instruction" is not correct. It is not part of the job of the commission to provide education. That is a job for the education authorities. "Educational facilities and educational services" is better. I think that the formulation in my own Amendment No. 99 is even better, but the great thing is to make the point.
Baroness Birk: I should like to support this amendment. I particularly like the words, "for both children and adults and interpretation". The phrase covers the point succinctly, and I support the amendment.
The Earl of Avon: This is an important aspect of the commission's role and we have already been speaking around it. It is right that it should receive attention. This amendment is generally in tune with the Government's thinking. I think particularly that the commission's role should be clarified in respect of the provision of facilities. Indeed, we shall keep this very much in mind in any redrafting.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I am delighted to hear that response from the noble Earl, and I have great pleasure in withdrawing the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 96R:
Page 17, line 13, after ("monuments") insert (", archaeological areas and sites").
The noble Baroness said: This is another amendment to do with archaeological areas and sites. The reason for the amendment is that in Clause 30(1) there is a reference to archaeological areas, but the omission of "archaeological areas" from the second paragraph needs correction. It is felt especially by the archaeologists that, since the public at large and local authorities and developers in particular need education and instruction, or perhaps we should now say "educational facilities", with regard to the
830
meaning and significance of archaeological areas, this should be put in now.
More broadly the intent of subsection (2) ought to be warmly welcomed for such a duty to educate and instruct has long been needed. In this context there is a special need to include both "archaeological areas", a new concept to the public, and "sites" which is a concept of great richness and a true indication of the extraordinary wealth of the archaeological heritage in England. I hope that the Government will accept these amendments because there really is less knowledge about the archaeological side of our heritage, and particularly when we get outside the well-known scheduled monuments and areas, than there is on any of the other sites. I beg to move.
Lord Kennet: I should like to support this amendment for the reasons given by the noble Baroness.
The Earl of Avon: I thought that the noble Baroness said "amendments", but is she speaking only to 96R?
Baroness Birk: Yes; I am sorry.
The Earl of Avon: I was rather nervous that she might have been taking one or two others. I agree with the noble Baroness that this seeks to make the list of subjects in the subsection consistent with that in subsection (1) as amended, and of course we would agree to that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 96S:
Page 17, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) The commission shall be responsible for the overall management and presentation to the public of the national heritage in England of ancient monuments, archaeological areas, and buildings, areas and designed landscapes of special historical or architectural interest either alone or together with the Secretary of State or any other appropriate body.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment borrows some of the excellent wording in Amendment 92 moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, with some minor modifications. In view of the answer to that amendment by the noble Earl, that he would be designing a new amendment to set up the aims and objects of the commission, it is perhaps not necessary, with the agreement of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to discuss this very much longer. We feel strongly that it is necessary for something to be in the Bill to direct the commission on its duties to pull everything together on the heritage front, and make sure that all the appropriate bodies are working together. In view of the answer that was given on Amendment No. 92, there is, perhaps, no need to discuss the matter further.
Baroness Birk: I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, but is he not referring to Amendment No. 99, which has not yet been reached?
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: No; I was referring to No. 92.
Baroness Birk: Yes, in relation to management and presentation. I apologise to the noble Lord, and I support the line he has proposed.
The Earl of Avon: Nevertheless, I feel I should put on record in regard to this amendment that it is clear that an important function of the commission will be to manage and present the monuments in its direct care. The amendment goes considerably further than that; it would impose on the commission a duty to manage and present to the public many aspects of the national heritage in England for which it has no formal responsibility and over which it will have no control. The amendment does not limit the commission's task to monuments, buildings or areas under its ownership, guardianship or management. It extends to all aspects of the heritage, regardless of ownership, status or importance. Having said that, I will go carefully into what my noble friend said, but I thought I should utter those cautionary words.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.37 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 96T:
Page 17, line 16, leave out from ("determine") to the end of line 17.
The noble Lord said: I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the clause is very restrictive, as it would appear that the commission is able to make charges only in respect of the education and instruction of the public. That may not be the intention, but I suggest it is important that the commission is able to make charges for all sorts of matters which come under its control, for services, advice, consultation and so on. The provision seems only to cover the education and instruction of the public, as mentioned in subsection (2), and perhaps some explanation could be given of that. I suggest that the commission should be able to charge for anything it sees fit.
The Earl of Avon: I take my noble friend's point, and perhaps I might explain the position a little. He is right to say that subsection (2) provides a facility to charge for education and instruction given to the public. But under the provisions of Schedule 4, the commission will have the power to charge for admission to monuments (paragraph 37) and to charge for any facilities or services provided for the public at any monument (paragraph 38). There is some advantage in having the power to charge explicitly linked to certain powers or duties. In the case of the educational and instructional facilities which they may provide for the public, I think it right that they should be able to charge if they wish. Hence the charging provision in subsection (3). But to make this power all-embracing is more difficult to take. It might also create difficulties, as it duplicates the specific powers set out in Schedule 4. This may seem a rather complicated reply, and probably we should look at the matter again.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I thank my noble friend for that reply. I think the difficulty of understanding Schedule 4, particularly paragraphs 37 and 38, has caused problems, but if the position is made clearer at a later stage of the Bill, we shall all be satisfied.
Lord Kennet: I strongly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, said. It is because of the impenetrability of Schedule 4 that obviously it was necessary to table the amendment; if we had been able to understand the schedule, the amendment would never have arisen. And as what is incomprehensible to your Lordships is probably incomprehensible to everybody, would it not be wise to let the amendment stand, or for the Government to give an indication that they view it favourably as a possible improvement on the clause, which will then be readily comprehensible to everyone?
