Sitting of 19 January 1982

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

    Assisted Places Scheme
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have now agreed to co-operate in accepting children under the assisted places scheme; and how many children are involved.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson)A total of 220 independent schools are participating in the assisted places scheme in England. They are contracted to offer a maximum of 5,439 assisted places each year; 4,185 places were taken up in September 1981.
    Mr. FlanneryAt a time when education cuts are appalling, from the bottom level to the top—the universities and every section of education are struggling to obtain more funds to educate our children properly—does not the Minister suffer some pangs of conscience when the so-called assisted places scheme gives public money to those who least need it—in fact, do not need it at all—thereby taking it away from the vast mass of children and having the bad effect of creaming off children from sixth forms throughout the country?
    Dr. BoysonI am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have consciences. We must assess whether the assisted places scheme is successful in doing what was intended. If the hon. Gentleman was present on 16 December when this issue was debated, he would have heard the figures. The parents of one-third of the children who are taking advantage of the assisted places scheme are paying nothing, because of their low incomes. Another third of the children have parents who are in receipt of below-average wages. The hon. Gentleman said that public money was going to those who do not need it, but that is untrue. Only 6 per cent. of the places available under the assisted places scheme are going to the children of families earning 50 per cent. more than the average income. For example, no hon. Member, unless he has a vast tribe of children, would qualify for the scheme.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. SpeakerOrder. The answer was as long as the supplementary question, and both were too long for me.
    Mr. NelsonDespite what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said, is my hon. Friend aware that many people, including myself, have
    138
    personal reasons for appreciating the assisted places scheme that was operated in the past, because it gave them the opportunity to receive a breadth of education which would not otherwise have been available to them? I assure him that he will receive my fullest support and, I am sure, our party's in pressing ahead with the scheme. If he is able to make more financial provision available in the future, that will be additionally welcome.
    Dr. BoysonI welcome my hon. Friend's question, and I am pleased to have his support. The aim of the scheme is to bring bright children, irrespective of their backgrounds, to schools with some of the most splendid sixth forms in the country.
    Mr. DobsonHave any of the assisted places gone to children from Winton House school, St. Leonard's on Sea, whose headmaster, Mr. D. J. Cole, MA, LL.B, Jesus College, Cambridge, has recently written to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) threatening to use the Armed Forces against the next: Labour Government should they attempt to do away with independent schools?
    Dr. BoysonThat was quite an interesting and unusual question. I have had no discussions about schools in St. Leonard's on Sea or about the headmaster of Winton House school, who obviously is an original, whatever else may be said about him. If the hon. Gentleman hands me the press cutting, I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will enjoy reading it.

    Village Schools
    Mr. Richard Pageasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children are taught in village schools; and how this compares with the figure for 1971.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Waldegrave)The information requested by my hon. Friend is not kept by my Department. But, taking non-metropolitan English county primary schools with 50 or fewer pupils as a proxy, as most of these schools are in rural areas, there were 59,463 children in village schools in January 1981 compared with 56,860 in January 1975.
    Mr. PageI thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I am disappointed to learn of the reduction. As village schools are, in my opinion—I am sure that my opinion is shared by the majority of hon. Members—the backbone of village life, what will my hon. Friend and his Department do to maintain village schools throughout the length and breadth of the country?
    Mr. WaldegraveI am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that a large part of the change reflects variations in the population. In the rate support grant formula and grant-related expenditure the Government have included a formula for sparseness in population, which makes a considerable difference. Circular 2/81 gives advice on the removal of school places and emphasises the importance of village schools.
    Mr. MadelWhen considering what to do with surplus schools or classrooms, should not local education authorities bear in mind their responsibilities for implementing the Government's "New Training

    139
    Initiative"? Therefore, before taking any drastic decisions on the matter, should they not wait until the "New Training Initiative" is well under way?
    Mr. WaldegraveThat is an additional element that local authorities will want to take into account.
    Mr. FreudDoes the Minister accept the high quality of teaching in village schools? Will he bear in mind the small demands that graduates at small village schools make on the remedial teaching programme? Will he tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to be most careful before considering the closure of other schools in Cambridgeshire?
    Mr. WaldegraveMy right hon. Friend takes great care in those matters. Recent interesting studies, carried out at Cambridge and at Aston university, show the strengths of village schools, although there are problems when the numbers in a school drop below 50.

    Sixth Form and Tertiary Colleges
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement of his policy on sixth form and tertiary colleges.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph)As my hon Friend stated in reply to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 1 December 1981, all statutory proposals relating to such colleges will be considered on their merits in the light of any objections; our general policies for education, including those set out in the draft circular issued for consultation on 24 November 1981; and all matters relevant to the case.
    Mr. BeithDoes the Secretary of State recognise that his decision on Manchester, if he says nothing to supplement it, will be taken as a pointer that the Government would not welcome the development of sixth form colleges? Does he not see that the development of sixth form colleges is one of the ways in which some local authorities can best ensure good provision at sixth form level and combine that provision with further education resources? Does he want them to do that? Would he prefer it if they went back to a selective system?
    Sir Keith JosephIn each case the decision will be made on its merits.
    Mr. HaselhurstIs it not right that local authorities should bring forward proposals that are best suited to their areas and that the Department of Education and Science should be neutral as regards any different arrangements and rely entirely on the merits?
    Sir Keith JosephMy hon. Friend is right. That is what we shall try to do.
    Mr. WhiteheadSurely the implication of the Manchester decision is that the Secretary of State overruled his civil servants and majority opinion in the city of Manchester. Will the right hon. Gentleman put the interests of the few before those of the many in Birmingham regarding sixth form college proposals there or, at Sheffield, where a tertiary solution is being chosen? Will he persist in that attitude, even if the education policies of those local authorities are upheld at the forthcoming local elections?
    Sir Keith JosephI can only repeat that I shall take decisions on the merits of each case, bearing in mind objections and all other relevant factors. I remind the House that the Manchester decision highlighted the policy stated in our 1979 manifesto, that schools of proven worth should be retained. The draft circular reminds local education authorities of that policy and invites them to take account of it when formulating their proposals.

    Degree and High Level Courses
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to increase the number of degree and other high level courses being run in higher education colleges and colleges of technology to compensate for the bulge in the population aged 18 years in the mid 1980s and for the reductions in courses in universities and polytechnics.
    Mr. WaldegraveNo, Sir. The initiative in providing new courses of higher education rests with the institutions themselves. The Government's expenditure plans provide for the number of students on courses of higher education outside the universities—that is in polytechnics as well as other colleges—to remain above last year's level through to 1984–85.
    Mr. BennettIs it not crazy that, faced with a considerable bulge in the population that can benefit from those courses, the Government are cutting the number of courses at universities, polytechnics and higher education colleges, yet at a lower level they are providing courses under the youth opportunities programme? Would it not be better to continue to support traditional courses rather than to bring forward alternatives at a lower level?
    Mr. WaldegraveThe hon. Gentleman is well aware that the higher education sector cannot be exempt from the pressures to find economies.
    Mr. WardIs my hon. Friend aware that a post on the higher education board was not advertised nationally? Is he not concerned that that post was not advertised so that the best people, wherever they may be, could reply to the advertisement and not be selected by civil servants?
    Mr. WaldegraveI think that my hon. Friend is referring to the post of secretary of the new Board for Local Authority Higher Education. After long discussions with the local authorities and other bodies we decided not to advertise because of the necessity for speed in setting up the organisation.
    Mr. DouglasHow many students in Scotland who have qualifications to fit them for university will be denied places because of the Government's cuts?
    Mr. WaldegraveI shall be delighted to give the hon. Gentleman the figures that we can find. I shall write to him about that.
    Mr. NelsonWill my hon. Friend bear in mind that, far from adding courses, one of the major problems of the past decade has been that many high technology colleges, worthy as they were, have aspired to be universities, and in doing so have done a disservice to the students in both educational and financial terms?
    Mr. WaldegraveWhether or not the difficulty is one of aspiring to be universities, there is a real problem in the

    141
    unnecessary diversification of courses. The better application of resources may lead to more students being taken on more economically.
    Mr. WhiteheadAs the colleges have suffered more in the advanced further education allocations this year than the polytechnics, and as the Government want fewer students at the polytechnics than at the universities, where do they suggest that the students who are thus displaced will go if they cannot go to the colleges?
    Mr. WaldegraveThe reason why the colleges other than polytechnics have suffered more in the AFE distribution is that they did not make the savings required in the last two years. It would have been exceedingly unfair to penalise polytechnics because the other institutions had not been as efficient as them.

    Adult Education
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will convene a conference of the major organisations concerned with adult education.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Shelton)No, Sir. The Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education was established to provide a forum for discussion and advice in this important sector of education, and its membership broadly reflects the wide range of interests involved.
    Mr. DormandIs the Minister aware that if he were to call such a conference he would quickly be told that those in adult education have completely lost confidence in the Government? Does he agree that an essential first step is to make a legal basis for adult education and that the Government's prevarication in that matter is a demonstration of their lack of concern? In a recent debate the hon. Gentleman admitted that adult education played a vital role in a changing technological world. What is he doing to restore the devastating cuts that have been made in adult education?
    Mr. SheltonI agree that the Government believe that adult education plays a vital role. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a review group on the legal basis of further education asked for comments, which were received. We are grateful to those who collaborated. The position is being reviewed and plans will be formulated during this year. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the financial basis. In the revised expenditure plans for 1982–83 the total is £52·3 million, which is a considerable easement on the plans stated in Cmnd. 8175.
    Mr. GreenwayDoes my hon. Friend agree that adult education can be a basis for a substantial move forward in training for those who become unemployed? With regard to the legal status, will he confirm, as he said in reply to a Christmas Adjournment debate that I initiated, that local authorities will support adult education as a statutory duty placed upon them? Will the Government do the same?
    Mr. SheltonI am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about those matters. I agree with both points that he made.
    Mr. HaynesIs the Minister aware that the Secretary of State for Education and Science, having ruined the Health Service and industry, is now ruining education?
    142
    Why the hell does he not agree to a conference to explain to the people of this nation that we need to put back what has been taken away from adult education?
    Mr. SheltonI am glad to say that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in all his assertions. As I have already said, the expenditure plans announced recently have started to put back what had been taken away.
    Mr. HaynesBy you.
    Mr. SpeakerOrder. We must use parliamentary language. That was not even Welsh language.
    Mr. SpriggsWill the Minister think again about the reply given to my hon. Friend's original question about the convening of a conference with organisations concerned with adult education? Is he aware that if he convenes such a conference he will discover that new students in adult education are finding it impossible to carry on with that education? Is he further aware that if he agrees to such meetings with those organisations he will come face Lo face with the true facts and will see what the economies are doing to adult education?
    Mr. SheltonI personally, and my colleagues, have had meetings with various bodies in adult education, and further meetings are planned. We attach great importance to them. However, the hon. Gentleman is profoundly mistaken. Enrolment in adult education in November 1977 was 1·7 million. In 1980 it was 1·6 million—a drop of only 100,000—and in 1981 the estimated drop is only 3 per cent. Adult education may have suffered a small drop, but it is in good shape. I remind local education authorities that, with the easement in the financial plans that we have announced, there is a strong basis for a viable and continuing adult education programme.
    Mr. SquireDoes my hon. Friend none the less recognise that rather less than 0·5 per cent. of the total education budget is now spent on adult education and that one of the best services that he could do for adult education during his term of office would be to increase the percentage of the education budget, let alone other budgets, that is spent in this vital area?
    Mr. SheltonMy hon. Friend has a point. One of the results of the cuts in the adult education budget has been an increase in the average hourly fee in adult education, which in 1978–79 was 25p and today is about 51p in cash terms. Nevertheless, the continuing high enrolment shows that adult education is still excellent value for money. I think that that is generally recognised.

    Education Standards (Criteria)
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria he uses to determine the standards of education achieved in schools.
    Sir Keith JosephI take into account not only statistical information on the performance of pupils, but also informed opinion, both national and local, and advice from Her Majesty's Inspectorate.
    Mr. McCrindleI endorse the Government's desire to improve education standards, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that the necessity for the reduction in book supplies by some education authorities and the inability to repair and maintain buildings by others does not stand in the way of achieving the improvement in standards to which he and I would both subscribe?
    Sir Keith JosephI do not think that they stand in the way, but it is an advantage if local authorities can so conduct their affairs, including their negotiations, that they have the resources allowed for in the recent allocation to improve book provision and to make some headway with maintenance.
    Mr. SpearingDoes the Secretary of Sate agree that there is a fundamental difference between standards of education and standards of measurable scholastic attainment? As the Government place so much emphasis on the latter, particularly on O-level and CSE results, what is he doing about measuring the former?
    Sir Keith JosephI think that in all our statements we provide that, so far as is practicable, assessment should go far wider than examination results, although they are an indispensable ingredient.
    Mr. Peter BottomleyDoes my right hon. Friend agree that, instead of paying too much attention to merging CSE and O-level examinations, he would do well to encourage schools and others in education to find ways of giving proficiency tests to those not expected to pass CSE or O-level examinations, as they could probably gain most from having targets set for them?
    Sir Keith JosephI agree with my hon. Friend that the substantial percentage of pupils who are not particularly academically inclined are not at present receiving a fair deal. In collaboration with the education authorities and the teachers the Government will do all that lies in their power to help to improve the deal that those pupils receive.
    Mr. DobsonBesides relying on his own elitist Old Harrovian prejudices, of which he is usually so proud, will the Secretary of State guarantee not to interfere with the independence of Her Majesty's Inspectorate's assessment of educational standards and that its report will be published this year, as it was last year, and soon?
    Sir Keith JosephI make no apology for a prejudice in favour of a better deal for those receiving the least benefit from our school services at present, despite the efforts of a large number of devoted and effective teachers. The inspectorate's report is not yet complete. I shall make a decision about its publication when I have seen it.

    Education Act 1981
    Mr. Cockeramasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he proposes to introduce an order to bring the Education Act 1981 fully into force.
    Dr. BoysonIt remains the Government's intention to implement the main provisions of the Education Act 1981 in the early part of the academic year 1982–83 and to make commencement orders during 1982 for this purpose. One commencement order has already been made bringing section 14 of the Act into force from 5 January this year.
    Mr. CockeramWill my hon. Friend be issuing further guidance notes to local authorities on this matter? If so, when does he expect to do so?
    Dr. BoysonWe hope to issue a second circular well before Easter. This will give guidance on the assessment of children with special educational needs, the making of statements on those needs and the arrangements for parental involvement in all those procedures.

    Class Sizes
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if it is his policy to reduce class sizes over the course of the next three years; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Keith JosephThe Government's expenditure plans allow for the overall ratio of pupils to teachers to be maintained broadly at the current level, which is the best ever. Class sizes depend on decisions by local authorities and head teachers about the deployment of teachers as well as on pupil-teacher ratios.
    Mr. NewensDoes the Secretary of State agree that it is an appalling waste of skill, and a false economy, to cut the numbers of teachers employed, particularly as those who become unemployed must then be supported out of public funds? Does he further agree that it would be desirable at this stage to reduce the size of classes, particularly in sixth forms, where falling rolls have a devastating effect in reducing the choice of subject?
    Sir Keith JosephI cannot agree that it is right for the Government to ignore the number of pupils in schools when assessing the number of teachers who should teach the falling number of pupils. We should seek a balance between the interests of taxpayers and the need to make further progress in reducing class sizes.
    Sir William van StraubenzeeIn these matters is not a measurement purely in terms of class size thoroughly unrealistic? Is not the ratio of those who teach to those who are taught the key factor? Is there not therefore much encouragement in what my right hon. Friend said in his original answer?
    Sir Keith JosephYes. I thoroughly agree with what my hon. Friend, with all his experience, has said. The deployment by the head teacher of the teachers available, in some cases to cope with small remedial classes as well as with larger classes for those not requiring remedial lessons, must also be taken into account.
    Mr. Christopher PriceIs the Secretary of State aware that some very useful information about the reduction of class sizes was given in last year's HMI report, which his predecessor published so that he could be examined by the Select Committee about the facts in it? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that his statement today that he has it in mind not to publish this year's report, presumably because it may contain embarrassing facts that he does not wish the public to know, runs clean against the pledge given by the Leader of the House that all Ministers would be as helpful as possible to Select Committees in providing all the information at their disposal? Finally, is he aware that when he comes before the Select Committee on 10 February, if the report is not public certain conclusions may be drawn?
    Sir Keith JosephI am glad to pay tribute to my predecessor, who took the pioneering step of publishing—voluntarily, and under no pressure from the House—the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate. No Minister in the Labour Government apparently thought of or acted upon any such willingness to lay the facts and the opinions of HMI before the House. I look forward to my next session with the hon. Gentleman's Select Committee, whether or not the report is available or published by that time.
    Sir Nicholas BonsorDoes my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems in schools arises from the fact that when the best teachers are promoted to be heads of departments they cease to teach and become administrators? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that something should be done to rectify that?
    Sir Keith JosephI agree with my hon. Friend. I hope to take an early opportunity to emphasise the point that he has just made.

    16 to 19-year-olds
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes to take further initiatives regarding educational opportunities for the 16 to 19 years age group.
    Mr. William SheltonMy right hon. Friend attaches great importance to the education of the 16 to 19 age group. A number of further initiatives are planned, including the development of a new pre-vocational qualification for 17-year-olds in both schools and colleges. An announcement will be made about this shortly.
    Mr. HaselhurstIn the light of the important initiative on training announced by the Government before Christmas, is it not extremely appropriate and urgent that steps should be taken—as a balance on the educational side—to secure the more wholehearted attendance of young people at school up to the age of 16 and their continued attendance after that age?
    Mr. SheltonI entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who I know is interested in these matters. Both the new pre-vocational qualification and the youth training scheme are complementary and in no way conflict.
    Mr. Frank AllaunDoes not the Minister think it far better for most youngsters to continue their studies from 16 to 19, than to be out of work? As many working class parents cannot afford to allow their children to do that, will the hon. Gentleman introduce a scheme of grants for such children that is far higher than the child allowance scheme? Indeed, that is Labour Party policy.
    Mr. SheltonI entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is our wish that more youngsters should stay on at school after 16. I am glad to say that, for various reasons, about an additional 10 per cent. are staying on already. I am aware of the problem of grants, but I remind the hon. Gentleman of the discretionary educational maintenance allowances that can be made by local authorities to help those in need.
    Mr. CrouchFollowing the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), may I ask my right hon. Friend to keep in touch with the Secretary of State for Employment, who these days is spending millions on a form of education for school leavers—training? Does he not feel that his Department should be able to make a greater contribution to the education of those school leavers by means of opportunities in tertiary education?
    Mr. SheltonI reassure my hon. Friend that there is close collaboration between the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science. He will recognise that, to put it bluntly, the education service is supplying the education for the YOP and the youth training scheme.
    Mr. FosterDoes not the Minister recognise the need to co-ordinate the education and training of 16 to 19-year-olds, be they in school, college, at work or unemployed? Is it not remarkable that the Department of Education and Science, to the dismay of the whole education service, seems to have opted out of the area for which, just a few minutes ago, the Secretary of State said he had great concern—the education and training of the less able pupils?
    Mr. SheltonThe distinction between training under the Department of Employment and education under the Department of Education and Science is a matter for the machinery of Government and not for me. However, collaboration is working not too badly at present and I have every confidence that with the youth training scheme on the one hand and the new 17-plus, or certificate of prevocational education, on the other, we shall see these two marching in step and complementing each other.

    Inner City Areas
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the cost effectiveness of education in inner city areas.
    Sir Keith JosephMany of the local authorities concerned are spending at or close to their grant-related expenditure assessments for education, which take account of the socio-economic problems of inner city areas. A few are spending far above their GRE. The report by Her Majesty's inspectors in 1980 on the biggest of these, the Inner London Education Authority, suggests to me that savings could be made in some cases without damaging the quality and range of education offered.
    Mr. SpearingThe Secretary of State has said that expenditure can be reduced without damaging the quality of education in inner London, but he and his predecessors have consistently refused to set out those reductions. Will the right hon. Gentleman slate them now, or give an undertaking that he will do so in the future before, through his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, requiring the ILEA to reduce its expenditure in real terms on any part of its service?
    Sir Keith JosephNo. I shall not do the ILEA's job for it. In recognition of the problems that inner London faces, our assessment allows for 30 per cent. more expenditure by the ILEA than the average urban education authority, but the ILEA is spending 40 per cent. above that 30 per cent. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the 7½ per cent. economy that we are seeking from it is moderate and well within its power without doing damage to its educational quality or range, taking into account the ILEA's excessive spending above the level that has been judged suitable for its special problems.
    Mr. SilvesterIs my right hon. Friend aware that this very day Manchester city council, which covers the inner city of Manchester, is employing headmasters without schools at an enhanced salary, because they are being appointed for schools that cannot possibly operate until he has given approval to the scheme before him? Is that not an example of a lack of cost effectiveness, is it not illegal and will he do something about it?
    Sir Keith JosephThe advice that I have been given is that the Manchester education authority has made these

    147
    appointments and arrangements for pay conditional upon the decision to be made by me on its new proposals, when the objection and consideration periods are over. On that understanding, and on that understanding only, I understand that its action is not in itself illegal. That is a quick reaction to the information that I have been able to gather since I was told what had happened.
    Mr. EasthamIs it not true that while Manchester city council has been waiting for many months for a satisfactory conclusion and a decision from the right hon. Gentleman, he has been holding secret meetings with Conservative Members at the Tory Central Office? Has the right hon. Gentleman held such secret meetings? If so, is that proper as, in a sense, he is in a quasi-judicial position?
    Sir Keith JosephIt was, Mr. Speaker, no doubt wrong of me to answer a supplementary question about Manchester following a question about the ILEA, but I am paying for it now. Yesterday, at the Central Office, I was handed a letter after the information about which my hon. Friend has just asked had been made available to the press.

    Overseas Students
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many overseas students enrolled in British universities this session; and what was the comparable total five years ago.
    Mr. WaldegraveProvisional estimates are that 15,000 new overseas students entered the universities of Great Britain in 1981–82 compared with 17,700 in 1976–77. Both figures include students domiciled in European Community countries, who are now charged home fees.
    Mr. TaylorAre not those figures reasonably encouraging, in view of the fears voiced about the effect of the new fees charged? Will my hon. Friend at least look at the ridiculous anomaly whereby we now charge all Commonwealth and foreign students full-cost fees of up to £6,000 a year, while all students from the EEC and the French overseas territories get an automatic subsidy of about £3,000 from the British taxpayer? In view of these encouraging general figures, will the Minister sort out this rather silly anomaly?
    Mr. WaldegraveI agree with my hon. Friend that the overall drop is encouragingly small. The Government are studying the Melbourne communiqúe, which referred to student mobility. A further encouraging sign is that students from the developing Commonwealth are still increasing, probably as a result of Government-to-Government scholarship schemes.
    Mr. Robert HughesWas the Department of Education and Science consulted about a Home Office decision to refuse to renew visas for overseas students if they had been provided with short-term accommodation by local authorities and given a rent rebate? Is that not scandalous? What representations will the Minister make to try to get that decision reversed?
    Mr. WaldegraveI shall have to ask the hon. Gentleman to give me details of the case, and I shall reply to him later.
    Mr. Rhodes JolliesIs my hon. Friend aware that there is evidence that certain universities are dropping their
    148
    standards in order to maintain the level of overseas students? Is not that the worst of all possible worlds at present?
    Mr. WaldegraveI have heard those suspicions voiced. I am not convinced that that is happening yet, but we shall keep a close eye on the position. I have no doubt that universities will be loth to drop standards.
    Mr. WhiteheadA 21 per cent. drop in enrolments this year is described by the Minister as "encouragingly small". At which figure does he become discouraged? What would he say is suffering most as a result of this fall in numbers—the institutions to which the students would have gone and the home students still there, or our relations with the countries from which the overseas students would have come?
    Mr. WaldegraveI am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, like many arts graduates, is not sufficiently numerate. There is not a 21 per cent. drop. The provisional figures show that there may be about a 3 per cent. drop this year.

    Absences from School
    Mr. Heddleasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the latest available figures for the number of secondary school children who are absent on any one day from school without a reasonable explanation.
    Mr. William SheltonA national one-day survey in 1974 revealed that in maintained middle and secondary schools in England and Wales 87,400 pupils—2·2 per cent. of the total—were absent from school without a known good reason.
    Mr. HeddleDoes my hon. Friend agree that hard core truancy can be the seed-corn of juvenile crime? Is he not, therefore, alarmed that in some inner city areas truancy is as high as 25 per cent.? Does he agree that the existing measures may not be adequate or serve as a suitable deterrent? Will he consider looking further into the matter?
    Mr. SheltonI know my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. In 1979 there were 3,700 prosecutions in England and Wales, mostly for truancy. The education welfare service is responsible and I hope that local education authorities will make sure that it plays a responsible part.
    Mr. SkinnerCan the Minister, or one of his colleagues, supply the necessary information about how many Members of Parliament are absent on any given day without reasonable explanation? I am certain that the figures will show that the absentee rate is higher here than it is in the schools.
    Mr. SheltonTo judge from the usual state of the Benches opposite, the hon. Gentleman can supply that information better than we can.
    Mr. StokesIn view of the connection between truancy and crime, has my hon. Friend noticed that, unfortunately, of those who cannot read, many become criminals from the age of 15 onwards?
    Mr. SheltonI accept that my hon. Friend may have a point. I have no knowledge or information on the correlation.

    University Grants Committee
    Sir William van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science on how many occasions in 1981 he has met the chairman of the University Grants Committee.
    Sir Keith JosephAfter assuming office in September, I had four meetings with Dr. Parkes in 1981.
    Sir William van StraubenzeeAt those meetings does the constitutional position remain that neither my right hon. Friend nor his Ministers intervene in detailed decisions by the University Grants Committee? If that is right, does it not show that those voices in the university sector that are baying for the abolition of the UGC are speaking against the very interests of the universities?
    Sir Keith JosephWhat my hon. Friend said in the first part of his question is true. In no way have I or my hon. Friends sought to intervene in the decisions of the UGC.
    Mr. SheermanWhen the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the UGC will he take up with him the results of the UGC decisions in respect of the technological universities, including Bradford university, on which the future wealth of the country depends? Is he aware that in the case of Bradford a cut of one-third in the budget means the closure of nine to 14 technical departments and the decimation of the infrastructure of higher education in West Yorkshire? Will he give that matter serious priority?
    Sir Keith JosephI shall still not intervene with the chairman of the UGC. It is a fact that the technical universities have fared differently. Some have come off with light cuts, and others with more. The university of which the chairman of the UGC was vice-chancellor before he became chairman of the UGC has fared badly.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Beithasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Netherlands ambassador. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. BeithIs the Prime Minister aware of the enormous public concern that has arisen over sentencing in rape cases, following the failure of the Crown to proceed in the recent Glasgow case and unsympathetic police interrogation of victims, as was shown in a television programme last night? Will she add to the welcome statements of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice an indication of the seriousness with which the Government view the matter? Will she say whether she is prepared to carry out a review of the application of the law in rape cases and whether she will encourage police authorities to set up special units to deal with this odious crime?
    The Prime MinisterI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. It is vital that women should have confidence in the ability of the law to protect
    150
    them against this violent, detestable and—I use the hon. Gentleman's word—"odious" crime, and to ensure that persons are found guilty should they commit it.
    I share the welcome that the hon. Gentleman gave to the Lord Chief Justice's point on sentencing for rape. The hon. Gentleman will know that he said forcefully that rape was always a serious crime and, except in wholly exceptional circumstances, called for an immediate custodial sentence.
    I also share the hon. Gentleman's concern about certain matters that were shown on television last night, and I understand that the relevant police authority accepts the warranted criticisms about the ways in which those cases were handled. Beyond that, it is best to leave the Lord Chancellor to deal with these matters, and for the Home Secretary to deal with police questioning, because there has been advice and that will be reviewed. We should leave the Lord Chancellor to deal with these matters in his inimitable and definitive way.
    Sir Paul BryanWill my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the circumstances in which a Conservative Secretary of State has approved the findings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which insulate our lucrative retail banking system against competition and at the same time allow banks to use their profits to buy banks abroad in countries that believe in competition? In any event, has not this inquiry raised subjects of such importance that they should be decided by the Cabinet and not by some commission?
    The Prime MinisterClearly there was room for more than one view on the difficult issues raised by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's consideration of the bids for the Royal Bank of Scotland. The commission was itself divided on both bids. The decision rests not so much with the commission as with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. It is a quasi-judicial decision. He can consult other colleagues about it, but the final decision is his.
    I understand that the commission did not believe that there would be any substantial contribution to competition in United Kingdom banking from either merger. There has been a considerable increase in competition from the number of banks that have come into this country. We welcome them into this country and I am aware that some of our banks have gone into the banking business overseas and taken over other banks. I emphasise that this decision applies to this particular case only and that the structure of banking in this country must not remain frozen.
    Mr. FootAs it appears that the country and the House may soon be confronted with the terrible total of 3 million unemployed, may I ask the right hon. Lady to ensure that the statement on this matter is made to the House next week, when the figures are to be announced? Will she also tell the House what changes in Government policy she proposes at the same time?
    The Prime MinisterThe statement will be made in the usual way, as it is always made, in the morning, from the Department of Employment, giving very full details of the figures. I shall be here, as usual, to receive questions.
    Mr. FootAs the right hon. Lady has indicated that the figures may be passing this terrible total, will she arrange for the statement on such a major matter to be made in the House? Will she also take into account the fact that,

    151
    speaking a week or two ago on this question, she said that there were some economic measures affecting these matters that she would like to have carried through were it not for Parliament restraining her? What were those measures? Would they have added to the total unemployment figures?
    The Prime MinisterNo, I have no present intention of changing the arrangements for making that statement. The right hon. Gentleman will be very much aware that on each occasion when the unemployment figures have risen—and they also rose, tragically, in his time, although not to the present levels—the statement was made in the same way, by announcement in the morning through the Department of Employment. The statement will continue to be made in that way. I have no other statement to make about this matter. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a major statement about help for work and training for young people. Some of those provisions came into operation on 2 January. Further changes are due to be made in the job release scheme in February, and the whole training scheme will come into operation gradually over the coming months and years.
    Mr. Viggersasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.
    The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. ViggersHas my right hon. Friend had an opportunity today to read press reports of plans approved by the Japanese Ministry of Trade and Industry for that country to take a massive leap forward in technology based on the increased use of computers and robots? Does she agree that in this country too much of our thinking is rooted in preserving the industrial practices of the past and that the way ahead to greater prosperity and greater employment in Britain is for all responsible leaders to encourage change, innovation and flexibility?
    The Prime MinisterI agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said. It is essential for the prosperity of British industry, and for the future prospects for jobs, for British industry to adopt the very latest technology and to be ahead in doing so. It is notable that those countries that have clung to outdated working practices and outdated technologies have the higher levels of unemployment; those that have been among the first to embrace new technology have the lowest levels of unemployment and high measures of prosperity.
    Dr. OwenHow much is it now envisaged will be spent on the Polaris rockets? Will the Prime Minister confirm that this sum will allow the life of the Polaris missile to be extended into the year 2000? Would not that be the best option, rather than proceeding with the extremely expensive Trident missile?
    The Prime MinisterI am not quite sure which aspect the right hon. Gentleman is getting at. The Polaris weapon is being re-motored, as he knows. From time to time changes have to be made in this weapon system, and re-motoring is now being undertaken until the Trident is due to come into service. There is also another matter, about which the right hon. Gentleman will know. The cost of Chevaline was £1,000 million. These steps will extend the life of the Polaris and the submarines until Trident—which is a much more powerful weapon—is due to come into service later.
    Mr. HordernHas my right hon. Friend noted the figures published yesterday, which show that the numbers employed in the Health Service have increased by 67,000 in the last two years, and that the numbers employed in central Government have increased by 38,000 over the same period? Is my right hon. Friend's policy of reducing waste in the public sector and eliminating overmanning going according to plan?
    The Prime MinisterI know that my hon. Friend's figures are absolutely impeccable, as usual, and that he will have taken them from some particular Government document. During that period the numbers in the Armed Services rose by some 20,000; the number of nurses rose by 21,000 and the number of doctors rose by 1,000. I am sure that my hon. Friend will approve of those increases. The numbers in the Civil Service bureaucracy, over the period that my hon. Friend mentioned, have dropped by 40,000. They have now dropped by 52,000. As we take out the area health authorities, the number of bureaucratic jobs in the Health Service will further be reduced.
    Mr. ConlanWill the right hon. Lady take time today to consider the announcement made by Marconi Radar yesterday to the effect that 700 people are to lose their jobs as a result of cancellation of contracts by the Ministry of Defence for the GWS-25 tracker radar? As the lightweight version is intended as a replacement, will she put an end to the indecision of the Ministry of Defence over the rival bids of a Dutch company and Marconi, so that the work can go to Marconi and thereby reduce and mitigate the full effects of these redundancies?
    The Prime MinisterThis question arises from time to time. We try to buy British, as far as we possibly can, commensurate with efficiency in British industry and with suitability for the task under consideration. The hon. Gentleman must take up the precise decision with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
    Mr. Neil Thorneasked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 19 January.
    The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. ThorneI welcome the Government's determination to encourage concessionary fares for elderly people. Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider again the possibility of granting tax relief to companies giving their staff season tickets for public transport? This would seem to be a much more sensible way of providing subsidies for public transport than the present ad hoc system.
    The Prime MinisterAs my hon. Friend will know, where employers buy or help with season tickets for employees, the employers will secure tax relief for that purpose, but there will be a charge, if it is a gift or a partial gift, on the tax of the employee. At present we have no plans to change that. It would be extremely expensive if tax relief were to be given for all travelling expenses, and no Government have embarked upon that. It is a personal choice where one lives, and that is one of the reasons why the present position has been adopted.
    Mr. Les HuckfieldWhile the Prime Minister is talking to her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about concessionary fares, will she also try to find time to interest him in the railway dispute? Will she

    153
    try to get through to him the fact that pay and productivity issues in this dispute are entirely separate and distinct—[Interruption.]—as is amply evidenced and documented in the proceedings of the Railway Staffs National Tribunal and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service? Will the Prime Minister also get the Secretary of State for Transport to appreciate that since it is the British Railways Board that has broken its agreement—[HON MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—and since it is the British Raiways Board that broke off the productivity talks, the only way to settle this dispute is for the British Railways Board to pay the 3 per cent?
    The Prime MinisterI do not accept what the hon. Member has said. I believe that the parties are still with ACAS. The hon. Member will remember that it was as a result of the good services of ACAS that that arrangement was reached earlier in the year, and I believe that it is right that ACAS should resolve it. In the meantime, I call the hon. Member's attention to what Mr. Terry Duffy said about the strike in an article in one of the Sunday newspapers this week. Speaking about this particular strike, he said:
    154
    "Their strike action has caused suffering to thousands of my members. Many factory workers, unlike office workers, do net get paid if they cannot get to work."
    Mr. Cyril D. TownsendWill my right hon. Friend be discussing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the call from a large section of British industry and many on the Conservative Benches for Government support for carefully costed capital projects in labour-intensive industries? Would not such help be a constructive and traditionally Conservative way of encouraging the free interprise system and getting the economy expanding rather faster than is at present envisaged?
    The Prime MinisterYes, and my hon. Friend will have heard me say many times that we have also to look at the total of expenditure. We have to get the total of expenditure either from taxation or from borrowing That is really the only way to do it, Therefore, we must look at the total—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Print it".] Printing is a Labour device. I may say that it is usually overmanned as well. Many of us wish to make certain that current expenditure is kept as economical as possible and that wage claims are kept as moderate as possible so that there may thereby be room for that capital expenditure that my hon. Friend and I both want.

Questions to Ministers
Mr. Tam DalyellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have often complained about hon. Members simply tabling questions on the Prime Minister's engagements and about the lack of substantive questions. I am sure that the Prime Minister put a good deal of work into her answers to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and myself, which relate to substantial issues, and of which she was warned. Will you reflect on any guidance that you might give about whether it is right to complain about the Prime Minister simply answering questions of which she has received no warning, rather than questions that have been tabled in advance? I make no personal complaint on this occasion, because my hon. Friend's question would have been called before mine, but the matter involves an issue on which the House might care to reflect.
Mr. SpeakerMay I say that the House has the remedy in its own hands. Hon. Members put down these open questions, not me. I deplore the fact, and I have made it quite clear, that Prime Minister's Question Time is not devoted to substantive questions of which notice has been given to the House. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's question was not reached.
Mr. ChurchillFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you not use your own good judgment to call only one question when there are a number of identical questions on the Order Paper?
Mr. SpeakerI have given a great deal of time to considering ways in which I might help the House in this connection, such as trying to bracket together a number of questions. However, I am the servant of the House, and it has been made quite clear to me by the very fact of the Order Paper itself that the House is prepared to continue with the present system.
Mr. Arthur LewisFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood you to say
156
that you have given, or are giving, consideration to the matter. Might I suggest that in that consideration you bear in mind the fact—and it is a fact—that for very many years Mr. Speaker would not permit a supplementary question unless that supplementary had a bearing either on the original question or on the reply? With great respect, may I say that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who reneged on the Labour Party, raised a question that had nothing to do with the original question or the ministerial reply. With respect, I am sure that had it been me or my hon. Friend and some other Speaker, that Speaker would have ruled the question out of order. I suggest that we should get back to the time when supplementary questions had to relate to the original reply or to the supplementary.
Mr. SpeakerThis is not the first time that I have had reason to be obliged to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis)—and I am obliged. I agreed with what he said, until he came to the part about himself and his hon. Friends. However, the House should realise that the open question changes the character of Question Time. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) missed out the words
"Would the Prime Minister, in the course of her busy day, consider".
That was all.
Dr. David OwenSo did the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. SpeakerThat little formula makes almost anything permissible. A former Prime Minister is present, and the Prime Minister herself.
Mr. James CallaghanTwo former Prime Ministers are present.
Mr. SpeakerI apologise. We have two former Prime Ministers here—and one missing. If the House had fewer open questions, it would be possible, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, to deal with substantive questions.

Yorkshire Ripper (Investigations)
3.36 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw)With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the review of the Yorkshire Ripper case carried out, at my request, by Mr. Lawrence Byford, one of Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary.
I asked him to report on any lessons which might be learned from the conduct of the investigation and which should be made known to police forces generally. Mr Byford was assisted in his review by the external advisory team set up in November 1980. He was also able to take account of views put to him about this tragic case by relatives of the victims, who greatly appreciated the opportunity to voice their misgivings.
I have now received and considered Mr. Byford's report, and I am extremely grateful to him for it. I should like to let the House know of its main conclusions and recommendations. A more detailed summary has been placed in the Library.
It is apparent from the report that there were major errors of judgment by the police and some inefficiencies in the conduct of the operation at various levels. In particular, excessive credence was given to the letters and tape from a man claiming responsibility for the series of murders and signing himself "Jack the Ripper". Another serious handicap to the investigation was the ineffectiveness of the major incident room which became overloaded with unprocessed information. With hindsight, it is now clear that if these errors and inefficiencies had not occurred Sutcliffe would have been identified as a prime suspect sooner than he was. Mr. Byford's report concludes that there is little doubt that he should have been arrested earlier, on the facts associated with his various police interviews.
I remind the House that the Ripper case gave rise to the largest criminal investigation ever conducted in this country, imposing a great strain on all concerned. It would have been surprising if in this uprecedented situation there were no mistakes. What we now have to do is to respond constructively to the considerable experience gained in the course of it in order to ensure that future investigations of crimes such as this are carried out as effectively and quickly as possible.
I turn, therefore, to the lessons for the future and to the recommendations made by Mr. Byford. As will be seen from the statement in the Library, they deal comprehensively with the management requirements of the investigation of a series of major crimes, the training of senior detectives and personnel working in major incident rooms, the command of investigations involving a number of crimes which cross force boundaries, the harnessing for such investigations of the best detective and forensic science skills in the country, and the use of computer technology.
I welcome Mr. Byford's recommendations on those matters. They are already being followed up with representatives of the police service. They provide valuable guidelines for the operational conduct of very large criminal investigations in police forces generally. They will require a constructive commitment at all levels of the police service.
Mr. Roy HattersleyFirst, I thank the Home Secretary for making this statement today. It contains matters that the House will consider to be both distressing and distasteful, but, in the light of the report, discussion of them today is unavoidable.
The House will note—I quote from the summary of the report—that
"the vast majority of the officers involved in the case worked diligently and conscientiously."
We must all take comfort from that. We also take comfort from the fact that the report makes no attempt to protect the individuals involved or to excuse the failures of the service. However, that being said, some facts are tragically inescapable. The summary of the report, a copy of which the Home Secretary was kind enough to give me in advance, makes three matters clear. There was inefficiency and serious error and the incident room involved was ineffective. Many senior officers proved incapable of the efficient discharge of the duties that were placed upon them.
The Home Secretary quotes the summary as to the results of those failures. He said that Peter Sutcliffe should have been recognised as the prime suspect much earlier and should have been arrested much earlier. In the light of that, I must ask the Home Secretary a stark question Is it not a fact that those failures resulted in the deaths of women who should have been saved from the awful fate that overcame them?
Since the answer to that question must, I deeply regret, be "Yes", I ask the Home Secretary to take three courses of action that are necessary for the re-establishment of confidence in the police forces of Britain. I ask him to promise three things. First, he promised in his statement to follow up—those were his words—the criticisms of the police force contained in the report. We need far more than that from him today. We need a much stronger statement of his intention. Will he promise the House here and now to take whatever action is necessary to remedy the faults that the report describes?
Secondly, we need assurances from the Home Secretary—which I ask him now to give—that he will immediately take whatever action is necessary to avoid similar errors in the detection of serious crime in police forces outside West Yorkshire. I fear that the report will reverberate throughout Britain and undermine confidence in other areas as well as in the one to which the report refers.
Thirdly, what action is being taken about the officers who were clearly responsible for the errors that prolonged the tragedy? Are they still in charge of the investigation of serious crime within their area? If that were the case, the House and the country would regard it as wholly intolerable.
Mr. WhitelawI am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for recognising that it was important that an oral statement should be made to the House. I took the view, somewhat exceptionally in such cases, that it was essential that I should do so. I also took the view that it was quite essential that I published in the Library a summary of the report which held back nothing and which did not try to cover anything up. That was most important in all the circumstances and whatever may be the other criticisms of what has happened, that will be recognised as a fact.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question that can never wholly be answered, but from what I said I must

159
accept that if Sutcliffe had been arrested earlier there would be those who were subsequently killed who would not have been. One cannot avoid that. With the benefit of hindsight, one must accept it.
I turn to the other points that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the future. First, he asked that we should take whatever steps are necessary to improve the position in the future. This morning I discussed the report with the leader of the West Yorkshire council and with the appointed members of the police authority. I am grateful to them for having come to London today to discuss the matters with me. They will have a meeting with their police authority. Together we are determined to learn all the lessons from the failures and we are determined to ensure that the efficiency of the force in such matters is improved in the future. We are all perfectly clear about that and we all accept immediately the responsibility that that places upon us.
As to the need to ensure that the lessons are learnt by other forces, it was right to supplement the report made internally by the deputy chief constable with a report by the inspector of constabulary, because there are wider lessons to be learnt for the police service as a whole. That is why I asked Mr. Byford, with a team of advisers, to consider the matter. They have spent five months doing so and they have uncovered much in that time, as is proper. My purpose was to make absolutely certain that the lessons should be properly learnt on this occasion and should be transmitted to all the police services in Britain. Through the inspectors of constabulary I intend to ensure, with the chief constables, that all the lessons will be learned. Less than that would not do justice to an important report and to much hard work from all those concerned.
Mr. HattersleyI am sorry to press the Home Secretary on my third question, not least because I accept with great appreciation the forthright answers that he gave to the first two questions. However, he will recall that I asked him whether the officers responsible are still in charge of the investigation of serious crime in the area. That is a most important question, and I hope that the Home Secretary will answer me now.
Mr. WhitelawI could not guarantee an answer in every case. It would, be wrong for me to do so without checking all the facts. However, I can assure the right hon. Gentlemen that the chief constable and all those concerned are determined to learn the lessons. I shall transmit the right hon. Gentleman's point to the chief constable. It would be wrong for me to respond positively to everything that the right hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Richard WainwrightThe Liberal Party is also glad that the Home Secretary has brought the Byford report directly to the Floor of the House which, together with West Yorkshire's Sampson report, illuminates the fatal lack of computer power that could have directed towards Sutcliffe months earlier the enormous amount of information that was put on pieces of paper. Yorkshire Television viewers saw those pieces of paper being sifted over in enormous numbers of shoe boxes in the incident room.
Does the Home Secretary agree that the full and continuous use of up-to-date technology will not be provided by ratepayers to the police unless each police
160
authority can reassure itself continuously that its police force is capable and willing to use technology simply for the detection of serious, specific crimes and not for any other purpose? Does the Home Secretary agree that he could take steps to ensure that there is a consistently better relationship between police authorities and police forces to ensure that information provided by modern technology—which should certainly be made available to police forces—will not be used for the invasion of human rights?
Mr. WhitelawI take the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of the role of police authorities. I have stressed consistently the importance of a close relationship between police authorities and police forces in Britain. Equally, I accept that information that was readily available was not used to the best advantage because of failures in the incident room. I also accept that we are still learning in the police service—as, indeed, throughout the nation—the best use to make of computers and modern technology. We have lessons to learn from this and I must ensure that we learn them.
There is always a conflict of interest, in all problems concerning computer technology, as to what information is given and how it is used. A balance has to be struck in regard to the police service.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. SpeakerOrder. I propose to allow 20 minutes for questions on the statement. If hon. Members are brief and to the point, that should be sufficient time to accommodate all hon. Members who have been rising.
Mr. Marcus FoxDuring the long investigation, did the police authority give its full support to the chief constable?
Mr. WhitelawMy hon. Friend is particularly interested in this matter, having a constituency in the area concerned. The police authority, both before the election, when control changed hands, and since, has given the force the fullest possible support, morally and financially. It has put a considerable strain on the force but it has done its best to help in every way it can.
Mr. Joseph DeanWill the Home Secretary accept that the report and his statement on it throw no new light whatever on the subject? What is contained in the report and the statement has been said by the people and by the media in West Yorkshire for the past 12 months, and the scars left by these events and by the savage murders still linger in the area. Will he accept that the scars are so deep that women are still reluctant to go out in certain areas of West Yorkshire? Will he give an undertaking that the police reorganisation will be examined with a view to providing people with the maximum protection that they are entitled to expect?
Mr. WhitelawWe all appreciate the problems which have been created for the hon. Members in the area concerned and for their constituents, and I hope that I have discharged our responsibility to them by setting up the inquiry and by asking the inspector of constabulary to supplement the internal review by the West Yorkshire force in order to get at the roots of all the problems. I believe that my statement, and the stark nature of much that I have said, will show that we have gone to the root of the problems. It is now for the police service in West Yorkshire and for the police authority to act on them. That

161
was fully accepted by the appointed members and the leader of the West Yorkshire county council when I saw them this morning. Everyone concerned must ensure that the lessons are learned fully for the future.
Mr. John G. BlackburnWill my right hon. Friend, in reflecting on the report of Her Majesty's inspector, always hold fast to the cardinal rule of British law that a man is presumed to be innocent until he is found guilty? That is natural British justice. Many hon. Members found it offensive, after the arrest of Sutcliffe, that there were continual appearances on television by police officers who were responsible for the arrest. If a charge is made, a statement should be given to that effect. Will my right hon. Friend agree that at that point the whole case is sub judice?
Mr. WhitelawIt is true to say that many statements were made at the time of the arrest of Mr. Sutcliffe which reflected on what was said by the police and what was said and done by the media. Everyone concerned learned from those statements and I do not wish to add to them this afternoon.
Mr. Jack AshleyAlthough I welcome the constructive proposals and hope that they will be accepted by the police, what will the Home Secretary do if any police force is not prepared to give the constructive commitment for which he is asking?
Mr. WhitelawI believe that the commitment will be given, and it is most important that it should be. Under the Police Act 1964, there is a safeguard. The Home Secretary has a right, through the inspectors of constabulary, to make proposals to various police forces if they do not carry out their duties to the standards expected of them. I believe that my action in asking Mr. Byford, as inspector of constabulary, to inquire into the case, and the way in which the report has been accepted by all concerned in West Yorkshire, shows that our system is right, and we must follow it through.
Mr. Jonathan AitkenDoes my right hon. Friend expect any senior police officers in West Yorkshire to resign or to be moved as a result of the report and, if not, why not?
Mr. WhitelawUnder the 1964 Act, I could take a drastic step in regard to the chief constable who, of course, is operationally responsible for the whole affair, but that would be only if I were satisfied and could establish that to do so would be in the interests of efficiency. In making that judgment I would have to satisfy myself not simply on the basis of one failure in a force area, however serious and important, but having regard to the general performance of the force as a whole over a period of time and its likely performance in the future. I must make it clear that I am not so satisfied.
Mr. Edward LyonsWill the Home Secretary agree that the Byford recommendations make it clear that scarcely a police force in the country is adequately trained or equipped to deal with an inquiry on the scale of that required as a result of the activities of my constituent, Mr. Sutcliffe? In those circumstances, is not there some responsibility on people much closer to the top, much higher than the West Yorkshire police force? In addition, in view of the urgent need for training in management techniques, when will it be implemented for senior officers?
Mr. WhitelawThese are lessons that we have been learning. If I may say so, I and my predecessor as Home Secretary have done a great deal in recent years to bring to the notice of police officers, through the inspectors of constabulary, the need for training in all these fields. Under the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and myself, the Home Office has adopted a very much more positive role in all these matters. It is right to do so and it will continue to do so in the future.
Mr. Gary WallerNearly all the murders took place within 10 miles of my constituency. I congratulate my right hon. Friend unreservedly on his statement, and on the fact that he is placing in the Library a summary of Mr. Byford's report. In order to ensure that public confidence in the police persists, it is essential that it should be clear to the whole of the public that there has been no attempt at a cover-up of the sad deficiencies revealed by the inquiry.
Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is true, as the internal report to the police committee by Mr. Sampson suggested, that at the time of the Sutcliffe inquiries no suitable computer system existed? Some of those who have an interest in information technology find that claim difficult to believe.
Will my right hon. Friend ensure, in relation to any future inquiries of a similar nature in any part of the country, that police forces will have access to computer facilities which are suitable to ensure that facts of the son which could have led to the apprehension of Mr. Sutcliffe emerge from the plethora of irrelevant information?
Mr. WhitelawI am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the need to have no cover-up. Afer the publication of the statement—and, indeed, the summary which I have placed in the Library—no such charge could be fairly levelled.
It is true that we have yet to develop successfully the computer facilities that are necessary for use in the police service. Those facilities had not been sufficiently developed at the time in question, and that may be a criticism of all concerned. For the future, we have to ensure not only that computers are available but that they are used to the best advantage.
Mr. Geoffrey LofthouseWill the Home Secretary now confirm to the House that he has already taken action in putting a ban on the promotion chances of senior officers of the West Yorkshire police force? If that is the case, does that ban include officers who have not been involved in the Sutcliffe case?
Mr. WhitelawI have not exactly put on a ban. I have represented to the West Yorkshire police authority that there are certain officers in the force whom I would not be prepared to agree should go forward for promotion to assistant chief constable. I believe that to be a correct decision. There are other officers in senior positions, who were not necessarily involved in the inquiry, to whom no such bar would apply when the question of promotion prospects arose.
Mr. John StokesIn view of this serious report and other allied matters, does my right hon. Friend consider that the time has now come for the police force to recruit and train an officer class of

163
the highest educational standard, in the same way as the Armed Forces do, rather than depend entirely on promotion from within the ranks?
Mr. WhitelawI hope that what we are seeking to do, and what we have done, to improve the career prospects in the police service, together with the improvements we have made in the training facilities in the service, not just during my time at the Home Office but before, will improve the standing and efficiency of the police service in this country. That is what we are all seeking to do and I hope that by these means we can achieve it.
Mr. K. J. WoolmerDoes the Home Secretary accept that the comments of those who have followed this matter for a long time now are based not on any inherent criticism of the police but in recognition of the stress and strain placed on them and on the victims and their families? Having said that, is he aware that anything less than the very fullest publication of the report will not satisfy the public of West Yorkshire? Until one has had time to look at it, it is impossible to know whether the summary which has been published meets that requirement.
Secondly, could the right hon. Gentleman comment on whether or not the police authority was properly able to carry out its responsibility on behalf of the public and whether, in the event, the police authority did carry out the kind of questioning and the kind of responsibility that it ought to have done?
Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public, however unfortunate this may be for the officers involved, will expect the responsibility for any errors properly to be borne and that if the outcome appears to be that, when millions of pounds have been spent and many people tragically murdered, the responsibility of these officers is not seen publicly to have been carried out, people will be seriously concerned?
Mr. WhitelawYes, and of course some of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred are inevitably matters which concern both the police authority and myself. That is why I thought it right this morning to ask to speak to the appointed members of the police authority and—I was most grateful to him for coming—the leader of the West Yorkshire County Council.
The hon. Gentleman asks whether those people will have the fullest information about the report. I have made it clear—I made it clear when the inquiry was originally set up and Mr. Byford was asked to produce the report—that because it was a report from an inspector of constabulary to the Home Secretary, it would have to enjoy the normal confidentiality which such reports have always had, and be written on that basis. However, I have said to the police authority this morning that, in addition to the very full and clear summary that has been placed in the Library, I have agreed that the Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Mr. Byford himself will be prepared to answer any questions put orally to them by the police authority, concerning the efficiency of the force. They have seen them this morning and they will be prepared to go and answer any questions concerning the efficiency of the force put by the police authority in West Yorkshire. I do not think the police authority could be given a fairer or fuller opportunity than this to discharge its duties.
Mr. Martin FlanneryDoes the Home Secretary agree with me that, no matter what computer facilities existed or did not exist, the number of leads to this man, who was interviewed about nine times, was so massive that there must have been culpable negligence in not following them up and arresting him much earlier? Does he further agree that this man was not caught in West Yorkshire? He was actually caught and brought to the local police station in my constituency, in South Yorkshire, where all the women were as terrified as those in West Yorkshire? Would he finally accept it from me that if some major heads in West Yorkshire do not roll as a result of this, and if that police force is left undisturbed at the top level as a result of this inquiry, there will be grave disquiet throughout the whole of West and South Yorkshire?
Mr. WhitelawI do not think I could go along with the phrase "culpable negligence". That would be a mistake. What I can agree is that, with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear, as I said in my statement, that if errors and inefficiencies had not occurred Sutcliffe would have been identified sooner as a prime suspect. There is no doubt about that.
As to where he was arrested, all I can say about that is that he was arrested, as the hon. Gentleman says, in his constituency—
Mr. FlanneryBy sheer chance.
Mr. WhitelawThat is perfectly true, but many of the great criminals in history have been arrested by sheer chance. As for where it was done, I do not mind whether it was in the hon. Gentleman's constituency or anywhere else. The great thing is that the man was arrested and was brought to justice.
Mr. Thomas TorneyIn view of the great number of women who were murdered and the long, long time that constituents of mine were terrorised, does the Home Secretary agree that either he or some inspector of constabulary or somebody in high authority should have stepped into West Yorkshire, particularly in view of this report which is now showing inefficiencies in the West Yorkshire force, to ensure that outside assistance—the best brains in the country, in fact—was brought into West Yorkshire to take control of the inquiry long before this actually happened? May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that outside help was brought in only when I raised the matter here?
Mr. SpeakerOrder. The length of questions is going to prevent my calling some hon. Members.
Mr. WhitelawWhat the hon. Gentleman says is not quite true, though, as always, there is some substance of truth in what he says. In November 1979, before the hon. Gentleman raised the matter, at the invitation of the chief constable, Commander Nevill and a detective chief superintendent of the Metropolitan Police examined the investigation, and in January 1980 made recommendations to the chief constable. In November 1980, after, it is perfectly true, the hon. Gentleman and others had raised the matter—I do not object to that; after all, if I am not here to respond to what Members of Parliament and others say to me, what on earth am I here for?—I did respond properly to what the hon. Gentleman had said, and I suggested to the inspector of constabulary, Mr. Byford, that we bring in outside people.

165
In November 1980, through Mr. Byford and Mr. Gregory, we brought in Mr. Emment, the deputy chief constable of the Thames Valley Policy, Mr. Sloan, the national co-ordinator of regional crime squads, Mr. Gerty, assistant chief constable of the West Midlands Police, Mr. Harvey, commander, Metropolitan Police and Assistant (Crime) to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, and Mr. Kind, director of the Home Office Central Research Establishment, Aldermaston. We brought all those people in, and I think it was right to do so. This House recommended that I do it, and I responded to that.
As for the final arrest, although it was certainly by chance, it was also to some extent as the result of good police work on the beat.
Mr. David GinsburgAs well as criticism, there is the question of praise, as the Home Secretary has just said. Can he confirm that there is some reference in the Byford report to the role of Sergeant Rigg of Dewsbury whose decisive action led to the proper investigations into the crime being undertaken?
Mr. WhitelawNo, I am afraid that I shall not refer to individual officers. If I did so, I would get into a difficult area and that is exactly what I should not do. What I can say—it is something I neglected to say to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—is that many officers, detectives and others worked with great dedication for an enormous number of hours and had great strain placed on them and on their families in pursuing this inquiry. I think that they deserve our thanks, despite the fact that there are some criticisms as well.
Dr. Shirley SummerskillWill the Home Secretary bear in mind the fact that one of the Ripper's victims was a constituent of mine? Will he clarify his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer)? Am I correct in understanding the Home Secretary to say that he will not be publishing even a summary of the main conclusions and recommendations in Mr. Byford's report? It is inadequate simply to place the summary in the Library. The constituents in areas where the Ripper's victims lived, and the entire population, should be able to see and study that distressing and worrying report.
Mr. WhitelawI am anxious to be as forthcoming as possible. I thought that by placing the report in the Library
166
I would ensure that it would become widely available. I believe that the report is published, but if it is not I shall look into the matter. I have placed the summary in the Library and I shall ensure that it is available widely.
In addition, I have made it clear that the police authority can ask oral questions of the Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Mr. Byford. If, by placing the summary in the Library and making my statement today, I have not given the fullest information to the public and the press I shall ensure that I do so.

Yorkshire Ripper (Investigations)
  BILLS PRESENTED
    NEW TOWNS
    Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Leon Brittan arid Mr. John Stanley, presented a Bill to increase the limit imposed by section 60 of the New Towns Act 1981 on the amounts which may be borrowed by development corporations and the Commission for the New Towns: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 47].
    RAPE
    Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop, supported by Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Peter Mills, Miss Jo Richardson, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Tony Speller, Mr. Jim Craigen and Mr. Malcolm Thornton, presented a Bill to amend the law concerning the offence of rape: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 May and to be printed [Bill 48].

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. SpeakerWith the leave of the House I shall put together the questions on the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Oil Taxation (Gas Banking Schemes) Regulations 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 1765) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Pym.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  Noise Induced Hearing Loss
  4.11 pm
  Mr. Ron LeightonI beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for persons suffering from noise induced hearing loss.
  I declare an interest. Before coming to the House I worked in a newspaper machine room and was subjected to between 106 and 108 dB of noise and my hearing suffered as a result. Many of my former colleagues still work in such conditions.
  Noise induced hearing loss is one of society's most common diseases. The social cost of being deaf is enormous to the individual. It causes tension, fatigue, nervousness, sleeplessness, stress and, perhaps above all, social isolation. It is a strain to communicate at work and at home. Terrible loneliness and isolation can result.
  If deafness were an unavoidable handicap for a few, perhaps our indifference and lack of concern would be understandable, if not forgivable, but it is estimated that between 1 million and 2 million people have had their hearing damaged as a result of noise at work. The terrible fact about this type of deafness is that it is preventable. Perhaps because it does not cause physical disfigurement, it is neglected. It can and must be prevented in future. It is a classic case of prevention being better than cure, because such deafness is incurable.
  The connection between noise and deafness has been understood for many years. As far back as 1886 a certain Dr. Barr studied boilermakers in Glasgow and discovered that nobody engaged in boilermaking for any length of time escaped injury to hearing. In 100 years our progress has been very slow indeed.
  The industry and the factory inspectorate have at various times argued that industry should be encouraged to reduce noise on a voluntary basis. The voluntary approach was epitomised by the 1972 code of practice for reducing the exposure of employed persons to noise.
  How successful was that voluntary approach? A study by the factory inspectorate in 1971 showed that 9 per cent. of workers in manufacturing industry were exposed to over 90 dB. Three years later, despite the code, the same companies were exposing 8 per cent. of workers to over 90 dB. The study showed not only that the effect of the code was minimal, but that in 1971 18 per cent. of workers exposed were offered ear protectors and that three years later that figure had risen to 50 per cent. That means that not even the 1 per cent. improvement was the result of reducing noise levels. Industry adopted the short-term, cheap solution. It put people in ear muffs.
  My conclusion is that the voluntary approach has failed. The Health and Safety Commission recognised that last year when it issued the first comprehensive set of
  168
  regulations for the reduction of noise in Britain. Will the regulations put right the toll of years of neglect in many industries? I regret that it will not.
  The TUC has stated that a 90 dB limit is far too high to protect most workers. It asks what is the point of introducing a set of regulations that will not achieve an acceptable level of protection. The TUC does not argue that that can be done immediately, but it is unwilling to accept a standard that is patently unsafe in case we are still arguing about new regulations in another 100 years' time.
  The other main criticism of the draft regulations is that they do not place sufficient weight on reducing noise at source. Trade unionists know that employers will opt for the cheap solution. That is what they did in response to the 1972 code. There is no doubt that they will do it again. Techniques exist to reduce noise in industry to below the level that is dangerous to workers. Noisy machines can be insulated acoustically. For example, newspaper presses can be put in sound-proof boxes.
  What is the substance of industry's objections? Why has the CBI obstructed progress on the regulations for 10 years? The reason is the cost involved. On one level that is the employers' perennial excuse. Such an argument can be used to oppose every social advance, from the abolition of child labour to the reduction of the working week.
  In all my discussions with those involved I have the overwhelming sense that the problem is not just one of cost but of the lack of priority and will in relation to noise reduction. It can involve reorganisation only, rather than expensive noise suppression. Designing noise out at source is relatively cheap, but employers do not demand quiet machinery so manufacturers do not design it.
  Unnecessary noise is allowed to creep in everywhere. A print room such as that in which I worked may be noisy, but we turn quiet office environments into "print rooms" with new word processors. The printer does not need to be in the office but somebody, somewhere, decided that deafening office workers was not important—if it was considered at all.
  The time has come to make the issue a social and political priority. The Government must give the lead. They must emphasise to the Health and Safety Commission that the new regulations must be tightened in the two crucial respects that I have mentioned. Many other parts of the regulations are uncontroversial and should be welcomed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ron Leighton, Mr. Michael Welsh, Mr. Don Dixon and Dr. M. S. Miller.

  Noise Induced Hearing Loss
    NOISE INDUCED HEARING Loss
    Mr. Ron Leighton accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision for persons suffering from noise induced hearing loss: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 February and to be printed. [Bill 49].
Orders of the Day

  Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.20 pm
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Nigel Lawson)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The House will recall that, on 10 November, during the debate on the Address, I said that the Government were determined to press ahead this Session with our far-reaching proposals for the British National Oil Corporation and for the British Gas Corporation. The Bill fulfils that commitment. It will enable us to sell shares in the upstream oil-producing business of BNOC and to establish a new financial structure for the corporation which will continue in being after the upstream business has been floated off. It will provide new powers for the disposal of assets held by the gas corporation, subject to parliamentary approval in each case. It will permit for the first time competition in the supply of gas. It will also strengthen various aspects of existing petroleum legislation, in particular in regard to offshore safety. In short, the Bill will be a landmark in the history of national policy towards Britain's energy resources in the North Sea.
  Part I deals with the sale of shares in BNOC's oil-producing business, with the establishment of a new financial structure for the corporation and with the abolition of the national oil account. There are three main reasons why we believe that the oil exploration and production interests of BNOC should be part of the private enterprise sector of the economy.
  First, the proper business of Government is not the government of business. No industrial corporation should be owned and controlled by the State unless there is a positive and specific reason for such an arrangement. That is manifestly not so here. The successful development of our North Sea resources has been overwhelmingly the achievement of private enterprise. No Opposition Member can gainsay that. Our vital strategic and other national interests are fully safeguarded by the complex statutory framework of regulatory controls, participation agreements and taxation, all of which remain, and will remain, fully in force. Duplication by the State of the activities of the oil companies in the production of oil adds nothing to our security of supply or to any other national interest. It is our control over the British section of the North Sea and the powers that this gives us over all who operate there that matter, and not the ownership of one oil company which is responsible for 7 per cent. of United Kingdom North Sea output.
  Secondly, privatisation will be in the best interests of BNOC itself. It has now been in existence for six years and has an oil-producing business with considerable expertise and potential. After a period of consolidation, it is rightly looking to expand. This calls for the freedom to seize opportunities as and when they arise, for investment and for the spirit of enterprise. While the business remains in the State sector, its activities will inevitably be subject to the politicisation and to the constraints that that entails. Its financial requirements, which will not for ever remain within the size of its own internally generated resources,
  170
  must compete with other claims on the public purse and the spirit of enterprise will in time be stunted. Privatisation will be an act of liberation.
  Thirdly, we believe that the British people should have a much better opportunity to share directly in the country's oil wealth. Symbolic ownership of BNOC as a State corporation is in no sense a satisfactory substitute. We wish to see public ownership in the true sense of the term, and I hope to see ownership of the shares in the new company spread as widely as possible. I also hope that the management will take advantage of the special provisions for employees' share schemes in the Bill.
  BNOC as at present constituted conducts essentially two forms of business. The first is the production of oil. The second is trading in oil, based on the network of participation agreements. It is our intention to transfer the entire oil-producing business to a subsidiary formed under the Companies Act for that purpose. The transfer will be carried out by the method set out in clause 2 and schedule 1. This will leave the corporation with the trading business, and with the participation agreements, which will remain intact, with the small but expert staff, the rights and the assets needed to give effect to them.
  The name of the new subsidiary will be Britoil. I have asked the corporation that it be registered in Scotland. The formation and the registration of Britoil could occur soon after Second Reading, although it could not become fully operational until the Bill is on the statute book. I notice that Opposition Members opposite are not interested in whether there is a Scottish dimension to this, but many hon. Members are.
  Dr. J. Dickson MabonMay I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the statement he has just made that Britoil will be a Scottish registered company? That is a tremendous step forward, but shall we be told a little more about the articles of association, the distribution and dispersal of ownership and particularly foreign ownership?
  Mr. LawsonThe right hon. Gentleman has great charm, but he is always a little impetuous. If he can restrain himself and be patient, I shall come to that matter in due course.
  Once reorganisation of the corporation's assets is complete, the Bill will enable the Government to take: possession of the corporation's shares in Britoil. This will be done.
  Our initial aim is to sell 51 per cent. of the shares in Britoil. The Bill will keep open the way for a further sale from the Government's shareholding at some later date, when the Government of the day decided that it was in the national interest to do so. We shall make the position abundantly clear in the prospectus.
  While the precise timing naturally remains subject to market conditions, my hope is that the sale of shares will take place before the end of this year. Immediately after Second Reading, I shall be asking the corporation, in close consultation with my Department, to take what steps it can to prepare the way for flotation. We would not, of course, go ahead with an offer for sale unless we were satisfied that the selling price represented fair value for the taxpayer, but I see no reason whatever to doubt that an acceptable price can be obtained. Certainly, the market will know how much weight to attach to the bluster of the official Opposition.

  171
  After the sale of 51 per cent. of its shares, Britoil will operate as a normal private sector company. The management and work force will be responsible under their directors for their own future.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell:The right hon. Gentleman has referred to value for the taxpayer. Who is to judge that and how is it to be judged?
  Mr. LawsonThat is one of the many responsibilities of Government. The Government do not intend to control—
  Mr. Douglas JayBefore the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the sale of the shares, will he say whether the purchasers, whether employees of the company or not, will be free to sell them on the Stock Exchange to anyone they wish?
  Mr. LawsonOf course they will be free to sell them to anyone they wish, but the point at which the right hon. Gentleman is driving is rather similar to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon), a much disputed constituency these days, I understand. As I said, I shall be coming to that in due course.
  The Government do not intend to control the company or to use their rights as a shareholder to intervene in the company's commercial decisions. The Government will retain special rights in the articles to prevent any unacceptable change in the future control of the company; I think this is the point the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was raising. Except in these circumstances, the Government do not expect to vote their shareholding in opposition to resolutions supported by a majority of the board, although they retain the right to do so.
  I have undertaken, as I said in answer to an intervention by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) in the earlier debate on 10 November, to make available to the House the articles dealing with changes in control of the company in which a certain amount of interest has already been expressed elsewhere. Of course, I shall do so.
  Mr. DalyellWhen?
  Mr. LawsonDuring the passage of the Bill. There will be ample opportunity—
  Mr. DalyellThe right hon. Gentleman said "during the passage of the Bill". He may recall what happened during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. It is unsatisfactory for any Government to come up with vital matters three-quarters of the way through the passage of a Bill. It makes a great difference to how we approach the Bill before us whether the information is published at an early stage. We should not start the Committee stage until we have the information.
  Mr. LawsonI do not accept that for a moment, but if what the hon. Gentleman said earlier is correct, I shall try to do better in the provisions dealing with the flora and fauna of the oil industry.
  It may be helpful if I say what we envisage will be in the articles. We envisage that in any situation in which there is an attempt to take over the company the shares held in my name as Secretary of State should carry a temporary majority of votes, whatever the nationalities of the parties involved. Similarly, in any situation in which there are attempts directly or indirectly to obtain control
  172
  over the composition of the board the shares held in my name should carry a temporary majority of votes on any resolution to appoint, re-elect or remove any director. Those are very important powers. I believe that the articles will provide effective safeguards against unacceptable changes in control of Britoil.
  We also intend that there should be two Government directors on the board of Britoil for as long as the size of the Government's shareholding warrants it.
  BNOC itself will remain in existence as a State trading body dealing primarily in participation oil.
  The Bill will also end the corporation's special access to interest-free money from the national oil account, an arrangement that has been much criticised by the Public Accounts Committee.
  We shall naturally want Britoil, like any other oil company, to enter into a participation agreement with BNOC covering its existing licence interests, and the terms of this agreement will be settled well before the sale of shares. Hon. Members will want to know, in particular, how this will be applied to the fifth and sixth licensing rounds where there is no participation but where BNOC owns 51 per cent of the equity.
  In general, I shall seek public sector access to about half the production from each licence, but without disturbing the present rights of private licensees. I shall not seek access to more than 51 per cent. of Britoil's oil from licences awarded in the first four rounds. But in the fifth and sixth rounds, depending on the detailed provisions applying to each separate licence—and they vary—this policy may require BNOC to have options to more than 51 per cent. of Britoil's oil. This is in no way unfair to Britoil, because in those licences BNOC's 51 per cent. equity share, which Britoil will inherit, was a substitute for participation. Nor, of course, will it in any way impair Britoil's profitability, since BNOC will have to purchase participation oil at the full market price.
  I now turn to part II, which deals with the disposal of gas corporation assets and the breaking of its monopoly in the supply of gas. As the House knows, it is our intention to use the new disposal powers, in the first instance, to privatise the corporation's substantial investment in North Sea oil.
  The existing Gas Act, accepted by Governments of both parties, contains a power of disposal—indeed, it is under the existing legislation that the corporation was required last year to dispose of its interest in the Wytch Farm oilfield. What the Bill does is to widen that power, while retaining, contrary to the claims of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) in The Observer last Sunday, the requirement for parliamentary approval in each and every case.
  In any case, it really is the height of impertinence for the Opposition to complain of the scope of the powers that we are seeking, because, of course, they, when in office, wanted to go a good deal further. In their 1978 White Paper on the nationalised industries they stated their intention to take the power to give directions, general or specific, to any nationalised industry on virtually any matter that
  "appeared"
  to the Secretary of State
  "to affect the national interest."
  Had the electorate not wisely removed them from office the following year, this power would already have been on the statute book.

  173
  But I have little doubt that, in the long run, the more important provisions of part II concern the breaking of the British Gas Corporation monopoly. By law the gas corporation enjoys unfettered ownership of the onshore pipeline grid, exempt from the regulatory provisions of the Pipe-lines Act 1962, which apply to private sector pipelines. And, above all, it possesses an effective monopoly of both the purchase and the supply of gas in the United Kingdom.
  As a result, producers of gas inevitably see little incentive to explore for and develop gas reserves, because they know that, at best, they will be faced with a take-it-or-leave-it price offer from the corporation, and that at worst they may get no offer. It is hardly surprising that, in sharp contrast to the position with offshore oil, exploration for gas is minimal, and we do not even have a clear picture of what our total gas reserves amount to. Meanwhile, many industrialists throughout the country are deprived of the gas that they would like to buy.
  We have therefore decided to break the monopoly and open the industry up to the spur of competition. British Gas will still retain its statutory monopoly, but only within that market which it has a statutory obligation to supply on demand all consumers— they of course include the vast bulk of ordinary households—whose premises take less than 25,000 therms a year and are no more than 25 yds from a gas main. But in all other cases the corporation's monopoly will cease to exist. Other suppliers will have a chance to compete, for the first time.
  In the case of those consumers whose premises take less than I million therms a year, the supply of gas will still be by the Secretary of State's consent, but I would envisage granting such consent in all cases where I was satisfied that the safety arrangements proposed were adequate.
  In the case of those consumers whose premises take over 1 million therms a year, freedom to compete for their custom will he absolute. This category represents roughly three quarters of all industrial and commercial gas sales.
  However, the breaking of the statutory monopoly along the lines that I have just indicated will not of itself be enough to make competition a reality. The Bill therefore also makes provision for effective private access to the gas corporation's pipeline network.
  In the first instance it will be up to other suppliers to negotiate with the corporation the terms on which it is prepared to transmit their gas through its grid, but, as is customary with common carrier arrangements, there will be a right of appeal—in this case to my Department, at least in the early years—against any refusal by the corporation to carry private gas on the grounds of, say, inadequate capacity, or against the terms quoted by the corporation for the carriage of gas.
  Mr. Dick DouglasDoes the right hon. Gentleman intend to prohibit the use of the gas grid for purposes other than the supply of United Kingdom industrialists and so on? In other words, will he prohibit the use of the gas grid for the export of gas?
  Mr. LawsonThe requirement that gas should be landed in the United Kingdom remains. It is unaffected by the Bill.
  Mr. DalyellThe Secretary of State talks about the right of appeal to his Department. What technical facilities
  174
  are there in the Department of Energy to pass judgment on these very complex, detailed issues? There may be such facilities, but I do not know of them.
  Mr. LawsonThere is considerable technical expertise in the Department. The particular technical expertise needed to fulfil that role and to process the appeals—I hope that in most cases agreement will be reached between the gas supplier and the gas corporation without the need to go to appeal, but there will be some that have to go to appeal, and there must be recourse to appeal—will require a small number of additional civil servants expert in this matter. However, the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that I am confident that I can accommodate them within the declining numbers of civil servants to which ray Department, in common with all other Government Departments, is committed.
  Mr. T. H. H. SkeetMy right hon. Friend has made a very important statement. He has said that in the earlier years the Department of Energy will look after the arrangements. Is he undertaking that at some future date an independent commission will be established to see that appeals go through with great justice to all sides?
  Mr. LawsonMy hon. Friend is on to a very good point. It is sensible to review the position after a few years of running the new system and it may be necessary and sensible to institute the sort of agency to which he has referred. But we do not need that in year one.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson rose—
  Mr. LawsonI am not giving way at this stage.
  It has been alleged that the effect of introducing competition into the gas market will be to increase prices. That is stuff and nonsense. Competition here, as elsewhere, will tend to reduce prices below what they would otherwise have been, both by stimulating efficiency and by encouraging the provision of new and increased sources of supply. The proposals have been widely welcomed throughout British industry for that reason.
  The new impetus for the exploration and discovery of gas in the North Sea will be one of the first benefits to flow from this part of the Bill.
  Mr. Peter HardyDoes the right hon. Gentleman accept that what he has just said could cause considerable misgivings in the gas industry? Will he make it clear that he will not seek to create lower prices by forcing British Gas to act as a common carrier and provide, in effect, a subsidy for those who wish to use its pipelines?
  Mr. LawsonI do not suggest anything other than that British Gas should run a common carrier service on a fully commercial basis.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson rose—
  Mr. LawsonI shall give way, as I am a man of charitable disposition.
  Mr. Gordon WilsonGiving way gives the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to show that he is not guilty of racial discrimination. In his answer to the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) about pipelines he said that there would still be an obligation to land gas in the United Kingdom. He did not say specifically that there might be some other extension of the pipeline to the Continent, after the gas has been landed in the United Kingdom. Will he kindly say that the Government have no intention of allowing the export of natural gas to the Continent?
  Mr. LawsonThe re-export of gas from the United Kingdom is permitted under existing arrangements. The requirement is merely that the gas should be landed in the United Kingdom, and that position is unaffected by the Bill. I am talking about the position under legislation introduced by the Labour Government.
  Nor do I accept for one moment the claim that this means that our gas resources will be depleted at an excessive rate. The Government will retain the power to impose a depletion policy should that seem warranted, but, in general, market forces will provide a far more reliable guide to the optimum rate of depletion than central planning by a statutory monopoly.
  In short, I am confident that the gas provisions of the Bill will revitalise the industry and foster the growth of private enterprise to the benefit of producers and consumers alike, and I commend them to the House accordingly.
  Sir Albert CostainWill my right hon. Friend make clear the position of a company building its own pipeline? I can visualise cases where companies will want to take gas from a gas field to a factory. Will the Bill give an enabling power to do that?
  Mr. LawsonMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. There will be nothing to stop a gas producer building his own pipeline straight to a large factory which happens to be by the shore and can take gas economically in that way, although I should think that in most cases the common carrier system is likely to be used. Nevertheless, there will be cases when producers will wish to build their own pipelines, and they will be perfectly free to do so.
  I have concentrated on the provisions in parts I and II because I know that they will be of particular concern to the House, but I also commend to the House the remaining parts of the Bill, which are of importance, particularly as regards safety, and which all contribute to the proper and consistent regulation of activities on the United Kingdom continental shelf.
  The last occasion on which the House debated the proposals now embodied in the Bill was notable for a remarkable speech by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) from the Opposition Front Bench. I informed him that I would refer to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman is, but he conveyed his apologies to me for his inability to be present. However, I have a shrewd suspicion why he is not in the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman's speech, on 10 November, was his first speech from the Opposition Front Bench in this Parliament. As it turns out, it looks likely to have been his last one too. Presumably, as one of the terms and conditions of the treaty of Bishop's Stortford, he has felt obliged to stay away from the House for this debate.
  I take it that that means that we shall not be told today that official Labour Party policy is renationalisation without compensation, or, in plain English, theft, or that it embraces a commitment to nationalise the whole of the North Sea oil industry, lock, stock and barrel. But I hope that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)—I know how pained he was at a certain point on that earlier occasion—will take this opportunity to disown, without equivocation, the irresponsible statements made by his right hon. Friend. If he does not do so, the House will know what to conclude. While he is about it, the right hon.
  176
  Gentleman might also care to place a copy of the treaty of Bishop's Stortford in the Library. I am sure that many of his hon. Friends will be interested to discover its precise terms and conditions, if only because they wish to decide which of them to break first.
  The policy of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East is at least coherent, which is more than can be said for what I understand to be the policy of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South. Nationalisation of the entire North Sea oil industry would be a national disaster, but at least the thinking behind it is reasonably clear. By contrast, what possible advantage or case can there be for State ownership of one company among many—and that, by no means the largest?
  In his article in last Sunday's edition of The Observer —I was grateful for the opportunity to gain a little insight into the Opposition's thinking, if that is the right word—the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil advanced only two reasons for such ownership. The first was that without it, the Government would no longer know what was going on in the North Sea oil industry. That is sheer poppycock. As a direct result of the powers that the Government have in this field, the Government of the day acquire and will continue to acquire more information about the North Sea oil industry than about any other industry in the country. Like infantile Leftism, the Opposition's paranoid fear of the multinationals is a form of disease. It requires not so much rebuttal, as treatment.
  The other argument advanced by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil in his article in The Observer in favour of continued State ownership of BNOC in its present form, was that the first chairman of BNOC, Lord Kearton, was originally opposed to privatisation [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil will have the courtesy to listen, rather than to chatter from a sedentary position, because I am referring to an article that he wrote, or had written for him.
  Since, however, Lord Kearton has now come out publicly in support both of the ending of the gas monopoly and the privatisation of the upstream business of BNOC, that argument, too, is looking a trifle frayed. The truth is that the Opposition are still locked in the dogmas of the past. Their reflexes are still conditioned by the echoes of Clause Four. How else could they have failed to learn from the lessons of experience?
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. LawsonThe unsatisfactory experience—
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way.
  Mr. LawsonThe unsatisfactory experience of 30 years of State ownership of a substantial section of our national economy is incontrovertible. Strenuous efforts by successive Governments over the decades have led to inumerable papers, reports and debates, but very little progress on the problems of running these industries. Indeed, if anything, the problems have grown in size and intractability.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. LawsonI hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to me and not interrupt because I am making a serious point. If the problems are less acute now with BNOC than with the gas corporation, that is partly because

  177
  BNOC is one of the newest of the public corporations, and its spirit of enterprise has not yet been stifled by the bureaucratic embrace or perverted by immunity from bankruptcy. However, it is the widely acknowledged problems of the nationalised industries that the Government have, in a commonsense and undogmatic way, sought to tackle as well as the requirements of energy policy. It is in that spirit that we have sought sensible candidates for release from State ownership and the problems attendant on it, and ways of introducing competition and efficiency to the State-owned monopolies. The Bill seeks to achieve those results in one vitally important section of our economic life. It will benefit the oil and gas industries, their customers and the nation. I commend it to the House.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Merlyn ReesThe latter part of the speech of the Secretary of State for Energy was terribly amusing and the earlier part remarkably thin. It was not the speech of a Secretary of State giving information to the House of Commons.
  If the parliamentary importance of a Bill is reflected in the amount of time given to it on the Floor of the House, we must consider that we have already had a debate in which a statement of clarity was made by the Secretary of State after he had briefed the press. Although parts of this debate give me no great hope of it, we should have a long Committee stage. In Committee we shall deal with the gas and oil aspects. On the most important aspect—safety—the Secretary of State has said not a word.
  This is an important Bill and it will have a long Committee stage. The first question I shall raise is about parliamentary accountability in the sense of information. Can the Secretary of State provide the Committee with a deal of relevant information on all sections of the Bill? There is appropriate information such as policy documents and it would be much better if we had access to them in Committee.
  On a Bill of this nature, Opposition parties find it extremely difficult to get the factual information that they require. I ask the Secretary of State to provide us with all the information that is available. It will be well received.
  The same applies to the two corporations affected by the Bill—the gas corporation and BNOC. At one stage, BNOC was an adviser to the Government on the basis that, under all Governments, oil accumen could not come from any Department let alone from a Minister. The gas corporation has much technical information and experience and, since it has factual information, I wonder whether the Secretary of State could arrange for that information, from both corporations, in the same way to be provided to us in Committee. For example, as I understand it, the gas corporation disagreed with part VII of the explanatory and financial memorandum on the number of extra staff which will be required in the Department of Energy. The Secretary of State and the gas corporation may be right, but would it not be useful if we had the relevant information on which we could make up our minds? There is disagreement on that and I simply ask for the paperwork to enable us to make a judgment.
  As I understand it, there is disagreement about the highly technical matters arising from the new arrangements for the carriage of private gas which, again as I understand it, has been done in a different way from that
  178
  in the United States and other countries. A survey has been carried out in different countries, comparing methods of carriage of private gas, which has enabled other gas corporations to make assessments. Would it not be a good idea if that document were made available to us?
  The points that I have raised are highly important and not political matters. In Committee, it would be much more sensible and practical if a deal of that information could be provided.
  On the same aspect of information but in a different context, I shall deal with part IV of the Bill first. We have had two bites of the cherry on gas and oil. Part IV is really a separate Bill which has been included in the measure before us. Governments have done this before. May we have some information on that?
  The Bill refers to the protection of installations, to safety and to new applications of criminal and civil law. Where can we be briefed on such highly complicated matters? To get it right it needs different treatments and I suggest to the Secretary of State—not in desire to waste time, as could easily be done if necessary—that we take part IV out of the Bill as it deals with other matters. Could we not have a Select Committee procedure whereby the gas, oil and shipowners in the North Sea could be asked questions so that we could get it right and so that the procedures on the safety section of the Bill would be very much shorter? It is important that we get it right.
  As Home Secretary, I remember being involved in the security side. With no reflection on the Department of Energy, that is not its field. Security involves a responsibility on the police and security services which relate to the Home Secretary. There is a responsibility on the Navy, in particular, and, to some degree, on the Army. There is also a responsibility on the Department of Employment to issue work permits, for example. The Secretary of State did not refer to any of that this afternoon and I simply ask that we have a procedure of that kind. I do not do that to waste time. At the very least, if that is not possible, we shall require Home Office Ministers—not junior Ministers—to deal with security matters. If pan IV of the Bill is to get it right, we shall require senior Ministers from other Departments to be in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and three of my colleagues are associated with a group which contains transport and general workers, seamen, British airline pilots, electricians, engineers, ASTMS and Merchant Navy officers. That group has produced a charter. I shall not go through it all because of the shortage of time, but I shall raise some points which will arise under part IV of the Bill.
  The group's charter requests that the responsibility for the health and safety of offshore workers should go to the Health and Safety Commission. We shall discuss that aspect. The number of safety inspectors with access to all offshore installations is also questioned. British manning and safety standards and their application to all operations in the United Kingdom sector are also questioned, as are submersibles, helicopters and work permits; I recall the latter from my days at the Home Office. They will all require different treatment from that given to oil and gas, on which many hon. Members on both sides of the House have gathered their own experience over the years.
  I confess that the offshore aspect was new to me but for the Home Office matters. When I put my mind to it this week, I discovered that since December 1981 there had

  179
  been 111 offshore deaths and 426 serious accidents. This subject is not to be played with for the sake of the Committee stage of the Bill.
  I have been told that a book has been written by Mr. Carson of Edinburgh university in which he concludes that those deaths are avoidable; that the accidents do not arise because the operators are at the frontiers of technology. The deaths and accidents arise because the safety arrangements are inadequate. The Secretary of State omitted to mention matters which may reflect his own interests or a matter of time, but when we come to part IV, we ask him to find a different arrangement. If we get it wrong in Committee, the numbers of deaths and accidents will increase because, perhaps, of a failure on our part. I suppose that deaths occur, as at sea and in the mines, because of the nature of the job. Clearly it is a dangerous job. We must put our minds to ensuring that the law is as well put together as possible and that we get all the necessary information.
  Mr. LawsonI shall do my best to respond to the right hon. Gentleman. First, it is not true that I did not mention part IV. I said that it was important, especially the safety provisions. It is in the Bill because we consider it to be important. Some of the provisions are a specific response to the "Alexander L. Keilland" disaster. Other provisions clarify existing legislation. We shall provide such information as we can to help the right hon. Gentleman in his task. Notes on clauses are available in the Vote Office for the convenience of hon. Members. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that the proceedings in Committee, if they are taken in a sensible fashion, will provide an adequate opportunity to debate all the matters that concern him.
  Mr. ReesPart IV is a disparate part of the Bill. It raises issues that come within the responsibility of other Departments. There are aspects of safety in the North Sea on which I cannot be briefed. I have no access to the necessary information except, in certain respects, through the results of the work of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). That is why I am asking that information should be provided on part IV.
  We wish to be able to put questions to trade union officials and to those who operate in the North Sea, including the "managers", if that is the right word, on the rigs. I have been on one or two rigs and the "boss men" have impressed me. We should be able to ask them, "What do you think is wrong with the procedures?" I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider that approach.
  The Government's approach shows their worship of free market forces. They worship them in a way that would offend Adam Smith, just as those on the far Left of politics worship Karl Marx in a way that would offend him. The support given to free market forces and monetarism is the hallmark of the Government's policy. They support those concepts to the isolation of anything else. Of course market forces matter. Of course monetarism and the money supply matter, but they cannot be regarded in isolation. There is a Central European ideological tang about the Government's approach to economic policy. The Government seem to regard economic policy in a way that old Toryism had the good sense never to do. That laps over into the Bill.
  180
  We are dealing with two industries of different structures that in different ways have been highly successful. BNOC is not a statutory monopoly. It has been highly successful in production and trading and it is highly regarded in the industry. The proposed break-up of the corporation runs counter to the current trend that is followed by Governments of all political persuasions who have established State oil companies—Petrobras in Brazil, Petrocan in Canada, Deminex in West Germany and Hispanoil in Spain. OPEC is currently trying to reduce the influence of multinational oil companies in the oil market and to encourage State-to-State deals only through State oil companies. That may not be to the liking of the Secretary of State but that is a fact of life. State oil companies are being used to secure supplies by participating in overseas joint ventures—for example, Deminex and Svenska Petroleum. BNOC has been examining oil provinces in Malaysia and Venezuela with a view to securing supplies from the late 1980s onwards. Within the United Kingdom continental shelf a State oil company is necessary if the Government wish to have the capability to develop marginal fields for reasons of national interest.
  One of the issues that we shall have to pursue in Committee is whether the Government believe that the oil companies will go to the marginal fields off the west of Scotland. These are fields to which BNOC would go, and Canada's experience is that it is the State companies that go to the marginal fields because the return of profit in the early days is not such as to attract ordinary companies. The Government have not learnt the lesson of 1973. The experience with Shell and BP in 1973 showed that multinationals are a poor alternative as guarantors of petroleum supplies.
  The gas corporation has 15 million customers. It has about 500,000 industrial customers. It has changed from an old-fashioned, coal-gas, locally based industry to a modern, integrated national company. It is in the lead in research and in concern for the future as it is in concern for the present. It provides revenue for the Treasury and extra revenue by a levy. The Government have increased the price of gas as a deliberate act of policy.
  Parliamentary accountability in its main sense is the control of the Executive by the House. The extent of the powers that are given to the Secretary of State in clauses 1 to 8 and 9 to 11 as well are very great. What control will the House have over the decisions that the right hon. Gentleman takes in the first instance, let alone those that are taken later? At the end of the day an order under the negative procedure will be brought forward to reveal all the great changes that will take place. Those changes should be set out in the Bill.
  There is much talk about those on the left in politics and about the moderates, whatever those terms mean. It is said that we want to end parliamentary democracy. This Bill could appear before the East German Parliament—
  Mr. Edward RowlandsIt is not a bad start.
  Mr. ReesI have to argue with those on the far Left when I visit universities. They say, "We need a one-clause Bill. That is all we need. There will be no need for discussion afterwards". The mentor for the boys on the Left is the Secretary of State for Energy. They will be able

  181
  to call him in aid. From now on I shall call him the East German Minister. I shall do so because of the powers that he seeks to take in the Bill.
  There is a curious circularity in politics. The extreme Right and the extreme Left go round in circles until eventually they meet. The right hon. Gentleman loves to use the word "bluster" but I wish to tell him that I am offended by the Bill. We shall not know anything about the main parts of the Bill until we see the negative instrument, which will be unamendable. It will be brought forward and we shall not be able to discuss half the issues that feature in today's debate. We shall not know what the Government intend to do until the negative instrument appears before us. Will powers be taken to sell the oil interests or will they be used to break up the gas corporation? The Secretary of State will be able to do what he likes. He will not need a Bill in future to break up the corporation. The Bill will provide the powers that he needs.
  There is talk about the sale of the oil assets of the gas corporation. We have heard about the articles of association, which we shall consider at an early stage in Committee. We shall direct our minds to the privatised Britoil. What steps does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take to ensure that the oil interests of British Gas in the North Sea are not snapped up by foreign interests? I was told some months ago that French oil companies are interested in going to Wytch Farm because the oil that is being tapped there is from the Channel quadrant. Apparently a considerable amount of oil will come from that part of the Channel. The question that I should like to be clear on is whether we shall have articles of association or the equivalent with the sale of British Gas Corporation oil.
  Mr. SkeetThe right hon. Gentleman mentioned the enormous powers given to the Secretary of State under the Bill. Is he aware that the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-Lines Act 1975 gives vaster powers and that the Petroleum Production Regulations 1976, which give vaster powers than that were granted by his Government under the signature of the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon).
  Mr. ReesThe point that I am making is that the powers are there but that in order to come back to the House of Commons, the Bill provides a negative order. We have heard about Britoil and the trading company today. That is not in the Bill. We shall not be able to make amendments on those matters. We shall have to find ways of making safeguards, although I cannot see how that can be done when the subject is not mentioned in the Bill but was mentioned on the Floor of the House on Second Reading and in the briefings to the press. We shall not be able to debate those major proposals properly in Committee.
  The Secretary of State said that BNOC would be split two ways. Should we not see the communication that I understand was sent to the Secretary of State by the whole board of directors of BNOC? It said that the solution put forward by the Government would maximise the EEC threat to participation, assure the inefficiency of the trading operation, which would have less access to technical operating expertise, make difficult the retention of qualified staff and expose the trading company to heavy trading losses. That is a damning indictment of what the
  182
  Government have put forward. We should know about that assessment and not just deal with it on the surface. The board of directors may be wrong but the House should know what it said. The members of that board were appointed by the Conservative Party.
  Mr. Tim EggarI do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has read the same press articles that I have read. I understand that some directors of BNOC were against the trading arm of BNOC being kept under Government control. Would the right hon. Gentleman go along with that? Would he support those directors of BNOC?
  Mr. ReesI am talking about a decision taken by the whole board. However, if that is what happened, let us have the evidence. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not selecting the evidence that I like. Let us have it in Committee.
  I now turn to hybridity. This week I have consulted all the proper authorities. Perhaps there is no prima facie case of hybridity in the Bill. I am told that the reason is that the Bill says nothing. It would be difficult for it to be hybrid, because it does not say anything on the matters that arise. It simply says that we should hand over the powers to everybody else. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), who was the former Solicitor-General, discussed the matter in the appropriate places. He and I found that there was a negative order, but under negative orders there are no safeguards to prevent the Minister's differentiating between the rights of a certain class of people. We found that the scheme is mini legislation at the discretion of the Minister. We cannot use the hybrid instruments committee of the House of Lords because it is a negative instrument. If it were an affirmative instrument, we should have the right automatically to discuss hybridity on the Floor of the House. That is wrong. It should be an affirmative order. If it is hybrid, let it be so considered.
  It is wrong in principle that in gas the Secretary of State should have powers to prepare and dispose of schemes that will have a legal effect and in so doing modify and rewrite private contracts. If he wants to do it that way, there should be the parliamentary procedures to consider the matter. The Bill should not be drawn up to avoid a consideration of hybridity. That is a shabby sleight of parliamentary hand. We shall attempt to ensure that the affirmative procedures are put into the Bill.
  How on earth shall we discuss the articles of association so that we can amend them? Will the articles be written in such a way that they are amendable by us? Shall we have to wait until the end of the day when the flaring order, which is unamendable, comes forward for an hour and a half—if it can proceed to the Floor of the House? When it reaches the House of Lords, the hybridity Committee will not be able to consider it, because of the way in which it is drawn.
  Mr. LawsonI believe that the right hon. Gentleman's sense of outrage has got the better of him. Under the negative resolution procedure in the Gas Act 1972, the Wytch Farm order was made. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friends who were responsible for organising the Government's business ensured that there was an opportunity to debate that order. It was debated and voted upon. If the right hon. Gentleman is afraid that there will not be opportunities for debate on such orders, I am sure

  183
  that in much the same way, according to the traditions of the House, there will be a full opportunity to debate and vote on the orders when they are made.
  The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the split of BNOC into Britoil and what remains of the corporation. He attributed great powers of invention to me in devising a method of dealing with those matters. In all modesty, I must disavow that. That procedure has been used on a number of occasions. The first was in the Transport Act 1968. The inventor of that procedure, to whom I pay tribute, was Mrs. Barbara Castle.
  Mr. ReesPerhaps that was so on the Transport Act, but whether Mrs. Barbara Castle or anyone else set up the procedure, it is wrong. I see no point in calling in aid the gods or goddesses of the past. I conducted an investigation into the legislation of recent years. There is no doubt that the procedure used by the Government at the moment is not the one with negative instruments, in the context of the powers that are taken, which is normally used.
  I have asked about the articles of association and about foreign control of oil. Because of other happenings, I noticed this week that in the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act, which was put through by the Conservative Party, the powers to prevent a foreigner from taking over a television company were written into the legislation. If that can be done on the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act, it should be written into the Bill and not into the articles of association.
  I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says—that the Government will have the same depletion policy as before.
  Mr. LawsonI did not say that.
  Mr. ReesTherefore, I shall ask the question that I intended to ask before I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. Is depletion policy the same as it was? If the clear intention of the Government is a major and rapid increase in the industrial consumption of gas, surely that makes a nonsense of any proper depletion policy that we follow.
  Mr. DouglasWill my right hon. Friend concede that one cannot have a depletion policy in the context of the Bill as the House does not have full information about the Government's intentions on tax?
  Mr. ReesThat is another aspect. The Committee may still be sitting when the tax changes which are apparently coming from the Chancellor of the Exchequer are announced, so we shall be able to look at both.
  I wish to ask a question about the EEC and the BNOC but I shall keep that until I ask exactly the same question about the British Gas Corporation.
  In my view, the British Gas Corporation has been highly successful. I have made it clear that it is the Opposition's view, it is my view, that the effect of the ending of the monopsony will be to increase prices. It must so be. I am amazed at the right hon. Gentleman's belief in free market forces.
  If there are free market forces in conditions of perfect competition, there is much justice in what he says, but perfect competition is in the textbooks, not in the real world of multinationals and so on. Those conditions do not prevail in practice or in the Government's overall policy now.
  184
  I do not know what will happen in the coal industry. The policy of "switch to coal" will take a hard knock from a policy of expanding the use of gas for non-premium uses, which I assume is involved in what the right hon. Gentleman says.
  Mr. Peter RostIf the right hon. Gentleman is so convinced that the Bill will put up the price of gas, should he not tell the House what price per therm British Gas is paying for the one-third of our gas coming from the Norwegian sector and how much that gas could have been bought for if British gas producers had been given a fair opportunity to compete?
  Mr. ReesThe British Gas Corporation has to pay far more for Norwegian gas than that from the Southern sector. Whatever the figures, I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but that does not mean that the companies from which the corporation purchases its North Sea gas do not do very well and do not make a sufficient profit, even with gas at a lower price.
  Will the use of British Gas Corporation facilities reflect the public investment that has been made there? One of my hon. Friends asked that question. We need to know the range of prices or at least the principles upon which prices will be paid for the use of the corporation's pipes. The Bill transfers to the Secretary of State the control of planning and administration as opposed to the general supervision of the corporation's transmission and distribution system. I am advised that the need for extra staff in large numbers is conceived as arising out of the Bill. There will be great duplication of effort and a huge bill.
  Moreover, there is a safety aspect. There are different types of gas. If the wrong gas is put into the wrong pipes, who will be responsible? Will it be the British Gas Corporation or the Department of Energy? Will the Department's inspectors go out into the field or will the matter be left to private companies?
  Yesterday evening, I was talking, not on a narrow trade union point, to trade unionists who work in this industry. They were very worried about the safety aspects of the steps that the Government are taking.
  Mr. Peter ViggersThe right hon. Gentleman said that he had consulted and talked with trade unionists about safety. Has he also spoken to gas and oil transmission company representatives? Have they given assurances about safety standards which apply in other countries and which seem to be complete?
  Mr. ReesI would willingly do that. I should like to consult the British Gas Corporation, with its expertise, if the Secretary of State would allow it. It would be a good idea if it gave its view on the matter. However, that is extremely difficult, particularly in view of what happened towards the end of last year. The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point. The only reason that I consulted trade unionists, who happened to have come for another meeting, was the problem in other directions. Certainly I should like the corporation to give its considered view to the Committee.
  Mr. Gordon WilsonFollowing the interesting ideas that the right hon. Gentleman advances on that, would it not be a good idea if the Standing Committee on the Bill were to operate under the special arrangements allowing the interrogation of witnesses, who could be from the

  185
  companies concerned or from the British Gas Corporation and, above all, from BNOC, so that the Committee would have their views on this?
  Mr. ReesI made that suggestion in relation to clause 4. I did not go wider because I did not want to push my luck, as the answer would be "No" on the major part of the Bill. As so little was said on clause 4 and because, with the best will on earth, so little is known about it in the Department of Energy because it is not the Department's subject, I suggested it in that one respect. It would be even better if it were applied to the whole Bill.
  On the sale of assets in relation to gas, will the Minister confirm that none of the safety arrangements in the Bill deals with the necessary safety regulations required before the sale of the gas showrooms? It is most important to make that clear. I think that I have it clear, but others have not. It might be to the Government's advantage to make that clear.
  With regard to our obligations to the EEC under articles 85 and 86, what is the Government's view on the policy of export oil and gas in relation to European law? Is it the view that has been put to me by others—that this will have to be tested in the courts? I read in The Guardian this morning:
  "BP and Shell are mounting a campaign to show that the UK landing requirement conflicts with the Treaty of Rome. Their motive is unashamed: why should they not sell to the highest bidder, even if the highest bidder is located in West Germany rather than England?"
  What is the Government's view about our commitment in relation to the EEC? Colleagues who were involved in this in the Labour Government tell me that EEC officials were chasing them all the time about this and that the break that the Government have made opens up the very firm possibility that we shall be in a position that is contrary to European law.
  Finally, I turn to the financial arrangements. I shall pick up the comment that the right hon. Gentleman made at the end of his speech. Except to some degree in one Select Committee, I do not believe that the House has applied its mind to the financial arrangements for the raising of capital for publicly owned companies. All Governments have been hoisted by the petard of the public sector borrowing requirement convention that there is no distinction between revenue account and capital account. This can be overcome but it is not easy.
  There is nothing wrong with looking afresh at the structure of the publicly owned industries. I for one do not believe that Herbert Morrison got it right in 1947–48, or that it was right in 1934 in relation to the old London Transport Board. All Governments should look afresh at structures. We should not be the prisoners of structures. I certainly have nothing against that being done. There are many working parties on this in the Labour Party. In Scandinavia there is a different arrangement for the railways, which have historically have been in public ownership and almost Civil Service-esque. On the other side, manufacturing industry is dealt with in a different way.
  Much rethinking is taking place on this matter. In the TUC and the Labour Party there is consideration in a wider context of using oil revenues, as well as insurance company and pension funds, for industrial development. The whole matter is being considered. The national oil account has not worked in the way that was originally intended and the Government are removing it. Few people
  186
  will weep over that, but that does not mean that we shall not seek a different way of using North Sea revenues to invest in industry in general and particularly on the model of the Norwegian policy.
  I have taken too much time, but I wish to make two further points. Mr. Conti speaking at the Royal Institute of Public Administration, asked two question which are relevant to the Government's policy on oil:
  "If on the other hand the idea of an administration were to allow the pension funds and similar financial institutions to Invest in BNOC is it axiomatic that these vast, somewhat impersonal and not too accountable institutions should thereby assume absolute control? Once again there is no reason not to consider charging forms. Might not institutions invest in BNOC through a trust relationship … in the course of which they might become more informative towards their shareholders and depositors?"
  The Secretary of State looks at me questioningly. He may be right to do so. We are seeking alternative ways of raising private capital, which at the moment is used in this country in ways that are not beneficial to the community in order to find ways whereby it can be used in the public sector.
  I am not against the employee scheme, but I would be interested to know what percentage of shares would be owned by the employees and what control they would have. It is only part of a wider issue. Whatever changes there may be in other industries, our view is that the control and ownership of oil and gas must remain with the nation. BNOC should be allowed to move upstream. Nationalisation of all the companies in the North Sea is not the policy of the Labour Party. In Norway there are French and American companies under the control of Statoil.
  Mr. LawsonDoes the Labour Party want a Statoil solution?
  Mr. ReesI am simply saying that that is what happens in Norway. It is not nationalisation of all the companies in the North Sea.
  There were some local difficulties within the Labour Party during the last debate on gas, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out. The Shadow Cabinet recently said:
  "We wish to make public and plain to any outside interest contemplating the purchase of these shares our firm resolve to restore the assets to public ownership on terms that will ensure that no private speculative gains are made at the nation's expense."
  Speculative gains and how we deal with them are matters that we shall have to deal with when we see the nature of the shareholding that the Government sprock up once we discuss the order in an hour-and-a-half debate one wet Thursday night at 3 o'clock in the morning. We shall have to wait and see.
  The Government won the last General Election. They are entitled to translate their promises into action but they are not entitled to do so in this hole-and-corner way without firm parliamentary control and without enabling hybridity to be investigated: that is a dodge.
  Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friends will support as in the Lobby tonight. I also hope that in Committee we shall have a long, though not wasteful, investigation of every clause and schedule. We shall do that not to waste time but because it needs doing.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. T. H. H. SkeetThe right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) made an interesting speech and called upon my right hon. Friend to give full details

  187
  in Committee. However, when he finished his speech on renationalisation the right hon. Gentleman said that the House would have to wait to see what the terms of compensation were. The right hon. Gentleman should give further and better particulars of the compensation to be paid to divested shareholders and we should have the details now, not later. It is all very well asking the Government for full details when the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give them himself.
  There is another matter in which the right hon. Gentleman and I are both interested—public accountability. He referred to the matter and said that the powers given in the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill were vast. They will enable the Secretary of State to do many things. I referred the right hon. Gentleman to the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-Lines Act 1975, passed by the previous Labour Government. That Act gave the Government of the day enormous powers, which were supplemented by the Petroleum (Production) Regulations 1976, which were not considered in Committee, giving a further extension of powers to the Secretary of State. In particular, model clauses 15 and 16, to reduce the amount of production, drilling control, landing rights and so on, gave enormous powers. It is somewhat surprising that the Opposition are asking for further details of the Bill when we find that the Labour Government in their legislation gave the Government even vaster powers with little information.
  Mr. RowlandsThe legislation to which the hon. Gentleman referred was a long schedule that was, quite rightly and properly, subject to amendment, line by line and page by page. That is different from the proposition put forward in the Bill and the powers taken by it, which do not appear in the Bill.
  Mr. SkeetThe hon. Gentleman has put forward a misconceived argument. I was a member of the Committee dealing with the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill and I repeatedly asked the Minister for details of the regulations that he intended to lay before the House. However, the Minister rightly said that it was impossible in the circumstances, that the regulations would have to be considered by the Department and worked out in due course. That is paralleled in the Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the articles and memoranda of association. The right hon. Gentleman is specifically interested in whether there could be any foreign control of Britoil Ltd. There is surely a simple answer to this, which could be put in the memoranda and articles of association. For example, the Alberta Oil Company is owned 50 per cent. by the people of Canada and 50 per cent. by the Alberta Government. There are strict conditions that only Canadians can own the equity capital. If the Canadians can do that, there is no reason why we should not do it here and there should be no fear of alienation of a valuable asset.
  Mr. EggarI think that my hon. Friend will find that provisions of the kind implemented in Canada would not be possible in this country because of the Treaty of Rome.
  Mr. SkeetI shall deal with the Treaty of Rome in a moment, but it is possible to have those provisions in the United Kingdom, because the Treaty of Rome will affect companies such as the British Gas Corporation but will not affect the Government.
  188
  The right hon. Gentleman made some points about articles 85 and 86. The British Gas Corporation is affected by article 90 of the Treaty of Rome, which embraces articles 85 to 94. The status of the British Gas Corporation would be changed by the partial reduction of an exclusive monopoly but that would not affect the powers of the Secretary of State under model clause 27 of the 1975 Act, or paragraph 28 of schedule 5 of the Seaward Areas Petroleum Production Regulations 1976—that is, to insist on natural gas being landed in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the British Gas Corporation must not discriminate against EEC companies that may desire to purchase British gas in quantities above the required rate of 1 million therms per annum as opposed to companies in the United Kingdom.
  The Secretary of State could thwart delivery to a United Kingdom exporter on three grounds. First, he could insist on the landing clause—the model clause to which I have referred—that is, the gas would have to be brought to the United Kingdom, thereby making it uneconomic to export. The Secretary of State has exercised his authority on several occasions, one of which was in the Acro case. Secondly, if the exporter proposes to liquefy the gas to deliver it as LNG, the Secretary of State could withhold his consent pursuant to paragraph 27 of the third schedule of the Bill, amending section 9 of the Energy Act 1976. Thirdly, the Secretary of State could also refuse to sanction the construction of an export pipeline through controlled waters under the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975. The landing clause could be challenged in the Community courts but it is worth noting that this has not been done since 1975.
  The British Gas Corporation could be in difficulties, because, as with everybody else, it is part of the EEC, but the Government would not be curtailed in the responsibilities that they exercise in the model clauses. It would also be possible in the circumstances for an EEC company—say, for the sake of argument, Gasunie—to export gas to the United Kingdom, to industrial consumers at the required rate and move it through pipelines in accordance with the terms of the Bill. Feasibility would, of course, be determined by the economics of the project, which is, after all, what competition is all about.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to list State companies operating throughout the world and asked why we should want to break up our own. He mentioned Demimex which is owned by VEBA, which is, in turn, partly owned by the State and partly by the public.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about the advantages of State corporations. He must be aware that at the time when the Government had a shareholding of more than 50 per cent., BP faced difficulties in Libya when it was turned out of the Sarir field. It had difficulties in Nigeria, where its company was expropriated for a number of reasons that I shall not go into. It applied for concessions in Turkey and Venezuela but, because the State had an investment in the enterprise, it was not possible to get concessions in either place. It is not always an advantage to have a State investment.
  Let me refer to the British Gas Corporation specifically and to the sale of assets. Of course, the Secretary of State has enormous powers under clauses 9, 10 and 11. We shall look at them carefully in Committee. I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Leeds, South is aware of the case under section 13 of the 1975 Act, when National Coal Board (Exploration) Ltd. was expropriated and transferred

  189
  to the BNOC for a small amount of compensation. That was a case in which the Labour Government exercised their power.
  Mr. Merlyn ReesAs I understand the hon. Gentleman, he is talking about what is in the Bill. I am saying that we shall not know what the Government are up to because they have handed the matter over to others, and it is not in the Bill. That is the difference.
  Mr. SkeetFar from it. The BNOC is covered by part I. BNOC can set up subsidiaries and they can be transferred by vesting the Secretary of State. He would then hold the shares. That is already in the Bill. The case affecting the National Coal Board to which I have referred was covered by a section in the Act. The powers were vested there. What conceivable difference is there between a company being mentioned or the provision of general powers? I would have thought that either case was simple.
  In another case, the Government shareholding in British Petroleum was reduced considerably. That was done by a Labour Government for economic reasons.
  There is another point about gas that I consider important. If we are to divest all the oil interests of the British Gas Corporation, we should take into account the gas-oil ratio with regard to the several fields. This may be a Committee point, but I feel that my right hon. Friend should consider it. For example, in the Beryl field, the gas-oil ratio is 1,500. In Fulmar, it is 380. However, it is of no great consequence in the other three fields—Hutton, North-West Hutton and Montrose—which could be transferred immediately. If the first two are to be transferred, some provision should be made so that, in the first instance, the BGC should have an option to purchase the Gas.
  It was the attitude of the British Gas Corporation, which paid such a poor price to the producers, that frustrated the development and discovery of gas supplies, and that led to a gas shortage. At the time, I can remember talking about 2.87p per therm. The other day, the chairman talked about an average price of roughly 10p per therm. For new contracts, if customers can get them, it is charging well over 40p per therm. On firm contracts, the price is 29.5p per therm. BGC is making an enormous profit.
  Mr. Merlyn ReesFor us.
  Mr. SkeetIt is not necessarily for the right hon. Gentleman. This is a State corporation. I thought the right hon. Gentleman regarded the BGC as a commercial enterprise. He is only a 55-millionth part-owner. We are seeking to give it to the people who have put their money in it as well as to the employees. It is superior to do it that way.
  Mr. DouglasThe hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable in these matters. Will he indicate an oil equivalent price for gas at present, if we take the price of oil at roughly $34 to $36 a barrel?
  Mr. SkeetI dare say that if we compared an oil price equivalent with parity, it would be very much higher. The gas price approxiamates to that of gas oil, and it has been brought back to about 29·5p per therm, but for new contracts it is well over 40p per therm. That does not reach oil parity, but it is a high price to charge above that charged in Europe.
  My general impression of part II, which deals with the gas industry, is that it is a catalyst for change, but care
  190
  must be taken not to claim too much for what it will achieve. The size of the BGC monopoly affected is likely to be small, at most between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. of the market—the lowest value sector of the interruptible market. An effective source of supply through aggregating gas fields and the development of a sales network through the pooling of company interests may take up to seven years to establish and in the absence of storage facilities fallback supplies may be required from the BGC.
  It is important to recognise that the BGC is not without its defences. By using cheap gas, it could undercut its competitors. I refer the House to the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for 1979–80, House of Commons Paper 703, where paragraph 13.63 on page 98 cites evidence that the corporation has subsidised the sale of appliances out of the gas account. On average, it is buying gas at roughly 10p per therm. If BGC were negotiating with the oil companies it could undercut them. Therefore, in the early stages of the game—in the first seven years—I do not envisage a great impact on this market.
  The Pipe-lines Act 1962 and the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 provided for the transport of gas and liquids by pipeline. There is further provision in this Bill. Care must be taken to ensure that we have a standard set of rules, not a specific set for the private sector and another for public enterprise.
  We only have to look at clause 17. I take it that that clause will be used primarily. First, there will be negotiations with the BGC, with right to appeal to the Secretary of State, but there is no information provided by which the oil producers can establish the position, the character and detail of the corporation's own pipelines. There should be a statutory right to information by someone who wishes to make use of the clause.
  I have in mind information about the corporation's trunk and secondary pipelines, identified on maps, relevant capacity of the lines, a choice of economic routes between key points and technical details of the pipeline system used. Tariffs should be published, otherwise it will not be possible for the intended user to quote a price to the customers.
  None of those points is covered by clause 17, and there is no requirement that that should be so. Clause 17(2)(a) is interesting, and for the benefit of the House I shall read it out. It states that the directions must not prejudice
  "the quantities of gas which the Gas Corporation requires or may reasonably be expected to require to be conveyed by the pipe-line in order to secure the performance by the Corporation of its statutory duties and contractual obligations".
  Who in private industry would put forward a case to the corporation when he does not have the remotest idea about the information involved and has no method of discovering it? On whose shoulder is the onus of proof? If it is on the company's, it will not have access to the information, and the BGC, which knows it all, can be sparing in giving details. It can filibuster for a considerable time, thereby holding up the application. As the clause stands it would be difficult for the Secretary of State to fault the case of the BGC. That should be looked into by the Department and there should be a standard set of rules.
  Unfortunately, in this group of clauses, particularly in clause 17, there is a built-in delay period. Let us take the steps involved under clause 17, the one that is most likely to be used. Formal application under clause 17 could take anything up to three months, and probably longer. The

  191
  opportunity for the British Gas Corporation to be heard will probably take six months. There are substantial hurdles, to which I have already referred, in clause 17(2)(a), the direction and notification by the Secretary of State under clause 17(3) and modifications, if necessary, in the earlier stages under clause 17(4). Next, there is the period by which the British Gas Corporation and/or applicant must comply with the terms—say, six months. All told, the time taken could be one and a half years or even more.
  Dr. MabonIt sounds like trunk roads.
  Mr. SkeetIt may sound like trunk roads, but these are trunk pipelines and the applications, simply to gain access to an existing pipeline that is owned by the British Gas Corporation, will take a considerable time.
  The Secretary of State rightly said that he will be the arbiter. I am heartened by the fact that he said that the responsibility may not always be with the Department of Energy and that it may be hived off to an independent body. However, it is right to start with the Department of Energy because I do not believe that there will be many applications in the initial stages. If at a later stage there are more applications, perhaps a body analogous to the Texas Railroad Company or another similar body could be utilised.
  Mr. DalyellDoes the hon. Gentleman share the misgivings of some hon. Members about the shortage of skilled personnel who are able to do the work? There are not many people around who can do the task.
  Mr. SkeetThe Department is considerable, but in my judgment there will have to be a movement of personnel to deal with some of the work, depending on the number of applications. I do not assume that there will a great deal of work for the Department in the earlier stages. As I said, the British Gas Corporation in its negotiations with individual customers will have to do much of the weeding out in the first place, long before applications come to the Department on appeal.
  Mr. DalyellThe hon. Gentleman talks about "weeding out". Weeding out of whom, by whom?
  Mr. SkeetThe first application will be made to the British Gas Corporation, which will try to settle the arrangement. It may decide that there is nothing in the case, and the case may then go to appeal. However, the BGC may be able to settle some of the cases initially and grant access. That is what I mean by "weeding out" cases.
  I come now to BNOC. I congratulate it on the way in which it has developed over the years and on its initial chairman, who has supported the Government's case under this Bill. I should like to put before the House what I consider to be the specifications of the new companies involved. BNOC would become a statutory corporation funded from the National Loans Fund. It would be a broker in crude oil and petroleum products. Although downstream powers would be retained, the use of them would probably lapse. The corporation would also establish posted prices for North Sea oil in conjunction with the other producers. Britoil Ltd. will be set up under the Companies Act with a memorandum and articles of
  192
  association. The company would be involved with upstream operations for the industry—exploration and production—both in the United Kingdom and abroad.
  As we have learnt today, Britoil would be obliged to enter into a participation agreement with the Department of Energy and BNOC covering 51 per cent. of its equity oil. We have learnt today that the figure may be even higher. The balance will be available for sale on the market. The company will be free to move downstream into refining and marketing, if so advised. The powers will be outlined in the memorandum and articles of association, which will make the company another integrated oil company, like many others which have share quotations. There would be no connection between BNOC and Britoil except through the Department of Energy. That relationship should be correctly stated.
  Further, if there is to be departmental involvement, it is right that the shares of the company should be held by the Department of Energy. However, I believe that if detachment and financial rectitude is sought it should be for the Treasury to hold the shares. After all, fairly recently, the Bank of England transferred the shares in BP to the Treasury. Why could not the shares in Britoil be held by the Treasury? If they are held by the Department it will have every opportunity to intervene.
  There are lapsed powers. BNOC will not need to go into exploration and production. The 1975 Act could be revised. Statutes have to be revised from time to time. One that is outstanding is the National Coal Board (Additional Powers) Act 1966, which still enables the National Coal Board to explore the North Sea, which it has not done for years. The Act should be amended. The Act under which the British Gas Corporation would have to sell its oil—in this case to BNOC—could also be revised.
  I said in May 1975 that a better course would have been not to break up BNOC, but to privatise it as an entity. I realise that there are difficulties. The Treasury might oppose it. Why not privatise the entire company, not just an integral part of it? There are many analogies for that. There is VEBA in the Federal Republic of Germany, Elf Aquitaine in France, which has a part State shareholding, which is held by ERAP and a part shareholding held by the public, and is quoted on the French Bourse. There is also the CFP, which is 35 per cent. owned by the State, with the rest held by the market.
  Let us consider the existing BNOC. It has recoverable reserves of 7 per cent. of the 11·5 billion barrels a day recoverable reserves from the 26 fields which are producing or under development. It is the largest holder of licences in the United Kingdom and has an equity interest in 165 blocks and is operator in 42. In production, BNOC trades in equity, royalty and participation, crude oil, which is a substantial part of the North Sea total, and petroleum products. That is the enterprise that is to be split.
  The only difference between the Secretary of State and myself is that he would privatise an integral part of BNOC. I would privatise the lot, with the Government retaining a 49 per cent. share. I believe that that is an eminently reasonable suggestion and I commend it to my colleagues. I doubt whether it would commend itself to many Opposition Members. If, as I must, I accept the Government's judgment, let us look at the status of Britoil. Its crude oil availability becomes reduced to only 100,000 barrels a day from which both royalty and participation

  193
  crude must be deducted. Thus, it would rank as a small North Sea oil company, like many others with growing potential.
  Substantial liabilities or commitments remain, due to a large number of blocks under rounds five and six in which the company has an equity interest. BNOC is an equity partner in 165 blocks and an operator in no fewer than 42 of them. This will be a very expensive liability on Britoil unless ways can be found of hiving off or farming-in by third parties in some of the corporation's acreage.
  I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give the House a good statement on what steps have been taken since the original commitment, which was undertaken by the Labour Government in both rounds five and six, to reduce this load. Otherwise this will be a disincentive to buy shares in the market.
  The BNOC has been very active in oil exploration, ranking second after Shell. The corporation has made relatively few discoveries of any size. It has discovered no fields on any grand scale. The Thistle and Ninian fields were acquired from the Burmah Oil Company and others. Substantial exploration expenditure commitments remain and these could be aggravated by development commitments later on unless the system is suitably revised. I mention those points because I believe that there should be a clear understanding of what the case involves.
  I support the Government in what they are doing. It is not exactly the way that I would do it, but it is privatising, it is giving to the public an interest in their own corporation, like many of the companies that are quoted now on the Stock Exchange. Many of them have been very successful in their own right. Let us make no mistake about that. But for the private sector the North Sea would never have been exploited and developed. It was only later on that the State came in and decided to acquire rights. Before hon. Members jump up with great enthusiasm, let me say that the Secretary of State has enormous controls already. He is not giving up any part of this. He is making certain modifications.
  I make a final plea to the Secretary of State to give us a Keeling schedule to deal with the schedules, which are extremely complicated. I have put them together, but hon. Members should have a clear understanding of all the bits and pieces of schedules. The details should be shown where they slot in, if hon. Members are to treat them sensibly in Committee.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Robert C. BrownThe speech of the Secretary of State was unworthy of a holder of such high office. Workers in the North Sea oil industry, its suppliers and ancillaries will have taken note that such is the Government's attitude to industrial safety, the Secretary of State did not even deign to devote one paragraph of his speech to this most important issue, particularly in an area which has claimed so many lives and horrifically injured so many operatives.
  I have a vested interest in the debate in that I am a Member sponsored by the General and Municipal Workers Union, which organises the bulk of the workers in the gas industry. I worked for 30 years in the industry before I entered the House. Secondly, my major vested interest is as a member of the British public, one of 15 million people who are gas consumers and have installed gas as a chosen
  194
  fuel, firm in the knowledge that the British Gas Corporation has a statutory duty to maintain a constant supply.
  The subject of rape has recently created a great furore in the media and among the public, and rightly so. Here is a Secretary of State, ready, able and willing to rape 15 million gas consumers. I hope that the media will express their outrage on behalf of gas consumers, but I harbour grave doubts. Indeed, tomorrow morning the media may seek to legitimise rape when the offender is a member of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Bill is the greatest exercise in asset stripping ever seen. It is based on the political dogma that anything that is privately owned is bound to be more efficient than anything that is State owned. There is little doubt that the Government are determined to throw some carrots to the backwoodsmen below the Gangway.
  Mr. Archie HamiltonDoes the hon. Gentleman agree that the spur of competition makes industries more efficient?
  Mr. BrownThat is a myth which I expect the hon. Gentleman to trot out. In spite of what the Secretary of State said about the Bill in his opening address, and the address that we shall have from the Minister of State in winding up, there is no doubt that hon. Members on the Government side are dearly anxious to have the complete dismantling of the nationalised British gas industry and no less is their aim. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) clearly indicated his prejudice on that matter.
  The mythology about competition flies in the face of experience, particularly with reference to the two corporations concerned in the Bill, BNOC and the British Gas Corporation, both of which have been highly efficient and have served the British public extremely well.
  The Bill is so enormous that it is difficult to know at which point to start to attack it. All parts are equally bad. If the Bill becomes law unamended, it could be reasonably referred to as a major act of piracy against the British public. That is the way I see it.
  My main interest is security of supply. No one can argue that the Bill does not fundamentally threaten the security of supply. It does so in a number of ways. First, effectively restricting the British Gas Corporation's role to one of a supplier of 25,000 therms or less, means that anyone who wishes to use gas for any purpose whatsoever, regardless of its efficient use, can do so irrespective of a sensible depletion policy. It is true that the Secretary of State must give permission for use between 25,000 therms and 1 million therms. The Bill does not say what criteria the Secretary of State will use to grant that permission. For example, will he allow his friends in Tory councils to come to cosy deals with the oil companies to supply gas for schools and hospitals, gas which may be cheaper at the beginning but then will soar in price? Will the Secretary of State allow gas to be used for bulk steam raising? There is nothing in the Bill which says that he will not do so.
  It is not enough to say vaguely, as the Secretary of State has done, that he believes that he has the powers to deal with depletion. I do not believe that he has such powers. We need a firm and legally binding statement setting out the reasons why permission will be given or withheld.
  The outlook becomes bleaker for quantities of over 1 million therms. Anyone wishing to use 1 million therms or more will be able to do so without any let, hindrance

  195
  or restriction. It makes absolute nonsense of any sensible depletion policy and it is a sop to those industries which have sought to blame energy prices, and the gas industry in particular, for their financial difficulties, instead of putting the blame where it should lie—on high interest rates, and on the demand that gas prices should be increased by 10 per cent. more than the going rate of inflation. That is what industry should criticise, not the policy that I have just mentioned.
  This mortgaging of our future would be disgraceful if we knew that the supplies of gas were infinite, but we know that they are not. We know that the upper range of supply is likely to last 25 years, but only if there is a sensible depletion policy. The Bill throws any depletion policy out of the window. The result is that, to maintain domestic supply, BGC will be forced to bid higher and higher prices for increasingly scarce gas supplies, and that must be reflected in higher and higher prices to the British gas consumer.
  Another serious point emerges. The British Gas Corporation will be forced to carry the gas—on what terms we do not yet know; nor does the Secretary of State. What would happen if we had another winter like this? What would have happened in the past eight or nine weeks to the thousands of old people who are at risk? We know that already hundreds of old people have died of hypothermia. What would have happened to the thousands of old people, babies and extremely young children whose supplies were cut off when BGC could not maintain its supply because it had lost the use of the interruptible clauses in its supply contracts with industry? The Bill makes no provision for contracts from private suppliers to interrupt supply under these or other circumstances, such as a loss of a supply line from the North Sea. The Secretary of State has made no effort to respond to that urgent question.
  What will happen when the gas runs out? The Secretary of State pretends that the Bill is a magic wand which, when waved over the appropriate parts of the North Sea, will produce unlimited new sources of gas. That is the essence of free competition to which the hon. Member for Bedford referred. I say to the Secretary of State that it is not as easy as that. Indeed, it is made more difficult by his confident assertion that, while the benefits of privatisation will mean that oil companies will have the incentive to explore, prices to the consumer, particularly industry, will fall. That is simply nonsense. All that will happen is that prices will rise, and the likelihood of further exploration—unless prices perhaps treble—is minimal. At the same time, supplies will deplete more rapidly, bringing closer the time when we are forced to abandon natural gas as a major contributor to the national energy balance.
  The uncontrolled depletion will have a major effect on the coal industry—I come from a coalfield and I am not pleased about that. Major industries in this country are only just beginning to use coal for bulk steam raising, and flooding the market with unlimited supplies of gas will harm the industrial sales of coal quite appreciably. That, in turn, will force further pit closures and cause further unemployment in areas such as Scotland, the North-East, South Wales and Lancashire. When the gas runs out, it will be too late to start looking for coal to supply our energy needs, or for the large amount of coal that is required to manufacture synthetic natural gas.
  196
  I want to put five questions to the Secretary of State, and I hope that the Minister of State will answer them tonight. What happens to BGC's power to explore for gas and oil? If BGC explores for gas and finds oil, what happens? Is the Minister sure that prices to industry will fall? I suspect that the answer to that question will be that competition always cuts prices. If that is the answer, how does it square with the higher prices that the oil companies are bound to expect? What happens to the balance of peaks and troughs in demand? None of those questions is frivolous, and I hope that we shall be given answers to them tonight.
  The policy of my union and of all the other unions in the gas industry is to recognise that gas supplies are finite and must be an integral part of a balanced energy policy, making the best use of all fuels for the longest possible period. All United Kingdom energy sources should be controlled by the Government in the national interest. Prices to the oil companies should be held down to protect the consumer, because Britain's economic difficulties will be worsened if the nation's assets are sold off at give-away prices. There can be no doubt about that. In short, the Bill sells our heritage for a pittance and ensures at the same time that the framework is established for squandering our energy future.
  6.16 pm
  Dr. J. Dickson MabonI had expected another speech from a Government Member, with whom I should have been delighted to cross swords. However, no doubt that will happen on another occasion.
  May I say, uncharitably, to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) that I hope that he is not chosen by the Committee of Selection to serve on the Standing Committee, because I do not wish the Bill to be guillotined, because of his misbehaviour or that of anyone else. There are times for detailed arguments, but sometimes the hon. Gentleman tries even my inordinate patience.
  The hon. Gentleman complained about the immense powers in the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 and said that Opposition Members who had been associated with it could not complain about a Bill of this nature. The fact is that the powers in the 1975 Act are more or less retained. The Bill contains five or six substantial amendments to the 1975 Act, and on page 58 there are about 10 quite logical drafting amendments. I therefore insist that the 1975 Act, in that it is essentially retained, cannot be said to be all that bad. It had the merit of being specific whenever specific proposals were necessary. It is a somewhat twisted argument to complain that when BNOC was formed, somehow or other we raped the National Coal Board and stole several assets from the British Gas Corporation and put them into this monstrous new oil corporation. That is a fantasy. All that we did was to transfer one set of public assets from one form into another, to make the system more logical.
  Mr. SkeetThe right hon. Gentleman is not quite right. If he looks at pages 50 and 51 of the Bill, he will see that there are quite sizeable amendments to the regulations which were made under the 1975 Act. The Act is therefore not quite as acceptable as he says.
  Dr. MabonI do not complain about that criticism of what I said, but I maintain that essentially the Act is intact.

  197
  There is one difference between the 1975 Act and the Bill, with which we profoundly disagree, and with which any parliamentarian of any party would disagree, although admittedly when one is in Government the temptations to original sin are sometimes overwhelming. However, a parliamentarian—Government Back Benchers certainly cannot exempt themselves—must not go along with the concept of negative procedure on matters of such substance. We must not rely on the Secretary of State's assurance—who would trust a Secretary of State on such a matter?—that successive Secretaries of State and Leaders of the House would also give the House time to debate every negative resolution. That is nonsense.
  Furthermore, it is a fair criticism to say that these negative resolutions need not be specific. The monstrous part of the Bill—everyone with whom I have been in contact agrees with the point—is the complete opacity of clause 2. It may be a rather clever manoeuvre by the draftsmen of the Bill, who advised the Government that the way to escape the horrors of hybridity, such as we had on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977, was to disguise the whole intention in clause 2.
  I submit that the Government will not get away with that. They will fall foul of themselves in Committee unless they are more specific. They will fall foul on Report and in the House of Lords. Even if the Bill is passed, they will fall foul of the Upper House and this House by the time they try to put through the so-called orders flowing from it.
  In other words, by being too clever by half, as the late Mr. Macleod would have said, the Government are ensuring that they will not achieve what they set out to achieve. Perhaps that is a reason for saying that we welcome clause 2 and that we are glad that it is self-defeating in its purpose. However, the Government must take seriously the criticisms that are offered by many outside the House, quite apart from those inside the House, who complain about the nature of clause 2.
  Mr. RowlandsThe right hon. Gentleman should also draw the House's attention to the fact that clause 2 is not subject to any form of parliamentary approval. None of the orders—not even the negative procedure—applies to any aspect of clause 2.
  Dr. MabonI stand corrected. I accept that statement, which supports the criticism that I have made—that it is a bad Bill. The Bill must be considered carefully in Committee. I suspect that whole sections of the Bill will have to be taken away and rewritten. It will not be the first time that a Minister has done that: I have done so on occasion.
  I remember listening earnestly to the hon. Member for Bedford and others like the hon. Member for Derbyshire South-East (Mr. Rost), in Committee on the Energy Act 1976. The Government were clearly wrong in what they were proposing, so they took away four clauses and rewrote them. Of course, that was a no-win situation. The fact that we saw the mistake and corrected it meant that we were blamed for the mistake in the first place. However, it was proper and prudent for the Government to make that correction and to suffer the indignity of doing right.
  The Government will find the matter difficult in Committee. I do not know who is responsible for such matters, but I earnestly hope that I shall be on that
  198
  Committee. It will be a long slog. It will be an interesting Committee that must consider carefully the sections of the Bill that deal with fundamentals. I shall deal with part IV in a moment.
  Another criticism I have deals with the un-Conservative intervention of the Secretary of State into an arbitration involving anyone who proposes to use the national gas line system as a common carrier. If there is a dispute between the British Gas Corporation and someone who wishes to use the gas line grid, the arbitrator is to be the Secretary of State. That is most un-Conservative.
  I believed that no one could be more Right-wing than the Secretary of State, but the hon. Member for Bedford has proved it. That is why the hon. Gentleman encourages the Secretary of State to set up another independent arbitration machine. That machinery will require more than 40 or 50 members, as stated in the section of the Bill that deals with manpower.
  The Department of Energy is not a large Department by Whitehall standards. It is a highly efficient Department. I was proud to serve in it, as, I am sure, is the present Minister of State. The loss of 40 or 50 people would be a large one for that Department. If it means that 40 or 50 people must be sacked elsewhere, I wonder how the Department can carry on. Whole sections of the Bill deal with petroleum engineering and production licences, quite apart from the safety provisions, which to my mind imply that the Department must be substantially larger as a result of the Bill and all that it throws upon a responsible Secretary of State.
  My major complaint—apart from the opacity of clause 2—is that the Secretary of State has not told us about the memorandum and articles of association of Britoil. I believed that today's debate would be a rerun of the old movie that we saw on 10 November and that we should hear the same speeches from hon. Members, including myself. However, that has not been the case. The Secretary of State has made major changes to that which he postulated on 10 November. He told us that he would have a temporary majority of 51 per cent., although he would hold only 49 per cent. of the shares. I do not know what the word "temporary" means. If it means that he moves decisively every time that an important change must be made, he has a permanent majority.
  The idea of a temporary majority is nonsense. Either he has a majority or he has not. He will own 49 per cent. of the shares with a 51 per cent. right of decision. That is a major change. We were stunned when the Secretary of State in November proudly boasted that Britoil would be a corporation that had only 49 per cent. of the equity. I suppose that he was pushed hard in the Cabinet even to reach 49 per cent., but it is a major switch. That matter is not in the Bill.
  The Secretary of State mentioned many other important matters. He said that there would be a take-up by Britoil of the equity given to BNOC in rounds five and six. We mentioned this point in the debate on 10 November and we received no answer from the Minister, although I do not complain about that. I share the scepticism of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands): it is wrong that we must take the word of the Secretary of State tonight about what he believes will be in the memoranda of association. I have not been able to grasp the small print of what the Secretary of State said, because I was amazed

  199
  by such a shift in position. Clearly, the Government have taken rather a different view when they are faced with the practicalities of dealing with the participation agreements.
  Mr. EggarIs not the right hon. Gentleman grossly misrepresenting what the Secretary of State said? Did not the Secretary of State make it quite clear on 10 November that he would safeguard the British interest and control of Britoil? Did he not say earlier in that debate that the only circumstances in which the Government would take over the additional powers from 49 per cent. to 51 per cent. would be if British control was going to be lost, or if the directors were to be changed?
  Dr. MabonIt is not a matter for me grossly to misrepresent the Secretary of State or for the hon. Gentleman to defend him wrongly. It is a matter for Parliament properly to decide in the full—
  Mr. Eggar rose—
  Dr. MabonThe hon. Gentleman must not be impatient and unparliamentary. He must listen. Parliament must endorse the nature of the articles of association, otherwise we are simply allowing the Secretary of State to decide to change his mind whenever he wants and to give us in the beginning articles of association which we have all presumed to be in a particular form but which turn out to be quite different. I suggest that that is wrong.
  The Minister of State will have many things to answer at the end of the debate, and no doubt there will be the usual political punch-up, but there is one matter of substance with which I should like him to deal. I want him to give a solemn promise that we shall have the articles of association at the beginning of the Committee stage. That is a fair request. It is a matter of plain parliamentary fairness. We need to have the papers before us—as is said in the other place—together with the common facts on which hon. Members can base alternative arguments. It is unfair of the Government to advance the Bill without making the articles of association known in detail.
  The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) chastised me on a previous occasion for talking about the prejudicial position in which the British people would be placed under the Treaty of Rome if we allowed the exclusive right to land oil in the United Kingdom to be challenged by our European partners. Indeed, the hon. Member for Enfield, North said that that was a Foreign Office argument, but sometimes the Foreign Office has good arguments, and this is one which deserves an answer.
  It is possible that France might claim the same right, and might stand with us in the Council of Energy Ministers in resisting the claim that there is a breach of the understanding of our 1964 Act and of the treaty of 1972. That is an argument, incidentally, that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and I heard many times at the Council of Ministers when we served on it between 1976 and 1979. It is not a romantic, nonsensical or irrelevant argument; it is a real argument. I should like the Government to be sure of their position in this respect. I suspect that the Secretary of State's references to the memorandum relating to a certain paragraph were in order to defend the United Kingdom if we are attacked in the European Councils in regard to a change of circumstances.
  200
  The Minister of State has had a hell of a time. I hope that you will forgive the language, Mr. Speaker, but it can only be described—
  Mr. SpeakerOrder. It is the second time today that the expression has been used. We must maintain our parliamentary standards.
  Dr. MabonI agree, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has had an infernal time in his own constituency and elsewhere. He has lost the gas-gathering pipeline, although that was not entirely his fault. He has lost the Invergordon smelter—again, not entirely his fault, but there we are. But I give him credit for scoring a bull point in having Britoil—if it is ever created—established as a Scottish-based company. Scotland is part of Great Britain, and if Britoil is registered in Scotland, it will not only bring administrative work to Scotland—where a large claim is made concerning the origin of the oil—but will allow contracts to be made and litigation to be heard under Scots law. The case for that is well argued in page 84 of the report on the proposed merger or bids by two banks for the Royal Bank of Scotland. Therefore, in a completely non-partisan way, I say "Good luck" to the Government in having made the right decision, and I hope that they will stick to it.
  If Britoil emerges as a company, I hope that BNOC will still remain in Glasgow, even though it is a State trading company, and that Britoil will be based in Edinburgh, in Aberdeen, or somewhere else in Scotland. The important point is that the company should be registered in Scotland. I do not make this point as a nationalist; I am an internationalist. When BNOC was created, it operated under English law, and a great deal of work was naturally taken to English lawyers and to English courts, whereas Scottish lawyers needed more assistance in this respect.
  I agree wholeheartedly with what the right hon. Member for Leeds, South said concerning safety. I recall the setting up of the Burgoyne committee, the work of which has probably contributed largely to part IV of the Bill. Earnest work has been done by the much-criticised multi-national oil companies in regard to the blow-out in Ekofisk. That was not in our United Kingdom sector but we had the knowledge that mathematically it was more likely to happen in our sector than again in the Norwegian sector. We took steps, and with enthusiasm the oil companies helped to create and build the emergency support vessels, one of which has just been built in my constituency. The Government gave the Shell one away to Finland, but our Government were able to make sure—[Interruption.] I was not in the Government at the time. The order for the Shell vessel was dispatched in 1979 by the then Secretary of State for Industry, who is now the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but the other vessel has been built in Britain. We now have the safety zone principle, which is rehearsed in the Bill. It was known and recognised earlier by the oil companies in their plan for five sectors. In making these points I refer also to the trade union committee and to the work done by many other people in regard to safety.
  It is wrong that part IV should be in the Bill. It should be in a separate Bill that would be less contentious than this one will be, by its nature. The Government are muddling matters by including part IV in the Bill. It may be that if the hon. Member for Bedford and certain other hon. Members are appointed to the Committee, the Bill

  201
  will be guillotined at round about part III, so that in effect the axe will fall on part IV. That will be tragic. I hope that the suggestion about taking out part IV or having a new procedure will be looked at carefully. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that he should take out part IV and make a separate Bill of it.
  As the House will have gathered, I and my right hon. Friends disagree profoundly with the Bill, and I hope that it will be defeated.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Peter RostThe right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) has clearly learnt fast since his promotion as a spokesman for the Social Democratic Party. He has revealed about as much of that party's energy policy as we know about any of its other policies. There has been a little nit-picking but no substantive argument against the Bill. After listening to him carefully, I am thoroughly confused as to why he concluded his remarks by saying that he would oppose the Bill in principle.
  The other Opposition Members who have spoken seemed to be struggling hard to find any argument against the Bill. There has been the most extraordinary inconsistency. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown)—in a speech which attracted my sympathy and, to some extent, my support—argued the case for gas depletion in the national interest. I would go along with him. Surely, however, it is rather inconsistent to suggest that with legislation, by introducing more competition, we will deplete our gas reserves more quickly on the one hand, and then for the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) to argue from the Front Bench that this Bill, by introducing more competition, will raise prices. Hon. Gentlemen cannot have it both ways. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West is suggesting that gas will be used up more quickly because competition will reduce prices and therefore expand the market even faster than it is already expanding, and his right hon. Friend is saying the opposite, that prices will rise as a result of this Bill, presumably leading to less consumption. Which is it to be?
  Mr. R. C. BrownClearly the hon. Gentleman was not listening to the nub of my argument very keenly, or he would have understood. I am against depletion. He said I was advocating it. I was advocating a depletion policy whereby we could control the rate at which our North Sea gas is dispensed. Once we introduce this million net therm provision for industry, inevitably the price will rise and the rich resource of North Sea gas is bound to be depleted more rapidly.
  Mr. RostI certainly understood the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I fundamentally disagree with him. If British Gas had really been concerned about conserving finite gas resources, if it had really been concerned about a depletion policy, it would not have over-exploited the market, particularly the domestic market, by under-pricing gas in the early years and deliberately knocking out competitor fuels, such as oil, coal and electricity. In fact, British Gas went through the pretence of propounding a depletion policy by saying that it was preserving gas as a premium fuel, whereas in reality it exploited the monopoly that Parliament gave it by a ruthless and aggressive marketing policy that so rapidly developed the market for
  202
  gas that anyone who was not a complete idiot turned off any other fuel and demanded gas, until the market had developed so rapidly and the incentive for the development of our own gas reserves was so diminished, because British Gas was not prepared to pay a fair price, that it was forced to buy gas from the Norwegian sector at much higher prices. So much for the British Gas depletion policy.
  My argument in support of this Bill centres around what I regard as the most important section of it—the long-overdue breaking up of the British Gas monopoly. We cannot blame the British Gas management for having exploited and abused that monopoly against the national and consumer interests; we should be blaming ourselves. It was here in Parliament that the powers were given to British Gas to exercise that monopoly, and, of course, it was the last Conservative Government who were responsible.
  At least we are now repenting, which is more than previous Governments have been prepared to do. We are prepared to admit that the powers given to British Gas were too great and have worked against the national and consumer interests, and we are now prepared to put this right.
  Mr. Arthur PalmerI do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time, but the Labour Opposition opposed that Bill very strongly.
  Mr. RostI am well aware of that. I was on the Committee myself and was one of those obliged, somewhat reluctantly, to support it. As a new boy I was, perhaps, not mature enough to have sufficient reservations. I admit that I am just as much to blame as the others who created that British Gas monopoly.
  The argument I wish to develop in my case, that British Gas has abused its monopoly and that, therefore, this legislation is long overdue, can be made on several points. It is without question a fact—the evidence is there—that because it had the monopoly power to buy gas from producers and, of course, the monopoly power to sell and distribute, British Gas was able to purchase and subsequently sell gas, particularly to the domestic consumer at far lower prices than would have been the case
  It may be said that that was to the benefit of the consumers in the early years, and indeed it was. However, it has led to the deception of consumers because they were led to believe that gas would be cheap and plentiful. They invested in gas domestic heating and are now finding that, as with other commodities, a market price, a world price, eventually has to assert itself, based upon supply and demand. Simply because we are already having to buy one third of our gas from the Norwegian sector—and they are not letting us have it at below market prices—we are already finding that those cheap and plentiful supplies of gas that we were promised are no longer a reality.
  Of course, there is still plenty of gas. We have barely started developing it within our own North Sea and this too is because of the British Gas monopoly, because, in order to try to over-develop, over-exploit, the market for gas, British Gas was more concerned with screwing down the price to our own British North Sea field producers than with paying a rising price that would have provided the reward—or at least, a return—for the high investment that would have been required to bring that gas home.

  203
  The monopoly has been abused in this sense, that we have neglected to develop our own North Sea gas. There is plenty there. It is an embarrassment. There is probably enough for up to a hundred years, and, as the Norwegians have found, there are very substantial reserves of North Sea gas available. However, it is an embarrassment at the moment because the oil companies have not been offered a fair price for it.
  Mr. EggarWould not my hon. Friend agree that one of the deepest concerns and one of the results of the BGC monopoly is that some private oil companies now predict that we will run out of gas or cease to be self-sufficient by the end of the 1980s?
  Mr. RostUndoubtedly this is accepted, and this is why my right hon. Friend and the Government have brought forward this legislation. I have no doubt at all that incentives will quickly be created for the development of more supplies. I would further suggest that one of the main reasons why British Gas is opposed to this legislation is that it is afraid that so much gas will come forward from the incentive that will be provided that it will undermine the long-term contracts that it has with Norway because it will be seen that British gas will be offered in competition perhaps at a lower price than British Gas has had to pay in the Norwegian sector. I have no doubt at all that if British Gas had not exercised its monopoly power to hold down the price it was prepared to offer to producers in the British continental shelf, we would now be flooded with sources of gas at prices somewhere between those paid in the early development of the southern North Sea basin and the price we are now having to pay the Norwegians, prices that would have offered a good return to the producers and a much fairer deal to the consumers than we are faced with now in having to import so much of our gas.
  I also believe that British Gas has to answer for the under-development of our continental, offshore energy resources with regard to associated gas. If this legislation had come forward some years ago, or if British Gas had not been given the power to use its monopoly, I believe that pipelines would now have been built by the oil companies and more associated gas would have come ashore rather than being flared. Why is the gas flared? The reason is that it does not pay to pipe it ashore.
  Why have our petrochemical and other high-energy consumers suffered? Why have other consumers who use gas as a feedstock suffered and gone out of business? Why have we lost to foreign competition? The reason is that we have not used the abundant gas associated with oil production in the North Sea. British Gas has held down the price so that it does not pay the private sector to build pipelines and sell the gas to our petrochemical industry and other feedstock users. Competition is desperately overdue. We need the petrochemical industry. There is no reason why it should be outpriced against European petrochemical firms when we have the resources. We are not marketing and exploiting those resources. They are waiting for us, if we can provide a reasonable incentive.
  British Gas has rationed industry and overcharged at the same time. The arbitrary decisions that a monopoly is allowed to take about who it supplies and at what price have not been in the best interests of the British economy. The domestic consumer has been subsidised. The domestic consumer might believe that he has had a good deal, but
  204
  that he is not getting such a good deal now because prices are rising. Domestic consumers have a better deal than industry, which has been deprived and messed around because British gas has not developed the reserves as it could if it had had more competition.
  There is shortage amid plenty. That is always so when nationalised enterprises or State corporations intervene. As with food production in. Russia, shortages exist amid plenty. The exploitation and exploration of North Sea gas have been frustrated unnecessarily and now need an important boost if we are to maintain our supplies.
  The monopoly has abused its powers in another way. In the long term it is perhaps more serious than the aspects that I have already discussed. British Gas, along with the electricity supply industry monopoly, has abused its powers in a way that has damaged the consumer far more seriously than the nation realises. By its pricing policies British Gas has sabotaged the development of district heating and combined heat and power schemes. It has deliberately frustrated the development of co-generation in industry, which could be doing for us what it is achieving in many European countries, where people do not have to shiver and freeze in their homes because they cannot afford enough heat.
  About 3,000 district heating schemes exist in Western Europe alone. Many are fired by gas. It is a premium fuel but it has a higher efficiency than gas burned in boilers. The electricity by-product reduces the price of that heat and also reduces the cost of electricity production.
  The Select Committee on Energy is investigating why combined heat and power in Britain is lagging behind and why our people are suffering from high energy costs when consumers in other countries benefit from cheaper energy. There is no doubt, according to the evidence, that one of the major factors is the British Gas monopoly.
  If proof of that is required I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will refer again to the report of Dr. Walter Marshall to the Department of Energy. I refer to Energy Paper 35 on the prospects and potential for combined heat and power in the United Kingdom. That report said that one of the major reasons why the United Kingdom was bottom of the league for district heating and the co-generation of heat was the monopoly competition of British Gas. It recommended that British Gas be more sensitive to the need to encourage combined heat and power, which would result in energy savings and probably cheaper energy for the consumer, instead of allowing British Gas to continue to develop its market almost exclusively in the domestic area for heat-only burning in boilers.
  A number of cases have been brought to my attention of British Gas deliberately trying to frustrate the development of district heating and combined heat and power which could benefit millions of consumers. In the Midlands, Mr. Geoffrey Shepherd has developed with industry a combined heat and power station at Hereford. Bulmers benefit from the heat and electricity is made available to the grid at a lower price than the Midlands electricity board has to pay for electricity from the national grid.
  A number of similar schemes for combined heat and power have been proposed but British Gas has refused to quote to supply gas. It decided that it did not want to provide the fuel. That was an arbitrary decision. As a result, several schemes—one of them at Telford new

  205
  town—did not go ahead. In its wisdom British Gas decided that it would not provide the gas. It wanted to be excused from quoting. I could give other examples.
  It would be reasonable if the people developing the combined heat and power scheme at Telford have somewhere else to go, but they do not. Other schemes are going ahead but they are not using gas.
  The scheme at Hereford is already working and supplies Bulmer with heat. The go-ahead has been given for a scheme for Dunlop. That will be partly coal-fired. Gas is ideal for some schemes. Although gas is a premium fuel, burning it in a combined heat and power cycle is more efficient than selling it individually for homes and burning it to provide heat only. British Gas has deliberately tried to prevent that. Its sales effort has concentrated on selling gas selectively to industry and aggressively to the domestic consumer.
  Mr. PalmerDoes the hon. Member agree that Conservative Ministers or their civil servants have frustrated combined heat and power schemes, particularly that at Hereford? That was the evidence given to the Select Committee.
  Mr. RostIt is true that in so far as Ministers at the Department of Energy are responsible for national energy strategy they have not taken the action that should have been taken over the years to see that the institutional restraints, such as the monopoly powers of British Gas or of the electricity supply industry, were removed. Some hon. Members—the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) is one of them, as am I—have argued for some time that this must be done. I hope that the Select Committee's inquiry will prove fruitful in drawing further attention to this matter.
  It is crucial that the monopoly powers of British Gas are broken as proposed in the legislation so that alternative sources of North Sea gas can be made available at competitive market prices. Nobody is asking for discounts or subsidies, but at least it should be made available. Industry should have the choice whether to take it. There would probably be more gas available at lower prices than British Gas is prepared to offer to industry in its arbitrary way.
  I reiterate that the most important part of the legislation is the competition that it will introduce into the supply and marketing of North Sea gas. I have no doubt that the reserves are much more substantial than is thought because there has not been the incentive to develop. Nor do I have any doubt about the benefits to the British economy, to our standard of living and to the millions suffering from inadequate heating availability. They could have benefited already if we had not mismanaged our energy strategies by failing to deal earlier with the monopoly abuses that the Government are now bravely tackling.
  Labour Members should not approach the legislation in the doctrinaire way in which they suggest we are approaching it. It is all very well to get het up about this being denationalisation or massive asset stripping, as has been suggested. No doubt we shall hear this again during the debate. But it was the Labour Government who asset-stripped the BP shares. A huge block was sold, which resulted in control on behalf of the Government being lost. They reduced a majority State holding into a minority holding. Not only that, but they sold the shares at Stock Exchange prices so that there was a huge profit for all the
  206
  speculators and capitalists who had put £100 into a few shares. What is even worse, they squandered the proceeds. So let us hear less humbug and hypocrisy about privatisation and selling off State assets. Let us concentrate on the issues of principle. Will this legislation, by introducing more competition, serve the consumer and the national interest better than we have been served in the past?
  7.3 pm
  Mr. Gordon WilsonI certainly agree with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) that the previous Government got involved in asset stripping but, contrary to his view, it was Scottish assets which were stripped and put into a United Kingdom oil corporation even though it was of a public nature. It is some consolation to me that the new company will have a Scottish registered office; it will be much easier for a Scottish Parliament to take it into public ownership in due course.
  Mr. Archie HamiltonWhat role does the hon. Gentleman think the Shetland part of these assets play? I gather that Shetland is not so keen on them being thrown in with the Scottish ones.
  Mr. WilsonIf the hon. Gentleman cares to go to Shetland he will find considerable opposition to the way in which unemployment is rising sharply now that the construction boom at Sullom Voe is over. I think he will find that opinion has changed.
  Certainly in relation to oil assets the British Government of the day decided to take these out of Scottish ownership and that will be put right. Unfortunately, we are not dealing with that but with the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill. It is a somewhat flawed piece of legislation. There are some good things in the safety aspects which will be discussed later in Committee.
  I am surprised at the way in which the Conservative Party has gone about its vaunted claim that it is in favour of a property-owning democracy. If it wanted to bring that about it could have taken the radical solution of issuing debenture or other bonds to every citizen, constituting a share either in revenue terms or in capital terms. That would have fitted into its philosophy much better, but it has sought to take a profit-making combine, which has already been given preferential access to oil territory, and sell it off to those who can afford to buy shares but who are unwilling to risk their money in the risky business of exploration and development. That is not the best way to deal with an asset, be it British or Scottish.
  It would have been much more rational for the Government to give smaller oil companies an opportunity to compete with the big boys for some of the juicier golden blocks, because it is through the smaller companies that they could have built up the United Kingdom share in the exploitation of oil. In the Brown Book which was published in 1981, although all the companies are British because those were the terms under which they got licences, we see that their parentage is mainly of trans-Atlantic origin—Hamilton Brothers, Esso, Mobil, Amarada; Shell is largely owned by the Dutch and Occidental. If hon. Members go through the list they will find that the United Kingdom equity share is smaller than many people would like.
  A possible criticism of the Bill is that it will do nothing to spread the development and exploitation of oil on a

  207
  national basis. More likely it will lead to the loss of existing United Kingdom control over the oil if and when some of the shares manage to pass abroad through transactions on the Stock Exchange or whatever.
  As the Secretary of State has said, protection may well be built in by virtue of the mysterious articles of association which will give majority voting rights to the Government to prevent a takeover, particularly in relation to appointments to the board. Nobody can argue that the Bill will per se spread the benefits of the oil which has been discovered to anyone other than those who have interests abroad. I should have thought that the Government have made a mistake because some foreign control will still remain.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East mentioned dogma. I had always thought that the Conservative Party was a believer in the mixed economy. The companies that are active in exploration and development in the oil industry are almost entirely in the private sector. The only company now involved in the public sector is BNOC, although the British Gas Corporation still has rights to explore and develop. I am not sure of the statutory position of the National Coal Board but I suspect its powers for exploration for oil and gas have been stripped away; certainly they are not used. So BNOC is the only public sector element in the industry, unless one argues that British Petroleum serves a role. That might have been a stronger argument if there had still been Government control over BP, but BP is now largely operated as a private company and is regarded by everybody as being within the private sector.
  The argument then arises as to why it is necessary to take this action in relation to BNOC, which is one part of the mixed economy. In 1975, when the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill was before the House, examples were produced of State oil companies, publicly controlled oil companies, operating in such diverse countries as Finland, France, Austria, Italy, Spain, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands, not to mention the Middle Eastern countries and those across the Atlantic. It was argued that there was a protection in having a State oil company to look after the national interest.
  What were the benefits? The first would be the audit of expenditure if BNOC was a silent partner—that is, if the operating rights were held by other companies—to see that the tax loss expenditure was minimised, or that the number and location of platforms were so arranged as to maximise oil production, when the inclination of companies under certain configurations in oilfields might be to go for the least capital-intensive scheme to maximise the return of profit.
  The second benefit was the monitoring of purchases of equipment. In the earlier days of oil exploration and development it was patently clear that a large proportion of the purchases was from abroad, particularly from the United States of America. It took time for the United Kingdom component in purchasing to rise. The work of BNOC in that direction was a very useful addition to the role performed by the Offshore Supplies Office.
  Even though the component of United Kingdom supplies has risen, there is still doubt in my mind, as there always has been, about the accuracy of the figures when it comes to subcontracts, because what could have been placed in the main contract through a United Kingdom
  208
  supplier could filter down and go outside the country. Therefore, BNOC, being involved in the investment decisions as an operator or as a silent partner in some of the consortiums, would be there to argue the case for the purchase of Scottish, English, Welsh or Northern Irish equipment wherever possible.
  The third benefit was competition with the majors and an assurance of supply, which in a way was a strategic interest. That was largely taken care of through the participation arrangements, but as the oil fields in the North Sea move from their present stage into a more mature one, return territory may become available—territory which is given up—and there may be a role for a State oil corporation in developing those areas that may not have been attractive at first volley to some of the major oil companies. That is a role that it would be much more unlikely for Britoil to carry out, if its main responsibility were to shareholders and not to the public interest.
  If it is necessary in the Government's eyes, whether through dogma or desirability, to put the shares of Britoil on the market—accepting the cautionary words of the Secretary of State—is now the time to rush these proposals through the House? The Government may find themselves running out of time if they do not enforce these provisions fairly quickly.
  Will the Treasury stand by and allow the market to improve if it wants to curtail the borrowing requirement? I should think not. The Treasury might well like to get in large quantities of money from the sale of the assets, even if it might obtain a better price if it waited two or three years, as I think would be the case.
  The International Energy Agency figures show that petroleum products supplies dropped in the past year by 5 per cent. to 7 per cent. The Petroleum Economist gives a drop of 6½ per cent. There have been significant drops in the supply of crude oil from the OPEC countries, even though there has been a considerable top-up from Mexico, the North Sea and India. It was reported in the Petroleum Times of 15 January that there had been a drop in United Kingdom demand, which is now at its lowest for many years. Between 1980 and 1981 there was a drop of 9·3 per cent. in demand for petroleum products.
  Oil shares are standing at historically very low levels. There has recently been an improvement in those of Shell, but largely through an improvement in the downstream sector, in petrochemicals and refining, and not necessarily its handling of crude oil.
  Britoil will be going into the market as a supplier of crude oil. It will have the attraction of having some good investments in that direction, but the market is soft. I should not be surprised if, were an offer to be made in the next year or year and a half, those market conditions prevailed, and the price achieved was well under the asking price.
  I do not. think it right and proper in such circumstances that the House should be asked to consent to a scheme which would seem to be financially problematical, one that could cause the loss of an asset. Therefore, I counsel the Government that the best thing would be to put the whole matter in cold storage. I cannot foresee any real improvement in the next year or two.
  I should like to ask the Government one question about Britoil. If it is established on the basis that is intended, will it, like BNOC, be given a favourable disposition or

  209
  preference in future licensing rounds? If it is not, the price of its shares may be less substantial than it would otherwise be.
  Promises have been made that the jobs in Glasgow will be maintained. I am glad that those assurances have been given, but they are good only so long as the Government have control of the company. The Bill says that there will be an increase in the number of jobs in the Department of Energy. The explanatory and financial memorandum says that the administration of certain clauses could require a total of eight to ten staff in the Department, with an increase to 40 or 50 in due course. Any benefit is certainly not coming to Glasgow or Scotland as a whole.
  I turn to the argument about the disposal of BNOC and the head office. For me, the headquarters have always been Stornoway House in London, where the main control was exercised. Glasgow, although staffed with many people performing very useful jobs, has not had complete control over policy, except when the directors travelled up from London to take over.
  I should like to say a brief word about gas. British Gas has been no great respecter of the interests of Scotland. It was set up only when gas was discovered in Scottish waters and the then Scottish Gas Board was abolished. In Scotland we found that the gas from southern waters came up slowly, with the grid. I can understand why. It was a matter of development and of tapping the grid as it came up, but there is no doubt that it took many years for natural gas to reach Scotland.
  One of the significant effects is that in the industrial sector Scotland received only half the share of gas to which it would be entitled proportionately, despite the huge production that is now beginning to come from Scotland, both from the Norwegian suppliers in Frigg and from the Forties.
  Mr. EggarIs it not also true that Scottish industry benefits considerably from electricity that is much cheaper than that available in the rest of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. WilsonThe hon. Gentleman touches on a difficult and dangerous point. I counsel him to come into our debate on Thursday about what has happened to the Invergordon smelter. He will then be treated to a number of hours of critical examination of electricity prices in Scotland. I can give the hon. Gentleman one example, which bears some relation to another provided by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East. There is an industrial estate in Aberdeenshire which, although it is very close to St. Fergus, where the gas is landed, was refused access to gas by the British Gas Corporation on the grounds of expense. As a result, that estate had difficulty in development. Obviously, the proximity to gas supplies does not automatically mean preference in supply. That disparity inclines me against the British Gas Corporation.
  According to the Petroleum Times, AMOCO is supposed to have two or three projects that it would like to push forward and it would be looking for a price of between 26p and 35p per therm. That is a wide gap between the minimum and maximum limits. According to the report, the BGC is currently paying 16p or 17p per therm and those developments have not been going ahead. Therefore, if one argues in favour of additional supplies of gas, the price of gas might rocket. The advantage would be more gas, but the consumer would have to pay a considerable amount. As I understood the Secretary of
  210
  State, we are mainly dealing with industrial consumers. The domestic side of the industry will remain with the BGC. Many industries and large gas consumers argue that they are already paying more than their business competitors on the Continent. Therefore, there are difficulties. I am worried that the break-up of the monopoly could lead to considerable gas price inflation.
  The Government made a better start than their predecessors, when they substantially increased oil taxes and the restrictions on flaring. I have already commended the Minister on his actions. However, in the past year, the Government's energy policies have virtually collapsed. The gas-gathering pipeline has gone and has left a substantial gap in Scotland. There was a bungled deal with Norway over the price of gas and there was the loss of Norwegian gas. The Norwegians have their own system, which will come into operation in 1986. The cost of energy to industry has affected Corpach and Invergordon. There is an absence of work on the depletion strategy. Indeed, the Labour Party's restrictions were quite injudicious and the Government have still done nothing about that. In addition, this Bill has been introduced. Therefore, although the Government started well, they are certainty making—to use a good Scots word—a bourack of the whole affair. I shall certainly vote against the Bill, because of the dangers that it involves and because, ultimately, the provisions relating to the sale of BNOC will lead to a loss rather than a gain.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Michael MorrisMost Opposition Members have said that, with the exception of part IV, the Bill is based on dogma. When I sat down last night to prepare some comments, I was moved by a letter that I had received from a constituent, Mr. Elliott of Trubend Ltd. I shall quote from that letter. He referred co the plight facing his company and said:
  "Apart from the lack of orders my greatest problem has been with rising costs that are out of my control. No matter how disciplined we become, the public sector costs could not be contained. The electric, gas, coal, telephone, post, rail (goods deliveries), fuel, local authority charges, rents, rates and especially water, which will soon be as expensive as fuel, continue to rise incessantly."
  It is against that background that we must view the generic side of the Bill, in addition to the specific proposals as they affect BNOC and the BGC.
  On the generic side, I have the utmost sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Last week, the chairman of British Telecom said that the company had not only failed to hit its target of a 5 per cent. increase in productivity, but had fallen back 5 per cent. He said that his prices had gone up twice as fast as the national rise in prices. That was achieved solely by increasing the price to the consumer.
  As someone new to the industry, it seems to me no different from the rest of the public sector. It faces the same tragic position. Much of it is run for the benefit and convenience of those who work in it. Far too little is run for the benefit of the customer, the final consumer or the taxpayer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing the nation a great service by introducing such a Bill.
  I came fresh to the industry, and the first aspect that I considered was an assertion that seemed illogical and that has been repeated by, among others, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). They assert that if the pipelines

  211
  are made available to outside producers and gas production is increased, the automatic response will be an increased price to the final consumer. There is no economic fact to suggest that that has to happen. However, it could happen. I suggest that it depends upon which of the four elements becomes the dominate one. Is the dominant element to be the livelihood and future prosperity of gas producers, of the BGC, of the final consumer—whether industrial or domestic—or of the Government, in the form of the Treasury?
  There seems to be some debate about whether producers will get a higher price or, indeed, need one. However, let us assume that they receive a higher price for the gas than they are offered at present. A higher price for the gas from the fields does not necessarily mean that there will ultimately be a higher price. Two elements will have a bearing. I refer first to the monopoly costs of the BGC and, secondly, to the monopoly profits. The Government could have some effect in those two areas and we, as parliamentarians, should do some hard questioning there.
  Let us consider the Treasury's influence. It specifies financial targets and cash limits, and, more recently, there has been the gas levy. That is one area of variability that can affect the price to the consumer. However, another area is much more interesting. Let us consider the London Electricity Board's recent report and the fact that its showrooms have achieved a £5 million loss. Who can achieve that on retailing domestic appliances? It is no mean achievement. Therefore, monopoly profits and the inefficiency of the nationalised sector are significant.
  The point of the Bill, and of the dogma and drive from this side of the House to achieve competition, is to remove public sector monopoly inefficiencies. Some progress will be made. However, that is not the complete answer. It will take us a long way. All the evidence from the public sector that I have considered as a member of the Public Accounts Committee shows, without exception, that there is vast potential for saving money.
  In his opening speech, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South mentioned pricing policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) mentioned that and said that there must be some published price or tariff for the distribution pipeline. However, we must go further than that. There must be a monitoring of operating efficiency. Monitoring of public sector efficiency combined with the other two areas means that we should discover whether the net result to the consumer would be higher prices. I believe that they will not arise, and that more gas will be supplied to British industry at a competitive rather than a higher price.
  It is a pity that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has left the Chamber because I shall comment on his statement that the most opportune time to lodge stock would be in the latter half of the financial year. In the sale of any public asset there are many times when it is most opportune to obtain the highest price for it. That is not the sole question to be asked. The issue must be considered in the context of the Government's requirements for revenue and of whether it is most cost efficient to sell stock in the autumn or early winter or, alternatively, to raise money from other areas.
  It must be the right of any Government—it is logical and reasonable—to liquidate public assets when they believe it to be necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for
  212
  Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) commented that a previous Government liquidated a section of British Petroleum.
  The Bill has additional benefits. A primary benefit will accrue to new industrialists in my constituency and elsewhere in the heartland of the Midlands, who are now unable to obtain new gas contracts. I very much hope that as a result of the Bill the combination of increased gas supplies and competition will at least mean that those industrialists wanting gas supplies can get them.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) talked about great difficulties with the transmission, control and monitoring of gas. They do not seem to me likely to arise. I worked in Canada for two years. There was no great difficulty there for the private sector in working many of those areas and deciding how to monitor one against the other. I do not see any horrendous problems in that area.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will give us some reassurance on the worries of the farming community about whether any special powers will be given to the private sector for the laying down of pipelines across farming land. I assume that no extra powers will be given, but it would be helpful to have an assurance about that.
  The second key area that I shall probe is public accountability. I listened carefully to the right hon. Member of Leeds, South. It will be helpful to those hon. Members who will serve on the Committee—as I hope to—if the right hon. Member differentiates between what might be called "the party political area" of deciding whether negative resolutions are appropriate to all areas of the Bill and those areas where it is right that there should be parliamentary accountability. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and with other hon. Members that too often in Bills—this applied when I sat on the Committee considering the Community Land Bill—accountability is non-existent. It is important that hon. Members ensure, not on policy areas, because it is the right of the Secretary of State of any Government to dictate what the policy shall be, but where public money is involved that there are proper procedures for accountability. Instead of taking a very broad brush to that, I hope that he will consider the matter logically and that he might in certain areas make some sympathetic response.
  The Bill offers a golden opportunity to make properly accountable this part of the public sector—it will still remain a 45 to 49 per cent. shareholding. I hope that we take the opportunity of the Bill to lay down what should be the rightful area of parliamentary responsibility into the future and not just in Committee.
  In four or five years' time, hon. Members will want to analyse what has happened to Britoil. We must give time for such an analysis. At some time—probably towards the end of the next Parliament—it is right that hon. Members should seek and obtain, through some independent body, an assessment of what Britoil has achieved and is achieving. Arising from that point, hon. Members should have the right to question the results and decide accordingly. There should be deep questioning into those two areas of the Bill. The Bill is essentially about the public sector and, by taking the boldest and largest decision about denationalisation, the Secretary of State for Energy is paving the way.
  I hope that Parliament, the Secretary of State for Energy and other Front Bench Members are clear that we see this

  213
  as paving the way and that we expect others to follow. We owe the Secretary of State, as does the nation, real thanks for establishing a blueprint for this area. If that is dogma, I am prepared to accept it as such.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)It might help the House if I remind hon. Members that there are eight hon. Members trying to catch my eye, and that there are just 80 minutes before the Front Benches hope to do so.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Dick DouglasI shall try to be brief because much of my criticism of the Bill was contained in my remarks on 10 November 1980. However, I have no objection to an intervention in terms of policy by the Secretary of State for Energy in the energy provision overall. Therefore, in strict dogmatic theory, following the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), when he said that we should have an answer to dogma, I do not object to the Secretary of State taking on himself certain powers. However, if we consider how he might use those powers, Parliament has a right to question the exact nature of the orders, particularly when it comes to the view that we should accept a mere allocation of time under the negative procedure.
  The Secretary of State disgracefully omitted from his speech the fact that we have the Burgoyne report on offshore safety and the whole basis of the argument behind that. During the period that Burgoyne and his colleagues were investigating, the "Alexander L. Keilland" incident occurred and. recently, there have been other incidents in the North Sea. Those incidents question certain aspects of the use of semi-submersibles. [Interruption.] I hope that I have the Secretary of State's attention. They are being used, not in the drilling mode, but in accommodation or other modes, for example, production platforms.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was right when he spoke about part IV. Technical arguments should apply and political dogma should not intervene. The technical arguments require detailed investigation and detailed information. Will the Secretary of State make available, through his discussions with the Norwegians, their detailed report on what happened to the "Alexander L. Keilland" and the consequences for other rigs, especially semi-submersibles, that are being used in the United Kingdom sector of the continental shelf?
  The right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) was wrong when he talked about the relationship between the safety zones and the sector clubs that have been agreed between the Government and United Kingdom offshore operators. The right hon. Gentleman said that certain emergency support vessels would be made available. A fine vessel is being built by Scott Lithgow—I declare an interest—for BP. There is the "Occidental Thoras". There is the Shell vessel that is being built in Finland, the building of which has been severely delayed. Theoretically there are some deficiencies in that type of cover.
  I have some interest in diving. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who has great knowledge of the subject, has promoted with others a charter on trade union activities in North Sea operations. I have received somewhat confidential
  214
  information from some of my constituents that many of the young people, especially from the United States, who are taking part in North Sea diving, are insufficiently trained.
  I have corresponded with the Home Office and the Department of Employment and it seems that it is difficult adequately to control these activities by the use of work permits and the implementation of international legislation. However, we should receive assurances from the Department of Energy, bearing in mind its relationship with the Health and Safety Executive, that it is pursuing these matters with a view to ensuring that those who undertake diving and other activities in the North Sea are sufficiently trained and certificated. That was one of the recommendations in the Burgoyne report. In his great sweep of these areas the Secretary of State omitted any reference to these important ingredients.
  We get oil from the North Sea and it is obtained in hazardous conditions. Men risk their lives—very few women are employed in North Sea activities because of the nature of the employment and the restrictions imposed by employment legislation—to extract the oil, and it will do the Secretary of State no good to sit in the comfort of the House and almost completely ignore them. It will do him no good if he visits the rigs and talks about health and safety with those who work on them when he ignores them while speaking on the Floor of the House.
  I turn to the parts of the Bill that refer to BNOC and British Gas. First, we are not clear about the nature of the articles of association. It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow to emphasise that Britoil will be registered in Scotland. It is made clear in BNOC's annual report that 18 associated companies are registered by the corporation and that 12 of them are registered in England and only six in Scotland. If a company is registered in Scotland, that does not mean that contracts will be subject to Scottish law. They will be subject to interpretation under any law that the parties to the contracts choose to apply. The fact that Britoil will be registered in Scotland is a mere sop.
  The people of Scotland were and are concerned about the benefits from North Sea oil and gas that will flow to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. The last Labour Government—unhappily the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is not in his place—confirmed some of the fears that the Scots had that the assets would be misused by the multinational oil companies. The Labour Government created BNOC under the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975. That measure is being destroyed for doctrinaire reasons. If BNOC has such a small share of the oil reserves in the North Sea—it is said that it is about 7 per cent—what is all the fuss about?
  If the Secretary of State says "To safeguard the national interest, I shall doctor the articles of association so that whenever there looks like being trouble I or my successors can intervene, even though we might have only 10 per cent. of the shares", he will be able to claim that he has a duty to protect the national interest because of his responsibilities that are set out in the articles of association.
  What will that mean in market terms? Conservative Members are much more conversant with them than I am. The valuation of the shares will be diminished because those who buy shares will not be completely free. The shares will be rather like class A shares. I understand that the television companies are having some difficulties for similar reasons. The market will not value shares in

  215
  intrinsic terms in the same way as the nation. Therefore, we have an obligation to ensure that the national interest is protected by ensuring that the nation has control over these assets and can obtain information on the profitability of the exploitation of the resources. Protection does not lie in merely doctoring the articles of association. I canvassed this argument on 10 November and I shall not take it any further. I merely say that the Secretary of State is denying himself a source of valuable information. He denies it to himself and to the nation on nothing else than doctrinaire grounds.
  Much criticism has been levelled at the British Gas Corporation because it has monopolistic powers vis-a-vis the oil companies. The corporation carries out explorations and produces gas on its own. It has more than a shrewd idea of the production costs of that gas. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) has argued that there is a great deal of gas available in the North Sea. At what depth is that gas and what will be the production costs? I suspect that he is partially right in his contention. If he has knowledge of where the reserves are, is he saying that the Brown Book's estimate of the reserves is completely wrong? Is he claiming that he has deep seismic information? In the southern sector of the southern gas basin we are talking about drilling at 6,000 ft. In the other pockets of gas it will be necessary to go down to 11,000 ft. or 12,000 ft. That will make the operations more costly.
  Paragraph 4 of the brief from the Library reads:
  "When the relaxation of supply legislation was announced last October oil companies mentioned two possible new supply lines, to Teeside and the North-West, which would be privately owned. Such additional provision, laid through heavily developed areas, would hardly be likely to make gas supplies to industry any cheaper than BGC's prices."
  If energy prices are to be interrelated, it is hardly feasible to suggest, especially in the Bill, that gas prices will be cheaper. Those who juggle with the argument and suggest that gas prices will be cheaper are misleading the House, gas customers and potential customers.
  I now turn to one or two brief technicalities. We are talking about the British Gas Corporation grid, which is a 36-in line—at high pressure—that can be used for methane plus additional ethane. Therefore, the argument of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East about other associated gas does not prevail. The companies always have total use of other associated gas. There is nothing in the BGC's powers to prohibit the use of that gas for petrochemical and other purposes.
  Mr. RostIn associated gases I include methane.
  Mr. DouglasThat is a reasonable argument. We are not suggesting that the Brent line was held up because the BGC would not negotiate a methane price and that the propane, butane and ethane was being denied for a long time to the petrochemical facilities coming to my constituency. That argument does not hold water.
  An argument was put forward in The Economist about a week ago that one could use the land line for ethane and methane for export to the Continent. It would be attractive to obtain a continental price for gas. That interferes directly with the overall view that the Department of Energy should have for a four-fuel managed economy for the United Kingdom. I asked the Secretary of State about that in my initial remarks.
  216
  The North Sea gas-gathering system has been lost. I am sorry that the Minister of State for the Department of Energy is not here. He has lost the gas-gathering system. We shall discuss that on Thursday. He has lost the aluminium smelter. To coin a contemporary advertisement in Scotland, he shall have a terrible job getting "the Ross back in his Cromarties."
  We lost that system because the Government failed to take an overall view and to impose their will on the oil companies. I shall not talk about bits and pieces such as the £100 million development that British Petroleum and other companies have announced. I shall not say that that will not take place and that we will not get all the gas eventually. We are looking for an overall structure. It behoves the Secretary of State to impose his will on the oil companies.
  In the Bill we see a doctrinaire approach to a complex energy problem. In his wisdom the Secretary of State thinks that the addition of 40 or 50 people to his Department will be all that is required to provide expertise. A rough estimate of the cost to the Department is £¾ million to £1 million. He can obtain similar expertise and a similar outlook by leaving the matter alone. I do not suggest that it is perfect, but I am deeply suspicious of the present Secretary of State as he seems to argue all the time that he will know best about being the arbitrator between the interests of the oil companies and of BNOC.
  In a speech on 7 December, when he was talking about the onshore lines, the Secretary of State said:
  "Similarly, in the case of BGC's onshore pipelines, I envisage that private gas suppliers will negotiate with the Corporation. I have already said that these negotiations must be effective. To ensure that private suppliers can get access to BGC's pipelines on reasonable terms, there will be legislative provision for bringing any dispute to the Government for determination. So when agreement is not possible in normal negotiations, private suppliers will ineffect be able to call on the Government to arbitrate on the points of difference and the Government will have powers to require BGC to make capacity available and to specify the terms."
  So much for arm's-length dealing. The Secretary of State is the referee. He is telling the multinational oil companies that if they do not get what they want, they should come to him and he will tell British Gas how to behave. Is that the free market operating?
  Mr. RostYes.
  Mr. DouglasMy goodness, there are some funny boys in this school. The referee is cooking the books. It is as if Glasgow Rangers were playing Celtic and saying that it would board up the Copland Road end of the pitch and Celtic could shoot that way.
  That was a shocking admission by a Secretary of State for Energy. It makes us distrustful. The Secretary of State comes from the Treasury with a Treasury view. He knows that something must be done about taxation. If he makes a concession, what concessions will the Governmen make on the tax? That is part of a total package. It will have enormous political repercussions, particularly in Scotland. The Scots have suffered no more than other parts of the United Kingdom, such as the North-East and Wales. The argument was put forward that the smelter failed because it was not in the right geographical situation. However, much of the oil has been found off the shores of Scotland. Therefore, the Scots have a right to see that the benefits accrue to them and not to the multinational oil companies.
  For that and other reasons, I wholeheartedly support my colleagues in opposing the Bill.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Peter ViggersIt is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) whose contributions are always knowledgeable and considered. I share his concern about safety in the North Sea. Bearing in mind the scope of industrial development there, the accidents and deaths have been comparatively few. However, that is not a fair argument. One injury or death is too many. The terrible tragedy of the "Alexander L. Keilland" shows how near we are to the frontiers of knowledge in the North Sea. I declare interests relating to the oil and gas industry, which predate my time in the House of Commons. If I am tainted by a little knowledge of the industry, I plead guilty.
  On my interests in conservation of oil and gas I claim to yield to no one. It is vital that we should properly use the hydrocarbon reserves that are given to us. The casual terms that are often used about spending the oil revenues are totally misleading—almost as misleading as Voltaire's comment on the Holy Roman Empire as being neither holy, Roman nor an empire. Not just oil revenues are concerned, but both oil and gas. It is not revenues, but capital.
  The oil and gas in the North Sea are minerals. By depleting those minerals we are depleting a capital asset as completely as if we were dumping good agricultural land back into the North Sea. The assets should be regarded as capital assets and we should draw a prudent line between the use of capital reserves, which we are depleting by using the oil and gas reserves, and the use of revenues.
  It is important that we should draw that line. The oil and gas reserves have taken millions of years to be built up. It would be wrong and history would never forgive us if we used those resources too quickly. Future generations would not forgive us.
  I am not at all averse to the concept of a separate fund for the spending of oil and gas revenues. There is a great deal to be said in cosmetic presentational terms for showing the public that the funds available from oil and gas have been used and invested prudently for future generations and have not simply become part of the Treasury's expenditure. I know that this flies clean contrary to the virtue of Treasury thinking, which is that hypothecation is quite wrong—that being the term used to describe funds being spent on the source whence they came. The public are entitled to see where the North Sea money has gone. At the moment they cannot see that it is being used prudently. The present Government, like the Labour Government, are simply including the revenues as if they were part of Government income.
  What should our depletion policy be and how can the public best benefit from development?
  Mr. RowlandsI was following the hon. Gentleman's first point closely and with some sympathy. Unfortunately, immediately after this debate, the House will be asked to pass a money resolution which, as far as I understand it, will prevent us from debating those issues and will bind the House to put all the money from the assets into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.
  Mr. ViggersI am fully aware of the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a fair point for him to make to me. I am urging a view which I consistently urged on the Labour
  218
  Government, and which I continue to hold. I do not think that a massive change in the way that the money is spent is necessary, because the present Government, like the previous one, are spending thousands of millions of pounds investing in the public sector and elsewhere.
  I am anxious that a presentational point should be made so that the public can see that as capital assets are being depreciated the money from those assets is being reinvested in capital projects. The point is presentational rather than one of major substance.
  It is my personal and subjective judgment that the depletion rate should be aimed roughly at the level of national net self-sufficiency. there is nothing sacred about that figure, but it is difficult to argue that we should deplete faster than is necessary for national net self-sufficiency because if we do that, we shall run down our resources at a rate which would cause us to see the end of our reserves at the end of the century, give or take a few years.
  Who should be responsible for depletion? Who should be responsible for producing oil and gas? I totally agree, with the Secretary of State that the business of Government is not the government of business. Indeed, I believe that the Government are uniquely unsuited to adjusting themselves to the risk element of the oil and gas industries. Moreover, the Government do not need to be in that position since they have, and will continue to have, a wide range of controls over the gas and oil industries. They have controls over tax, depletion, allocation of licences, and controls through their trading business and participation agreements. There is no need, therefore, for the Government to continue to be in the commodity business and owning the oil itself.
  Of course, there is a risk of politicisation of the oil and gas industries. I have heard Opposition Members call for BNOC to spend more money exploring for oil in different sectors of the North Sea adjacent, perhaps, to the constituencies that they represent, as if by those calls on the Secretary of State they can cause the oil and gas reserves to be created. The Government are not suited to being in the major business of oil and gas exploration. I strongly support the view that we should now devolve and introduce private capital into this sector.
  Part II of the Bill is extremely important. It chips away at the monopoly of the British Gas Corporation. The gas corporation thinks that it has done well in producing gas from the North Sea, and I do not disagree. It has indeed done well. In exactly the same way, the BBC, when it had the sole franchise for television, no doubt believed that it was doing well, but it has improved beyond all recognition since it has been subject to competition from the independent television companies. With all respect to the talents of those involved, the gas corporation's success in the North Sea was not much more difficult than running a successful party in a brewery. It had access to massive funds in money and in oil and gas from the North Sea and it has of course done well, but I still believe that it will do better when it is subject to competition.
  The BGC's monopoly of purchase and supply has undoubtedly grossly distorted the pattern of development of North Sea oil and gas. That point has been made by my hon. Friends, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), so I shall not repeat it.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) expressed concern about safety if other enterprises were

  219
  allowed access to transmission systems. Here I repeat the point that I made in an intervention in his speech. There is no reason why the safety standards which apply successfully in other countries where many companies are involved in the transmission of oil and gas should not be equally successful here. I therefore do not share his apprehension, which is based apparently on discussions with trade union leaders.
  The significance of the Bill is perhaps not so great as it has been described in some quarters. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), who will be winding up for the Opposition, used terms such as "wholly invidious", "weakened and vulnerable", "sweeping", "grubbier" and "unfettered", to draw just a few adjectives from his article in The Observer last Sunday. As its main thrust, the Bill will result in about 8 per cent. of North Sea oil becoming available for private investment. That is a smaller percentage than the 9 per cent. which the Labour Government themselves passed to private hands when they needed the money because they were under attack from the International Monetary Fund, so in that sense the Bill is not so important as it has been billed to be.
  Nevertheless, the Bill is important. It will promote efficiency and competition, and I support it wholeheartedly.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. David PenhaligonWe have before us an important piece of legislation and the debate has gone as might have been predicted. To be fair, there has been slightly less of the usual swopping of dogma on the issue than I had expected. Nevertheless, I think that we would all admit that one's party's attitudes and one's basic view of life clearly influence one's appreciation or otherwise of the Bill, and one's views regarding monopolies deserve to be spelt out in the debate as that is the subject that we are discussing.
  I take the view that monopolies by definition exploit their position—sometimes with real malice, sometimes by accident, but mostly just because they are monopolies. For that reason, I do not entirely dismiss the Government's proposals for the British Gas Corporation. In principle—I use that word with care—I see nothing desperately wrong with the proposal that it may be possible so to organise things that others may have access to the national grid apart from the British Gas Corporation monopoly. Even without claiming any expertise in this, I can envisage some not insignificant problems as to how that will be done in practice even if I am prepared to examine it in principle.
  There is the problem of how one allocates historic costs and also the effect upon the British Gas Corporation and its ability to satisfy peak domestic demand if other people are pushing their own gas through the same pipeline. Anyone living in a part of the country that has been affected by electricity cuts will know that Governments must be extremely careful to ensure that domestic supplies do not fail during a period of great stress such as most hon. Members have known recently in their areas. I live in a part of the country that has had no snow, but those hon. Members who have will know of the stress caused by cuts in domestic heating supplies. In some circumstances it can be fatal, but in any circumstances it would be something any Government would wish to avoid.
  220
  I have some sympathy with the proposal, but given the better definition that may be discovered in Committee of how the Government hope to overcome the difficulties, I would not like to predict whether there may be some support from the Liberal Party for the Government.
  The problems cannot be covered up by simply saying that the Secretary of State will sort it out. I do not have much faith in the Secretary of State. I have no doubt that he is one of the country's great technologists, who understands the problems of passing gas down pipes and so on, but Conservative Members can argue that with more conviction than I can. If the proposals can be achieved there may be some advantage to United Kingdom manufacturers, and anything that can do that must be welcomed by us all if we wish to see a growth in our GNP and an increase in our living standards.
  is a part of the Bill with which I have some sympathy, but I have very little sympathy with the proposals relating to BNOC. The newspapers claim that the sale of BNOC will produce £1 billion. That is a great deal of money, but it will build only one of the nuclear power stations which I know the Minister is so much in favour of—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Only a half."] That was my view, but I was trying not to get involved in nuclear power, something in which I tend to get involved.
  One billion pounds is still a great deal of money though it will not put the British economy right at one stroke. One has the impression that the main attraction for the Government of selling BNOC is the money and the one-year effect that the sale will have on the PSBR, because there have been few other strong arguments.
  The argument of monopoly does not apply in the case of BNOC. Nobody is suggesting that BNOC is of sufficient significance to affect international competition in the production of oil. I am somewhat cynical about how much competition there is in the production of oil today, given that the price of the product is not based on manufacturing cost but appears to be based on the decision of the OPEC committee. Therefore, the sale of BNOC will have no significant effect on competition in general, and because that business can be judged only in comparison with others—and there are others—I do not see any great advantage to that trading company in selling it off.
  Mr. Archie HamiltonIf the policy of the Liberal Party is not to denationalise BNOC, is it then to nationalise further into the oil industry?
  Mr. PenhaligonCertainly not. I have never become worked up about arguments on nationalisation and denationalisation. If the Government look up the records of this Parliament they will find that they have received much support from the Liberal Party for various denationalisation schemes. I can think of one that I did not support, but if I mention that we shall be back to the argument of a moment ago. In some circumstances, I could be convinced into supporting the denationalisation of BNOC. I just do not see how that fits in to any real ore necessary criteria.
  The real reason I am against denationalisation is that I regard BNOC as peculiar and unique in that it holds a percentage of one of our great national resources. By implication, a great national resource is something that from time to time the nation will wish to use so that it can derive the benefit. The argument is not so much whether the oil owned by BNOC should be used to the national

  221
  advantage. Clearly, if we can raise £1 billion by selling it, that money could be used to the national advantage. Equally, if the company is allowed to trade profitably, its profits could be used to the national advantage.
  The real decision for the House is whether it sees any great advantage in using that national resource immediately. We should remember that it is only a percentage of North Sea oil and it is not a monopoly of North Sea oil. We must consider whether it should not be used later for the general good of the country while at the same time having a trading company in the North Sea oil market which can glean some information about what is going on in that important sector of our economy.
  I come to the conclusion that I am against the denationalisation of BNOC. I confess that if the Government's plan goes through and it is denationalised, we are dealing with a new situation. I do not for a moment suggest that votes will be forthcoming from the Liberal Bench to renationalise BNOC after the next election—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I see nothing illogical about that. At present BNOC is nationalised. I am talking about changing that situation, and I see no advantage in doing so. If in five years' time, when BNOC is denationalised and someone proposes to renationalise it, we shall have to make a judgment on that basis. I therefore see no reason to give a carte blanche guarantee that the parliamentary Liberal Party will use its votes in that direction.
  It is not difficult for the Government to raise money against North Sea oil, if that is what they wish to do. They could issue bonds against the value of that oil. If the bonds were sold at $33 each, which is the approximate price of a barrel of oil, and the Government promised to redeem those bonds at whatever was the going price for North Sea oil at the time of cashing in, I have no doubt that a large number of people would be attracted by such an investment. Of course, if the value of North Sea oil decreased, they would lose money, but I suspect that a large number of people would be interested in such an investment. I also suspect that that would raise the quantity of money about which we are talking without losing control of the company, as the Government partially wish to do.
  Clauses 20 to 27 deal with safety. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) raised a valid point which had not occurred to me before the debate started. Given that it sounded credible, I should like to give it some weight.
  These clauses, though important, appear late in the Bill. I am fearful of the filibuster that the Bill will undoubtedly cause in Committee. That could lead to these important clauses being guillotined. I do not see how anyone in his right mind could believe that clauses 20 to 27 should be guillotined. It would be a great tragedy if that were the net result. I see no real problem with the suggestion to take those clauses out of the Bill so that they find their way through the other processes of the House. After all, we do not have a desperately hard legislative programme in front of us.
  By adopting that suggestion, we could say with some confidence that the clauses were not dealt with by a tired Committee at the end of a filibuster when great pressure was on it, but that a Committee of the whole House had given the clauses full and total thought. No one outside the House will thank us if we do otherwise.
  My party will vote against the Bill tonight. I confess that it is not as bad as I had expected and, in his opening
  222
  remarks, the Secretary of State made one or two comments that led me to believe that it may not be as bad as I had feared. No logical reason has been given to the House today for selling BNOC.
  The main argument will not take place in the House. It will take place in the country. Those concerned with industry will decide whether the Government are right to sell BNOC to those who can afford to buy the shares in it. If the Government had put forward a wider scheme in which everyone could have an active participation in this great asset that luck has given us in the North Sea, we could see some sense in it. They are not doing that. They are selling off a great national resource without having given any logical reason. There will be no support from this Bench for the Bill.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Tim EggarThe House is always grateful to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) for the light relief that he brings to our debates and for his and his party's ability to see all sides of all arguments at all times. [Interruption.] I do not wish to engage badinage with the hon. Gentleman's colleagues who seem to be merely compounding his errors rather than adding clarification to his policies.
  In many ways this debate has been a re-run of the debate on 10 November. I have desperately been trying to look for similarities and dissimilarities. There is one clear similarity. It is becoming ever more difficult to differentiate between the energy policy of the SDP and that of the official Opposition. I cannot quite make up my mind whether the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) is advising the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), or whether the two right hon. Gentlemen share the same research adviser who is peculiarly devoid of arguments. I understand now. The right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow takes the advice of the research assistant of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South.
  It is remarkable that we have with us the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), and we are extremely grateful for that. I was wondering how I could describe him. Could he be described as the victor of Bishop's Stortford or, alternatively, the symbol of another false dawn for Labour Party reunification? We are to be spared the spectre of the horrified face of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South as he listens to the pearls of wisdom that flow from the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), so we shall be noting with interest tilt expression on the right hon. Gentleman's face as he listens to the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil tonight.
  The wait for this Bill has been well worth while. The Bill is long overdue. It tackles two basic problems that have bedevilled this country's energy policy. The first has been the stifling effect that State ownership has had on the conduct of BNOC's affairs. It was most vividly illustrated by the decision that BNOC was forced to take, I believe under Treasury pressure, not to go ahead with the development of the Clyde field. That was a development that made economic sense in all ways except from the point of view of the PSBR. That is an illustration of the sort of freedom that BNOC will be given once it is out of State ownership.
  The other great achievement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) and others

  223
  have said, is the decision to break once and for all the monopoly and monopsony power of the British Gas Corporation. I do not wish to dwell on the severe damage that that monopoly has done to this country over a period of time. The importance of the measure in the Bill to break that monopoly cannot be over-estimated.
  Another factor bears repetition. There is nothing in the Bill that reduces in any way the Government's and the country's ability to control the exploration, development and production of hydrocarbons, both offshore and onshore. To argue otherwise is to have no regard for the facts and clearly shows that the person who put forward the argument has not studied the Bill in sufficient detail.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be in any way surprised when I express regret and disappointment that he was not able to announce this afternoon that he would be selling shares in the British Gas Corporation. I hope that before the end of the Committee stage we shall have a clear statement from my right hon. Friend that it is his ultimate intention to privatise BGC in the same way as he has decided to proceed with the privatisation of BNOC.
  The Bill should be seen only as one leg of our new energy policy. The other leg, which is as important, would be the decision to alter the taxation regime in the North Sea, particularly as it affects marginal gas fields and satellite oil fields. I am sure that the House will turn its attention to that matter when the Finance Bill is introduced.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy to comment on the Government's intention with regard to the showrooms. We know that disposal of them will not proceed during this Session of Parliament. I hope, however, that even at this stage efforts will be made to persuade BGC to allocate costs properly to the showrooms so that we can see whether they are making a profit or a loss.
  I am disappointed that we have not yet had a clear statement from the Secretary of State about his policies in regard to the export of gas from the United Kingdom. I am not necessarily talking about exports from British waters. I am also talking about the export of gas from Norwegian waters because there will be considerable economic advantages to this country of using high pressure mains throughout the United Kingdom, taking gas from Norwegian waters through to the Continent. We need a clear statement from the Secretary of State that, in the long term and under strictly controlled conditions, he will be prepared to give permission for the export of gas. Only in that way can we get real competition and demand for the significant supplies of gas that will be necessary to have an effect on industrial gas prices in this country.
  Despite those two reservations, I have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House. I am sure that it will be seen as a major step forward in providing a sensible and useful energy policy.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Lawrence CunliffeI shall speak rapidly in order to let other hon. Members take part in the debate.
  First, I wish to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost). He constantly raises the hardy annual about the flaring of gas in the North Sea. What he says on this problem is more
  224
  fiction than fact. It is an indictment against the Government that £1 million worth of gas per day is burnt and wasted away in the North Sea. Yet the Government had their opportunity, when they were asked, by a kind of tripartite axis or agreement about the pipeline only a few months ago, to bring British gas ashore here, to participate, to finance and to give certain assurances to the British Gas Corporation and to a mix of private firms, and to be directly involved in a participation and partnership agreement. The Government turned their back completely on that offer.
  Three thousand jobs could have been created in the British steel industry. At the same time, the Government paid lip service to the idea of creating new jobs and reneged unashamedly when they were challenged and presented with the opportunity to show good faith in respect of the words in their manifesto.
  Mr. Rost rose—
  Mr. CunliffeThe hon. Member spoke for 10 minutes and made two interventions. Other hon. Members wish to speak.
  As I have said, the pipeline was to have been financed by a mix of private investors, the British Gas Corporation and the Government. It fell through because the Government refused to give assurances to the private companies. The real reason was not that the Government did not want an involvement and control in that situation. The reason for the Government's withdrawal seems to have been the Treasury's fear of the scheme's impact on the public sector borrowing requirement. That was the Government's motivation. That was their conviction and it remains so. There is no doubt that the Government took a senseless and indifferent attitude.
  The decision is incomprehensible in energy terms. It is estimated that in terms of return on investment, the gas pipeline is eight to 12 times more cost effective than the Government's proposed nuclear power programme, which on present plans will cost up to £20 billion over a 10-year period. That is a correct assessment and assimilation of the facts as they have been found to be and as British public opinion believes them to be.
  I wish to put the Bill into context as it is seen within the framework of a balanced fuel policy and a pricing system. The Bill militates against a decent pricing system. It seems to me that it will imperil our long-term energy needs up to the end of the present century.
  I participated recently in an international seminar on energy. Many of the world's energy experts were present. Regardless of political disposition or scientific opinion or any other form of public opinion expressed there, there was a consensus among some of the world's best scientists and energy forecasters that the energy requirements for the future would be met only by a large degree of State intervention. The experts were convinced that the market mechanism in many respects had failed miserably over the last 20 or 30 years, and they included people from the most advanced industrial nations.
  We have a Government who are completely insulating themselves from long-term energy planning and price fixing. There has been an imbalance in energy planning and price fixing. There has been an imbalance in energy pricing under previous Governments for the last 20 years. It was sensible to have a good look.
  As a nation, we are getting fairly complacent about our energy. We honestly believe that we shall have endless

  225
  sources of energy, simply because of the bonanza in coal and oil that has arisen in the last decade. That is not so. We have large reserves of coal. As the House is aware, I have an interest in oil and gas. Britain is better placed than most countries in Europe to cope with what will remain a difficult energy position in the future.
  How long will the benefits last? Our oil and gas resources have a limited life span. It was said at the international conference that by the 1990s—it is a revelation to find this out—the whole oil glut of OPEC countries will be just three weeks' strategic reserves to feed world supplies. In my opinion, it is quite reckless to introduce a Bill of this character unless it is viewed within the perspective of total energy planning for the future.
  When it comes to guaranteeing supplies, we have huge reserves of coal, which should be used sensibly and discreetly. We must get oil out of our power stations. It is a policy that many nations are finding prudent. We must alternate as quickly as possible, going for maximum conversion from oil, which is too precious to use, and supplementing it by our coal. The demand for electricity supplies will be satisfied mainly from feeding coal into our power stations during the next 20 to 30 years.
  Our boom days are ending. It is time for vision and foresight. We must consider this subject in the overall context of full and comprehensive energy planning. I believe that the Bill will have an adverse effect in that respect. Prices will fluctuate according to supply and demand. It is not a practical proposition to risk energy sources that can be calculated and make them unpredictable. We shall never be certain that our energy supplies are safe for the next 20 or 30 years.
  I wish to underline two matters. I am concerned about oil supplies and the depletion that has been mentioned in this debate. What alternative options are open to the United Kingdom's oil strategy in the light of the uncertainty about international developments in the supply and price of world oil? How can British oil wells be protected? They cannot be protected by floating shares internationally. No one can tell me that part of our 3 million unemployed people will queue up and scramble for oil shares. The mighty moguls will move in again. At the end of the day, those who have most will acquire most. That is common logic.
  We must protect British oil wells against possible continued deterioration in world oil prices generally and the attempts by other producing countries to corner the market. That technique can be used here to get part of the market, and in my opinion it is obviously necessary to ensure the viability of the British oil industry. Even the oil sheikhs are worried about what is happening in the world energy scenario. It is a distressing scenario, if one is to believe what most experts say about our energy needs to the end of the century.
  The last issue that I wish to raise is safety. It has been mentioned in our debate, and it is an important subject. I suggest to the Secretary of State that it is high time that we had a North Sea oil charter. It is high time that we consolidated the existing legislation. The legislation should be tightened and scrutinised. We must cross the t's and dot the i's when it comes to safety requirements. I believe, as do many organisations, especially trade unions, that responsibility for the health and safety of offshore workers should be transferred from the respective departments to the Health and Safety Commission. All trade unions should have a statutory right to nominate
  226
  safety representatives to their appropriate safety committees. The number of safety inspectors should be increased, and they should have access to offshore installations without prior notice. We should have a 14 or 15 point charter.
  In conclusion, the Bill will have grave repercussions on our energy demands and requirements for the future. I am not certain that the powers that the Secretary of State seeks will give him ample control over the situation. There is some speculation about this. I do not believe that he can dot the i's and cross the t's in this connection. It will be imperative that the Labour party should scrutinise every word in Committee. At the end of the day we can come back to the House and say that the Labour Party has attempted to carry out the most penetrating investigation into what the Secretary of State and the Government are trying to do—hiving off Britain's priceless assets during the next 40 years.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Archie HamiltonI welcome the Bill because I believe that it is designed to roll back the powers of the State. I welcome any Bill that is designed to do that, because we must accept that the public sector is much too large and that it dominates much too large a percentage of our gross national product. Our oil industry is basically the product of the success of the private sector, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said. It should be returned to the private sector from where it came originally.
  As long as profitable companies such as BNOC remain in the public sector, they remain open to political interference. I have yet to meet any politician who does not believe that the re-election of his party is not in the national interest. I can see that the commercial aims of BNOC might well be perverted by people trying to buy popularity in an election. Therefore, the sooner BNOC. gets back into the private sector the better.
  It is probably true that the employees of BNOC were initially rather unenthusiastic about being denationalised. They felt that their cosy relationship with the Department of Energy—perhaps even an incestuous relationship—rather suited them. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) said, when BNOC discovered that it could not get the money that it wished to develop the Clyde field, it suddenly realised that there were great disadvantages in being tied so close to the Treasury's apron strings. At that moment BNOC realised that if the company were to expand and realise its potential as an international oil company it had to get out from under the Treasury.
  It is all very well for a nationalised company to say that it will produce huge profits. That means only that those profits will become consolidated in the Treasury forecast and it must apply to get the money back to invest in any form of expansion. That would never happen to a private sector company.
  Mr. Rowlands rose—
  Mr. HamiltonI cannot give way because we are short of time and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
  If we consider a company such as British Petroleum, it does not allow its profits to be paid out. Most of its profits are ploughed back into the company. The shareholders receive only the dividends, which are a small

  227
  percentage of the company's profits. We must have a BNOC that can raise capital on the private market and expand as it wishes into other markets.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) said that we should privatise all of BNOC including the 51 per cent. participation options that it has on all the oil fields in the North Sea. I do not agree with that because I do not believe that the participation options are a commercial activity. They are merely an activity by the Government to guarantee our supply and they should not be put into a commercial company. One can argue about whether those 51 per cent. participation options are a necessary function for the Government because the Government have extensive powers in case of emergency.
  When we consider the British Gas Corporation's oil interests, we see a tragic and sad story. When BNOC is floated off we shall have another independent, private, British oil company, of which we do not have many now. There was an opportunity for about £500 million worth of the oil interests of the British Gas Corporation also to form the nucleus of another independent oil company. It would have offered the opportunity of employment in management by employees of the British Gas Corporation. It was a great tragedy that for a long time the BGC sat on the proposal that it should form a separate subsidiary into which private capital could be introduced and then, after a long period of deliberation, said that the proposal was unacceptable.
  The result that then followed was that Wytch Farm was taken out of BGC's interests and sold separately, and I doubt whether we shall see a new company emerging from the BGC interests. We shall merely see the oil fields being sold off piecemeal, and an opportunity to form another British oil company will have been lost. That is a great tragedy.
  I strongly support the breaking of the BGC monopoly but I see this as being, unfortunately, only a gradual process. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said that it would be a disaster and would lead to the breaking up of BGC. If that were the case, I should be delighted, because the problem is that we have no way of judging the performance of the British Gas Corporation. It makes profits, but is has exploited as far as it can its monopoly buying powers, and it also has a virtually captive market.
  There is the question whether the price of gas will go up once the effects of denationalisation work through. There is a still greater demand for gas than there are supplies, so that there is a shortage of gas. If demand is in excess of supply, initially the result must be that the price will go up. After a time more supplies will become available, and in those circumstances we shall see the market even off as supply and demand get into equilibrium.
  We have large nationalised monopolies and they, in their turn, have monopoly unions. These organisations are capable of holding the country to ransom. They do not have to worry whether they keep their customers happy. They are in a very strong position. It is essential that the Government should continue to carry out a programme, wherever possible, of breaking the monopolies, restoring market forces, and giving customers the products they want at prices they are prepared to pay.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Dennis CanavanWhen the Secretary of State first announced these measures he said that without doubt they amounted to the biggest programme of privatisation ever to come before Parliament. If I may change his words slightly, I think that the measures amount to one of the biggest programmes of plundering of the public purse ever to come before Parliament. Tonight we are discussing an attempt at an unprecedented exercise in public asset stripping.
  I have never claimed—and I do not think that any Labour Member has claimed during the debate—that our nationalised industries are perfect in every respect. I did not hear any Labour Member give simply a doctrinaire defence of public ownership or of the public sector in general. Socialists are often accused by the Tories of being doctrinaire in their approach and in their arguments, yet now it is the Tories who seem to be hell-bent on a doctrinaire attack on two of our most successful public enterprises, which are serving the needs of the nation.
  Historically, many of the successful publicly owned enterprises in Britain—this applies particularly to the energy industries—did not come about for doctrinaire reasons. Indeed, much of the legislation was not implemented by people who called themselves Socialist or Left-wing politicians. Early in this century it was that well-known 'Left-winger', Winston Churchill, who took the public stake in BP. The reason then was to ensure a constant supply of energy to the Armed Forces of the British Empire.
  Later, in the 1960s, the Continental Shelf Act 1964, which took all the oil under the seabed within the British sector of the North Sea into public ownership, was carried through, not by a member of the Labour Party but by that well known 'revolutionary', Lord Home, at that time Sir Alec Douglas Home. We then come to the 1970s when the very setting up of the British Gas Corporation was carried out by a Tory Prime Minister, that well known 'extremist', the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
  Every time, they argued, as we are arguing now, that these examples of public ownership and enterprise were in the national interest. The underlying reason for that was that they believed, as we believe, that energy is far too important a matter to be left simply to free market forces. That, too, was the basic reason why the last Labour Government set up the British National Oil Corporation. I was on the Standing Committee which dealt with the BNOC legislation. Before we did so, we were the only major oil-producing country—or potentially major oil-producing country—in the world without a national oil corporation, with the exception of the United States of America and, of course, we can see the shambles of their energy policy.
  We had to fight hard to set up the British National Oil Corporation against opposition not just from the Tory Party but from the Scottish National Party, whose spokesman, I am sorry to see, is not with us just now. The SNP voted against the Bill on Third Reading, supporting the Tories, even though the headquarters of the new national oil corporation were to be based in Scotland, as they now are, providing work for more than 1,100 employees. That number of jobs would have increased, but for this legislation, to about 2,000 in the near future.

  229
  Despite the opposition we enacted that Bill, and the corporation's profits are now about £300 million a year, and likely to rise to £500 million the next financial year.
  If we made any mistake about extending public ownership into profitable enterprise it was that we did not go far enough. We should have nationalised the whole North Sea oil industry and that would have made this Government's job even more difficult in their attempts to dismantle existing public ownership. I hope that we shall bear that mistake in mind so that we can remedy it the next time we are in Government.
  Mr. Tristan Garel-JonesWill the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. CanavanNo, I am sorry. If I do I shall just prevent other hon. Members on that side from speaking in the debate.
  By the time we are next in Government, the people will see much of the damage that this Government will have done in their public asset stripping exercises. They will see it in real terms, in terms of prices and jobs, not just in oil but also in gas. For example, the ending of the so-called monopoly or monopsony powers of the British Gas Corporation will mean a virtual auction for gas which will jack up the price, not just for domestic consumers but also for many industrial consumers who are already complaining that the price of gas is too high.
  I think, too, of the example of the gas gathering pipeline project, a mixture of public and private enterprise, which was abandoned by this Government of which the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) is still a member. The abandonment of that pipeline project meant the destrcution of jobs in his constituency and, taking into account also the Invergordon disaster, I do not know how he has the brass neck to sit there on the Front Bench defending the indefensible policies of his Government, policies that are destroying jobs in his constituency and in other areas of Scotland. I have in mind the Grangemouth petrochemical complex, which is quite near my constituency. That gas pipeline would have brought not just gas from the North Sea but jobs down to Central Scotland and other areas of mass unemployment—jobs for my constituents and those of the Minister. The Minister is content for the Government to permit valuable energy resources to go up in smoke. That is what is literally happening under the crazy policy which allows gas to be flared instead of being piped ashore by public enterprise.
  I turn to the important aspect of safety which was discussed only briefly by the Secretary of State but which, rightly, was dealt with by other hon. Members. The Secretary of State said that success in the North Sea was due almost entirely to private enterprise and the risks taken by it. I remind him that success in the North Sea is due largely to the efforts of workers and the risks that they take.
  North Sea workers live and work in some of the most dangerous offshore working conditions in the world. It is a pity that the Secretary of State did not pay tribute to the workers' efforts. Safety standards in the North Sea leave much to be desired. The health and safety legislation should be extended to cover the North Sea. The employment protection legislation should also be extended to cover workers in the North Sea along the lines of the charter that has been drawn up in draft by the trade unions and some of my hon. Friends.
  230
  I have drawn the Minister's attention to instances of unscrupulous, faceless multinational companies acting like pirates by exploiting cheap labour—often foreign—offering the workers miserable wages, hellish and unsafe working conditions and very little, if any, job security. I hope that in Committee amendments will be passed to tighten up the legislation in that respect. The absence of job security and decent safety conditions in the offshore oil and related industries is yet another reason for an extension rather than a reduction in public ownership.
  We can compare the offshore oil industry with the coal industry before it was nationalised. Working conditions, the standards of health and safety and job security were deplorable. Only since the nationalisation of the coal industry have miners experienced a significant improvement in job security and in health and safety. That in turn has resulted in improvements in productivity.
  The Minister and his henchmen seem to be content to allow the North Sea oil industry to be governed by multinational oil companies which are motivated simply by the desire to maximise profits, sometimes ruthlessly encouraging their workers to take more risks. Unfortunately that sometimes has fatal consequences.
  The debate is not simply about public enterprise and private enterprise. It is about whether the rights and aspirations of individuals, whether workers or consumers, should be subordinate to the greedy aspirations of huge multinational companies which are accountable to no one. The debate is about not only the restructuring of the economy, but the restructuring of our society and whether our national assets should be used for the benefit of the whole nation or for the benefit of a privileged few. I hope that hon. Members will vote for the former proposition rather than the latter. Perhaps that is a forlorn hope.
  A more realistic hope might be that the next Labour Government implements Labour Party policy, not only by taking back into public ownership the assets that this Government are irresponsibly selling, but by extending the frontiers of public ownership and public enterprise to bring about the industrial, economic and social regeneration that the people want.
  9 pm
  Mr. John HannamThe hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) has spoken strongly in support of extended nationalisation. I wish to put a few arguments against that proposition. First, I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the case he presented in support of the Bill. I should also like to declare an interest in the oil industry.
  I strongly support the measures proposed for BNOC and BGC. I reject the arguments of the Opposition that the Government are in some way selling out British interests. The reverse is the case. The strength of our industrial society in the past has been through the pursuit of innovative change and improvement which has taken place year by year with new technologies and new industries replacing old unprofitable ones, and with new managements replacing older, less imaginative administrations.
  The doctrinaire Socialist belief in centralised State control, which unfortunately appears today to be supported by the SDP, means that they have to oppose any form of denationalisation even if it makes sense to restore areas of the public sector to private competition. At least, they

  231
  pretend to oppose it but their principles are often bent to suit expediency, as happened in 1977 when the Labour Government sold off the majority shareholding in BP.
  I should like to comment briefly on the BNOC parts of the Bill. After the Labour Government came to power in 1974, I was on the Committee when the BNOC legislation was going through. Members of my party argued then that it was totally unnecessary to set up such a gigantic, interventionist, State corporation to safeguard the security of supply of North Sea oil and gas. We considered that the requirement to land it here, together with controls over development and depletion operated through a trading arm of the Department of Energy, plus an excess of profits tax system and certain emergency powers in the hands of the Secretary of State would ensure required protection for the British people.
  With the creation of BNOC we saw increasing bureaucratic intervention in North Sea activities and subsequently the use of BNOC for political purposes by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), who is not present today but who then held the post of Secretary of State for Energy. I believe on principle that where competitive private enterprise can operate profitably the State should stay out of those operations. Only where social conditions necessitate the maintenance of a public service should State-owned corporations exist, if possible in a devolved regional shape rather than as a vast monolithic monopoly. If we had patterned smaller units of administration for electricity and coal we would not be facing the problems of low investment, low productivity and extremely high price increases in the public sector.
  I agree with The Times editorial of 15 January headed "Public inefficiency" which pointed out the disastrous record in nationalised industries where, with no market disciplines operating, unit costs have been allowed to increase during the recession, with the result that the consumer has been clobbered by price increases double those of the private sector. If the public sector had contained its price and wage inflation during the last year to the level in private industry, we should certainly be in single figure inflation by now.
  I agreed with the Labour Government in 1977 when they disposed of a totally unnecessary majority stake in BP. Incidentally, that sale represented 9 per cent. of North Sea oil production, whereas the sale currently proposed of the 51 per cent. of BNOC shares represents only 3·5 per cent. of North Sea oil production. Therefore, the Opposition clamour about selling off our birthright is pure hypocrisy.
  The fact is that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, the control of North Sea oil does not rest in BNOC's minor, 7 per cent. share of North Sea oil production. It lies in the trading arm, with its access to 51 per cent. of oil produced in the North Sea, and this will remain in the public sector.
  Controls over depletion and development do not lie with BNOC anyway. They are applied by the Department of Energy. Here I should like to pay tribute to the experts in the Department for the extremely efficient way in which they administer the complex and difficult job of issuing oil licences, production licences and gas licences. All the oil companies that I have met—I am sure that my hon. Friends
  232
  have had the same experience—have been full of praise for the attention and courtesy that they have received at the Department.
  I should like my hon. Friend the Minister of State to deal with the composition of the newly separated trading arm of BNOC. There is always the complicated and delicate responsibility of setting the price structure of North Sea oil. At present the expertise lies in that part of BNOC which will be hived off into the new Britoil company. What does my hon. Friend envisage as the staff structure for the State trading corporation, which he will be setting up and which will continue to be under State control? Will there be a joint working committee, for example, between Britoil and the BNOC trading arm to maintain the level of competence in this vital pricing operation? It is very important that the correct expertise is applied.
  Putting the BNOC sale into perspective, I should say that the Government are putting into real public ownership, as distinct from pseudo-public State ownership, about 3·5 per cent. of North Sea oil production. The Government will still retain the largest shareholding and will exert all the necessary controls over oil and gas production to safeguard Britain's interests.
  The worry that control of Britoil could pass to a foreign country is countered by the safeguards that my right hon. Friend intends to write into the articles of association. Presumably, the same could have applied to BP in 1977, but I do not recall the Opposition making a song and dance about that requirement then. I shall be interested to hear whether they did.
  Britoil is to explore for, find and produce the oil and gas that we need to maintain self-sufficiency through the 1990s. We need to give a major fillip to exploitation and development activity during the coming years. We need to find half as much gas and oil again as have already been discovered. With costs escalating and the size of fields diminishing rapidly, the risk becomes much greater week by week and month by month.
  It is interesting to note that, whereas the first 25 commercial fields had an average size of 447 million barrels the following 11 fields discovered and developed were down to 91 million barrels, and the next 37 potentially commercial fields are expected to have only 62 million barrels per field. Therefore, a stable tax regime and a settled depletion policy are essential if we are to regain the momentum of the early 1970s. I believe that the Bill will encourage exploration for oil and gas. If the Government take into account the need to encourage smaller British companies as well as establishing this new, major British oil company, the target of self-sufficiency through the 1990s is eminently attainable.
  I turn to British Gas and the proposals for selling off its oil business. It is understandable that its directors and employees are opposed to the proposals, though I regret the manner in which that opposition is being expressed. I see no reason of principle why a monopoly State industry making substantial profits out of low buying and high selling prices should be allowed to diversify into all sorts of other activities, as British Gas is now trying to do. If the gas market is fully opened to competition, and British Gas like Britoil, becomes a minority State shareholding company, competing fairly and squarely with other companies in the gas buying and selling market, diversification can of course be allowed in a fair, normal way. But British Gas turned down the suggestion of my

  233
  right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State of a new oil company in which it would hold a 40 per cent. stake. Therefore, the selling off of the onshore oil interests is perfectly reasonable.
  We hear screams of protest from the Opposition, but what did the Labour Government do to the National Coal Board oil interests? They forced the NCB to sell to BNOC assets estimated to be worth about £100 million for a nominal £50,000. The Opposition's evident hypocrisy in arguing their case is borne out again and again in examples taken from their last period in office.
  In conclusion, I fully support the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing it so quickly in the Session. I hope that the various points raised will receive close attention in Committee and that the Bill will be put into legislative form so that the new major British oil company will be operating successfully by the end of the year.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Edward RowlandsThe quality of the speech made by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) was such that he gave clear expression to Conservative Party doctrine about public ownership. That doctrine is that public ownership must be unprofitable and, therefore, that all profitable public ownership must be sold to private enterprise. That is a "no lose" situation from his ideological point of view and he will not be surprised if we do not support such nonsense.
  I shall refer to the whole character and nature of the Secretary of State's speech. In some ways his values, interests, attitude and approach were reflected in the balance of that speech. There were three times as many cheap personal gibes as there were references to the problems of offshore safety in the North Sea. There was not one reference—except to say that part IV existed—to the problems of the diving industry in the North Sea, the problems of safety zones and the problems that have arisen over the safety of rigs. There was nothing in his speech about the terrible problems of safety in the North Sea.
  There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman indicating that the Minister of State has yet to speak. He managed to waste 10 minutes on personal political gibes when he could have spent them telling us more about the Government's plans on offshore safety.
  The second fact to emerge is that the Bill is an affront to every tradition of parliamentary accountability and legislative scrutiny. That affront is compounded by the fact—which I do not think any hon. Member is aware of other than the Minister and the hon. Member who received the answer—that while we have been debating the Bill, a significant answer has been given to a written question and it is of considerable relevance to the issues that we are now debating. No doubt no one on the Back benches has seen the answer given by the Minister to the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) on the issue of BNOC's role in LPG supplies, which sets out a policy statement that could affect the ability, viability and the role of the State trading company. That is indicative of the insulting manner in which the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister are treating this House. The character and nature of the Bill, and the way in which major policy statements are given in written answers on the day that we are debating the relevant issues, illustrate that.
  As my hon. Friends and others have said, the Bill provides no safeguards or assurances. We have had only
  234
  the say-so of the Secretary of State. All he has given is a half revelation about the way in which he intends to tackle the problem of foreign control through the articles of association. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent foreigners taking over the assets. There are no draft measures or articles of association in any legislative form that can be debated and subjected to amendment. The Bill contains no provisions to guarantee the participation agreement to which he referred and which I shall deal with in a few moments. As the hon. Member for Exeter pointed out there is no provision describing the nature of the new State trading company. That company is not the same as the old BNOC, which is being split up. All that will be left is the State trading company. What will be its composition and its duties? There is nothing in the Bill to show what those responsibilities and duties will be, or the composition of the new board or corporation. Will that be put in yet another regulation, subject to annulment under clause 31? There is nothing in the Bill to restrict the Secretary of State's right in respect of any aspect of the sale of BNOC, the oil assets or the equity shares in the subsidiaries. Under clause 2, the Secretary of State takes tremendous power to amend, alter, approve or disapprove any scheme proposed by the BNOC. He also has such power in relation to any schemes proposed by the British Gas Corporation. According to clause 2, not one of the schemes will be subject to any parliamentary approval, amendment or scrutiny. That is the legislation's character and nature.
  It is little wonder that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and others pointed out that the Bill is nothing but a crude enabling measure that has more affinity with the attitude to Parliament of the extreme Left and Right than with anything else. The Bill seeks to short-circuit parliamentary procedures and accountability.
  The Bill's objective is to dismantle and disintegrate BNOC. BNOC has been a remarkable success story. In a curious, grudging way, the Secretary of State had to admit that. He cannot claim that it has a monopoly in the North Sea. Indeed, he has been boasting that private enterprise has dominated North Sea development. He cannot claim that it is unprofitable. Even in its first two years, it has made considerable sums of money. Its cash flow and profitability have made a massive contribution to the public sector borrowing requirement. Several hon Members, including the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) and, in a way, the Secretary of State have argued that BNOC will soon become a burden on the public sector borrowing requirement because of its capital development programme. They argue that it must be freed from the public sector in order to borrow on the private market. That is exactly what it has been doing. Insultingly, the Secretary of State now attributes the name Britoil to the new company. However, it was the name of a loan that a 100 per cent. nationalised oil corporation obtained from the American market. A nationalised corporation has not found any difficulty in borrowing from the private market to finance and support its capital development programme. That is not the reason for denationalising the company and for splitting off its equity interests.
  No hon. Member has claimed that BNOC has been inefficient. Not even the Secretary of State has claimed that. His attitude is that it will become inefficient one day, because it will become bureaucratic. However, there is no sign of that. What arguments have been put forward to justify the proposal? In November, and again today, the

  235
  Secretary of State said that we should equate national interest not with a national corporation but with the interests of the multinationals in the North Sea. He said that what is good for Texaco and Mobil in the North Sea is good for Britain. Is that his case? Is he arguing that there is a natural equation between the national interest and that of the multinationals? If so, he is almost alone in his naivety.
  We are told that the purpose of privatisation is to allow the great British public to obtain a widespread shareholding in the North Sea's assets. That is a cruel deception to perpetrate. The right hon. Gentleman is perpetrating the myth that the average working man, sitting with his broker, will buy or invest in North Sea oil shares. Those institutions and people who buy shares today, will buy these shares as well. It is nonsense that individual working people will somehow invest in the shares and it is a myth that is perpetrated by those who wish to popularise the concept of buying shares.
  The idea would be for the pension funds and the financial institutions to take up most of the shares, and we contest the argument that somehow individuals would feel more closely identified with them and have some sort of personal relationship with the development of North Sea oil, if that happened rather than reinvesting in an anonymous pension fund, which subsequently bought a few shares in a privatised company somewhere down the line. The idea that we shall get a popular concept of share-owning capital in the North Sea as a result of these measures is a myth perpetrated by the Secretary of State and the Government.
  The shares will end up being owned by the same individuals and institutions that own other shares and who are already the major share buyers in the market.
  The most dishonest aspect of the presentation of the case against BNOC and about the issue of privatisation on the oil side has been the Secretary of State's denial that there will be any loss of control—any real loss to the nation's control of supply—and his claim that everything will be all right. The Secretary of State said that the privatising of exploration and production capacity will not mean a loss of control of the nation's oil supplies and that it will be safeguarded by the State oil trading companies and participation agreements. He said that his officials in the Department of Energy, only a handful of whom have any direct experience in the oil industry, will be the front and back lines in the Government's defence of the national oil assets.
  No self-respecting oil man would believe the Secretary of State's nonsense. No significant oil company has not, understandably, striven for and achieved integration. The belief that one has to be in exploration, production and the distribution side has been common in the development of every major oil company in the western world. I found no one in the oil industry who believed that a company did not have to be in the process of exploration and production and that it was sufficient merely to explore or to sell. Integration has been a crucial and an essential asset in the development of oil companies. The Government are now breaking up an integrated national oil corporation.
  No major oil developing nation fails to recognise the necessity for direct ownership and involvement in exploration and production as a crucial part of national control of a nation's oil assets. Only fools, clowns and the
  236
  Government would reduce control or ownership of their national oil assets, especially with the many issues now arising in future oil supply and development.
  The Secretary of State's policy will create—we heard nothing about the nature or character of a new State trading oil company—a company that will be weak and vulnerable, divorced from the real action in the North Sea and not serving on any of the vital committees managing the North Sea oilfields. Therefore, it will learn very little about what is happening in the oilfields. It will be trading on the narrowest of margins and buying and selling oil at market price. It will be nothing more than a 10-cent company.
  In his opening speech my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South claimed that BNOC members and the board had unanimously said in the past that the establishment of a State trading oil company would be vulnerable, weak and financially unviable. There is no reason to believe that that assessment is wrong.
  The Government, Treasury and the Secretary of State are obviously worried that the State trading oil company will be financially weak and vulnerable. That is the reason for this afternoon's announcement about liquefied petroleum gas. The announcement in a written answer states that BNOC and, therefore, the new State trading oil company, should not continue to get involved with the trading in LPG, although that has been one of BNOC's most profitable key markets. The reason for that, of course, is that the Treasury is scared stiff at the prospect of a trading company losing money. If the trading group is divorced from exploration and production it will have to live on the narrowest of margins and it will be an extremely vulnerable outfit. That view is shared by many. I shall be interested to know whether the Minister of State thinks that that is a possible danger.
  The danger will be even greater if the Secretary of State dilutes the State corporations's rights in oil participation. I raised the issue in the article to which the right hon. Gentleman referred that appeared in The Observer. I noted with interest his comments and observations today. However he juggles with the privatised Britoil company, I suspect that he will loosen and sell short control over participation oil, especially in the fifth and sixth rounds. Unless he states that the State oil company has 100 per cent. control over all the oil deriving from the fifth and sixth rounds, he will have lost control of a percentage of national oil.
  Mr. SkeetRubbish.
  Mr. RowlandsThe right hon. Gentleman has said that that will not happen. This will be a crucial issue and he fudged it again this afternoon. He said that he would take 50 per cent. control with the option of a higher percentage of control under the fifth and sixth round licences. Unless it is 100 per cent. it will be a loss of control over participation oil. Every one of the licences for the participation oil is guaranteed by the 51 per cent. equity interest under the licences.
  Rumours have it that the Government are increasingly likely to take royalty oil in cash and not in kind. That will deprive—
  Mr. LawsonHow would the hon. Gentleman take it?
  Mr. RowlandsThat will deprive—
  Mr. LawsonAnswer.
  Mr. RowlandsThat will deprive a State oil trading company of one of its most important sources of oil, which is now worth about 250,000 barrels a day. That is the quantity that now passes through BNOC. It would matter less if it were an integrated company with its own equity interest and its own control over its own oil supply. However, the Government visualise a State trading company that will have no equity interest and no control over its own supply. To deprive the company of another 250,000 barrels a day by taking royalty in cash and not in kind—I am interested that the right hon. Gentleman is not contesting the proposition that that is now the likelihood—will create an even more vulnerable and weaker State trading corporation.
  This will be the Government who will create a lame duck out of a national oil corporation. It will be an incredible feat but the right hon. Gentleman is planning just that in his proposals for the State trading oil company. What has come across throughout the speeches that we have heard from Conservative Members is a special sort of bilious prejudice against the public sector. It is directed especially against the oil and gas corporations. That is chiefly because they are profitable, and that is contrary to Conservative law on public enterprises.
  The Government have worked up a special hatred of British Gas that is even greater than their hatred of BNOC. The most remarkable allegations have been made against British Gas. I have heard the speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) on this issue five or six times and each time I find it even less credible. It was repeated by the hon. Member for Exeter and it has been given credence by those on the Government Front Bench.
  We have heard that somehow British Gas sold the nation short by forcing from the poor multinational oil companies a ridiculously low price in the southern gas basin that has been crippling to the national interest. It has been forgotten that British Gas offered all the international oil companies an escalation clause that was based on the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies turned that down because they did not believe that oil prices would rise.
  We are told that the British Gas Corporation, by serving Britain well, by negotiating fairly and firmly a range of good prices for the whole of southern gas, has somehow betrayed gas development in the North Sea.
  Mr. SkeetIs not the hon. Gentleman misleading the House? The original price was 2·87 old pence per therm. With escalation clauses it went up to about 6p per therm. We were told in the recent report that the average price paid by British Gas is 10p per therm. Surely, if up to 29p is saved, BGC is making an enormous profit. It is not paying the producers enough.
  Mr. RowlandsI shall discuss who is responsible for high energy prices in a minute. It is not necessarily British Gas.
  The real cause of higher prices in the last 18 months to two years are the villains who sit on the Conservative Front Bench. Who told British Gas that it must raise gas prices by 10 per cent. in real terms? It was not Sir Denis Rooke of British Gas, but the Government. The Secretary of State's predecessor went to the Select Committee and confessed as much.
  The reason the Government have been pushing up energy prices is that they have been using them as a source
  238
  of revenue for the Government and as a form of direct and indirect taxation. They have deliberately jacked up both electricity and gas prices. The idea that British Gas is responsible for the decisions taken by the Secretary of State and his predecessor is shameful.
  However, even worse is the argument that the Government now deploy that allowing the oil companies to sell and breaking up British Gas's right of first purchase of all gas landed in Britain will lead to cheaper prices for the industrial consumer. The major demand for that change has come from the oil companies, which want higher prices for their gas from British Gas. They want to use that power as a negotiating lever on British Gas.
  The idea that the separation of the oil companies from the BGC will lead to a large-scale gas supply that is cheaper to industry is interesting. I hear through the grapevine that the Secretary of State briefed the press recently to say that he did not think that there would be much in that—about 2 per cent. He told the journalists that, but he did not repeat it in the House today. He said that about 2 per cent. of the market would be taken up.
  Mr. LawsonI did not.
  Mr. RowlandsIt must be pure invention by a large number of journalists.
  The end game is not to provide the British industrial consumer with an alternative supply more cheaply than that offered by British Gas, but to make possible the export of gas, whether it was landed first in Britain or whether control of the landing rights provisions was removed. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was already possible for countries to re-export gas once it had been landed in Britain. Does he support that view? Will that be a part of the policy? When gas is landed in the United Kingdom, will he stand by and allow the re-export of gas in a free market way? The Minister of State should say whether that is the policy. If he removes the barrier to such exports, what action will he take? That is one of the consequences of the provision in the Bill to remove the rights of British Gas to first purchase.
  Mr. Ian LloydWill the hon, Gentleman give way?
  Mr. RowlandsNo, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber all day and I want to bring my remarks to a conclusion.
  As many Opposition Members have said, if the provisions in the Bill on gas prices and the removal of the right of British Gas to first purchase are implemented, the ultimate loser will be the industrial and domestic consumer in Britain. They will be forced to pay higher prices because the British Gas Corporation will be forced to pay higher prices in the North Sea auction that will follow these proposals.
  The Bill is an absolute disgrace to every tradition of parliamentary accountability. It will lead to higher, not lower, gas prices for both domestic and industrial consumers. It will lead to the squandering of vital gas assets by the removal of the distinction between premium and non-premium uses. It will lead to a lack of control over the loss of oil assets and a reduction in the overall control of the nation's oil supplies, and it will lead to the sale of precious national assets at prices far below their real value. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State has scarcely been here throughout the debate. I have at least listened to all of it.

  239
  Labour Members are therefore committed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South has said, to restore the assets sold off to other interests. No one who speculates or dabbles in this sale will gain a penny from it. That is our message.
  Secondly, we shall construct a new and more powerful national oil corporation which, through ownership and involvement in exploration, production and development in the North Sea, will provide the real safeguards and protection for the nation's most precious assets.
  That is why I ask my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill today.
  9.37 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Hamish Gray)The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) has a fairly low boiling point, but tonight even he was stretched to work up any real hostility to the proposals in the Bill. His right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) mentioned his anxiety about part IV. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that parts III, IV and V made some useful amendments which both he and I fully expect to be non-controversial, so it is hardly surprising that the hon. Gentleman did not devote much time to part IV.
  I must emphasise, however, that Conservative Members are every bit as anxious as the Opposition about safety in the North Sea. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) also mentioned safety and I thank him for his, as always, sympathetic remarks. What neither he nor any Opposition Member pointed out is that we enjoy an extremely good safety record in the North Sea as compared with that of others.
  We have much to be thankful for and much on which to congratulate those who operate in the North Sea in their willingness to co-operate where we have not legislated to any great extent. We have worked on guidelines and achieved co-operation from both sides. Nevertheless, it is as a result of the recommendations of the Burgoyne committee, responsibility for which I inherited from the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon), that some of these provisions are included in the Bill.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, South asked why we were including safety in the Bill rather than dealing with it separately. The reason is quite simple. It is in response to many representations received about implementing the recommendations of the Burgoyne committee that the provisions are included in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that part IV be taken out of the Bill and dealt with separately. I must make it quite clear that that is unacceptable to the Government. However, at the beginning of every Committee, consideration is given to the order in which clauses will be taken. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to make representations to us then, we shall consider taking part IV out of sequence and discussing where it can conveniently be taken. We could have talks about where it could conveniently be taken in the debates.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is afraid of possible guillotines, I remind him that that is not our responsibility—it is entirely up to the Opposition to ensure that we make progress. Provided that we make reasonable progress, the last thing that the Government want is a
  240
  guillotine. When the Leader of the Opposition was Leader of the House, we had five guillotines in one afternoon. The Government are not thinking in terms of guillotines because we are sure that we will make suitable progress.
  Mr. Merlyn ReesI am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has said that we can discuss the matter. I am not suggesting that part IV should go into another Bill, although it is a different subject. I am suggesting that because of the lack of information on it, despite the Burgoyne committee, we should treat it in a different way. This was not suggested to waste time but merely to obtain a different procedure. I hope that the Secretary of State will look at that point.
  Mr. GrayWe are only too pleased to co-operate with the Opposition in making reasonable progress on the Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman seemed genuinely disappointed that we had managed to produce a Bill that was not hybrid. That problem has been overcome.
  As to information, as far as the Committee is concerned we have already made available the comments on the clauses and we shall continue to make information available as fully as possible. We hope to co-operate with the Opposition in this provided that the information is factual and not confidential.
  Mr. JayAs the hon. Gentleman has offered to co-operate in giving information to the House, will he give two figures? First, what is the total capital value of the public assets to be sold under the Bill and, secondly, what is the future annual revenue loss to the Exchequer?
  Mr. GrayThe right hon. Gentleman is aware that I cannot give him the first figure. We do not expect that there will be a loss to the Exchequer. We believe that the ultimate result of these steps will be of benefit to the Exchequer.
  Mr. Jay rose—
  Mr. GrayI shall not give way at the moment.
  Mr. Jay rose—
  Mr. GrayI cannot give way.
  Mr. Bob CryerGive way.
  Mr. GrayThe hon. Gentleman has only just arrived, so he should not make such a noise.
  We have had a mixed debate. On this side of this House there have been, I am glad to say, constructive comments that show an appreciation of the need for change in our nationalised industries and an appreciation that the dinosaur of State ownership has outgrown the ability of taxpayers and consumers to support it.
  Few doubt the problems posed by nationalised industries. They command a strategic place in the economy but are too often unyielding, unmanageable, unresponsive and unable to adapt to changing circumstances. They are too often protected from the challenge of competition by monopoly and subsidy. Their economic privileges secure them against the need for efficiency and lead to stagnation. They have grown irrespective of the costs to the country—like the dinosaur, they face extinction through their own excesses.
  The Government have come forward with constructive proposals. The Bill is a major step forward. It provides for two fundamental remedies. The first is to end unnecessary

  241
  State involvement in North Sea exploration, an area where there was no justification for State ownership in the first place.
  The success of the North Sea belongs to private enterprise, which accepted the risks and realised the potential. State oil interests were grafted on at a later date only after success had been guaranteed by others. Even then, the lure of public sector privilege was too strong for the Socialists to resist. Not content with State involvement on equal terms, BNOC was created with privileged access to information and given special treatment in licensing rounds.
  Secondly, the Bill breaks the BGC's monopoly in the purchase and supply of gas. This unique position was again secured through special privileges. The results are predictable—a stagnant gas market, a reluctance to explore for and to develop gas resources, and complaints about the ability to supply. In an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) highlighted the difficulties that that presents.
  I turn to our proposals for BNOC. Let me deal with some of the accusations that have been levelled against us. The right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) questioned the validity of clause 2. I remind him that the clause is in no way new. Similar provisions have appeared in other Acts on many occasions. Indeed, some of the provisions of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 could have been subject to the same criticism.
  It has been said that we are throwing away our controls over the rate at which oil is consumed, and at which gas is flared as well as controls over exploration and development. There is no truth in that. The most charitable explanation I can offer is that perhaps our critics fail to understand exactly what our proposals are. It is hard to see why that should be, because we have made the position abundantly clear. Let me say it all again.
  Our regulatory controls will remain exactly the same after the sale of shares in Britoil as they are now. These controls are not vested in BNOC, nor are they exercised by the corporation. They rest with the Government and will be unaffected by the introduction of private capital into BNOC's oil-producing business. Together with our taxation regime they are fully adequate to ensure that the nation derives the greatest benefit from our oil, both in the short and long term.
  We have been accused of wanting to sell all our oil interests to foreign multinationals. Here again, the charge is false. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set out our plans to establish Britoil as an independent British oil company, with a wide spread of ownership among the public. I was glad to have the support of the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) for this being a company registered in Scotland.
  My right hon. Friend has assured the House that safeguards dealing with changes in control of the company will be written into the articles of association and that these articles will be made available to the House. I was asked when. It is our intention to make them available during the progress of the Bill.
  Our critics claim that we shall be weakening our control over the destination of North Sea oil. Again that is wrong. We have been at pains to point out that the participation agreements designed to strengthen the security of our oil supplies will not be affected by our proposals. BNOC will
  242
  remain wholly Government controlled, trading primarily in participation oil. Of course, the landing requirements for North Sea oil will not be changed.
  Put simply, these criticisms, purported to be made in the national interest, serve only the narrow interest of those who wish to see the public sector expand at any cost. The reality is that our plans for BNOC will not diminish the benefits of North Sea oil to the British people but will enhance them. The full potential of BNOC's oil-producing business can best be realised once it is free of the inevitable financial and statutory constraints inherent in Government control. We are determined to press ahead with these plans.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet)—there can be few hon. Members with more knowledge of the industry than he—asked questions relating to the fifth and sixth rounds. He has also asked an extensive series of written questions, which I shall answer in due course.
  From Opposition Members we have heard a predictable dirge of complaints. Their response to our proposals for competition, efficiency and enterprise was totally unimaginative. They can offer only State control, monopoly and the stifling of initiative. They are engaged in a desperate defence of the public sector, right or wrong, but they do not know how to make the public sector a success.
  Mr. DouglasThe Minister is saying that a reconverted BNOC would be more enterprising. Let me take a concrete example. BNOC could place an order for an advanced drilling plant with Scott Lithgow of Port Glasgow in association with Ben Line and Odeco, because it knows that it has access to blocks in the North Sea that can use the rig. Under the Bill it could not do that because it would not have access to the field.
  Mr. GrayNot for the first time, the hon. Gentleman has got it quite wrong. BNOC is no different from any other company. The other companies that operate in the North Sea are still subject to the same pressures as BNOC in placing orders in this country.
  Although the Opposition constantly defend the public sector, they still have not found the secret of making it a success. I quote one of their leading thinkers who, in a recent book, recognised the problem frankly, to his credit. He said:
  "The Labour constitution calls for common ownership—not nationalisation—and for the achievement of 'the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service'. In that sense the nationalised industries established after the war have been a great disappointment. It is true that they have proved that investment can be channelled in to equip basic industries such as railways, coal, electricity and gas. But the huge state corporations, run on the very same economic criteria as private corporations under authoritarian management, have altogether failed to realise the hopes of those who campaigned for public ownership".
  Those remarks, which have a ring of honesty, are the views of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), writing last year. He says a lot more:
  "Common ownership has been confined to one form of bureaucratic nationalisation, which has destroyed many of the purposes for which it was developed and alienated the whole system in the public mind".
  How right he is. It is that bureaucratic nationalisation that we wish to fight and which we shall fight through the Bill.
  I come now to part II, which deals with gas. I regret that Opposition Members have not supported our

  243
  proposals for the gas industry. I believe that they will prove highly beneficial and that many of the fears that have been expressed are misconceived.
  Natural gas is a valuable and important commodity. It is therefore essential that the Government set the right framework for encouraging the most efficient development and use of this resource. We take the view that the best way to do this is to introduce competition wherever possible, so that initiative and enterprise are encouraged and rewarded. The gas market is at present almost totally dominated by the British Gas Corporation as a result of special privileges conferred on it by statute. It is effectively a monopoly supplier to all types of consumers and the operator and sole user of the national pipeline system, as well as having monopoly buyer's rights of offshore natural gas.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) was worried about security of supply. I can confirm to him that the BGC position regarding domestic supply is unchanged. Lack of competition has resulted in some industrialists being unable to obtain supplies even though they are willing and able to pay for them. Of course, the BGC has had considerable achievements in the development of the gas industry, but we believe that this has now reached a point where excessive monopoly power will continue to be damaging and stifling.
  Furthermore, we believe that the British Gas Corporation should no longer be involved in the production of oil when this work could be better done by the private sector. We are therefore taking powers to privatise BGC's offshore oil interests so that these assets can be developed by the private sector which has been the driving force behind the successful development of the North Sea.
  We believe that these policies will inject the same vigour into future exploration as has been evident in the dynamic entrepreneurial activity displayed in the search for oil. Licensees have shown reluctance to search for gas, and even when this has been found it has all too often been left in the ground. The culprit is not the BGC: it is the system of monopoly purchase, which gives the producers just one outlet for their gas. Should British Gas decide not even to offer a bid for a certain field, preferring to take other gas first, the producer is absolutely powerless. I do not blame the BGC for decisions that it has taken in a monopoly context, because it could be to its advantage to delay purchase—but only a very short-term advantage. We believe that the existing structure is no longer adequate. Our legislation will ensure that the BGC will in future be bidding in a competitive market and that licensees shall in future have a choice of more than one purchaser.
  Another serious disadvantage of the present regime is that a number of large, particularly industrial, consumers, which are willing and able to pay for gas supplies, cannot obtain them from the BGC. At the moment, they have nowhere else to turn, but in future we shall be giving them the opportunity of negotiating private supplies of gas. Our measures will ensure that prices in the future are set in a competitive environment and that an industrialist who thinks that BGC's price is too high will have the option of looking elsewhere.
  It has been suggested that liberating the market will result in gas being used in ways which do not reflect its full value.
  Mr. DouglasExports.
  Mr. GrayIn my view, these dangers arise where there is a monopoly and where market forces cannot operate. Allowing industry to decide in the market place what is the value of gas will ensure that the gas flows to those places where it has the highest value. At the moment, BGC chooses the uses best suited for it. This policy is bound to involve guesswork and is no substitute for allowing the market to decide where gas can be put to the best use.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Robert C. BrownOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I asked the Minister five precise questions and I did not get an answer to any of those five questions. That is a gross discourtesy to the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)Mr. Gray.
  Mr. GrayThat shows, if any proof were needed, that if the Labour Party is really opposed to the Bill, it has a strange way of going about it.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:
  The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 247.

  Division No. 40]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Churchill, W.S.

  Aitken, Jonathan

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

  Alexander, Richard

  Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Cockeram, Eric

  Ancram, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Arnold, Tom

  Cope, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Cormack, Patrick

  Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

  Corrie, John

  Atkins, Robert(PrestonN)

  Costain, SirAlbert

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

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Critchley, Julian

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Crouch, David

  Bell, SirRonald

  Dean, Paul(North Somerset)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Benyon, Thomas(A'don)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Benyon, W.(Buckingham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

  Best, Keith

  Dover, Denshore

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Biffen, Rt HonJohn

  Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

  Biggs-Davison, SirJohn

  Durant, Tony

  Blackburn, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Blaker, Peter

  Eden, Rt Hon SirJohn

  Body, Richard

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Bonsor, SirNicholas

  Eggar, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter(W'wichW)

  Elliott, SirWilliam

  Bowden, Andrew

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Eyre, Reginald

  Braine, SirBernard

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Bright, Graham

  Fairgrieve, SirRussell

  Brinton, Tim

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

  Farr, John

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Fell, SirAnthony

  Brotherton, Michael

  Fenner, 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, SirCharles

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon.A.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Buck, Antony

  Forman, Nigel

  Budgen, Nick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fox, Marcus

  Burden, SirFrederick

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Butcher, John

  Fry, Peter

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Gardner, Edward(S Fylde)

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Goodhart, SirPhilip

  Chapman, Sydney

  Goodhew, SirVictor

  245

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gorst, John

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Gow, Ian

  Mellor, David

  Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)

  Meyer, SirAnthony

  Gray, Hamish

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Greenway, Harry

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Grieve, Percy

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

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

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

  Moate, Roger

  Grist, Ian

  Monro, SirHector

  Grylls, Michael

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Gummer, JohnSelwyn

  Moore, John

  Hamilton, HonA.

  Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morrison, HonC. (Devizes)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Hannam, John

  Mudd, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Murphy, Christopher

  Hastings, Stephen

  Myles, David

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hawkins, Paul

  Needham, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Neubert, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Newton, Tony

  Henderson, Barry

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hicks, Robert

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Osborn, John

  Hill, James

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Hogg, HonDouglas (Gr'th'm)

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hooson, Tom

  Parris, Matthew

  Hordern, Peter

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Patten, John (Oxford)

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

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Pink, R.Bonner

  Jessel, Toby

  Pollock, Alexander

  JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey

  Porter, Barry

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Kaberry, SirDonald

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Kimball, Sir Marcus

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Raison, Timothy

  Knox, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lamont, Norman

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Lang, Ian

  RhodesJames, Robert

  Langford-Holt, SirJohn

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Latham, Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Lee, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  LeMarchant, Spencer

  Rossi, Hugh

  Lennox-Boyd, HonMark

  Rost, Peter

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Royle, SirAnthony

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timotny

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Loveridge, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shepherd, Colin (Herefbrd)

  MacGregor, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Shersby, Michael

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Silvester, Fred

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Sims, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Smith, Dudley

  Madel, David

  Speed, Keith

  Major, John

  Speller, Tony

  Marland, Paul

  Spence, John

  Marlow, Antony

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Sproat, Iain

  Marten, Rt Hon Neil

  Squire, Robin

  Mates, Michael

  Stainton, Keith

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Stanbrook, lvor

  Mawby, Ray

  Stanley, John

  Mawhinney, DrBrian

  Steen, Anthony

  246

  Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Stokes, John

  Waller, Gary

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Walters, Dennis

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Ward, John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Warren, Kenneth

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Watson, John

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Wells, Bowen

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Thompson, Donald

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Thorne, Neil (llfordSouth)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wickenden, Keith

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Wilkinson, John

  Trippier, David

  Williams, D. (Montgomery)

  Trotter, Neville

  Winterton, Nicholas

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Wolfson, Mark

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Young, SirGeorge (Acton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Waddington, David

  Wakeham, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

  Mr. Carol Mather.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Dobson, Frank

  Adams, Allen

  Dormand, Jack

  Allaun, Frank

  Douglas, Dick

  Alton, David

  Dunlop, John

  Anderson, Donald

  Dunnett, Jack

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Eadie, Alex

  Ashton, Joe

  Eastham, Ken

  Atkinson, N.(H'gey)

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

  Bagier, Gordon AT.

  Ellis, R.(NED'bysh're)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Beith, A.J.

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)

  Ewing, Harry

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Faulds, Andrew

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Field, Frank

  Boothroyd, MissBetty

  Flannery, Martin

  Bottomley, RtHonA, (M'b'ro)

  Fletcher, L. R. (IIkeston)

  Bradley, Tom

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Ford, Ben

  Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)

  Forrester, John

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Foster, Derek

  Buchan, Norman

  Foulkes, George

  Callaghan, Jim (Mdd't'n & S)

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

  Campbell, Ian

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Freud, Clement

  Canavan, Dennis

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Cant, R. B.

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Carmichael, Neil

  George, Bruce

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Cartwright, John

  Ginsburg, David

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Golding, John

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stolS)

  Graham, Ted

  Coleman, Donald

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Cook, Robin F.

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

  Cowans, Harry

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

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

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

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

  Haynes, Frank

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Crowther, Stan

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cryer, Bob

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

  Cunningham, G.(IslingtonS)

  HomeRobertson, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Homewood, William

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hooley, Frank

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Horam, John

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Howells, Geraint

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

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Deakins, Eric

  Huckfield, Les

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Dewar, Donald

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Dixon, Donald

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  247

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Race, Reg

  Janner, HonGreville

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Richardson, Jo

  John, Brynmor

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Robertson, George

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Roper, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Kerr, Russell

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lambie, David

  Ryman, John

  Lamborn, Harry

  Sandelson, Neville

  Lamond, James

  Sever, John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sheerman, Barry

  Leighton, Ronald

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Lewis, Arthur (N'hamNW)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Litherland, Robert

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Silverman, Julius

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Skinner, Dennis

  McCartney, Hugh

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  McDonald, DrOonagh

  Snape, Peter

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Soley, Clive

  McKelvey, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stallard, A.W.

  McMahon, Andrew

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McNally, Thomas

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stoddart, David

  McTaggart, Robert

  Stott, Roger

  McWilliam, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Magee, Bryan

  Straw, Jack

  Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)

  Tbomas, Jetirey (Abertillery)

  Martin, M (G'gowS'burn)

  Thomas, DrR. (Carmartrten)

  Maxton, John

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Tilley, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Tinn, James

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Torney, Tom

  Mikardo, Ian

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wainwright, E. (DearneV)

  Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)

  Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)

  Watkins, David

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Weetch, Ken

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Welsh, Michael

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  White, Frank R.

  Newens, Stanley

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Whitlock, William

  Ogden, Eric

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  O'Halloran, Michael

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

  O'Neill, Martin

  Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

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

  Palmer, Arthur

  Winnick, David

  Park, George

  Woodall, Alec

  Parker, John

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Pendry, Tom

  Wright, Sheila

  Penhaligon, David

  Pitt, William Henry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and

  Prescott, John

  Mr. George Morton.

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  Oil and Gas (Enterprise) [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—Motion made and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the British National Oil Corporation, to abolish the National Oil Account, to make further provision with respect to the British Gas Corporation and to make provision for and in connection with the supply of gas through pipes by persons other than the Corporation, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (1) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments by way of consideration for any shares transferred to him by order under the Act;

  (2) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants to the British National Oil Corporation or any of its wholly owned subsidiaries towards expenditure incurred by the Corporation or subsidiary in or in connection with the exercise of the power conferred on the Corporation by section 2(1)(e) of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975;

  (3) any administrative expenses of the Secretary of State; and

  (4) any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums which under any other enactment are paid out of moneys so provided.

  And that it is expedient to authorise the payment of any sums into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Brooke.]
  The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 242.

  Division No. 41]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Alexander, Richard

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Churchill, W.S.

  Ancram, Michael

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

  Arnold, Tom

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Atkins, Robert (PrestonA)

  Colvin, Michael

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

  Cope, John

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Corrie, John

  Bell, SirRonald

  Costain, SirAlbert

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Critchley, Julian

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Crouch, David

  Best, Keith

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Bevan, DavidGilroy

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Biggs-Davison, SirJohn

  Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

  Blackburn, John

  Dover, Denshore

  Blaker, Peter

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Body, Richard

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Bonsor, SirNicholas

  Durant, Tony

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bowden, Andrew

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Braine, SirBernard

  Eggar, Tim

  Bright, Graham

  Elliott, SirWilliam

  Brinton, Tim

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

  Eyre, Reginald

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Brotherton, Michael

  Fairgrieve, SirRussell

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Browne, John (Wincriesfer)

  Farr, John

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Fell, Sir Anthony

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Buck, Antony

  Fisher, SirNigel

  Budgen, Nick

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

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles

  Burden, SirFrederick

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Butcher, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Fox, Marcus

  249

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Fry, Peter

  Marten, Rt Hon Neil

  Gardner, Edward (SFylde)

  Mates, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mawby, Ray

  Gilmour, Rt HonSirlan

  Mawhinney, DrBrian

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Goodhart, SirPhilip

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Goodhew, SirVictor

  Mellor, David

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gorst, John

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Gow, Ian

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Gray, Hamish

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Greenway, Harry

  Moate, Roger

  Grieve, Percy

  Monro, SirHector

  Griffiths, E. (B 'ySt. Edm 'ds)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

  Moore, John

  Grist, Ian

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Grylls, Michael

  Morrison, HonC. (Devizes)

  Gummer, JohnSelwyn

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Mudd, David

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Myles, David

  Hannam, John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Needham, Richard

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nelson, Anthony

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Hawkins, Paul

  Newton, Tony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Onslow, Cranley

  Heddle, John

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Henderson, Barry

  Osborn, John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Hicks, Robert

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Higgins, Rt HonTerence L.

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hill, James

  Parris, Matthew

  Hogg, HonDouglas (Gr'th'm)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Hooson, Tom

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Hordern, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Percival, Sirlan

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

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Porter, Barry

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Jessel, Toby

  Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)

  JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Proctor, K.Harvey

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Kaberry, SirDonald

  Raison, Timothy

  Kershaw, SirAnthony

  Rathbone, Tim

  Kimball, SirMarcus

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knox, David

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Lament, Norman

  Ridsdale, SirJulian

  Lang, Ian

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Langford-Holt, SirJohn

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Latham, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rossi, Hugh

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rost, Peter

  Lee, John

  Sainsbury, HonTimothy

  Lennox-Boyd, HonMark

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Lloyd, Ian (HavantA W'loo)

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Loveridge, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Shepherd, Richard

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shersby, Michael

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Silvester, Fred

  MacGregor, John

  Sims, Roger

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Smith, Dudley

  McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

  Speed, Keith

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Speller, Tony

  Madel, David

  Spence, John

  Major, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marland, Paul

  Sproat, Iain

  Marlow, Antony

  Squire, Robin

  250

  Stainton, Keith

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Stanbrook, lvor

  Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

  Stanley, John

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Steen, Anthony

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)

  Waller, Gary

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Walters, Dennis

  Stokes, John

  Ward, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Warren, Kenneth

  Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)

  Watson, John

  Tebbit, RtHon Norman

  Wells, Bowen

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Whitney, Raymond

  Thompson, Donald

  Wickenden, Keith

  Thorne, Neil (IIford South)

  Wilkinson, John

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Williams, D. (Montgomery)

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Trippier, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trotter, Neville

  Young, SirGeorge (Acton)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Vaughan, DrGerard

  Viggers, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Waddington, David

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Wakeham, John

  Mr. Carol Mather.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Dewar, Donald

  Adams, Allen

  Dixon, Donald

  Allaun, Frank

  Dobson, Frank

  Alton, David

  Dormand, Jack

  Anderson, Donald

  Douglas, Dick

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dunlop, John

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dunnett, Jack

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Atkinson, N.(H'gey)

  Eiadie, Alex

  Bagier, Gordon AT.

  Elastham, Ken

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

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

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

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

  Beith, A.J.

  Eillis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Einnals, Rt Hon David

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp'tN)

  Eivans, loan (Aberdare)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Eivans, John (Newton)

  Booth, RtHon Albert

  Eiwing, Harry

  Boothroyd, MissBetty

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bottomley, RtHonA. (M'b'ro)

  Field, Frank

  Bradley, Tom

  Flannery, Martin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fletcher, L. R. (IIkeston)

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

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Ford, Ben

  Buchan, Norman

  Forrester, John

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

  Foster, Derek

  Campbell, Ian

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Fraser, J.(Lamb'fh, N'w'a)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Freeson, RtHon Reginald

  Cant, R. B.

  Freud, Clement

  Carmichael, Neil

  Garrett, John (NorwichS)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Cartwright, John

  George, Bruce

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

  Ginsburg, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Golding, John

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Graham, Ted

  Conlan, Bernard

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Cook, Robin F.

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Cowans, Harry

  Hamilton, James (C'tral Fife)

  Cox, T. (Wdsw'th, Toot'g)

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

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

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Crowther, Stan

  Haynes, Frank

  Cryer, Bob

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Heffer, EricS.

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Davidson, Arthur

  HomeRobertson, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Homewood, William

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hooley, Frank

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Horam, John

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

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Deakins, Eric

  Howells, Geraint

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  251

  Huckfield, Les

  McWilliam, John

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Magee, Bryan

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)

  Hughes, Robert (AberdeenN)

  Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)

  Janner, HonGreville

  Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)

  Jay, RtHon Douglas

  Martin, M (G'gowS'burn)

  John, Brynmor

  Maxton, John

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Meacher, Michael

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Mellish, RtHon Robert

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Millan, RtHon Bruce

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Kerr, Russell

  Mitchell, R.C. (Sotonltchen)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Lambie, David

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Morton, George

  Lamond, James

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Mulley, RtHon Frederick

  Leighton, Ronald

  Newens, Stanley

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ogden, Eric

  Litherland, Robert

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)

  Orme, RtHon Stanley

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  McCartney, Hugh

  Palmer, Arthur

  McDonald, DrOonagh

  Park, George

  McKelvey, William

  Parker, John

  MacKenzie, RtHon Gregor

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Maclennan, Robert

  Pendry, Tom

  McMahon, Andrew

  Penhaligon, David

  McNally, Thomas

  Pitt, William Henry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Prescott, John

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Stoddart, David

  Race, Reg

  Stott, Roger

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Strang, Gavin

  Richardson, Jo

  Straw, Jack

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Summerskill, HonDrShirley

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Thomas, DrR. (Carmarthen)

  Robertson, George

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Tilley, John

  Rooker, J. W.

  Torney, Tom

  Roper, John

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Wainwright, E. (DearneV)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Watkins, David

  Ryman, John

  Weetch, Ken

  Sandelson, Neville

  Welsh, Michael

  Sever, John

  White, Frank R.

  Sheerman, Barry

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Whitlock, William

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Short, Mrs Renee

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

  Silkin, RtHonJ. (Deptford)

  Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)

  Silverman, Julius

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

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Woodall, Alec

  Snape, Peter

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Soley, Clive

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wright, Sheila

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Stallard, A.W.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mr. James Tinn and

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  British Aluminium Smelter (Invergordon)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Robert MaclennanWhen the news of the calamity of the closure of the smelter at Invergordon broke I wrote at once to the Secretary of State to ask for a full debate in the House on the implications of that closure for the Highland economy and for the Scottish economy. I heard last week only that the Secretary of State was pursuing that possibility through the usual channels.
  I also wrote at the same time to ask for an Adjournment debate to raise the issues which are of consequence to my constituents and those in the northern part of the mainland Highland area in the expectation that the Government would not be speedily forthcoming with a full debate. Indeed, that expectation has been fulfilled, as the official Opposition have had to provide a Supply day to enable the subject to be debated fully on Thursday. I welcome that lengthy debate. No doubt many important contributions will be made which will raise issues that it is not open to me to touch upon in the space of a short adjournment debate.
  There are, however, important issues which can be raised even in a half-hour debate. There is the crucial importance to the economy of Ross and Cromarty and of Sutherland of the employment offered at the smelter hitherto. Directly as a result of the closure, 890 jobs have been lost, but on the basis of a pronouncement by the Scottish Office, based, I understand, upon an academic study conducted earlier by Aberdeen university, the indirect but nonetheless consequential loss of jobs is about another 600. The total of 1,500 lost jobs in the inner Moray Firth area has the consequence that the closure of British Leyland would have upon the West Midlands.
  That is the seismic consequence. Those working at the plant have been endeavouring to draw attention to the seriousness of the position. Mr. Archie McCreevy, Mr. Sandy McNab and their colleagues have most feelingly described the tragedy for them and for those whom they represent. Mr. McCreevy is reported to have said yesterday:
  "We feel this is an issue which affects the whole of the Highlands—there is no corner that we haven't taken employees from to work at the smelter".
  That is true.
  So far, there is no sign that the Government will measure up to the scale of the problem. Some questions have already been raised in the House about the precipitate negotiations that preceded the closure on 29 December. What happened is not entirely clear. Conflicting accounts have emanated from the Scottish Office and from the company. However, I shall not dwell on those conflicting accounts more than is necessary to discover the Government's attitude towards finding a new operator for the smelter.
  That is the issue that the Government must face. They must throw their full weight behind the task of finding a new operator. From the Secretary of State's comments in the House yesterday in reply to my question and those of others, it is not clear what steps the Government are taking
  254
  or what negotiations the Government would enter into with an alternative operator. It is not clear whether the Government are turning over the task of finding an alternative operator wholly to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. In general terms, they have expressed their support for the board's quest for an alternative operator, but that is not enough. We must know more about the terms upon which an alternative operator could hope to reopen the smelter.
  The two main factors that have apparently led to the disaster are the recession—the downturn in demand and the price of imported raw materials—and the price of power. There is some doubt about which factor the Government believe led primarily to the closure of the smelter. It is clear that the aluminum industry has been going through an exceedingly difficult period in the past: year. Although that is partly the result of the world recession, there is considerable evidence that in some places there has still been effective growth in output. Indeed, new smelters are being built in some areas. Only on Saturday, the Financial Times reported that Alcoa was entering into a contract arrangement with the Korean Construction Company to build a new aluminium smelter in Perth, Western Australia and substantial output is planned for 1986. There are other islands of prosperity in the industry and, furthermore, as recently as 14 October 1981 in the Financial Times survey and supplement on aluminium, its specialist reporter—Roy Hodson—pointed to the prospects of an upturn in world aluminium demand in the middle 1980s. There seems no reason to believe that those projections are unreal or unlikely.
  It must be said that the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which has commissioned its own study—the results of which were announced yesterday—has come to the same conclusion; that the medium-term prospects of aluminium production are good. If that is so, why did die Government allow this, contraction of British aluminium smelting to occur? Would it not have been wiser to seek to come to an arrangement which bridged the period, prior to the upturn in the world economy, when that increase in demand was expected?
  The second question over which large doubt remains is, of course, the price of the power. There is no doubt that the company has regarded that as crucial and makes ats position in Invergordon special and apparently different from the position in Anglesey of Rio Tinto Zinc and of the Alcan Aluminium smelter in the North-East. The Government should provide the House with the precise information about what differences there are in the power costs available to the three companies. Why is it that when the Government have spoken of the power costs issue, they have simply said that the cost of power to the British Aluminium is half that available to other manufacturing companies in Scotland?
  In itself, that is completely meaningless. The true question must be: what is the cost of power to other smelter operators, both in Britain and abroad? As I understand it, the Commodity Research Unit in London and New York initiated a study into the pricing of power to the aluminium industry in October. Do the Government not have the facts? If not, why not?
  The Government's attitude to the issue appears to have been clearly displayed in the short debate that took place

  255
  in the middle of the night on 22 July 1981 when the Under-Secretary spoke about the situation. He mentioned the dispute about power costs in that debate between the company and the hydroboard. He said:
  "The dispute may not be finally resolved for some time."
  He continued:
  "The Government are not a party to the 1968 contract and are not, therefore, directly involved in the dispute."
  When answering the speech made by the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), he continued in the same vein:
  "The contract is a matter for the parties. It is difficult to see how it could be renegotiated unless both parties sought renegotiation. There is no sign that the British Aluminium Company would agree to a renegotiation that would reduce the deficit."
  There was certainly never any question of that. Referring to the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth, the Under-Secretary continued:
  "The terms of the contract are matters for those who, in a previous Labour Government, set out on the path of negotiating a contract in 1968 that would last until the year 2000. As far as one can judge, there it is likely to rest. It seems that it will remain a contract until then."—[Official Report, 22 July 1981; Vol. 9, c. 467.]
  What an astonishing turn-up! Instead of the contract lasting until the year 2000, as the Under-Secretary of State predicted, it lies in ruins. It was terminated by the agreement of the two parties without apparently the intervention of the Government to seek to renegotiate its terms.
  The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Hamish Gray)Nonsense.
  Mr. MaclennanThe Minister says, "Nonsense." Is he saying that the chairman of British Aluminium in his letter to all hon. Members was not telling the truth? Perhaps the Minister who replies will make that plain. Mr. Utiger, the chairman, said:
  "It was not possible to negotiate revised terms for power which would make the smelter viable so the company had no alternative but to close the plant or face liquidation."
  In amplification of that statement that it was not possible to run the company viably and that apparantly the Government were not willing to renegotiate, Mr. Utiger added:
  "At no stage did the Government negotiators indicate that they had authority to offer any particular package either short or long term."
  If the company did not believe that the Government were in a position to negotiate, either the Government were playing their cards exceedingly close to their chest or the facts are as the chairman suggested and the Government were not willing to make a proposal which the company considered amounted to a renegotiation of the contract and pricing for power which would enable the company to conduct the operation viably. I have no doubt that that issue will be returned to on Thursday.
  The £10 million that the Government offered to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, important though it is, will do nothing to replace the 1,500 lost jobs, and the Highlands and Islands Development Board chairman, Admiral Dunbar-Naismith has made that plain. The Government must make it clear that they are willing to allow a contract on power pricing that will enable another company to operate the smelter on terms that are
  256
  competitive with those that are available to other companies that are engaged in the aluminium smelting business in other areas and in the rest of western Europe.
  Secondly, the Government must make it plain that the site and the plant will equally be available to an operator coming in who is prepared to take them over. These are the two questions that above all the Minister should answer clearly. It is no good saying that the Highlands and Islands Development Board is empowered to go scouring for new operators unless we know on what terms the new operators will be invited to start the work.
  What has happened is a potential tragedy. I say "potential" because I still hope that the Government will show the will to avert it.
  10.43 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher)I am bound to say to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that everyone in the House hopes that there may be a prospect of a new operator coming in to Invergordon to start up the smelter, but it would take a better understanding of the facts than the hon. Gentleman has displayed in this short debate before that could possibly come about.
  The hon. Gentleman began by referring to the crucial importance of the smelter to the economy in the inner Moray Firth area. No one could dispute the importance of the British Aluminium smelter to the local economy. The repercussions of the closure, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, are not restricted to the 890 jobs that are lost as a direct result of the closure. There will be another 400, 500 or 600 jobs indirectly affected in the area as a result of the decision of British Aluminium to cease production at the smelter.
  I have been surprised by some of the remarks that have been made by Opposition Members and I wish to make it clear beyond doubt that the decision to close was entirely a matter for the company. The company made that decision after consulting the Department of Industry and the Scottish Office towards the end of last year.
  It is because of the damaging effect of the closure on the local economy that in the time available to us we made every effort to avoid closure. The hon. Gentleman quoted from a document that he said he had received from the chairman of British Aluminium. I shall not quote from the document, but refer only to the hon. Gentleman's comments. The document stated that the Government did not show willingness to consider with the company a method of keeping the smelter going in the short term.
  If the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt on that matter, I refer him to the joint statement that I made with the chairman of the company earlier this month, when at the request of the trade unions, after I visited Dingwall and Inverness, I had a further meeting with the chairman. The trade unions asked me particularly to do that. Although I told them at the time that I was fully aware of the company's view, I felt, because of the great importance of the matter to the trade unionists, that the least I could do was to have yet another meeting with the company. I make no complaint about that request.
  That meeting confirmed the view that British Aluminium does not wish to restart the smelter on its own. It made it clear in that statement that the smelter would be restarted only by a new company. That would mean a new company and a new power contract. To keep the matter

  257
  clear, it suggested that it might take a minority interest in a new company, but it would not be the initiator of a venture to restart the smelter. I would not like any hon. Member to be in any doubt about that.
  Faced with that situation, the Government have taken up a two-pronged attack on the problem. The first and most urgent is the attempt to find a new operator for the smelter. The second prong is to give extra support to the Highlands and Islands Development Board to help it to extend its activities in advanced factory building, attracting other industry, and in the general activities that it undertakes in the Highlands so that the full effect of the redundancies might be mitigated to some extent.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me how the search for a new operator was being conducted. It is being conducted by the Locate in Scotland office, which is based in Glasgow, and which has a network of contacts all over the world. The search is being conducted by LIS in conjunction with HIDB. We are fortunate, as we have a full-time member of HIDB who was a former managing director of the smelter and therefore has direct knowledge and experience of the aluminium business. Therefore, when we say that we are scouring the world to see if another company is interested, we mean just that.
  The hon. Gentleman has no right, or any background information, to suggest that the Government's effort is in any way niggardly. The Government are as anxious as anyone else in the House to see if another operator exists. We are also realistic. We insist that it is a long shot. It would be wrong for any of us to build up false hopes in the area. Nevertheless we are taking that long shot and hope that we find a new company.
  I now come to the second point that the hon. Gentleman raised. If we find a new company, we are faced with the difficulty of negotiating a new power contract. It would be equally wrong to suggest that one just pushes a button somewhere in the electricity generating boards in Scotland, because the 1968 contract was a disaster. The smelter closed because there was a world recession and it was making losses. However, the greatest single reason for the difficulties facing British Aluminium was the failure of the 1968 contract. I do not make that as a partisan political point.
  The Government of the day set up the contract that they thought was best at that time. The company accepted it. It is easy for us to say with the benefit of hindsight that this and that is wrong. Therefore, I make no partisan comment about the contract, but I have to say that the contract failed. In the matter of disputed charges, for example, the contract caused a contingent liability on the balance sheet of the British Aluminium Company amounting to £47 million, which was a great financial embarrassment to the company.
  We took the best possible legal advice available to Government, as did the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. The advice that we received—I emphasise this—was that, in view of the terms of the contract, the hydro board had an obligation to the rest of its consumers to pursue the £47 million disputed charges in court. [Interruption.] It may not be in dispute with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, but it is a matter of which he should be fully aware.
  The situation with regard to another power contract is a matter of some complexity. I do not wish on this occasion to try to describe the difficulties that we face, except to say this. The first hurdle, and a significant one,
  258
  will be to try to find a new operator. I must also make it clear that if such an operator is found, there is a further massive hurdle to be overcome in trying to work out a power contract which will produce a viable operation at Invergordon.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the difference in power costs between the Invergordon project and the Anglesey and Lynemouth projects. As my right hon. Friend said yesterday, the Anglesey and Lynemouth contracts are quite different. The Anglesey contract is with the CEGB on terms which are in fact rather similar to those of the Invergordon contract because it is related to Dungeness B nuclear power station. At the moment it is supplied from the grid, but the company has an interest in Dungeness B as British Aluminium had in Hunterston B, so there is a similar contract there. The Lynemouth contract is a coal contract negotiated separately with the National Coal Board.
  In each of those cases, the extent of any subsidy that exists is borne by the general consumer in England and Wales, but in Scotland, the Labour Government in 1968—again in an act of fairness to Scottish consumers—said that as the population of Scotland was only 10 per cent. of that of the United Kingdom it would be too heavy a burden to be met by the consumers there and therefore the central Exchequer would pick up the tab in the event, as it turned out, of the pricing requiring Government funding.
  Until the date of the end of the contract, quite apart from the disputed charges, £113 million was paid by the Exchequer to the hydro board to reduce the cost of electricity to the smelter, but even with that, it was unprofitable. By any stretch of the imagination, that is a considerable contribution by central Government and by the taxpayer to the project at Invergordon. Yet even after that, the project failed.
  Mr. Maclennan rose—
  Mr. FletcherI cannot give way. I think that in this short debate the hon. Gentleman has perhaps made points which will allow him at least to ponder before we have a further debate on Thursday. There is little to be gained from raking over the past. The Government are happy to explain what happened and the events that led up to closure. My right hon. Friend did that yesterday. We can repeat the explanations on Thursday, when there will be more time, and answer questions of that kind during the debate.
  However, it is important that hon. Members contributing to the debate understand the facts, which are not simple. It is a difficult and complex matter. It is not enough to say that the Government have been uncaring about the project, and that they were not willing to make an effort to keep the smelter going.
  The company had a target date of 18 December, and it ran over that date because my right hon. Friend and I, with our officials, were working beyond that date to see whether there was any way at all in which a deal might be struck which would allow the smelter to continue, in the first instance for three years. But the terms of the 1968 contract did not make that possible. That was the company's opinion. Come the end of December, the company's year ended, and it felt it vital to extricate itself from the 1968 contract in order to ensure that the jobs in other parts of Scotland, not least the jobs in Falkirk, but

  259
  also jobs in Glasgow, Burntisland, Kinlochleven and Lochaber—2,700 altogether—should be preserved. It was in those circumstances that my right hon. Friend and I were dealing with the problem right up to the end of the year.
  I hope that on Thursday, apart from asking any further questions on the history of the case, the House will look to the future—
  Mr. MaclennanThat is what the hon. Gentleman is not doing now.
  Mr. FletcherI hope that by Thursday the hon. Gentleman may have sobered up in this respect and be able
  260
  to make a constructive contribution to the debate, instead of rising to make silly points of order, which I see the hon. Gentleman is about to do.
  Mr. MaclennanOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister's remark is capable of misconstruction if it is reported. The hon. Gentleman has accused me of not being sober. I hope that he will withdraw that accusation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)I do not think that the Minister quite meant that phrase.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the standing order.
  Adjourned at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Grant-related Expenditure
  Grant-related Expenditure
  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Museums and Galleries
  Museums and Galleries
  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art (Report)
  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art (Report)
  Schools (Anti-nuclear Publicity)
  Schools (Anti-nuclear Publicity)
  Multi-cultural Society (Schools Council Report)
  Multi-cultural Society (Schools Council Report)
  International Year of Disabled People
  International Year of Disabled People
  Student Award Scheme
  Student Award Scheme
  Schools (Maintenance)
  Schools (Maintenance)
  Teachers (Redundancies)
  Teachers (Redundancies)
PAYMASTER GENERAL
  International Year of Disabled People
  International Year of Disabled People
ENERGY
  Demand Statistics
  Demand Statistics
  Coal Prices
  Coal Prices
  Energy Costs
  Energy Costs
  Electricity
  Electricity
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Index-linked Pensions (Public Sector)
  Index-linked Pensions (Public Sector)
  Banks (Profits)
  Banks (Profits)
  Value Added Tax (Rayner Review)
  Value Added Tax (Rayner Review)
  Charitable Trusts
  Charitable Trusts
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing Corporation
  Housing Corporation
  Regional Water Authorities
  Regional Water Authorities
DEFENCE
  Biological Warfare Experiments
  Biological Warfare Experiments
EMPLOYMENT
  Long-term Unemployment
  Long-term Unemployment
  Redundancy Payments Regulations
  Redundancy Payments Regulations
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Spectacles
  Spectacles
  Chronic Ill Health
  Chronic Ill Health
  Child Abuse
  Child Abuse
  Drug Experiments (Regulations)
  Drug Experiments (Regulations)
  Far East Prisoners of War
  Far East Prisoners of War
  Christmas Bonus (Additional Payment)
  Christmas Bonus (Additional Payment)
  Heating Allowance
  Heating Allowance
TRADE
  Mail Order Companies
  Mail Order Companies
  Anglian Water Authority
  Anglian Water Authority
  Citizens Advice Bureaux (Grant)
  Citizens Advice Bureaux (Grant)
  Banks (Accountancy Practice)
  Banks (Accountancy Practice)
  Companies (Non-voting Shares)
  Companies (Non-voting Shares)
  Motor Cars (European Community Tariff)
  Motor Cars (European Community Tariff)
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Spain (London Talks)
  Spain (London Talks)
  Hong Kong (Drug Trafficking)
  Hong Kong (Drug Trafficking)
  Turkey
  Turkey
NORTHERN IRELAND
  De Lorean Car Company
  De Lorean Car Company
PRIME MINISTER
  House Building
  House Building
  Public Assets
  Public Assets
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
  European Community (Structural Reform)
  European Community (Structural Reform)
  Public Sector Work Force
  Public Sector Work Force
  Official Documents (Verbosity)
  Official Documents (Verbosity)
SCOTLAND
  Students Allowances Scheme
  Students Allowances Scheme
WALES
  Llanrwst, Gwynedd (Flooding)
  Llanrwst, Gwynedd (Flooding)
  Llywelyn Ehi Llyw Olaf
  Llywelyn Ehi Llyw Olaf
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Primary School Pupils (Books)
  Primary School Pupils (Books)
  Falling Rolls
  Falling Rolls
  Village Schools
  Village Schools
  Inner London
  Inner London
  Teachers (In-Service Training)
  Teachers (In-Service Training)
  Curriculum
  Curriculum
  University Entrants (Statistics)
  University Entrants (Statistics)
  16 to 19-year-olds
  16 to 19-year-olds
  Teachers (Classroom Performance)
  Teachers (Classroom Performance)
  Universities (Allocation of Finance)
  Universities (Allocation of Finance)
  Student Loan System
  Student Loan System
  Primary School Teachers (Qualifications)
  Primary School Teachers (Qualifications)
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
  Clinical Medicine (Teaching and Research)
  Clinical Medicine (Teaching and Research)
  Higher Education (Black Community)
  Higher Education (Black Community)
  Rampton Report
  Rampton Report
  Schools (Road Safety Guidance)
  Schools (Road Safety Guidance)
  Items in Lieu of Duty
  Items in Lieu of Duty

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR Oil the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

FAO: Rome Conference
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what were the conclusions of the Rome conference of the Food and Agriculture Organisation on means to end world hunger and to encourage rural development.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the 21st Conference of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation in November met primarily to determine FAO's policy and to approve its budget for 1982 and 1983. The conference also supported FAO's plan of action to strengthen world food security, reaffirmed the importance of the new international development strategy, and recommended that the target for pledges to the world food programme for the two years 1983 and 1984 should be $1,200 million. It expressed satisfaction with the progress achieved in directing FAO's policies and programmes towards the objectives set up by the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. I will place a copy of the official report in the Library as soon as it is available.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very full reply. In view of the cost of this programme, may I ask the Minister what are the prospects of our own Government, and other nations in the United Nations, making a contribution towards it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we shall have to consider that in due time, but, speaking specifically about the core budget of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, which was the principal matter under consideration at the conference, the United Kingdom will be contributing 5·45 per cent.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that so long as the world population goes on growing faster than the world food supply we shall be living with this problem for the rest of time? Might it not be well to point out, especially to the Russian Government, that if they could only increase their food production it would help the overall position throughout the world?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is certainly right about that. Matters might also be helped if the Soviet Union would contribute to and participate in the affairs of the Food and Agriculture Organisation.
Lord Oram: My Lords, can the Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government support the conclusions concerning rural development that were reached at Rome? If, as I hope, the answer to that question is, yes, how can that support of policies for rural development be reconciled with the decision to put as much as one-sixth of the annual aid programme into one massive industrial project in India which seems to give no promise of help for the rural poor?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, each bilateral programme has to be considered on its merits. There were a very great many industrial implications, including benefits to the Indian community itself, with regard to the project to which the noble Lord refers. It is, however, the case that we should prefer to contain the growth of our contributions to multilateral agencies like the Food and Agriculture Organisation so that the important contributions that we make to bilateral programmes can be maintained.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that this is not just a question of Governments finding money? There is the question of expertise in agricultural circles, for which over the years we have shown a great aptitude. Are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that we export this kind of expertise to help under-developed countries with this very important matter?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly share the views of my noble friend in that direction. The provision of agricultural expertise, as my noble friend described it, is a very important part of our bilateral aid programme.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, following the point made by the noble Lord in his supplementary, is the Minister aware that the recent Japanese newsletter indicates that that very thing is being done? The Japanese are now co-operating with the Chinese in an area near Peking with a population of 3 million. The Japanese are sending agricultural experts there to teach methods of agriculture which will be worth while for the peasant.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have not seen the Japanese publication to which the noble Lord refers, but, from the sound of it, I agree with it.
Lord Peart: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will stress the importance of this matter—as, indeed, he has. The Food and Agriculture Organisation is probably one of the most successful of all the international organisations. I think of Lord Boyd-Orr and many others who played their part in international conferences and helped to build up what is a very important organisation. So there must be no let-down of any programmes that they were prepared to go for.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree that the original concepts which led to the foundation of the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the very distinguished initial leadership of the late Lord Boyd-Orr are much to be admired. But we have considerable

519
reservations about the growth in recent years in the administrative activities of the Food and Agriculture Organisation. That is what gave rise to the misgivings which we had over the recent budget.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister two questions? First, in view of the fact that the ex-chairman of the Royal Bank has stated that 80 million people in the world are on the verge of starvation, will the Government take more initiative in seeking to aid the starving population of the world, whose situation is intolerable in view of our comfort? Secondly, I wish to ask whether, in view of the need for rural development in these territories, he will find a means of direct aid to them rather than the present method which is so often involved in corruption by Governments?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have to agree that some of our aid to some of the multilateral agencies working in this field is sometimes less effective than we would wish. Thus it is that we seek to direct our bilateral aid programme to the poorest countries in particular, because clearly they are those in the greatest need.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord be good enough to say what is the policy of the European Economic Community on this issue, give the significant surpluses of various products which arise from time to time and are sold to the Soviet Union?—certainly some of the surplus is sold to the Soviet Union. Can he say whether the United Kingdom and her partners in the Community have been pressing in Rome for the disposal of these surpluses at nominal prices to countries where starvation is considerable?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can say for example that, of the contributions to the world food programme to which I referred in my earlier Answer, the United Kingdom will be contributing bilaterally 117,000 tonnes of cereal while the European Community itself will be providing a further 927,000 tonnes.

Airports: Severnside Site
2.47 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: 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 on what evidence the Advisory Committee on Airports Policy stated, in its report of 21st November 1979 (paragraph 5.16), that, for the purposes of a gateway international airport at Severnside, "a new motorway crossing the Severn, together with a 10-mile link to the M4 motorway would be required from the outset".
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the Advisory Committee on Airports Policy made clear in its report, its assessment of the surface access requirement of the
520
Severnside site was based on similar criteria to those adopted by the Study Group on South East Airports in its consideration of sites nearer to London. I understand that the committee's conclusions were based on advice by those of its members with expertise in this area, which included the Department of Transport.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for that Answer, I suppose, but I did ask him on what evidence they based their statement. He did not mention any evidence in his Answer. May I ask him therefore whether he is aware that on 19th October last year, in reply to a Question from Mr. Abse in another place, the Minister for Trade stated that no member of the committee had in fact visited the site, so that nobody had taken any evidence on the ground? Is he further aware that a glance at a map will show that the distance from the motorway to the edge of the airport site as proposed is just about 1¼ miles? If one extends the distance, which is referred to in the committee's report as 10 miles, to the nearest intersection on a motorway—a very labour-saving device and a very under-used intersection, No. 23—it is found to be about 1½ miles. What reliance can we therefore place on anything else in this report?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend—as I fear he has done in connection with this matter on earlier occasions—has over-simplified the problems to which he refers. The problems of access to the Severnside airport are quite considerable, including the one referred to in his Question and my Answer. As for the source of the evidence to which he has referred, as I believe I have made clear already, the evidence was to be found in the views of the members of the study group.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I was a member of the advisory committee and must therefore declare an interest? Is he aware that, when assessing the merits of the Severnside site, one of the major factors was obviously access to London, to which a very large number of international air travellers would be wishing to go? Therefore, this was one of the factors that we had to look at and it was given very careful consideration. Perhaps my noble friend can answer one other question. Is he aware that the site has certain problems of altitude? Can my noble friend tell me whether the site would stand up to the flooding difficulties of the present time?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend has raised an interesting point. I believe that if the airport were in existence now it would have suffered very considerably from the recent flooding in that part of the world.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that the Thames-Severn estuary is in fact tidal and that the site of the airport which we are discussing, lying as it does wholly below high water mark, is in fact flooded twice a day?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think the airlines had better be warned to fit floats.

Economic Recovery: Facilitation
2.49 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to assist economic recovery.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, economic recovery depends upon the determination of all sectors of our community to ensure that our industry is competitive at home and abroad. To this end, the Government's policy is directed to creating the right fiscal and monetary climate, and to encouraging initiative and enterprise by reducing controls and providing incentives through the tax system—particularly to help new and small businesses.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, I must say that I am deeply concerned with the content because, of course, the facts do not bear out anything that he has said. May I ask him this? Since it has been reported in the Daily Telegraph today that there are 35 Members of his party in another place, which must mean the possibility of a majority who are against Her Majesty's Government, and that both sides of industry are deeply concerned at the way we are drifting, would it be possible perhaps, inasmuch as NEDC does not seem able to do much, to establish a grand industrial council to guide the Government to get us out of the terrible morass we are in?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord's anxieties about events in another place lie outside the field of this Question. So far as the facts are concerned, the position is that output has been increasing, that productivity has increased quite remarkably, that orders in important sectors of industry are picking up, that leading indicators do show the prospect of further improvement, and we do look forward to a slow but sustained recovery in the British economy.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if the Government had given a bit more attention to the retail price index and a bit less attention to monetary control they might have been more successful in controlling inflation?
Lord Cockfield: No, my Lords. Perhaps I might draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that since 1975 unit labour costs in this country have doubled; in Canada they have increased by one-half only, in the United States by one-third, in Western Germany by one-sixth and in Japan not at all. It is this loss of competitiveness which lies at the root of our difficulties at the present moment.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, that is the very reason why
522
the Government would have succeeded more if they had used the retail price index. Does the noble Lord not appreciate that the retail price index is reflected in wage agreements in the future, and therefore perpetuates inflation?
Lord Cockfield: No, my Lords, I do not agree with the thesis put forward by the noble Lord. I think it is entirely wrong for people to believe, either in wage negotiations or in other matters, that they are entitled to automatic compensation for rises in prices. The obvious example is, of course, the rise in oil prices, where there can be no question of people in this country protecting themselves from such increases. The increasing sense of realism which is occurring in this country at the present moment under which many wage settlements, indeed the great majority of wage settlements, are being negotiated at figures below or well below the increase in the retail price index shows that both sides of industry have a greater sense of realism than the noble Lord opposite.
Lord Orr-Ewing: Is my noble friend aware that of all the OECD countries Britain, equally with West Germany, exports more of its manufactured production than any other, well ahead of the United States and Japan? Is not this a reflection of the success of the Government's policies?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for the point that he makes, which is of course entirely valid. The quite magnificent performance of British industry in the export field is something for which we all ought to be grateful.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, would the noble Lord relate his original Answer, and what he said in reply to the noble Lord who spoke about the success of Government policy, to the position in the four northern counties in England, where unemployment is by far the highest in the country, in some areas well over 25 per cent., where businesses are closing down every week, long-established businesses, big ones, small ones, where there is no prospect of anything new coming in at all? Would the noble Lord relate what he has said to that situation and tell us what the Government are going to do about it, or do we have to wait for a Toxteth in Newcastle or in Sunderland before the Government do anything there?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we are suffering very grievously from the errors of the past, to which the noble Lord contributed in very full measure. The Government have the courage, and indeed it is the first Government which have had the courage, to tackle these problems, and it is only if they are tackled at the roots, which is what we are trying to do, that we have any real hope for the future.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us how they are tackling the problems in Northumberland, in Durham and in Cumberland?
Lord Cockfield: Yes, my Lords. The problems of all these areas are a reflection of the problems of the United Kingdom as a whole. These are the

523
problems we are tackling, and we are tackling them with a degree of success which is becoming increasingly evident.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does the degree of success include a steady increase in unemployment?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the rate at which unemployment is increasing has fallen sharply. At present the rate of increase is only one-third of what it was a year ago. It is, however, the position that just as a rise in unemployment follows after a fall in output so a fall in unemployment will come only after a rise in output.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he spoke about what the Government inherited, and that when the day comes when the industrial situation and the unemployment situation and the level of inflation is back to what it was the day that this Government took over there will be great jubilation in this nation because we will then be improving? Would the noble Lord not accept that many people find it distressing that there is no evidence of great concern being shown by the Government about the difficulties we are in? Perhaps the grand council which I have suggested, possibly apolitical, might be some way at least of making a contribution other than what the current economists have done to get us into this dreadful situation? Is it not at least in the interests of the nation to try it?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I would not follow the noble Lord in his attack upon economists, many of the more distinguished of whom sit on the Benches opposite and gave advice for a long period of Labour Government. So far as the rest of his question is concerned, the Government are acutely concerned about the level of unemployment. Measures have been announced to deal with it. There are a large number of new measures announced in this field. The expenditure both this year and next year on these special employment measures shows a very substantial increase. So far as his suggestion of a tripartite forum is concerned, such a forum already exists in NEDC, and it has been the policy of Her Majesty's Government to discuss issues of wide-ranging importance in that body.

Child Abuse: Jason Caesar
2.58 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take following the trial at Norwich Crown Court involving the death of Jason Caesar, aged 19 months; and in particular whether an inquiry will be instituted into the possible lack of communication between the various social agencies responsible for handling the case.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Elton): My Lords, this tragic case and every other like it is a matter of very great concern to the Government. If I say that the welfare of children is the responsibility of local authorities, that in no way diminishes that concern. Clearly every such incident has to he thoroughly investigated in order to see what can be learned from it and whether either professional practice or administrative procedures can be improved as a result. However, such investigation is usually best done locally by the authorities themselves. The Cambridgeshire County Council and Area Health Authority are already conducting such an investigation and its findings will be sent to me.
It is important that the lessons learned by one authority are known to the rest. The department is therefore studying the published reports of inquiries into previous serious incidents in search of any common factors which may help to reinforce the guidance which we already give on these matters. I hope to publish any significant findings later this year. A review has also been instigated of the working of the child abuse registers, on which we issued advice in 1980. I will also make any significant findings of this review available as appropriate.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply which was phrased in an extremely helpful way, I should like to ask him two specific questions. First, is the noble Lord aware that in November 1976 a circular was issued by his own department and by the Home Office specifically suggesting that the police should be invited to case conferences? Is the noble Lord aware that in this particular case the police do not appear to have been invited to the case conference, and is that one of the matters which will be subject to investigation? Secondly, in terms of the local authority inquiries which are taking place, when the noble Lord receives the result of those will he consider placing them in the Library of the House?
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, up to the time of this case, police involvement was always considered when an initial case conference was called, but it was not always thought necessary. Following this case the police are invariably informed of every initial case conference with the local authority we are considering. On the second matter, the proper response depends on what emerges from the inquiry which I have at present had made as to whether it is appropriate to place it in the House of Lords Library. If it appears that a narrower circulation is more appropriate, I shall certainly undertake to let the noble Lord know himself.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend two questions. First, what are the Government doing to encourage the work of voluntary bodies as regards child abuse? Secondly, will the forthcoming restructuring of the National Health Service make local collaboration in child abuse cases more difficult?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as regards voluntary bodies, the Government support and greatly appreciate the value of the work, and the preventive work, being done by voluntary agencies. In the last few days my right honourable friend the Secretary of State authorised the grant of £450,000 over three years to help the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children out of its financial difficulties. We also help the newly-formed Organisation for Parents under Stress and a number of organisations and projects that provide support for parents. Later this year I plan a series of meetings and visits to voluntary organisations concerned with child abuse as well as to other responsible authorities and I hope that that will help to strengthen links with the department as well as helping us to learn more about their very valuable work.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether, in his inquiries later on, he will look at the circular referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I should like to suggest to the Minister that that circular does put both the police and the directors of social services, health and education, in extremely awkward positions. If that circular could be looked at and clarified I think that it would be helpful both to the police and to the other social agencies, including the voluntary organisations.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I shall certainly look at the circular.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to put a further question to the noble Lord arising from the question put by the noble Baroness. Is the noble Lord aware that the Association of Chief Police Officers was consulted before the circular was issued in 1976, and that therefore it was done with the full knowledge of the service? Secondly, will the noble Lord particularly direct his attention to why the terms of this circular were not implemented by the authorities in Cambridgeshire?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I was aware of the consultation that took place before the issue of the circular. Indeed, it was the subject of a discussion in this House in which I took part. The second matter which the noble Lord raises is, of course, of great interest to me.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Minister whether, if his department has any responsibility for this particular inquiry, he will investigate or have investigated the stress and strain under which many of these agencies are working at present because of the increase in this particular type of difficulty in the community? We all know that they are working under great stress and I think that this ought to be examined before we come to some kind of conclusion as to who is at fault and who is not at fault.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the purpose of the inquiry is to avoid, as far as is humanly possible, a recurrence of the tragic events which we are now discussing. But your Lordships would not expect that whatever the Government do will stop occurrences happening
526
again; we can only strive to reduce them. To remove a child from its mother or its father or both is a matter of traumatic importance to the child and it is a step which can only be taken when it is pretty clear that it is the last step and only remaining step that can be taken. Your Lordships will sympathise with the people who often have to decide whether they have taken the right decision or the wrong decision and will know that your Lordships will only be discussing it if they get it wrong.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware how pleased people are that the Government are helping the NSPCC and how worried they were about their financial position? Would it not be possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said, to expand the work in the community to bring in aids to help the officers of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for expressing a feeling—a feeling which I am very glad to hear expressed—of approval for what we have done for the National Society. I did, in fact, spend quite some time with them and also visiting their work in the field before the grant was made. I am glad to see that they are considering very carefully the extent to which their work can he made entirely complementary to the local authorities' and to remove any overlap that there may be.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Belstead will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Yorkshire Ripper investigations. I think that it might also be helpful to your Lordships if I repeat what I said yesterday—that it has been agreed through the usual channels that the Committee stage of the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill and the House itself should be adjourned at approximately 8 o'clock this evening and that therefore dinner will not be available.

Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 and certain related enactments. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Mental Health (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Replacement of "subnormality" by "mental handicap"]:
Lord Wallace of Coslany Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, at beginning insert—
("() For subsection (1) of section 4 of the principal Act there shall be substituted—
"In this Act mental disorder means mental illness, mental handicap, severe mental handicap and psychopathic disorder; and "mentally disordered" shall be construed accordingly.".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name and the names of my noble friends. Before I proceed to enlarge on the point regarding the amendment I should like to say how gratified and almost amazed we were to learn from the noble Lord the Minister that as regards the Committee stage of this Bill the Government have an open mind. That, of course, gives us great encouragement and hope on the lines expressed by the noble Lord. I trust that our hopes will receive greater realisation.
The other matter is that the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, backed as they are by a very efficient staff of civil servants, will appreciate the problems that some of us have had in coping with getting amendments to this Bill fixed and discussed. What with the weather, the strike and many other problems it has been a very difficult task. I am not pleading for sympathetic reward from the Minister, but at least I hope that he will understand.
So far as this amendment is concerned, the Committee will remember that I raised the general issue during the Second Reading of the Bill. Its intention is to limit the unacceptably wide scope of the principal Act by excluding the phrase:
"any other disorder or disability of mind".
As mental illness remains undefined by this Bill, the scope of its compulsory powers must be made quite clear.
The phrase:
"any other disorder or disability of mind",
could encompass almost any abnormality, perception of ethnic difference, religious belief, individual eccentricity—and quite a number of noble Lords might even fall into that category—or variation in levels of intelligence and understanding.
It is wholly unacceptable that by implication people could be rendered eligible for compulsory detention on such ill-defined grounds. Indeed, it might be argued that long-term hospital admission must clearly fall into one of the four major categories covered by the principal Act. However, this still leaves open the possibility of detention for up to 28 days. Compulsory powers should not be applied except where the individual is suffering from one of the major and identifiable forms of mental disorder, and the scope of this Bill should be defined accordingly.
I shall not beat about the bush. I regard this
528
amendment as vitally important. This vague phrase:
"any other disorder or disability",
should be removed in order that the situation shall be fully clarified and that a number of people who might come under it by accident should have removed the likelihood of at least 28 days' detention. This is a vitally important amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Maybray-King: I wish to support this amendment from perhaps a different point of view. There was in Chicago a great lover of children who wrote a book on normal and subnormal children and who said that there are no subnormal children: every child is a normal child except in the very thing in which he or she is abnormal or subnormal. Others who work for mentally handicapped children know that despite their handicap those children can be able in so many other ways. If we limit the term to "handicap", I think that it would be more wholesome than to leave it as it is here.
Lord Hunter of Newington: I should like to say why I believe that psychiatrists are unhappy about the noble Lord's amendment. It is because this phrase has been a valuable one which has allowed certain unusual conditions, and some not so unusual, such as disordered brain damage, to be compulsorily admitted to hospital if necessary. A young man who has brain damage as a result of a motor accident and shows behaviour disorders would otherwise have to be described as psychopathic. This is inaccurate and undesirable, and it would indeed be regrettable if it became necessary.
I would submit that Section 4 has not been abused in the past. Very few people have been compulsorily admitted to hospital using this phrase. It could be argued that it would open the flood gates to any kind of patient being admitted, but, in fact, practice does not bear this out. It has not happened since 1959. I believe that it is an unjustifiable fear.
Baroness Stewart of Alvechurch: I should like to suggest that one word should be added to this amendment in the first line, so that it reads:
"In this Act mental disorder may mean",
and then it should continue.
Lord Elton: In replying to this first of many amendments, may I say that I understand and sympathise with the difficulties that noble Lords and noble Baronesses have had in tabling amendments in good time, and those who have managed to do so are very much the object of the gratitude of myself and the department.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, in moving the amendment, welcomed the open mind of the Government, which he said he heard declared with something of astonishment. I hope that the astonishment left him and that he became accustomed to it when he saw the amendment which immediately follows his own on the Marshalled List, which I think is an earnest of our good intentions.
But having an open mind does not mean that we necessarily agree with everything that is put before us by way of amendment. In this case, I must say that

529
the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, has voiced a good deal of the anxiety which I myself feel on this matter. I think that the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, are more appropriate to the amendment which follows this on the Marshalled List, and I am sure the Committee will remember them.
But, in this case, it really is necessary to retain the term:
"any other disorder or disability of mind",
the function of which is to ensure that in certain cases a mentally disordered patient may be admitted whose mental condition has not been fully diagnosed. This situation may arise where a mentally disordered patient needs to be admitted for assessment before he can be diagnosed, or where he needs to be admitted in an emergency. The 1959 Act therefore provides that the criteria for admission for assessment or observation under Section 25 and for admission in an emergency for 72 hours under Section 29 encompass patients who are suffering from a mental disorder or disability of mind whose specific nature has not been diagnosed, and who therefore cannot be said to be suffering from one of the four named conditions. The Act also provides that such patients who are already in hospital voluntarily may be detained under Section 30, as this power is also likely to be used at times of emergency when there is no time for full diagnosis.
There may also be cases where it is appropriate to detain under an assessment or emergency power a patient who may not be suffering from one of the four named conditions, but who is nevertheless mentally disturbed and needs care for a short time. Examples of this situation are cases of abnormal mental state associated with drug abuse or alcohol abuse, where there is a danger to health and safety of the patient or others and where there is concern as to the presence of an underlying mental illness which has not yet been diagnosed.
The effect of removing the term:
"any other disorder or disability of mind",
would therefore be to make it difficult, or indeed impossible, to detain some patients in cases of genuine need. The removal of the term might also force those responsible for diagnosis to make hasty judgments about a patient's condition, if it was thought that the patient did need to be detained.
I am satisfied that under the existing provisions a person who is mentally disordered but not suffering from any of the named conditions can only be detained when it is reasonable to do so. Moreover, such a patient may not be detained under any of the long-term powers in the Act. I can easily allay the noble Lord's concern, if it is in this area, because the patient can only be detained, as I have said, under short-term powers where, for the reasons already referred to, it is not possible or appropriate to diagnose the patient before admission as suffering from one of the named conditions. I hope that your Lordships will not accept this amendment.
Lord Renton: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has performed a helpful service in moving his amendment. It is agreed among all who think about this matter that Section 4 of the 1959 Act is not satisfactory as it stands, and that it needs
530
amendment. On behalf of the mentally handicapped, having had to apply my mind to this problem, I must say that it did not seem that an amendment of the kind which he proposes to subsection (1) of Section 4 of the 1959 Act would really do the trick, if I may put it that way.
It is subsections (2) and (3) which have caused the difficulty in the administration of the Act, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, whom we respect, has said. Your Lordships will have noticed that my noble friend Lord Elton has proposed substantial amendments to the Bill which would have the effect of improving subsections (2) and (3) of Section 4 of the 1959 Act. Speaking for myself, I feel that that is a more satisfactory way of dealing with what is undoubtedly a problem.
May I say how pleased I was personally to hear the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, speak on this matter, because when he was the Speaker in another place he was unable to speak about the mentally handicapped, but he did so much to help them even to the extent of giving a Christmas party for about 100 mentally handicapped children in the Speaker's House every Christmas. That was enormously appreciated, and I have had no other good opportunity of saying so until now. Bearing in mind what has been said by noble Lords who have spoken, I would respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that it would be best not to press this amendment but to concentrate our attention upon the amendments which follow in the name of my noble friend Lord Elton.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My name is associated with this amendment, and like my noble friend I feel strongly about its value. But I think many of us on this side would be very much influenced by what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has had to say, and what he has to say so far as the whole of this Bill is concerned. I would have been happier if the noble Lord the Minister could have come to the Committee—and this is not a criticism—and given some indication of the number of persons admitted who do not immediately on admission come under any of the four categories.
Listening to what has been said, it would seem that an enormous number of men and women are admitted where they are not instantly recognised as coming under any one of the four main categories. If this is so then there is a strong case perhaps for my noble friend and I to look at this amendment again. But there is the danger that if we do not use this opportunity to define as carefully as possible what we mean by "mental disorder" and "mental handicap" we may not get another for many years.
It is quite wrong for a society to have on the statute book an Act of any kind which is so wide that people can be put in a position of having to undergo certain things when in point of fact it is not clearly defined that there is a right to have them and to take them in. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Minister can help us so far as that is concerned. We are not going to be difficult about this. We are always impressed by the vast knowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has on these matters, but if the noble Lord the Minister could help us a bit more on this I think that perhaps many of us would be amenable to suggestion.
Lord Hylton: I have spent a certain amount of time both in England and France with mentally handicapped people of various ages. I therefore think that the wording of this particular amendment is just a little unfortunate. I say that because it says:
"severe mental handicap and psychopathic disorder"
in immediate conjunction. We all know that most mentally handicapped people, even the severely mentally handicapped, are not also psychopathic. You may get a very few cases where they are both, but this is a tiny minority. The fact that the amendment is worded in this way is likely to increase the misapprehensions which are unfortunately still all too current among the general public. That is why I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, not to press the amendment in this present form.
Lord Elton: I hope it may be of help to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and his noble friends if I say that I am advised that fewer than 100 detained patients at any time fall outside the four defined categories. This may put the problem into a perspective which it may not have had when we began discussing it. That aside, I still maintain that the provision in the Act is necessary and that the terminology in the Bill is correct if we are to deal with people whose condition cannot be diagnosed at the time when their admission is sought. I therefore resist this amendment.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I am not too happy about the Minister's reply. There is a point of substance here. It may be that some form of rewording might meet the case. Even if only 100 patients are involved, the risk is there. I shall take account of what has been said today, and study Hansard and take a bit of advice. The Minister might even give me some. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment now, and I shall possibly come back at Report stage with something more acceptable to the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("handicap or severe mental handicap") and insert ("impairment or severe mental impairment").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 together comprise a new definition of certain people affected by the Bill. If I may, I shall speak to them together. There are five consequential amendments in Clause 1 which I shall move at the same time, and many others throughout the Bill. When I come to the numerous consequential amendments I hope again that, to save time, the Committee will give me leave to move them en bloc.
When your Lordships discussed this Bill at Second Reading there was very nearly universal concern at the way mentally handicapped people were included in its operation. It was felt that the incorporation of the term "mental handicap" led to a misunderstanding of that condition by the authorities and even, it was said by some noble Lords, by the courts. It was felt that a very clear distinction should be made between mentally
532
handicapped people and people who were mentally ill. Some of your Lordships felt that mentally handicapped people should be subject to completely different legislation and that they should not, in any case, be subject to the operation either of this Bill or of the 1959 Act which it seeks to amend. Perhaps the most trenchant advocate of those views was my noble friend Lord Renton.
In the course of that debate I gave voice to my own anxieties about what would flow from adopting the position of my noble friend and his supporters. I could not escape then, and I cannot escape now, from the conclusion that there is a very small proportion of mentally handicapped people who do need to be detained and for whom, if they were excluded from this Bill, there would be no place outside a prison. I believed, as I still do, that a prison was not the right place for people who need hospital treatment and it would be very wrong indeed to consign them to it. To provide parliamentary time for totally separate and partly parallel legislation, on the other hand, was impracticable. The course proposed would, therefore, inevitably have that effect.
However, I did undertake, when I presented this Bill for your Lordship's discussion at Second Reading, that the Government would listen very carefully to your Lordships and would not seek simply to drive this Bill through Parliament in the form which had already been decided upon—much to the astonishment of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany. In view of the concern which had been expressed on all sides of the House, therefore, I took the Bill away to consider whether we could not do something to meet it.
I ought, perhaps, to add that the pressure to which I was subjected during the Second Reading debate did not die away in the Recess. In particular my noble friend Lord Renton was at great pains, in his capacity of chairman of Royal Mencap, to see that a change was brought about, and I should like to acknowledge his very constructive contribution to the search for a way forward.
The amendments which I now bring forward are designed to remove the terms "mental handicap" and "severe mental handicap" wherever they appear in the Bill, which will now have the effect of removing also the terms "subnormality" and "severe subnormality" in the 1959 Act. In place of both, we shall have the terms "mental impairment" and "severe mental impairment". This does not, however, remove from the operation either of the Act or the Bill those people for whom a period of detention in hospital is essential. To secure that result, we had to find new terms to describe their condition. These terms are, as I have said, "mental impairment" and "severe mental impairment". The term impairment is already in very appropriate usage, as it is used by the World Health Organisation to describe any loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological or anatomical structure or function. It occurs in the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps published by the World Health Organisation in Geneva in 1980.
Having provided the substitute term, we had next to ensure that it was not going to be used to describe any people other than the small group to whom we wished it to apply. We therefore attached to it the requirement that, where the Act is to have effect upon a mentally

533
impaired or severely mentally impaired person, that impairment must be,
"associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct".
We have tried in this phrase not only to establish the requirement that the behaviour of the person to whom the Bill applies shall be aggressive or irresponsible, but that it shall be aggressive or irresponsible to a marked degree. We did so by using the adjectives "abnormally" and "seriously". We did so after a long dictionary search and a good deal of discussion, in which my noble friend—to whose assiduity on behalf of the mentally handicapped I should again like to pay tribute—took his fair share. I do not think we can get any closer to expressing our intention, which is to limit the effect of the Bill and the Act on mentally handicapped people to those very few people for whom detention in hospital is essential so that treatment can be provided and for whom detention in prison should he avoided. That is the interpretation we intend to he put on these words. The revised definitions, and the interpretation I have just outlined, extend also of course to powers to receive people into guardianship.
We have also proposed to replace the word "patient" in the definitions of "mental impairment" and "severe mental impairment" with the words "person concerned". As my noble friend rightly pointed out to us, in normal usage a person is not called a "patient" until he has been placed under medical care. The alternative term he suggested for use in the definitions is therefore a sensible improvement. We intend to make the same change in the definition of "psychopathic disorder" to bring it into line. This amendment is a genuine attempt to meet the wishes that your Lordships expressed on Second Reading. I believe it will bring real benefit to those whom it affects and I hope it will be welcomed by the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: In supporting this series of amendments, I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Elton for the vast amount of trouble and care he has taken since Second Reading, even to the extent of interrupting his short holiday during our winter Recess. He has taken trouble to meet the strong case which I put forward on Second Reading on behalf of the mentally handicapped and which was supported by noble Lords in all parts of the House, and I wish to thank them, too, for what they said. I hope I am not speaking indiscriminately when I say I wish especially to acknowledge my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, whose experience and advocacy were very helpful indeed in supporting the case I put forward, a case which Mencap have been advocating for at least five years; namely, that the confusion between mental illness and mental handicap which arises from Section 4 and other Parts of the 1959 Act should somehow be overcome.
We were, I confess, disappointed when first we saw the Bill, but, thanks to my noble friend, we now feel that honour is satisfied. Also, I am able to relieve the Committee by confessing that it saves me the trouble of tabling and moving about 20 amendments myself. Noble Lords will recollect that injustices have occurred through the mentally handicapped
534
being confused with the mentally ill, even in the highest possible circles, and not only in the courts. Remarkable though it may seem, there was even confusion recently in the mind of the authorities of your Lordships' House, who, when on 9th December my noble friend Lord Belstead gave a Written Answer to my Question asking how many crimes of homicide and causing grevious bodily harm had been committed by mentally handicapped people, printed it in Hansard under the heading, "Mentally-ill persons: violent crimes", and I hope a correction will be made in the hound volume.
Mainly as a result of such confusion of thought, many mentally handicapped people have wrongly been made the subject of compulsory hospital orders and guardianship orders under Parts IV and V of the 1959 Act. But it does not end there, because this confusion has, as I say, led the courts to use their ordinary powers to impose custodial sentences of one kind and another on mentally handicapped people in circumstances which were most inappropriate. As my noble friend Lord Elton indicated, prison, detention centres and borstal are not the sort of places where the mentally handicapped can be coped with. But, as he rightly pointed out, and as we have acknowledged all along, there is a hard core of difficult cases in which mentally handicapped people have behaved in a seriously anti-social way. They have behaved in a way more like what is expected of psychopaths, although they cannot be classified as psychopaths; they are simply mentally handicapped. In that limited number, fortunately a small number of such cases, it is necessary for them to be placed in secure care for the protection both of themselves and of the public.
This series of Government amendments in our opinion achieves what is necessary for such cases. They make it clear, by a rather subtle use of a new term—new in our statute law, as I understand it—"impairment", that the mentally handicapped will not be subject to the compulsory provisions of Parts IV and V of the 1959 Act unless their state of mind is associated with "abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct". If I may presume to amplify what my noble friend said on one narrow point, I think we should acknowledge that, although the use of "impairment" is new, the use of the expression "abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct" is not new; it is borrowed from the definition of "psychopathic disorder" in the 1959 Act. I must confess that I have no objection to that, and indeed it seems accurately to describe that small number of difficult cases which we all have in mind.
The fact that, so far as I know, that phrase has given rise to no difficulty of interpretation under the 1959 Act should encourage us to use it in the circumstances which my noble friend Lord Elton has described and which I, too, have attempted to describe. Therefore it seems that a proper result which should give satisfaction all round has been achieved by my noble friend, and so it is with real gratitude that I support his amendments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord a few questions. One of them is in order to clarify the situation, because I am rather muddled. Do we now have the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped, and the mentally impaired?—

535
because I looked up in the dictionary the term, "to impair", and it stated, "to make worse". So are these people to be written off as a rather hopeless small group?
Lord Elton: The intention of the amendment is in no way to attach a pejorative label; it is merely to secure that these most unfortunate people do not have to go to prison and to do that by a means which also secures that the other people to whom the noble Baroness refers as mentally handicapped are not willy-nilly exposed to being detained in hospital for treatment when in fact their condition does not warrant such treatment. I shall not go into an elaboration of the definition; I merely commend to the noble Baroness the publication that I mentioned, which extends for pages.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his amendments, which certainly go a long way to meet the requirements of a number of us in your Lordships' Committee. While I am prepared to support the amendments, I am not too happy about the use of the phrase "impairment or severe mental impairment". I fully appreciate the effort made to resolve a problem, but the words used still appear to me to be somewhat vague. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referered to the subtle use of words, and I think that he is quite accurate there. However, whether that be so or otherwise, what is proposed here removes an injustice from the Bill, and that is the main thing. We can be worried about whether the words are subtle or otherwise, but generally speaking we are prepared to support the amendments.
Lord Elton: I should like to add that I am very grateful for the noble Lord's support. The short definition relating to the general term "impairment" to which I have referred is in the context of health experience, and impairment is,
"any loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure or function".
It goes on, but I think that that defines it clearly enough.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 7:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("handicap") and insert ("impairment").
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("and is associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the person concerned.").
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("handicap") and insert ("impairment").
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("handicap") and insert ("impairment").
Page 1, line 21, at end insert ("and is associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the person concerned".").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 all relate to Clause 1 and follow from what I have just said. With your Lordships leave, I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Sandys: I think that it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if we now take the Statement, and with that in mind I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

The Yorkshire Ripper Case
3.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the review of the Yorkshire Ripper case carried out, at my request, by Mr. Lawrence Byford, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary.
"I asked him to report on any lessons which might be learned from the conduct of the investigation and which should be made known to police forces generally. Mr. Byford was assisted in his review by the external advisory team set up in November 1980. He was also able to take account of views put to him about this tragic case by relatives of the victims, who greatly appreciated the opportunity to voice their misgivings.
"I have now received and considered Mr. Byford's report and I am extremely grateful to him for it. I should like to let the House know of its main conclusions and recommendations. A more detailed summary has been placed in the Library.
"It is apparent from the report that there were major errors of judgment by the police and some inefficiencies in the conduct of the operation at various levels. In particular, excessive credence was given to the letters and tape from a man claiming responsibility for the series of murders and signing himself Jack the Ripper. Another serious handicap to the investigation was the ineffectiveness of the major incident room which became overloaded with unprocessed information. With hindsight, it is now clear that if these errors and inefficiencies had not occurred, Sutcliffe would have been indentified as a prime suspect sooner than he was. Mr Byford's report concludes that there is little doubt that he should have been arrested earlier, on the facts associated with his various police interviews.
"I would remind the House that the Ripper case gave rise to the largest criminal investigation ever conducted in this country, imposing a great strain on all concerned. It would have been surprising if in this unprecedented situation there were no mistakes. What we now have to do is to respond constructively to the considerable experience gained in the course of it in order to ensure that future investigations of crimes such as this are carried out as effectively and quickly as possible.
"I now turn, therefore, to the lessons for the future and to the recommendations made by Mr. Byford. As will be seen from the statement in the

537
Library, these deal comprehensively with the management requirements of the investigation of a series of major crimes; the training of senior detectives and personnel working in major incident rooms; the command of investigations involving a number of crimes which cross force boundaries; the harnessing for such investigations of the best detective and forensic science skills in the country; and the use of computer technology.
"I welcome Mr. Byford's recommendations on these matters. They are already being followed up with representatives of the police service. They provide valuable guidelines for the operational conduct of very large criminal investigations in police forces generally. They will require a constructive commitment at all levels of the police service."
My Lords, that is the Statement.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for repeating the Statement of the Home Secretary. I should think that it is one of the most disturbing Statements ever made to Parliament, where the conclusion of this painstaking inquiry is that with hindsight it is now clear that, if the errors and inefficiencies that are described had not occurred,
"Sutcliffe would have been identified as a prime suspect sooner than he was. Mr. Byford's report concludes that there is little doubt that he should have been arrested earlier, on the facts associated with his various police interviews".
There were nine interviews, my Lords, and a number of women's lives would have been saved but for the errors that have occurred.
I should like to say that to deal with this Statement and situation as we have to do now, without having received a copy of the report, is a most unsatisfactory parliamentary process. I saw about a quarter of an hour ago the brief summary which is now in the Library, and I saw half an hour ago a copy of the Home Secretary's Statement. This is no way to deal with these grave matters.
When one comes to look at the summary which is now available in the Library, and one reads of "major errors of judgment by the police", the situation is indeed serious. There is reference to "inefficiencies … at various levels", and there is a description of how the errors arose. First of all, there was the "ineffectiveness of the major incident room", cluttered up with unrelated pieces of information, and information which was overlooked. Then there was:
"Insufficient attention … to the significant common elements in photo-fit impressions obtained from surviving victims of hammer assaults".
Then there is criticism of the attitudes and failures of the interviewing officers at the nine interviews, often inadequately briefed before the interviews,
"principally as a result of the ineffectiveness of the major incident room".
Then, it is true and right that the House should know that the summary praises the fact that the vast majority of officers involved in the case,
"worked diligently and conscientiously throughout the Ripper investigation".
However, as I have already read, if it had not been for the errors of judgment and inefficiencies Sutcliffe would have been caught much sooner.
538
Then, as to what are proposed as "Lessons for the future"—and I am bound to say, if I may, that was not very reassured by the Home Secretary's statement that the recommendations have already been followed up—there is a great deal of necessity now to reassure the public as to the efficiency of the police in the investigation of major crime; and I hope the recommendations made in the report are being given effect to now, and vigorously. Under "Lessons for the future", there are suggestions as to what should be done in the major incident room, as to the need for the computerisation of records and as to the need for one officer in overall command to have authority where there is a case of "series" crimes arising in different areas.
Then, what is most startling in the report, if I may say so, is the simple fact of lack of training. It says:
"There should be better training of senior investigating officers of the rank of assistant chief constable to equip them with the management skills required for the conduct of a large-scale inquiry".
Why has that not been done? Does training stop at a low level in the police ladder? I cannot believe so. It continues:
"Similarly there needs to be appropriate management training for officers of chief superintendent or superintendent rank. There should be adequate training for staff of major incident rooms".
I think the House will want to know what has been done since the report was received to have urgent steps taken into the needs of training in the senior ranks of the police force, and what the Home Office powers are in this field. Are they wide enough in the Home Office, through the constables, to go into these matters?
Then there is a recommendation for the appointment of an ad hoc advisory team where there is a massive continuation of crime of this kind,
"harnessing the best detective and forensic science talent in the country".
My Lords, we have those talents; they are available. I hope we shall hear that this proposal of the chief inspector of constabulary is being put into effect at once. There are other important matters in the report, which has been disclosed in full frankness. There has been no white-washing in this matter; but it has raised grave matters, and much needs to be done now by the Home Office to reassure the public.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, from these Benches we, too, are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the Statement, and broadly support the conclusions of Mr. Byford's review, though any such support must be provisional at this stage, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said, because of the short time one has had to consider the very serious matters disclosed by the review.
It is fairly clear from the review that there has been no attempt to cover up; no punches have been pulled, and it seems to be a very full and clear report. It reveals that reliance on tapes and letters was a tragic mistake, as were other matters which have already been mentioned. Since it is obvious that the manual indexing processes used in the police inquiries were not capable of bringing vital clues together, would the noble Lord the Minister agree that in crimes of great seriousness, and subject to safeguards of individual liberty and privacy which would satisfy the police

539
authorities in the country, it would be a legitimate use of computer technology to store such information on individuals as would enable the links to be made which might then help to lead to specific suspects, which clearly did not happen in this particular case?
Finally, would the noble Lord the Minister not agree that the report underlines once again the need to create, maintain and extend closer and better links between the police and the public?
3.56 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I say to both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, that I fully understand, as I know the rest of the House does, the deep concern which they have expressed about what the noble and learned Lord referred to as "one of the most disturbing Statements made to Parliament". But the fact of the matter is that it seemed most forcefully to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that what was needed in the present circumstances was an independent professional review of what has been an operational matter covering crimes which we know spread over a period of years running from 1975 to 1980, although of course the activities of this particular criminal may have spread over a wider period than that; and this is what Mr. Byford's report has indeed provided. If I may say so, the Library summary makes it clear, as both noble Lords were good enough to say, not only that the review was extremely thorough but that there has been no attempt to conceal shortcomings.
My Lords, having just said that perhaps I may try to reply to the points which were put to me. The lessons and action for the future are, of course, very clearly set out in the second half of the Library summary; and, indeed, action is already being taken—for instance, on the point about computers, which the noble Lord, Lord Evans, specifically raised. As Mr. Byford's report shows, the police in West Yorkshire considered the possibility of using computers for the major incident room records, but suitable facilities had not been developed. Work is now in hand to develop such facilities, and a Home Office circular to chief officers about this matter has already been issued earlier on this month.
Similarly, on the specific matter of training, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, understandably raised, again the recommendations as far as training is concerned are very clearly set out in the second half of the Library summary, and these will be considered urgently in the context of the Police Training Council.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of the rest of us in this House also welcome the frankness of this Statement by the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary? May I ask the noble Lord two specific questions, really on the two points he has just dealt with—first, computers and, secondly, training? First, on the point relating to computers and the particular point made in the right honourable gentleman's Statement about
540
the ineffectiveness of the major incident room, does the noble Lord realise that there are quite significant resource implications in this and in the recommendation as far as training is concerned, and that one of the problems facing the police service is the pressure on their budget imposed by many police authorities? Is this matter, too, going to be considered in the review which will take place in the Home Office?
Secondly, on the question of training, particularly of officers of the rank of superintendent and above, is the noble Lord aware that although there has been a substantial improvement in the reputation of the Police College in the recent past, nevertheless the resources made available for training at that level in the police service compare extremely unfavourably with the resources made available for comparable ranks in the armed services? Is the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Home Secretary prepared to consider the present resources made available to the Police College, to make it possible for them to provide courses of this kind which, clearly, are a matter of urgent priority at the moment?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may reply on the two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, the resource implications, which, as the noble Lord rightly says, are present as far as improving the use of computers—which I think he would agree with his experience is quite essential in the prosecution of these "major series crimes" (as Mr. Byford's report called them)—will be taken into account in considering the implementation of Mr. Byford's recommendations in that respect. As far as the resource implications for training are concerned, there are resource implications also for training which follow the Scarman Report. The report of the noble and learned Lord is to be debated in this House in about a fortnight's time. I would give the undertaking that those resource implications in the light of that report and of this report, will be taken urgently and seriously into account in the ambit of the police training council.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as has been said in many parts of the House after this very disquieting Statement, tribute ought to be paid to Mr. Byford and his colleagues for the very frank and open way in which their report has been delivered. It is a credit to the cleanliness of the administration of this country that such a report should appear. But the main reason for disquiet does not appear yet to have been expressed. If this were a report which followed upon an isolated murder and the inquiries made by the police, I would have said that we could turn to the Administration and say that an inquiry has been held into this one investigation which took place into this one crime and there appear to have been defects.
My Lords, this was a series of crimes announced to the public as being identical in some respects, and therefore pointing to one killer; and where, over a period of time in the public press and elsewhere, questions arose of a very critical nature as to why it was that these inquiries by the police and these investigations seemed to have produced no result. Therefore the question arises—and it is a vital one—why it was that an inquiry into the efficiency of the police and into what was happening in the rooms we heard of and into

541
what was being done by way of consultation with forensic experts, was not made by appropriate people during the course of these substantial periods and during the course of all these crimes; and I have not heard any recommendation made by the noble Lord the Minister.
If I may ask him this question, why was it that nothing appears to have been done either by the Home Office or the Inspectorate, or by those at the top of our police force, to inquire into the way in which the investigations were carried out, so that these errors and inefficiencies could have been corrected long since?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord's question must affect the work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. For practical reasons, an annual inspection of a police force can last only a few days and covers the full range of the force's activities. Mr. Byford's review, about which this Statement is concerned, was directed specifically to the Yorkshire Ripper investigation and involved 5 months' intensive work with the support of an expert team. Many of the weaknesses in the investigation became apparent only as a result of this special review.
So far as the position of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and of the Home Office generally is concerned, I would say to the House that during this tragic series of events in November 1979, Commander Nevill of the Metropolitan Police and a detective chief superintendent, as a matter of fact at the invitation of the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, examined the investigation and in January 1980 made recommendations to the chief constable and then, in November 1980, following an initiative by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, an advisory team of four senior officers from outside police forces and a senior Home Office forensic scientist reviewed the case and, in December 1980, reported their findings to the chef constable. It was just after that, that finally the criminal was apprehended.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, the two cases quoted are not the only ones or of the only type that are disturbing the public at the moment. May I therefore ask the noble Lord if he will consider other aspects which may need looking into as well?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am not clear from the noble Viscount's question what are the other aspects. Perhaps it will be possible for the noble Viscount to have a word with me afterwards.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I had in mind last night's television programme on rape. Many of us are very worried about that programme and the method of questioning and so on which went on in it. I did not wish to raise a different issue. That is why I put the question in the form that I did. I am sorry.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is a different issue. Perhaps I might consult the noble Viscount about it afterwards.

Mental Health (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
4.8 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Other amendments of definition of mental disorder]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("patient") and insert ("person concerned").
The noble Lord said: This follows Amendment No. 4. It deals with the term "person concerned" instead of "patient". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Wallace of Coslany Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Patients to be informed of rights.
. All patients admitted to hospital, whether under the provisions of the Principal Act or this Act or otherwise, shall be informed of their rights under the Principal Act and this Act verbally and in writing within a period of 24 hours from the time of their admission; and such information shall be given in a form appropriate to individual patients.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name and in that of my noble friends. The White Paper on the Mental Health Act which was published by the last Labout Government in 1978 accepted the proposal that all patients, whether admitted to hospital formally or informally, should be fully informed of their rights. This amendment relates specifically to the provision of this information as a legal requirement within the 24 hours following admission. Just as important is a continuing duty on the hospital to keep the patient informed, particularly of any change or proposed change in his status.
Lord Elton: May I ask whether the noble Lord is intending to discuss Amendment No. 13 with Amendment No. 9 in view of the similarity of the issue? If so, it would be as well to know at the outset.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: That was not my intention. If my amendment is accepted I do not know what will happen to Lord Winstanley's amendment. I am quite sympathetic to his amendment but I am not part of the alliance so there is a problem here. In fact I definitely refuse to be a part. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, can be of assistance.
Lord Winstanley: The Committee may have noticed that I have been exhibiting an uncharacteristic taciturnity hitherto in these proceedings. I must apologise for arriving with a dreadful cold. I say that merely so that the Committee will understand that doctors are just as delighted as anybody else to discuss their own ailments, and also that my contribution to these proceedings will be somewhat brief this afternoon.
On this point my noble friends and I have given some consideration to Amendment No. 9. We find it effective in certain ways and we might comment on those when we come to discussion on the amendment. Frankly, we prefer our own amendment which is similar. If it is for the convenience of the Committee that we discuss the amendments simultaneously, naturally we are only too happy to arrive at whatever solution is most satisfactory.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I do not want to be difficult but I think that my amendment is better than the noble Lord's amendment and goes much further. I am not trying to be difficult because this is not a Bill to get difficult about; it is a question of co-operation. If the noble Lord wishes to discuss the amendment it is all right with me; but I am dealing specifically with my amendment and I will not refer to Lord Winstanley's amendment. If he wishes to bring in his amendment, it is a free country and he is welcome. The Committee I am sure will be pleased to hear him, but not for too long of course. He is not always a very lengthy speaker.
I will resume as I started because this whole matter has been reduced to a state almost of confusion. The White Paper on the Mental Health Act published by the last Labour Government in 1978 accepted the proposal that all patients, whether admitted to hospital formally or informally, shall be fully informed of their rights. This amendment relates specifically to the provision of this information as a legal requirement within the first 24 hours following admission. However, just as important is a continuing duty on the hospital to keep the patient informed, particularly of any change or proposed change in his status. No duty to provide a patient with this information at present exists, although over the years since 1959 circulars have issued guidance in vague terms.
There is no point whatever in an individual enjoying particular rights unless he knows how and through whom they can be exercised. This proposal has been supported by the United Nations and World Health Organisation studies. The necessary information for the patient would include information on (a) the right to refuse treatment; (b) the right to a second opinion; (c) susceptibility to be detained under Section 30; (d) the right to leave hospital; and (e) the right to receive correspondence, together with rights in relation to mental health review tribunal applications and the role of the Mental Health Act commission.
In many cases a patient's disturbed mental state on admission may mean that he or she is not fully receptive to such explanation; one would understand that. Therefore, there should be every opportunity during admission for regular restatement of their rights and full opportunity for the patient to ask questions and to resolve uncertainties. It does not need my words to describe this amendment as very important because the whole tenor of this Bill—and I know that the noble Lord the Minister will accept this—lies within human rights. Human rights are to some extent enshrined in this Bill. Therefore, this amendment has this in mind. In my view it should be accepted. It is fundamental to the question of human rights that the affected individuals should be made fully aware of such rights as are embodied in this Bill or will be embodied after amendment. I have already said this at the beginning and it is perfectly true.
It is of no use whatever to talk about human rights in vague terms unless the individual affected by such rights understands them exactly or has someone to ensure that those rights are afforded to him. There is nothing so far in the Bill to that effect. I appeal to the Government and the Minister to go along the road towards accepting the amendment. If the Minister says that certain words may be adjusted, then that is
544
all right with me. What we want—and what I am sure the Committee wants—is some assurance from the Government that this very vital principle should be accepted and put into operation. I beg to move.
Lord Winstanley: After the previous brief exchange, I ought to make it utterly clear to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, that we are entirely in sympathy with the aims of his amendment. Anything I said before should not be taken to indicate otherwise. When I said that we had certain doubts about this amendment, they arise from drafting points. The amendment says:
"All patients admitted to hospital, whether under the provisions of the Principal Act or this Act or otherwise".
That means all patients—including maternity patients—within the wording of the Act must have their rights explained to them. Secondly, the requirement here is that patients should be informed of their rights. It seems to me that what is absolutely essential is that there should be a requirement to make it utterly certain that patients are not only informed of but understand their rights. That is rather more important than the mere technical matter of making sure that they are informed, whether by writing or verbally, as the noble Lord's amendment says.
This amendment has certain defects so far as its wording is concerned. I shall be interested to hear comments on that point. As written it appears to me to apply to all patients admitted to hospital for any purposes and in any circumstances. If I am wrong, then no doubt the noble Lord will correct me.
Baroness Trumpington: In rising to support Lord Wallace of Coslany's amendment, I should like to ask him a question. It is also on the wording. When a patient is informed verbally, that is fine; he may or may not understand it. If he is going to be shown a written board which is then taken away from him he may not understand it. I hope that it is made clear that the rights of a person would be left in written form with each individual. That is the only question which I wish to raise.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I thank the noble Baroness for intervening on that point. What I have in mind is that the individual shall possess the information in clear and definable written terms as well as being given it verbally. He can hand this to his next-of-kin, if necessary, to deal with it.
Lord Renton: There seems to be an omission from each of the Amendments, Nos. 9 and 13: namely, what is to happen when the patient is incapable of understanding? This may be because of his permanent mental state; it may be mental handicap, although we do not reckon that mentally handicapped people should become patients within the definition of the Act because they are not treatable. However, supposing the person concerned is not capable of understanding, however hard an attempt is made under Amendment No. 13 to ensure that the patient understands his rights. It is very difficult to ensure that the patient understands. Of course, it may be that the answer to this problem which I have mentioned is to bring in a relative, not necessarily the nearest relative—

545
we have to debate that yet, and it may not be the right expression anyway. But I would be uneasy about each of these amendments because I think they are incomplete.
Lord Wells-Pestell: I think the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has raised an important point; but simply because a hospital may have to admit a number of people who are not compos mentis and therefore cannot have the situation explained to them, that does not relieve society from providing the provision. Therefore I think the provision has to be provided for those who can understand or have ways and means of being communicated with so that they can understand what the situation is. We may have to look round for other additional means to cater for those who are in difficulties and who would not be able to understand the situation, but it does not relieve society of the responsibility of seeing that the provision is there.
If I may turn to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, if he will allow me to say so, I think the difficulty is that it does not apply to every hospital. We are talking about all patients admitted to hospital whether under the provision of the principal Act or otherwise. The principal Act here is the Mental Health Act 1959, so it really must apply to mental health patients going in under that particular heading. Therefore I do not think it can be interpreted as applying to every hospital, regardless of the discipline of the hospital. It may be that neither amendment really meets the total situation, but I think that the time factor must go in, and it seems to me a weakness of this particular amendment that it has no time limit. I believe it is important that this should be done immediately. Whether or not either or both need tidying up is a matter that can be looked at between now and Report stage, but I leave it to my noble friend to decide what he is going to do.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: I think there is a weakness in my noble friend's amendment, and it is the words "or otherwise". I think that is the point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, because all the provisions here apply only to persons detained under one or other Mental Health Act, and not to maternity patients. Pregnancy is not yet considered to be a mental disorder.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: May I briefly say that it is obvious to all of us with any knowledge of what goes on in psychiatric hospitals or those who deal with those afflicted with these illnesses that in many cases they are not able to understand what are supposed to be their rights as envisaged in this Bill. But I think we will find that in this Bill there will be a guardian, a social worker, the next of kin or a relative involved, and I would suggest that people who will be in one of those four categories should in their loco parentis role be apprised of what rights are available.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Being a member of a board of visitors, I find that in the penal institutions the inmates do have all their rights fully explained to them, it so happens by a member of staff. They are told of their right to appeal and of their right to see members of the board, visitors and so on. It really
546
amazes me that in mental institutions the—I must not call them inmates—patients do not have the same advantages. Therefore I strongly support the spirit of both the amendments.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: Perhaps we are talking about both amendments by now: I am not 100 per cent. sure but let us assume that we are, for the moment. As my noble friend Lord Winstanley said, I am completely behind the spirit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I think it is highly necessary that a clause of this kind is put into the Bill but I am behind my noble friend in saying that I want the word "understand" put in. I think it is important, despite the argument that has been going on about the number of patients in psychiatric hospitals who cannot understand. There will be no force in the amendment unless the word "understand" is there, whether it refers to the patient, a relative or a social worker. Just to "inform" is not enough.
May I turn for a moment to our amendment which uses the word "understand", which is the word I prefer. The reason we put it down relating to admission to hospital for assessment is that it particularly relates to that situation. I think that a great number of patients—probably the majority—who are admitted for assessment only would, because it is a short-term admission, not be aware of the rights they have to appeal to a mental health review tribunal. So I feel it is necessary to put it in to make certain that that patient too has the right to appeal to a mental health review tribunal.
Lord Auckland: I think the important thing about this amendment is that it is made firmly according to law: in other words, it must be made to stick legally. In a number of these hospitals one has patients from overseas countries where there are no relatives and perhaps no next of kin living in this country. Therefore we are up against the difficulty that it may involve perhaps the legal friends of the hospital or somebody of that kind.
I am a little worried about this 24-hour limit. I would be the very first to advocate that all inmates or patients in mental hospitals—and like many of your Lordships I have served on the committee of a mental hospital—should have as many rights as can possibly be given to them. But we must be realistic, particularly regarding those patients who are quite unable, through circumstances over which they have no control, to advocate their rights. I am very unhappy about this 24-hour limit of time, particularly in cases such as occur in Epsom, the area where I live, where we have seven large mental hospitals, with patients, and indeed staff, from all over the world, and it may be that a near relative or even a friend cannot be traced. I would hope that my noble friend would look at the length of time in the clause. But, having said that, I and I think most of the Committee would support strongly the principle behind the amendment.
Lord Elton: I think this has been a valuable debate. I do not want to say "I told you so" but it was quite useful that we should have dealt with both amendments together in the end. I should like to say that I, too, favour the principles embodied in both amendments,

547
though I fear I find deficiencies in each. Certainly the Government accept the importance of ensuring that all patients detained under the Act are informed of their rights. One of the principal aims of the Bill, after all, is to increase the rights of detained patients, and it is important that they should know what they are. But procedures already exist to make sure that patients are informed of their rights, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has assured your Lordships. A leaflet is issued to all patients detained under long-term powers when they are admitted, which explains the rights simply and clearly—of course, in cases where the patient is capable of understanding a leaflet. We intend that the leaflet will in future also be issued to patients detained under section 25, telling them of their rights, newly introduced by this Bill—if your Lordships agree to introduce it—to apply to a mental health review tribunal. Guidance about admission procedures is being prepared for health and local authorities, from which detailed local codes of practice can be constructed, and this will refer to the importance of informing patients of their rights. Therefore, I am content that what should be done is being done. But I am also aware of the feeling of the Committee, in the case of both amendments, that we should do something further.
Looking at the first amendment which has, been tabled under the names of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and his noble friends, it seems to me that the amendment contains a number of deficiencies. First, the 24-hour limit for informing patients appears to me, as it does to my noble friend Lord Auckland, to be inappropriate. A patient may be unsettled or disturbed during the first hours or days after admission. He may be better able to understand the information if he receives it somewhat later. It might, therefore, be more appropriate to require that the patient be informed within a reasonable time of admission. I accept that there are difficulties, and I see the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, sagaciously shaking his head. A reasonable time is an elastic term and it may be necessary to find another term. We are becoming expert in finding terms in this department.
Secondly, the requirement to give the information,
"in a form appropriate to individual patients",
implies that a different format should be used for different patients. However, to make the process manageable, hospital authorities will need, as now, to use a standard format of written information for all patients. It does not mean that there need be no interpretation of that—
Baroness Jeger: May I make a point on that, because when we were drafting this amendment we had it in mind, in using the words,
"in a form appropriate to individual patients",
to cover linguistic difficulties. It is no use giving someone a leaflet in English, if he speaks only Urdu There may also be other handicaps, such as deafness or blindness, which need special treatment. I thank the noble Lord for letting me explain that.
Lord Elton: Exactly. The noble Baroness and I, and my noble friend, are all addressing ourselves to the same
548
problem; that is, getting the information, which we want the patient to have, to the patient in a form which he can comprehend—which, as my noble friend Lord Renton has said, may well verge upon the impossible.
May I draw your Lordships' attention briefly to some technical deficiencies in the proposed new clause? It refers to "All patients admitted to hospital" under the Act as amended "or otherwise". This encompasses voluntary, as well as detained, patients and is therefore outside the scope of the Act. Any rewording would need to make it clear that the provision applies only to patients detained under the principal Act, as amended.
As regards the second amendment, which stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and his noble friends, there would be practical drawbacks, also, to an amendment on the lines which he suggested. It would be difficult to define exactly what action the medical practitioner concerned is expected to take. It would be difficult for the practitioner concerned to know at what point he has fulfilled his duty, particularly in cases where the degree of understanding by the patient is difficult to assess. For these reasons, the kind of suggestion raised in the amendment is generally considered best left to guidance, rather than dealt with in legislation.
However, as I have said, I accept that it is important to ensure that patients detained under Section 25 understand their right to apply to a tribunal, and this is where the noble Lord's amendment strikes. A patient detained under Section 25, who wishes to apply, must do so within the first 14 days of detention. It is essential, therefore, that he is fully informed at the outset, particularly as there is no alternative mechanism for a patient's case to be heard by a tribunal, if the patient does not himself apply. For patients detained under long-term powers, in contrast, there will be an automatic tribunal hearing after six months' detention, and it may be for this reason that the noble Lord introduced his amendment to strike at this point in the Bill and not at another. Therefore, I accept that the amendment serves a valuable purpose and that the advantages outweigh the practical—but I am now running into the point at which I wish to speak to both amendments simultaneously—
Lord Wallace of Coslany: Why not do so?
Lord Elton: No. I do not respond to remarks from noble Lords who have not risen to their feet. We are in favour of doing what your Lordships want, which is to place a recognition in the Bill of the duty to enlighten patients as far as may be, and as speedily as may be, of their rights under the Bill. I hope that noble Lords, moving both amendments, will bear with me when I ask them not to press their amendments today if I undertake to introduce at Report stage an amendment which meets the wishes of the Committee on this point, so far as I can manage to do so.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister sits down and other noble Lords get up, may I just put the record straight? I said that in penal institutions inmates had everything explained very fully to them, and that is why in mental hospitals the patients also ought to have the same facilities.
Lord Elton: I am sorry. I misread the noble Baroness on that point. But it does not affect my determination to do what all your Lordships seem to want me to do, in so far as it proves possible and practical.
Lord Kilmarnock: May I make a suggestion? There is a great deal of sympathy in the Committee towards both Amendment No. 9 and Amendment No. 13, which have some merits and some demerits. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has kindly offered to come forward with something to satisfy the general feeling in the Committee, and may I suggest that both amendments might be taken and rolled together in a more fruitful whole? I was rather attracted by the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod. In a case where the understanding was very much in doubt, but where the understanding could be achieved, could there he a fall-back position? I think that the noble Baroness mentioned the next-of-kin, the social worker and various other people who might be brought in. My suggestion is that when the noble Lord takes this away, he might also consider allowing for a fallback position in a case where understanding was virtually impossible to achieve.
Lord Elton: Of course, I will do my best to meet the wishes of as many noble Lords as possible. Whether what the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, proposes will prove to be practicable I could not at first blush say, but I will certainly look at it.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I am very grateful, indeed, for the debate that we have had and for the welcome approach by the Minister. It almost made me feel that it was Christmas all over again. I would explain that this 24-hour limit is rather important and we must bear this in mind, because, under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, as the Minister has suggested, a reasonable time might mean this year, next year, some time, never. It is so indefinite. So far as the next-of-kin are concerned, I certainly have it in mind that that would be a common-sense action on the part of all authorities receiving advice from the Minister. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, who has now disappeared from sight, that I agree that even maternity cases have rights, but I never, for the life of me, thought that maternity cases would come under this amendment. But, even so, maternity cases have rights.
The Minister very clearly accepts the principle and that is very important, indeed. What I want to know is this. He has very kindly offered to come back with an amendment. That is fine, because we shall all be very pleased to see the Government bring in an amendment. Nobody is searching at all for party likes or dislikes in this Bill. All I want to get from the Minister is that if he comes back with an amendment, making notification to the patient or the next-of-kin, as the case may be, a statutory duty, we shall not have some memorandum going around. We want this to be enshrined in the Bill in some way or another. I accept that both our amendments have frailties. That is because we are perhaps not so well advised as the noble Lord, who is blessed with such competent people. If, however, that undertaking is given, nobody will want to press the amendment at this stage.
Lord Elton: I think the noble Lord wishes me to repeat what I have already said: that if he withdraws his amendment it is my intention to come to the House at Report with an amendment which will accomplish as much as it is possible and practical for us to accomplish of what he wants. I cannot be more precise than that. Now we have to sit down and start drafting, as the noble Lord sat down and started drafting. We have to iron out the difficulties and consult those people who will have to operate it. Therefore, I do not undertake, and the noble Lord will not undertake, either, that I shall satisfy him until he has seen what I propose. I have undertaken to do my best. If he does not like it, he can persuade your Lordships to throw it out.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, draws this discussion to a conclusion, I ought to say that, not having moved Amendment No. 13, my noble friends and I would not be in a position to withdraw it. Therefore it seems to me that this is the only opportunity we may have to say to the Minister how grateful we are to him for the assurance which he has given. This is a very important point, and I am very glad to hear that it has been taken on board by the noble Lord and that it will be met. We must make absolutely certain that the rights are fully understood. Without understanding what those rights are, they are not of very much use to anybody. If that principle is fully accepted in your Lordships' Committee, then I and my noble friends will be very happy.
Lord Elton: I must protect myself from any misunderstanding. I cannot guarantee, nor can anybody else, that any person will be made to understand anything. I can only guarantee that best efforts shall be made at the best time to achieve this.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I fully understand what the Minister says. I have often felt the same when I have been addressing the Government Front Bench! I accept that if the noble Lord is to move an amendment it will be embodied in the statute. I was going to ask whether there would be a statutory duty, but if the noble Lord moves an amendment it will obviously be in the statute. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Admission for assessment]:
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 23, after ("assessment") insert ("and/or short-term treatment").
The noble Baroness said: With the indulgence of the Committee and before speaking to this amendment, may I say how sorry I am that my 12 amendments were tabled so late in the day? I realise what a great deal of difficulty and trouble this has caused the Minister. I realise also what a great deal of work it has meant for his private office and for those responsible for drafting and advising him on the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, all I can say is that there are no excuses but that there are the extenuating circumstances of the weather and the railway. May I also thank the Public Bill Office

551
for taking down a number of amendments on the telephone and therefore undertaking a great deal of extra work?
In moving Amendment No. 10, I am very conscious that Amendment No. 11 is to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington. He probably knows much more about this subject than I. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, will agree that the reality of the situation is that patients who are in hospital for 28 days receive treatment, although it is not—I was going to say legal or acknowledged. My experience, having worked as a social worker in a mental hospital, is that if it is possible for patients during those 28 days to receive treatment it is also possible to find out how they can happily be discharged afterwards. I should like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, thinks. He inserts the words, ("and if necessary treatment"). My amendment says, "insert ('and/or short-term treatment')". I very much hope that patients going in for treatment on a 28-day order will be able to receive treatment legally during those 28 days. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Derwent): It has been suggested that the word "and" ought to come out of this amendment. Is it the wish of the noble Baroness that the amendment should read "or"?
Baroness Faithfull: No, I do not think so. Can it not remain "and/or"?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am not making any suggestion. It has been suggested to me by the Clerks that that is what was intended.
Baroness Faithfull: What I had intended was that there would be some patients who would do well with short-term treatment and that there would be some who would not. Therefore, it would be "and/or".
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I accept that. Amendment proposed, Page 2, line 23, after ("assessment") insert ("and/or short-term treatment"). The Question is that this amendment be agreed to.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before this amendment is agreed to, may I suggest that a very much better form of drafting would be to say "if necessary", which has exactly the same meaning as "and/or" and is less inelegant.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: May I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, what she means by short-term treatment? Does not short-term treatment sometimes have long-term effects?
Lord Campbell of Croy: While my noble friend is considering her answer to that question, may I inquire about the drafting? The point which has been put from the Chair is that "and/or" is not normally met with in legislation. Although we all understand what is meant—and it is very helpful that my noble friend Lady Faithfull has explained that her amendment states exactly what she intends—it is not probably the form in which, if this amendment is adopted, the Bill
552
ought finally to be drafted. So that may be in favour of another form of words.
Lord Hunter of Newington: I am in agreement with the noble Baroness on two counts. There should be an amendment in line 23 and also in line 28.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is the noble Lord speaking to Amendment No. 10 or to his own amendment? I have put the question. I do not know what situation we have reached. I take it that the noble Baroness will answer?
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to be guided by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington. As a doctor, he will be able to guide me. At this moment, therefore, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, would very kindly speak to Amendment No. 10?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: First, I must put the terms of the amendment to the Committee. I am asking the noble Baroness whether she wants to say "and/or" or whether the more usual form of "or" is what she really intends?
Baroness Faithfull: At this moment I will say "or".
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment proposed: Page 2, line 23, after ("assessment") insert ("or short-term treatment").
Lord Hunter of Newington: The noble Baroness and I are in agreement. I would suggest that Amendment No. 10 should read "and necessary treatment". If we said this, then we should make it clear that treatment could be given and that it should be limited to the treatment necessary to improve the patient's mental state within the limited period.
Baroness Faithfull: I am happy—I am not sure of the protocol here—to withdraw this amendment so that the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, may propose his Amendment No. 11.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment—
Lord Hughes: Before that, is it not the case that what the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, has suggested is that the noble Baroness has gone further than he, in that she has recognised the need for an amendment in line 23 as well as in line 28 and therefore has it in both places? What the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, if I understand him correctly, has invited her to do is to substitute the word "necessary" for "short-term" in both amendments. If that is done, the noble Lord is supporting the noble Baroness, and I should like to do the same.
Lord Elton: It appears to me that we are not going to get this absolutely right before Report. Perhaps we ought to debate the principles now involved and consider at the end of our discussion whether we can devise a form of words which will meet what we want to do.
Baroness Faithfull: In view of what has been said, I will at this stage withdraw the amendment, read Hansard and come back at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Admission for assessment.]
4.50 p.m.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 10A:
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: As will be seen, Amendment No. 10A is merely a paving amendment for Amendment No. 13, which we have already discussed, and also for Amendment No. 13A. Perhaps it would be appropriate if, when speaking to Amendment No. 10A, I speak at the same time to Amendment No. 13A, because it will be readily understood that I shall not be moving Amendment No. 13 when the time comes. Amendment No. 10A is merely a paving amendment for the later Amendment No. 13A, and with the leave of the Committee I will now speak to that amendment.
Amendment No. 13A is a simple amendment which is self-explanatory. It comes entirely within the spirit of the Bill. The Bill aims to increase the safeguards for patients who are admitted for observation or assessment in this way, and this particular amendment refers to the possible predicament of patients who are repeatedly admitted for assessment or observation. For those who are in touch with the actual practice within hospitals and who deal with these cases of people who come in for short-term periods of observation or assessment it is really rather an unhappy situation from time to time to see the same patient coming in repeatedly, at regular intervals.
Neither I nor any of my noble friends are for a moment saying that that is never necessary. Indeed, I am sure that there are circumstances under which it will prove to be necessary for a person to come in for a limited period under restriction and be observed and assessed. It may be possible, and it may even be essential, that the same patient, having returned home, may later have to be reassessed. Nevertheless I feel, as do many of my noble friends, that there are certain inherent dangers in the possible use of a device to make repeated short term admission for assessment virtually the equivalent of a long term detention and admission. This amendment merely seeks to make absolutely sure that where that situation is occurring, where a patient being readmitted under these short term provisions, then those circumstances shall at least be drawn to the attention of the Mental Health Act Commission so that consideration could be given to it in order that any necessary steps might be taken if in fact it is thought that steps are necessary.
I believe it will be clear to noble Lords and to the noble Lord the Minister that my noble friends and I might have preferred (and I say this in the light of later amendments which we are not discussing) instead of the words, "Mental Health Act Commission" the words, "Mental health review tribunal", or perhaps even "Health Advisory Service", which actually does have powers to do something. What we are doing at this stage is merely ventilating a point which we consider to be of some importance, and I propose therefore to regard Amendment No. 13A as a probing
554
amendment on which we can perhaps have the Government's comments as to what their attitude is to the occasional use of these short term provisions to create a situation which virtually amounts to a long term admission because of repeated admission in the short term way for assessment. I am really speaking to Amendment No. 10A, which is paving, and I have now spoken to Amendment No. 13A. Noble Lords will have realised from the earlier discussion that I will not be moving Amendment No. 13 when we come to it. I beg to move Amendment No. 10A.
Lord Elton: Your Lordships will no doubt know that Clauses 41 and 42 give the new Mental Health Act Commission the duty of keeping under review the exercise of the powers of detention under the Act and the Bill. The amendment for which this is a paving amendment would require responsible medical officers to report to the commission just one particular possible occurrence, the admission for assessment of a patient who has been detained in the previous six months. This may be something the commission will wish to review in order to investigate the problems which the noble Lord has just eloquently described. I do not agree, though, that the responsible medical officer should have the onus of reporting such cases. The commission might wish to ask doctors to co-operate in reporting arrangements, as in this amendment, but they might wish them to co-operate in some other manner. They might find ways if linking their inquiries to patients' records. It is really a matter for which we are creating a specialist body. It is rather like teaching one's grandson to suck eggs when he is going to be a director of the egg sucking factory. I believe we should leave it to the commission to decide how to go about their function of reviewing the use of powers of detention.
More generally, I am not at all sure that I agree that admission for assessment of a patient who has been detained previously is prima facie evidence of misuse of the powers of the Act or of other infringement of the patient's rights—it may be that it was not the noble Lord's intention to suggest this but I would like it on the record—because there are many circumstances where this would be entirely appropriate in medical terms. Moreover, the amendment would lead to a great deal of work by psychiatrists and commission members, which would not be an effective way to investigate some of the misuses of powers. In conclusion, I believe that we should leave it to the commission to do the job.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am not very satisfied with that reply. I do not think it is a matter of vital importance because in most cases the hospital where the patient is received will know that he has been in before and will doubtless report the matter in a routine way to the commission. But if another hospital is involved, I believe that the commission will have no means of knowing this. It is probably desirable that this fact, if it is found by the practitioner—and there is no burden on him to find out; it is only if he knows—should be reported. I do not see how psychiatrists and the commission are going to be given a lot of work; I do not believe that they are going to be given any work as a result of this amendment. I do not think this is a

555
terribly important matter; we do not want to divide on it, but in general I do not believe that a fairly sensible question has received an entirely sensible answer.
Lord Elton: I always strive to satisfy the noble Lord, ever since we sat on opposite sides of the House the other way around. Maybe I succeeded better then than I do now. This was not a "brush-off". This was not a frivolous reply. It seems to me that the Mental Health Act Commission is a statutory body which specialises in the welfare and handling of the patients whom we are now discussing, under the legislation we are now discussing. It is for that body to evolve an expertise in doing this. For us to identify one possible sort of miscarriage of justice and to place it in statute, and to leave the commission with the business of making all the arrangements for other abuses which may become clear later, seems to me to be an oddly piecemeal way of going about the job. To prefer this particular form of unfairness and to promote it as being so important that it has to be in the Act, whereas the practice and the experience of the body may well discover that it rarely of ever happens and that there are other things which we have never guessed at which are far more important, is not the way to treat this matter. It is not for legislation to deal with a particular foreseen probability or possibility and at the same time leave the whole of the rest of the waters uncharted.
I believe we are appointing an effective and distinguished body to operate in a narrow and specialist area, and that it is far better that they should evolve the ground rules and that they should take the consultants with them. Since the commission will be involved in visiting hospitals and talking to the consultants, I have no doubt that if cases such as this occur consultants will report them in the natural course of events. If they do not, the commission will demand that they do. I do not think it is necessary for us to lay that burden on them at this stage. I hope that I am not straining at a gnat, but I believe your Lordships will be if you put this into the Bill.
Lord Winstanley: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his reply and I will study it more carefully at a later stage when I have an opportunity to read it. I will also, I think it right to say, seek further advice from professional colleagues and others as to the extent of a possible undesirable practice actually happening. I think the noble Lord himself said that in many circumstances it is entirely desirable, and even necessary and essential, that a certain patient be readmitted for a short term for observation. In case it was not clear, let me make it clear that I do accept that that may be entirely necessary and therefore must be provided for. But I also still have a feeling that there is the possibility of the occasional repeated use of short-term compulsory admission to such an extent that it finally becomes long-term admission. I think that is a possible abuse which perhaps ought to be looked at.
I certainly take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the Mental Health Act Commission would in its normal duties have a responsibility for overlooking the working of the Act in general and that matters of this kind would undoubtedly come to its notice. But I would like to seek further advice on this
556
matter. I will certainly read most carefully what the noble Lord has said. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his support because I think that he, too, understands that there is a possibility of abuse which ought to be looked at, though whether it should be spelled out in the Bill I accept is a separate matter. With that I would ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 13A not moved.]
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
("() In section 27(1) of the principal Act, for the words "either by the nearest relative of the patient or" there shall be substituted the word "only".".).
The noble Baroness said: We now come on to a slightly different aspect. Amendment No. 14 refers back to Section 27 of the Mental Health Act 1959. Section 27(1) says:
"Subject to the provisions of this section application for the admission of a patient for observation or for treatment may be made either by the nearest relative of the patient or by a mental welfare officer".
This amendment seeks to delete "either by the nearest relative of the patient" and leaves only "mental welfare officer", which, under the new Bill, will be an approved social worker.
Many psychiatrists in this country admit patients on the recommendation or on the application of the nearest relative, and very often, and perhaps for good reason up to date, have not consulted with the social worker. As I understand this new Bill—and the social worker world welcome it very much indeed—there is a movement towards greater partnership between social workers in the community and the doctors in the hospitals. This partnership obviously must be developed and can only be developed if it is well known what the facilities are in the community, and by that I mean perhaps hostels, perhaps group homes, perhaps special care, case-work care given by social workers, perhaps another relative who would be willing to take on the patient. If the case is not in the first place referred to the social worker the relative does not know what the alternatives are. If the case is referred in the first instance to the social worker, the social worker is able to make it clear to the relatives what are the alternatives.
Very often relatives may be absolutely desperate, at their wits end as to what to do with the patient, and therefore, very understandably, in their own interest they apply for admission to a mental hospital. They themselves would be pleased if they knew that there was an alternative in the community, perhaps in the form of a hostel or another family that would take the patient in. Therefore, in moving this amendment I am making the plea that Section 27 of the 1959 Act be amended, so that the application is to the social worker and not to the nearest relative. This would mean that the nearest relative would talk to the social worker and would learn what the alternatives were. It is for this reason that I beg leave to move this amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: May I just say that I am rather surprised at the noble Baroness putting this forward and taking away the family responsibility. I feel that there should be some flexibility. I should like to see a close relative involved—maybe not the closest relative because they may not be compatible, because relationships break down; but I do think one should not hand over responsibility to the state. Some people are very proud and do not want to go to the social services.
Baroness Faithfull: What is the difference from the point of view of the state and the health service? They are both state services. Therefore you are not taking away the responsibility from the nearest relative. You are only giving a wider choice to the nearest relative, as to whether he or she wishes hospital or, say, a hostel or something in the community. My experience is that there are many relatives who do not want to ask for the patient to be admitted to a mental hospital, but because they do not know what the alternatives are they have no choice. By referring this matter in the first instance to the approved social worker they have a much more dignified position because they have a choice of hospital or community care.
Baroness Jeger: May I ask the noble Baroness a question? Surely the possibility of offering varying ways to help the patient is really a matter for the family doctor. It has been my experience that a conscientious family doctor takes the greatest care to put the alternatives before the patients and families concerned.
Lord Thurlow: May I say that I share the uneasiness expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, about this amendment. The social services have limited resources, and in my experience many social workers—and I would expect this to apply to approved social workers in the future—are overburdened and are sometimes unable to get on to cases with the speed they would wish, or to devote the necessary amount of time to them. I think it would be a great mistake to remove from the nearest relative, or indeed the close relatives, such responsibility as is at present contemplated under the Bill.
Lord Winstanley: I, too, initially had certain reservations about this amendment, but I am bound to say that some of those reservations and anxieties were somewhat allayed by the explanatory words of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that the real intention is that there should be a wider range of choice to make absolutely certain that the responsible relative—not necesssarily the next of kin, but the relative who is perhaps on the receiving end of the potential patient, if I may put it that way—is made fully aware of the various possibilities. That, I am quite sure, is admirable and is something which should be supported.
However, it seems to me that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is moving an amendment which would work very well in an ideal world—in a world in which all social services departments were fully staffed and in which all patients were under perhaps the kind of regular review and supervision that we would all hope for but as regards which in certain areas of the country,
558
particularly at the moment in times of local authority cuts and shortages, the actual functioning of the social services departments is not, frankly, in all cases ideal.
Therefore, while I have some reservations I believe that the role of the relative, whichever particular relative it is, is crucial and clearly the relative's views have to be heard and listened to; and that is understood and accepted, I know, by the noble Baroness. I have those initial anxieties and I accept the point which has been made that it is very important indeed that the relative concerned should have the opportunity of the kind of advice which the social worker can give, and that therefore this should be a collective decision. That of course is something for which we should work. I am well aware that this is the kind of amendment which the social workers themselves would like to see included in the Bill. Indeed, so would I like to see it included in the Bill if I could be quite certain that it would work in precisely the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has spelled out. If I were sure of that, then I would be sure of supporting the amendment. Perhaps the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, may enlighten us a little further. However, I think it right that I should make my minor reservations known at this stage.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to pursue the matter further. I think that from what we have heard from the Benches opposite and from the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, we are looking at the position of the social workers now and gearing the Bill to the social worker's situation as it is at present. I believe that we shall never improve the social work service, which this Bill intends to do at a later stage, unless we get the law right and the social workers must implement the law as it is laid down. If we pass a law because there are not good social work services, then that to my mind is a wrong law and we would be doing a disservice to the patients.
Later on in the Bill—and it is not for us now to discuss it—there is a recommendation concerning the social workers and the social work service from two points of view: first, the management of the social work service—the mental health service within the social work service; and, secondly, the training of the social workers. I do not want to embark on that now, but if it is done properly and well then it will be possible, we hope, for us to work towards giving a good social work service. And in giving a good social work service we give to the relatives of patients and to the patients themselves a wider choice and a more dignified way of living rather than only that of admission to hospitals.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should like to join those who are expressing uneasiness about this amendment. It seems to me that what the noble Baroness has at the back of her mind is to safeguard the patient against abuse from an evil member of the family. We have all read books about this and some of us have actually met it. Clearly there must be a safeguard. It seems to me that Section 28 of the 1959 Act deals with this matter and says that there have to be two doctors, one of whom has to be approved by the local authority, and the other has, if possible, to have had previous acquaintance of the patient. That seems to me to be the kind of safeguard which is more

559
effective than anything a mental health officer could give. So I doubt whether the noble Baroness is really making a valid point and I think that we should be rather inclined to oppose this amendment if it came to a vote.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: We have had a very interesting debate on this matter with very divided views and I shall now give the views of the Government. I appreciate the weight of my noble friend's argument that mental welfare officers have a very valuable input to make in decisions about the future of a mentally disordered person, including decisions about compulsory admission to hospital or guardianship. In most circumstances I am sure that it is right that this officer should be involved in discussions with the family before the final decision is taken to make an application under the Mental Health Act. In most cases it is the mental welfare officer who makes the application. But the provision that the patient's nearest relative may be the person to make the application should, I believe, be retained for a number of reasons.
It may be the case, for example, in a crisis intervention service, that the family is already closely involved with the treatment and care of the patient and the patient's nearest relative may be the most appropriate person to make the application. It is sometimes important for the next of kin to know that he or she is in control—that may help to involve the family fully in plans for the patient's treatment, which is often a key to successful rehabilitation. Most applications are made by mental welfare officers but the present arrangements allow for flexibility, and I think that some noble Lords agree that we should maintain flexibility.
A separate consideration is that it may not, regrettably, always be possible to involve mental welfare officers. That is more likely to happen in an emergency, and we shall be discussing a separate amendment on the emergency admission procedures. But some local authorities do not find themselves able to provide an out of hours service over weekends, or may have temporary operational difficulties, for example, because of staff illness. In such cases it may be appropriate, and best for the patient, that the nearest relative should be able to make an application.
As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, mentioned just now, there may be a fear that the nearest relative has the power to "put the patient away". We must remember all the other safeguards—for detention for more than 72 hours there must be two medical recommendations from doctors who have to be satisfied that the patient needs to be in hospital and needs to be detained. After an application is made the patient can apply to a mental health review tribunal. We will be setting up the Mental Health Act Commission to keep under review the way powers of detention are used. I do not think therefore, that there is any danger of misuse of the provision that the nearest relative may make an application. As the Act stands the nearest relative does not have to make the application but he or she may do so. I hope I have satisfied my noble friend and the Committee that this should continue to be the case.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask him whether he thinks that "a close relative" would be more satisfactory than "the nearest relative"? It just might not be practicable to get hold of the nearest relative; he or she may be in America, Kuwait or anywhere. A close relative might be the one that had a better relationship with the mentally ill patient or person.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may reply to the narrow point which the noble Baroness has raised. Quite apart from the difficulty of getting hold of somebody who may be a long way off, I would draw the attention of the noble Baroness to the provisions of Clause 14 which seek to do exactly what she is seeking to do, which is to substitute for the closest relative the person who has acted as if they were the closest relative in the table of what I call kindred and affinity which appears in the principal Act.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Thank you, my Lords.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Cullen for his reply. I should like to pick up just one point because I think he said that there would sometimes not be an approved social worker available. If this Bill goes through and if the managerial background is set up (which is envisaged, I think, in the notes which we read) and if the social workers are to be trained—many of them at the moment are not—there would be a full weekend, around-the-clock service. Perhaps I might add that, as with the doctors, many social workers—and I certainly have done so—get up in the middle of the night, night after night to deal with these cases. We reckon to do that. It is obvious that this idea has sent a kind of rippling shock through the Committee. I still believe that it was the right amendment to move, and I still believe that it should be carried into effect. However, I should like to think on this matter, read Hansard tomorrow and, if necessary, bring it forward again at the Report stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
("() After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) No compulsory admission shall be made without interview by an approved doctor and an approved social worker except in respect of a patient whose current condition is such as to give reasonable grounds for believing that there is an immediate risk of harm to himself or to others or of damage to property, or that he is likely to abscond before he can be examined by an approved doctor.".").
The noble Baroness said: In some ways we are on the same subject again because this amendment deals with emergencies. Virtually the recommendation is that in an emergency the first application should be made to an approved social worker. I have dealt with many emergencies before they have reached the hospital and in a number of cases I have been able to offer an alternative, so that the patient has, in fact, never gone to the hospital.
In this case I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to what is known as the crisis intervention service, a service which I hope will grow throughout this country. It is run, from St. Margaret's House, Bethnal Green, by the social services department of Tower Hamlets and the mental hospitals in that area. It provides a 24-hour service on the part of social workers as well as on the part of doctors. Very often the first referral goes straight to the social worker, who investigates and, if necessary, spends time with the family; sometimes the social worker is even able to save the doctor being called and prevent a case going to the doctor directly. If the social worker is not going to refer the case on, he must of course give reasons, I think in writing.
However, this amendment poses the same principle as the last amendment, which is that relatives should be helped at a moment of crisis by someone who can give them the alternatives. I have read and dealt with many cases where the relatives have become distraught and where, with help, they are able not to make an application, even in a case of an emergency. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: This amendment seems to me to repeat conditions which are already in the 1959 Act. First, Section 29 provides for an emergency application for admission for assessment. The applicant and the doctor who makes the supporting medical recommendation must be satisfied that:
"the patient ought to be detained in the interests of his own health or safety or with a view to the protection of other persons".
The amendment would limit the conditions which apply already only by delaying admission which was needed urgently in the interests of the patient's health. My noble friend spoke earlier about the importance of recognising that Section 25 is a treatment power, and I made clear our agreement with that principle. It therefore seems strange to provide that a patient could be admitted quickly it he was likely to damage property but not if he urgently needed treatment to prevent a deterioration of his mental condition.
Secondly, Section 29 can be used only if the applicant and the doctor are satisfied that admission for assessment is of "urgent necessity" and that it would cause "undesirable delay" to comply with Section 25; for example, by waiting for a second medical recommendation from a doctor who is approved under Section 28 as having special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder. I am at one with my noble friend that if admission can reasonably be delayed until two medical recommendations have been obtained, one from a doctor who knows the patient and one from a "Section 28 doctor", then that should be done. That is exactly what the Act provides. But there are cases where "undesirable delay" would be caused by waiting for an interview with a Section 28 doctor, and I believe that emergency admission should then be possible if the conditions in Sections 25 and 29 are satisfied. I hope my noble friend is persuaded that her amendment would not add to the existing safeguards.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank my noble friend Lord Cullen for that reply. I should like to think about this and reconsider the situation and, if necessary, come
562
back to it at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Craigmyle: This is the only part of the Bill which amends Section 25 of the principal Act. It occurred to me to raise the question as to whether Section 25 is really necessary at all. The amendments which we were considering a few minutes ago seem to indicate quite clearly that it is very difficult indeed to separate completely assessment from treatment. If that is so, then the whole point of admission for assessment only seems to lose its validity. The other point that strikes me is that in the equivalent Scottish Act there is nothing to match Section 25. There is no admission for assessment procedure at all. If we do not need it in Scotland, why do they need it in England and Wales?
Lord Elton: I was most interested to hear what the noble Lord said about the Scottish legislation. There are a number of differences between our Act and the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960. In this case there is an important similarity. If a patient is admitted for treatment under Section 24 of the Scottish Act, under criteria which are broadly the same as those in our own Section 26, he may be detained for up to one year. But the Scottish Act provides that the responsible medical officer must examine the patient before the end of 28 days' detention and must inform the Mental Welfare Commission if he does not discharge the patient. Therefore, the principle of a review after 28 days is common to both Acts.
I should also say that a short initial period is important for a number of reasons, and that is recognised on both sides of the Border. It reassures the patient that he will not be held in hospital indefinitely. It ensures that thorough consideration is given at an early stage to deciding whether long-term detention is appropriate at all. In most cases it is not necessary and the patient is detained for no more than four weeks. Conversely, detention for assessment enables the two doctors and the mental welfare officer to get the information they need in order to decide what long-term plans to make for the patient's treatment and welfare. Without Section 25 it would be more difficult for those concerned to decide whether the patient really needed to be detained for detention. I hope that that answers the point that the noble Lord raised, and I must thank him for giving me notice of it because I confess that there are small gaps in my knowledge of Scottish law.
Lord Craigmyle: I am much obliged to my noble friend.
Baroness Faithfull: While we are discussing whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill, I wonder whether I could draw attention to the guidelines on page 30 which were submitted to some of us, in which it is stated:
"A person may be mentally ill or may need the definition of mental handicapped or severe mental handicapped or psychopathic disorder and yet not be in need if medical treatment in a hospital, for instance, can be treated in the community".

563
On this question of community care, very little money has been given to community care as compared with hospital care. The Green Paper, Care in the Community, has been published. I think I am right in saying—and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, will correct me if I am wrong—that in the Kings College Hospital area £44 million is spent on hospital care and £3½ million on community care. In the Guy's Hospital area even with a smaller population I think it is the same proportion.
If it is intended that we should develop community care for patients who are mentally—the new word—impaired, or who are ill—and many can be cared for in the community—are we going to have the resources? I would also draw attention to the crisis intervention service which has kept so many patients out of mental hospitals, which is in need of financial help from both the health and social services. Under Clause stand part, I would draw attention to the need for much more resources for community care as compared with hospital care.
Lord Elton: I hardly think that your Lordships will want to use this occasion for a debate on Government policy on Care in the Community. I can only reaffirm that it is the Government's policy to get as many people as possible out of institutions and into either smaller institutions or into the community direct, and to take note of the priorities which the noble Baroness thinks there should be. I am tempted to launch into a defence of our policy, indeed into a promotion of what we are doing and propose to do, but in view of the number of amendments down I think I should resist this opportunity and merely say that I hear what the noble Baroness says.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Admission for treatment]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19:
Page 3, line 30, leave out first ("handicap") and insert ("impairment").
Page 3, line 30, leave out second ("handicap") and insert ("impairment").
Page 3, line 34, leave out ("handicap") and insert ("impairment").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 follow on Amendment No. 3, and I gave notice to your Lordships that I would be moving the consequentials en bloc, and I now beg leave to move Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 together.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Craigmyle Lord Craigmyle moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 34, at end insert ("in a patient under the age of 18").
The noble Lord said: I am not at all sure that this amendment is what I wanted to say or that it is in the right place, but it will serve as a probing amendment. Possibly what I intended was a proviso at the bottom of this subsection. In the White Paper Cmnd. 8405, in paragraphs 12 and 13, particularly 13, the Government state that the origin of the age limit in these
564
matters of psychopathic patients lay in the medical opinion that mentally handicapped or psychopathic adults were unlikely to benefit from hospital treatment. They go on to say that recent medical advances have negatived that argument.
Those with whom I have consulted—and your Lordships will have realised that I am not a doctor myself, so I am going on secondhand information—are not convinced that such medical advances have been made. The difficulty with psychopaths is of course the uncertainty of diagnosis; the very large number—dozens, I believe, if not scores—of categories or sub-categories of psychopathic illness; and the very high proportion of untreatable, or virtually untreatable, patients. Some psychiatrists would say that there are very few, if any, who can be treated, although I gather that there are others who say that that is too extreme a view.
The difficulty of deciding how a psychopath should be treated springs from the points made in an article admittedly many years ago, but which I believe is still valid, by a leading consultant psychiatrist in which he said that the psychiatrist sees in the psychopath
"a conjunction of patterns of behaviour each of which is almost entirely beyond clinical comprehension".
If that is the sort of people they are having to deal with, the borderline between who is treatable and who is not treatable, who should be detained and who should not be detained is bound to be extremely difficult to define.
Moreover, as we define psychopath in subsection (4) of the principal Act in very wide terms—which again I am given to understand are considerably wider than the terms which would normally be clinically used—we must be more than ordinarily careful that no subjective judgments as to who is, and who is not, a psychopath could be allowed to creep in so that anyone is detained simply because on subjective grounds his behaviour appears to be anti-social when in fact he is just a bit eccentric, or holds unpopular or unorthodox views.
It is an extremely difficult matter, and I am certainly not going to press it, but it seems to me that the only justification for holding someone, unless of course he has committed a criminal offence, would be that he is still legally a child. That is why I suggest that the age of 18 be inserted here. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, in this amendment. I agree that it is possible that he may not have got the age right. Maybe 21 is better than 18. It has to be admitted—in fact it was pointed out in the review of the Mental Health Act 1959, paragraph 2.38—that an age limit is arbitrary and leads to anomalies. Then in this document it was accordingly proposed that the requirement to certify a likelihood of benefit from treatment should apply on admission only to those suffering from mental handicap and psychopathic disorder, and that the age threshold should be dropped.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, pointed out, the question of treatability is of great importance here. It is quite possible that it would be impossible to treat an adult psychopath beyond a certain age. My eyes fell recently on an article in the British Medical Journal by a professor of forensic

565
psychiatry. He directed some remarks precisely to this clause in the Bill and raised very severe doubts about it. He said:
"The Bill proposes that psychopaths and subnormals will be eligible for compulsory detention, whatever their age, provided they are 'treatable'—a proposal, that would warm the cockles of the heart of a dictator having trouble with dissidents".
That may be a rather excessive way to put it, but it certainly points up the danger on which the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, has put his finger. We have no amendment down at this stage, and so I have risen simply to ask the noble Lord, Lord Elton, if he can tell us whether the Government have considered, or actually perceived, this danger in their proposal to remove the age limit.
The author of this article, Professor John Gunn, goes, on to say:
"Presumably the assumption is that Britain is a democracy and that, as in practice no psychiatrist here would wish to put an unwilling psychopath or subnormal on an order, and that as 'treatability' would have to be claimed anyway, this safeguard so carefully inserted by Parliament in the current legislation may be dropped".
The question is whether this safeguard, so carefully inserted by Parliament, should be dropped. I am simply putting these ideas forward at this stage to enable the Minister to give us an idea of the Government's thinking on this, I submit, rather important matter.
Lord Richardson: I am not a psychiatrist but I have been informed by psychiatric opinion that, although the likelihood of effective treatment of psychopaths cannot be expressed as very hopeful—in fact, perhaps it is diminishing—it is nevertheless thought that the age bar is no longer relevant and it was a mistake that it was ever put in. The informed view that I have received is that attempts should be made to treat psychopaths of all ages, albeit despite the not very hopeful feelings in regard to the prognosis.
Lord Elton: This is one of those amendments about which I must give very careful thought to what is intended and what is achieved, so I hope your Lordships will bear with me. The amendment strikes at Clause 4 of the Bill and that clause relates to Section 26 of the Act. Section 26 deals with admissions for treatment and in subsection (2) it sets criteria for admissions for treatment. Subsection (2) of the clause which the noble Lord now seeks to amend sets out new criteria, the second of which is the treatability criterion. The noble Lord, by inserting the words at the end of line 34:
"in a patient under the age of 18",
restricts the operation of that criterion to people under the age of 18; anybody over the 18-year-old criterion, therefore, is not covered by the criterion set out.
We put the "treatability" test in Clause 4 because we wanted to make sure that mentally impaired and psychopathic patients are not detained in hospital unless they are likely to benefit from treatment, because hospitals are not places of detention per se. They are places for treatment for which detention may be a necessary prerequisite. Extra safeguards are needed for patients with one of these forms of mental disorder because they are in some senses nearer, as some noble Lords have said, the borderline of "normality"
566
than severely mentally impaired or mentally ill patients. I do not think it right to withdraw the "treatability" test from adults, as the amendment proposes.
"Treatability" replaces the age limit in Section 26 of the 1959 Act. At present, a subnormal or psychopathic patient aged 21 or over may not be admitted for treatment under Section 26 at all. As some noble Lords will recall, the age limit of 21 years was based on the recommendation of the Percy Commission—that was the Royal Commission on the Law relating to Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency—which sat from 1954 to 1957 and led to the 1959 Act. The Percy Commission noted the general agreement, at the time, that treatment or training for subnormal and psychopathic patients was most likely to be successful if it could be given in adolescence and early adult life and drew parallels with the compulsory provision of education for children.
Experience since then suggests—the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, referred to this—that such patients may be able to benefit from treatment at any age, and that is why we decided to replace the somewhat arbitrary age limit with an explicit "treatability test". I still think that is the right approach. I am satisfied that Clause 4(2)(b) provides the right balance between ensuring that patients can be admitted for treatment they need, and safeguards to ensure that they are not admitted inappropriately. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Craigmyle: I was much interested in what the Minister said. I do not think I can guarantee not to return to the charge at a later date, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): In calling the next amendment, No. 21, I have to call your Lordships attention to the fact that if that amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 22.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 37, leave out from ("necessary") to ("and") in line 39 and insert ("that he should receive such treatment to prevent or to arrest a deterioration in his mental state or to improve his mental state or to protect him from harm or to protect others from harm,").
The noble Baroness said: In a way, this follows the last amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle. It does not in any way alter the meaning of the Bill; it is simply more specific and understandable. While the Bill states,
"that it is necessary for the health or safety of the patient or for protection of other persons that he should receive such treatment",
we are amending that to read:
"that he should receive such treatment to prevent or to arrest a deterioration in his mental state or to improve his mental state or to protect him from harm or to protect others from harm".
In a way, it is exactly what the Minister said when replying to the last amendment, though the wording is more specific. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: The first part of the amendment is very good indeed, but what worries me is the phrase,

567
"to protect him from harm or to protect others from harm",
and what might be done to him against his wish which would protect others from him.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Is there confusion between treatability and curability? It seems to be perfectly clear that one can treat psychopathic cases with very little prospect of success, but one can treat them and give them better conditions. We know from prison work that many of our clients who are considered to be psychopathic give less trouble in certain conditions than in others. One does not cure them and make them fit to go out, and therefore it seems to me that the whole discussion is rather confused in that everybody is treatable but not everybody is curable. I just throw that in to add interest to the discussion.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord speaks as if he were making a Christmas pudding. Whatever charms there are about the amendment, I could not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, about the beginning of it being the most attractive part because if the Committee looks at the way in which it matches in, the Bill would then read, "that it is that he should", which is perhaps a rather biblical approach, but of course I do not wish to delay the Committee on that sort of point.
I appreciate why my noble friend has chosen to look closely at this clause in that it concerns the grounds for admission for treatment under Section 26 of the Act. It is clearly important that we get the whole balance of the clause right, so that the people who need to be detained in hospital for treatment can be detained only where there is a genuine need. I do not consider, however, that the amendment is necessary. Indeed, I think it is rather restrictive in its effect.
The purpose of the amendment appears to be to spell out one of the alternative grounds for admission in Clause 4(2)(c). Instead of one ground for admission being that the treatment was necessary for the "health" of the patient, it would be that the treatment was necessary to prevent or to arrest a deterioration in his mental state or to improve his mental state, all of which are included in the words "for the health of the patient". However, it would not cover cases where care and treatment are needed but where the prospect of the condition improving or being arrested may be limited, and here I take the noble Lord's charm out of the pudding and demonstrate it before your Lordships.
The effect of Clause 4(2)(b) is that a patient who is mentally handicapped—or, as we now say, mentally impaired—or suffering from psychopathic disorder may be admitted only if treatment is likely to alleviate or prevent a deterioration in the patient's condition. The amendment would extend the same requirement to cover the severely mentally handicapped—or severely mentally impaired, as we now call them—and the mentally ill. I appreciate that my noble friend's concern is to see that no one is detained unless he is likely to gain positive benefits. Indeed, that is one of the thrusts of the whole Bill and what we are here for. We are improving the safeguards to make sure that only those who need treatment in hospital, and who would not otherwise get it, are detained.
However, for the severely mentally impaired and the mentally ill there are cases where there is little prospect
568
of the patient's condition improving. It may not even be clear whether it can be prevented from deteriorating. The main, and very important, purpose of admission here is to ensure that the patient receives care and support in a therapeutic environment. I do not need to remind the Committee that the only alternative to hospital in such cases would probably be a life in the outside world with which the patient would be patently unable to cope, and I think that Clause 4 as it stands accurately reflects the intention of admission in such cases. I think that I might well have said enough; at least I shall sit down in order to see whether I have.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I am rather intrigued about this. Personally, I would rather support Amendment No. 22 than the present amendment. I am very concerned about the words inserted in the amendment of the noble Baroness:
"or to protect others from harm".
That can have sinister implications, or perhaps it is meant to cover the kind of situation in which my wife found herself some years ago when a patient leapt out from a bathroom and nearly strangled her when she was a visitor. Alternatively, does it refer to some medical treatment which would remove the possibility of the person committing harm to others? This is very serious and rather sinister, and I am concerned about it. Perhaps the noble Baroness can explain what she means.
Baroness Faithfull: There are a very few cases where the mental state of a patient at a given time—it need not be continuous—is such that he harms other people. We have all known of the patient who takes a bread knife to another member of the family. There must be a balance here so as to consider both the patient and what he might do to someone else at any given time. I have listened to the Minister with interest. I shall consider what he has said and I shall also consider what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, says in regard to the next amendment. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No, 22:
Page 3, line 38, after ("persons") insert ("from serious harm").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble allies and myself I beg to move Amendment No. 22, and with the permission of the Committee I should at the same time like to speak to Amendment No. 35 as well. The case for the amendments may be stated very briefly. In our view the phrase "the protection of other persons" that appears in Clause 4(2)(c) is simply inadequate without some further qualification. The question arises: Protection from what? It could be interpreted as protection from mere nuisance, giving rise to applications in a mere fit of irritability. The phrase "from serious harm" which we propose to add is drawn from another part of the Bill. In Part III, in Clause 26, on page 16, in regard to restriction orders, it is proposed after the words "the protection of the public" to insert the words "from serious harm". That is actually proposed in the Bill. I support

569
that, and to myself and my colleague it seems only reasonable that for those who are to be treated under an application there should at least be parity of safeguards with those available to offenders under Part III. So it is the simple object of the amendment to correct the imbalance.
As I stated earlier, these remarks apply also to Amendment No. 35, relating to page 8, line 35, where we should also like to see the words "from serious harm" inserted for the same reasons in the clause dealing with duration of detention. This is a simple amendment involving the insertion of three words, but I believe that it is an important one. It is possible that what we propose is not already in the Bill simply because of an oversight on the part of the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Phillips: I have listened with great interest to the debate which now seems to have moved into a realm which perhaps we have not discussed enough; namely, that involving people who can be affected by those individuals who are mentally handicapped. If we insert the phrase "serious harm", there will be some difficulty in defining it. I can think of at least two victims who had the misfortune to live next door to people who, in the words of one noble Lord who has now left the Chamber, might be described merely as indulging in anti-social behaviour. I shall not tell the Committee of the kind of anti-social behaviour in which the individual indulged, but he was never at any point detained because he was described by a social worker merely as a nice, eccentric, old gentleman.
If we make it impossible for anyone to be held, or to be dealt with in any way, unless it is shown that he has actually caused serious harm, many people will be placed in quite uncomfortable circumstances which they do not deserve. That would be simply because the Bill had tidied up the situation so firmly. We shall have much argument about what is anti-social, what is eccentricity, and what is serious harm. It seems to me that the Bill quite clearly defines the point in the phrase "health or safety", and I do not think it is necessary to change it.
Lord Sandys: In introducing the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said that it was a simple one, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has informed the Committee that she feels from much experience at the Home Office that he might be mistaken. I must agree with her; I think that the noble Lord is mistaken in this regard. The amendment would mean that someone could be admitted for treatment only if he satisfied the other conditions in Section 26(2)—I think that that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock—and needed to be in hospital for his own health, his own safety, or to protect other people from serious harm. This is a more stringent condition than what is now in the Act or the Bill, and I believe that it is too stringent both for the patient, for whom treatment is considered essential, and for the public generally.
It is important that patients should not be kept in hospital against their will without good cause, but the public also need to be protected from the behaviour of mentally disordered people. I believe that we have the balance about right in the Bill, which refers to the
570
protection of other persons but does not specify the degree of danger from which they are to be protected—and this is an important point.
For the patient's benefit it is important to be able to provide treatment at an early stage in an illness without waiting until there is a risk of "serious harm" and possibly penal consequences. If I may draw on some examples, I would say that the amendment would make it impossible to admit for treatment a patient who had, for example, a history of persistent minor assaults or sexual advances which were very distressing to the subject of his or her attentions but did not amount to a risk of "serious harm", unless it could be shown that the patient needed to be in hospital for his own health or safety. These are important criteria, and we should consider them most carefully. We are talking about the kind of behaviour which none of us would want our families to be exposed to, We are also talking about people who need medical treatment. All the other conditions in Clause 4 must be satisfied, including the "treatability" test for persons with mental impairment or psychopathic disorder. So there is no question of people being shut up just because they are social nuisances. Detention is for treatment which may remit those symptoms of mental disorder from which the public need protection.
There is a further serious objection, and I believe that it should be drawn to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. It is that the amendment would make the conditions for admission for treatment for a non-offender patient the same as those for a restriction order on an offender whom a court considers dangerous. A restriction order is made if it appears to the court to be "necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm". I am anticipating Clause 26, which adds the words "from serious harm" to Section 65 to make sure that restriction orders are used only when they are really needed. If we add the same words, "from serious harm", to Section 26, it would have very strange consequences for the distinction between unrestricted and restricted patients.
Those consequences are seen most clearly in relation to renewal of detention, and so I shall reserve my comments on them for the debate on a similar amendment to Clause 12—and this, of course, was the one to which the noble Lord referred. For the moment I shall merely point out the anomaly of making the test for admission for treatment for someone who may never have been convicted of an offence and may need to be in hospital only for a short time exactly the same as for a restriction order made by a Crown court taking account of the nature of the offence, the offender's antecedents and the risk of his committing further offences if set at large.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should feel happier about this if it went through the courts. I would be quite happy if one could say that the courts are to decide when the protection of the public is required. I do not think it is necessary to specify that. But there is no test of that kind in the Bill, is there? There is simply a series of words. What about somebody who regularly sexually exposes himself? We all know cases of this kind; at least, if you live my life you do. This is not doing any harm to anybody, except in the nature of nuisance, On the other hand, that is the

571
sort of chap, I should have thought, who would normally be dealt with under this provision. I think that, as it is, the position is not entirely satisfactory, although I do not myself think that we ought to divide on it. This is up to my noble friends, of course, but I should like to hear what other noble Lords think.
Lord Winstanley: Following the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, I am bound to say that it seems to me that we have now finally arrived at the situation when the happy, convivial spirit in which, hitherto, we in your Lordships' Committee have all been so anxious to agree with everybody is at an end. I am bound to say personally that I regarded the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, to this amendment really as distressing in the extreme. It seemed to me that he showed a total inability to understand the feeling behind this particular amendment. He used some very strange words. In his reply the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said this—and I quote him, I think, accurately. He said that "the public are entitled to be protected from the behaviour of mentally-disordered people". The public are entitled to no such thing. There is all manner of behaviour that I personally find offensive, whether it is by mentally-disordered people or otherwise; but I am not entitled to be protected from it.
Here we are talking about people being compulsorily admitted to hospital for treatment under Section 26, which is a very serious deprivation of personal liberty, and one of the tests of whether a person should be treated in that way is, under Clause 4(2)(c),
"that it is necessary for the health or safety of the patient or for the protection of other persons …",
and then we suggest that the words "from serious harm" should be added. There are all sorts of aberrational behaviour which we find distressing or irritating. Let us take the mentally-disordered person who has a habit of peeping through windows, which is perhaps upsetting and disturbing and may very well prompt certain people to say, "This person must be locked up", or, "He must go in for treatment". That is not a road down which I can go very readily; and when the noble Lord said that we should not perhaps divide on this amendment I am bound to say that I would not necessarily take that view, because I think the attitude to this particular amendment is pretty crucial to one's attitude to the Bill as a whole.
Lord Elton: I must apologise for having been out of the Chamber briefly. I can only say to noble Lords who are medically qualified that it is not only mental disorder which we sometimes have to cope with, and I had to leave the Chamber. I am confident I know the line which my noble friend took, and we are looking at questions of degree. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is talking about "serious harm". It seems to me that there are many things from which, I entirely agree, the public cannot be protected. The public cannot be protected from the society of anybody simply because it does not like the society of anybody. The public has to put up with the company of your Lordships and myself without any such protection, and many of us are eccentric. But there are degrees of behaviour which fall short of inflicting
572
"serious harm" which are entirely anti-social and which really cannot be permitted to continue.
Lord Winstanley: On that particular point, surely the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, replied to that matter by saying "these particular matters", and I wholly agree with him; there are items of nuisance which should be dealt with. But does the noble Lord not agree that the proper place for those to be dealt with is in the courts, and not in the hospitals?
Lord Elton: Of course, the courts have a power to order the detention of a patient in a hospital. What the noble Lord appears to be seeking to do is to limit that power to cases where "serious harm" results—not where serious harm may perhaps be expected but where it is necessary to protect the public from serious harm which, as I read this amendment, is imminent and predictable. I take a more cautious view than he does. I think I am more protective of the public good. I do not think this militates against the interests of the patient, because it is in the interests of the patient to be detained and treated before that catastrophic event. Because in his life it will be catastrophic; and it may be that it will be catastrophic in the life of some young adolescent who finds himself addressed in a manner which cannot be said to produce serious harm but is very disturbing and leaves a mark for many years.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just referred to the interests of the patient. I do not know whether he was here during that part of his noble friend's remarks when he was referring to the comparison between this subsection and Section 65, but I should like to point out to your Lordships' Committee that there is a very real and important distinction in that Clause 4(2)(c) contains alternatives: that it has to be
"necessary for the health or safety of the patient"
or it has to be
"for the protection of other persons",
as we should like to insert, "from serious harm"; whereas in the case of a court restriction order made under Section 65, of course, it has to be established that there is a possibility of serious harm arising before the court can make the order. A court cannot make a restriction order under Section 65 if it is solely apprehended that the patient will benefit from treatment in a secure environment.
So the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is already covered. If it is found to be in the interests of the patient that his health or safety could be improved by a Section 26 order, then that can take place irrespective of whether we add the words "from serious harm" to this particular subsection. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will have a further discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and that they can get their act together a little better than they have during this discussion.
Lord Sandys: I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is going to be successful in driving a wedge between my noble friend and myself because I think my noble friend got it exactly right on the last amend-

573
ment when he referred to getting the balance within this clause correct. We believe that the clause does not need this amendment, and we feel that it would be undesirable for it to be admitted. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am sorry I was not in my place, but, yes, consultation among members of the Alliance was taking place. I am grateful, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for his very full reply to this amendment, but I should like to put him right. I was not trying to suggest that those admitted for treatment should be considered on a par with offenders: what I was trying to show was that in this particular case they have less protection from abuse of their rights than offenders have. That was the point. In effect, the offenders have a slightly greater safeguard.
When the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, suggested, I am sure quite genuinely, that there was no question of people being shut up because they are a nuisance, this is exactly what, by means of this Bill, we are trying to make absolutely sure can never happen. Obviously, we cannot conceive among ourselves that procedures of this sort such as have happened in other countries can take place in this country; but when we have a Bill like this in Committee we must do everything we can to plug all the holes in that direction. This was another motive behind the amendment of my noble friends, myself and our allies. However, as we have had an interesting debate, we should like to read Hansard and reserve the right to come back at Report stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 4 insert the following new clause:
("Restriction of admission for treatment
.—(1) No patient may be detained under section 26 of the principal Act unless he has previously been detained under section 25 of the principal Act.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to remove any situation whereby a patient is detained for treatment for six months or longer under Section 26 of the 1959 Act when, in fact, a physical examination with subsequent treatment, general nursing care and rest for up to 28 days under Section 25 of the 1959 Act might suffice. Section 25 gives power for a person to be detained for observation,
"for a period not exceeding 28 days beginning with the day on which he is admitted, but shall not be detained thereafter unless, before the expiration of that period, he has become liable to be detained by virtue of a subsequent application, order or direction under any of the following provisions"
of the principal Act. Section 26 gives power for the person to be compulsorily admitted to hospital for treatment for a period of one year. Is it not reasonable, except in the emergency of a life or death situation, that always there should be a period of observation so that the patient can be fully assessed and home contacts and contacts with the social services can be made? I hope the Committee will find this acceptable. There is nothing to stop a patient from being detained
574
for a longer period than 28 days should this be necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I appreciate the concern of the noble Baroness that no patient should be detained for six months or more under Section 26 without a thorough initial assessment by the responsible psychiatrist to see whether detention is really appropriate. I do not agree, though, that this amendment is necessary to achieve that aim. The purpose of Section 25 is to provide for short-term assessment and treatment of patients when it is not clear whether or not long-term detention is needed. There are other cases, though, where there is no doubt about a patient's need for long-term treatment in hospital. A patient may have been detained in hospital on a previous occasion, then discharged because his responsible medical officer thought he had made enough progress under treatment to manage successfully outside hospital. If events show that the patient cannot manage outside, and the mental welfare officer and doctors who are familiar with his case are satisfied that an application under Section 26 should be made, it is quite unnecessary for an application to be made first under Section 25.
Another case might be a patient with a long history of mental disorder who was in hospital as an informal patient. The doctors and mental welfare officer (or nearest relative) might reach the conclusion while the patient was receiving treatment voluntarily that detention under Section 26 was necessary, and so there would be no need for assessment under Section 25. I hope that that answers the point raised by the noble Baroness and that she will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: The amendment reads:
"No patient may be detained under section 26 of the principal Act unless he has previously been detained under section 25 of the principal Act".
I do not think that in many cases they would have been in hospital before and it would be a first time, as it were. But as this is totally and completely new to the Committee at this stage, I think I should like to take it back, discuss it further and bring it back at another stage—
Lord Winstanley: If the noble Baroness is likely to seek the Committee's consent to withdraw the amendment, I wonder, since we may return to it, whether it will be possible for the Minister at a later stage—because I doubt whether the knowledge will come to him now or quickly enough—to be able to find out something about the actual practice at the moment. I should be interested to know what proportion of persons at the moment detained under Section 26 are persons who have been detained previously under Section 25. Those are figures which the Committee might find helpful. I use this opportunity of dropping that thought in the mind of the noble Lords opposite.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: We will try to give that information to the noble Lord.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should be grateful if the noble Lord would give that information not only

575
to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, but also to me. With that, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Medical recommendations.]:
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, line 25, at end insert—
("Provided that this subsection shall not be relied upon unless there would otherwise be unreasonabletdelay in arranging for two medical practitioners to examine the patient with a view to considering whether to make medical recommendations.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 24 which stands in the names of my noble friends and myself. I am a little concerned at the change in attitude on medical recommendations contained in Clause 5(3). I can see the reason for them. There are, obviously, very few occasions, but they do exist, when it would perhaps be a lengthy procedure to obtain a second medical opinion from outside the hospital in question. It could be because of the geographical situation, it could be because of such weather as we have had over the last fortnight. It is right that the possibility should exist for medical recommendations to be made even if it is not possible to get an outside medical opinion as the second opinion.
I believe that it is essential that it should be stated that that is for emergencies only, when there are no other ways of dealing with it. This is why we want to add, at the end of subsection (3A), paragraph (b) or, perhaps, as (3A)(c):
"Provided that this subsection shall not be relied upon unless there would otherwise be unreasonable delay …".
I think it would be detrimental to the whole of the assessment and medical recommendations if it became commonplace practice for two doctors in the same hospital—even though one is not working under the directions of the other—to be reuglarly using this section to make their medical recommendations. We hope that the Government will accept that it should be used only in exceptional circumstances and that in normal circumstances the medical opinion should come from two different sources.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I understand the concern which lies behind the amendment, that the two medical recommendations necessary for detention should always be completely independent of each other. It would be a serious matter if this were not so, because it is a person's liberty which is at stake when the making of a recommendation for admission under the Act is considered.
Clause 5(3) of the Bill already restricts the circumstances in which both recommendations may come from doctors at the hospital concerned. The only circumstances in which this may be done are listed as follows: first, where one of the doctors wants the majority of his sessions elsewhere; and, secondly, if one of the doctors is a consultant, where the other doctor is not working under his direction. These limited circumstances were introduced precisely because delays have arisen in some areas in obtaining the recommendations required. This is because of the limited numbers of doctors approved under Section 28 of the Act to carry out this function.
576
The restrictions to which I have just referred will ensure that the medical recommendations do not both come from doctors who are on the staff of the hospital to which the patient is to be admitted in circumstances where it is likely that they may not be independent of each other. We also intend to issue guidance to health authorities which are hospital managers to monitor procedures for making the medical recommendations. This would include checks to ensure that the restrictions set out in Clause 5(3) were complied with. I consider therefore that there will be adequate safeguards to make sure that the power in certain circumstances to receive both medical recommendations from doctors at the hospital in question is not misused.
However, the noble Baroness has made her case extremely well. This is an important matter and I accept the view that the view that the extra safeguard on the lines she suggested should be included. I will therefore undertake to introduce at Report stage an amendment which provides that both medical recommendations should not be made by doctors at the hospital concerned unless there would otherwise be undue delay. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that very helpful reply. Of course I am delighted to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 31, at end insert—
("(6) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
"(6) Any medical recommendations which appear to be correctly made may be acted upon by the nearest relative or the Mental Welfare Officer without further proof of the signature or qualification of the person by whom the recommendation is made or of any matter of fact or opinion stated therein or of compliance with this Act by that person."").
The noble Lord said: Before speaking about this amendment perhaps I could invite your Lordships to correct a printing error which appears on the Marshalled List, where we read:
"the nearest relative of the Mental Welfare Officer".
It should read:
"the nearest relative or the Mental Welfare Officer".
The relationship, if this amendment as printed is accepted, makes the mind boggle.
There are safeguards for persons acting in good faith in complying with the principal Act, and indeed with the principal Act amended as it will be by this Bill. This is provided for by Section 141 of the 1959 Act. I welcome the fact that this is confirmed by Clause 49(3)(e) of this Bill. However, recent experience has shown that some persons acting in good faith are not always wholly protected from public implications of failing to do their duty to the utmost.
On the other hand, because their actions are governed by different legislation, other groups of persons do seem to be so protected. The difference seems to arise because, although both groups are public servants, one group of people are in the employ of elected local councils whereas the other group are responsive to appointed bodies. For some reason those who are in the employ of elected local councils have turned out in

577
practice not to be as well protected from public accusation as those who are responsive to appointed bodies. This I am sure the Committee will agree is an unfair situation which clearly Section 141 of the 1959 Act sought to avoid.
The object of this amendment is to underpin the purpose of Section 141 under conditions where a nearest relative or a mental welfare officer might reasonably assume that the recommendations made by a medical officer are not only made in good faith professionally but can also be relied upon to conform in all important points of details of the law and of the principal Act in particular. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: May I ask my noble friend—bearing in mind he has referred apparently with approval to Section 141 of the principal Act—whether he has seen on the Marshalled List Amendment No. 96? That would repeal Section 141 of the principal Act and replace it by a provision of a much more familiar and more suitable kind to the effect that:
"No criminal proceedings shall be brought against any person in any court in respect of any act done or purporting to be done in pursuance of the principal Act or this Act without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions."
Many of us feel that would be an adequate safeguard. If that amendment were accepted by the Committee—and I say that advisedly because I do not know whether the Government will accept it or not but it seems to me to be a very sensible amendment—then the foundation of the amendment which my noble friend has moved would seem to be somewhat different. I do not think that we should consider Amendment No. 25 without at least applying our minds to Amendment No. 96.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I may respond immediately to that. I am afraid that I had not noticed Amendment No. 96. But Amendment No. 96 only allows Section 141 protection to apply in the case of criminal proceedings. The circumstances about which I am talking relate to civil proceedings. So Amendment No. 96 certainly would not do for me in any way and it would be even more important to proceed with Amendment No. 25 because of any threat of anybody accepting Amendment No. 96.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I sympathise with my noble friend in his view that the Mental Health Act 1959 often places a very heavy burden on mental welfare officers. We must remember, however, that under this Act people are being deprived of their liberty so that every possible step must be taken to ensure that the procedures set down by Parliament are carefully and properly followed. Ensuring that this is so undoubtedly places sometimes difficult responsibilities on the professional staff concerned, whether they be the social workers who are acting as mental welfare officers or the doctors concerned. While every profession must assume responsibility for the way in which they practice, in this case there is also an additional responsibility for ensuring that procedures set down in law to safeguard the interests of individuals whose liberty is in question are properly observed.
I am sure the Committee will share my reluctance to commit myself to any undertaking that might lead
578
to the patients' interests being overlooked by an over-rigid allocation of responsibility. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment on my assurance that I will give more thought to how best to meet his proper concern and report back to the Committee.
Lord Mottistone: That is a most reassuring remark by my noble friend. I would be happy to withdraw my amendment on that basis. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to tell me in this connection.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Patients already in hospital]:
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 4, line 40. at end insert ("having personally examined the patient within the previous twenty-four hours)").
The noble Baroness said: I beg leave to move the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friends. We wish to insert at the end of subsection 2(a) the words on the Marshalled List. Again, this amendment is meant, as my previous amendment was meant to be for the safeguard of the patient. I have had much experience, as have many other noble Lords, of the working of mental hospitals and of other hospitals, and the kind of rapport that exists between consultants and doctors. We are desperately anxious to ensure that the medical practitioner who has been nominated to take action in the absence of the medical practitioner in charge of the patient has in fact examined the patient within the previous 24 hours. It is not uncommon for the rapport to be such within the medical profession that one