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 96U:
Page 17, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) So far as practicable, the Commission shall promote the recruitment and training of craftsmen in the use of traditional materials for conservation purposes.").
The noble Lord said: I am sure that we all recognise how important it is to encourage craftsmen of all kinds to continue to be trained. I cannot think of any better body than the commission to be responsible for recruiting and training craftsmen in the use of traditional materials. I must confess that I am a member of the Development Commission, under the delegation of which COSIRA operates. It runs a tremendous number of courses for craftsmen. It is absolutely essential to the conservation of our historic buildings in the future that the craftsmen continue to exist, that apprentices are recruited, and so on. I feel that it is essential that the importance of this matter is underlined in the Bill in some way, so that the commission takes it on board as one of its highest priorities. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I wish to support the amendment.
The Earl of Avon: Before responding to my noble friend, I should like to say a few words to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in regard to the previous amendment. I take the noble Lord's point, but I should like to look at the matter more closely, since the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, has stimulated a new train of thought that I should like to follow up.
With regard to Amendment No. 96U, I would say that the commission will be the employers of a considerable number of staff, including craftsmen, and to the extent that it decides that is necessary for the purpose of its functions, it will be able to recruit others, and provide appropriate training. It will also be able, if it so wishes, to advise others in the field on such matters. This kind of activity is, in a very real sense, that which is subsumed within the general role of the commission, and while it has its own importance, it is

833
in relation to the main functions of the commission, rather than in its own right. Having said that, I would add that when looking again at the clause we shall of course bear in mind what has been said.
Lord Kennet: Will the noble Earl also bear in mind one other point that I think he did not mention just now? It is the possibility that the commission itself might train craftsmen, or finance their training where they are to be employed other than by the commission. They might be employed by a local authority, county trust, or other body.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: In view of the confirmation from the noble Earl that he will look at this point, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. I believe that many people in this country feel very strongly about the question of craftsmen, and indeed the use of traditional materials on which conservation relies. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, says that it would be splendid if the commission could take the initiative and itself start training courses. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 96V:
Page 17, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) The Commission may undertake or sponsor research in furtherance of its functions.").
The noble Baroness said: If the commission is to do its job properly, it is essential that it has at its disposal experienced staff expert in all branches of research work. In the archaeological field it must have archaeologists; with monuments it must have the equivalent of the inspectorate of ancient monuments, and with buildings it needs to have architectural historians. All of these kind of people are needed to study and advise on research into the past, so that mistakes are not made in the care of archaeological areas and monuments, nor in identifying buildings that are genuinely outstanding for their historic or architectural interest. On the other hand, advice will also be needed, involving some research, with respect to applications for conditional exemption from capital transfer tax.
Then, at the other end of the scale, research is essential into how best, and most economically, to bring new life back into old towns. The seminal studies of Bath, Chester, Chichester and York, published in 1968, were the starting point for the remarkable progress made in those towns in repairing, and finding new uses for, historic buildings, in improving the environment of run-down areas, and in attracting developers, who built suitable new buildings on empty sites. This has a very important impact on what we are doing currently in both the economic and social fields, and also for the future.
A limited feasibility study into the market area of Chesterfield demonstrated how combined rehabilitation and commercial development could be carried out and financed. Efforts pioneered in these towns have been widely followed elsewhere. It is true that some, but by no means all, of these activities might be done with the help of, and by reference to, the records of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments,
834
and in particular its photographic library, the National Monuments Records.
I realise that in putting this into the Bill, it is again putting another function on the commission, but I think that this is one of great importance. I see that further on, at Amendment No. 102E, the noble Lord, Lord Dacre, and his colleagues have an amendment similar to this. I think it is essential that research is brought into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Kennet: In order that the commission have the power to do and to sponsor research, I think it is essential that we should have the amendment.
The Earl of Avon: The main thrust of this amendment is one that the Government entirely accept. We intend to bring forward at a later stage an appropriate Government amendment to empower the commission to undertake and sponsor research. The noble Baroness referred to the other amendment. I should say in an anticipatory warning to my noble friend that we think that that one goes a little too far, but we are happy to give an undertaking to put down an amendment in this way.
Baroness Birk: In view of that helpful reply from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I think that we have probably got as far as we usefully can tonight. I think I detect a note of tiredness, possibly, in noble Lords who have been working so hard over the course of the day. I think that we have probably now reached the stage where we can satisfactorily finish the Bill on the next day.
House resumed.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  NORTHERN IRELAND RESIDENTS AND EIREAN PASSPORTS
  NORTHERN IRELAND RESIDENTS AND EIREAN PASSPORTS
  TRANSPORT SUPPLEMENTARY GRANT: COUNTY COUNCIL AND GLC ALLOCATIONS 1983–84
  TRANSPORT SUPPLEMENTARY GRANT: COUNTY COUNCIL AND GLC ALLOCATIONS 1983–84
  IRANIAN SUBJECTS: UK ASYLUM
  IRANIAN SUBJECTS: UK ASYLUM
  THE ENGLISH HOUSE CONDITION SURVEY
  THE ENGLISH HOUSE CONDITION SURVEY
  INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS: UK CONTRIBUTIONS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
  INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS: UK CONTRIBUTIONS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT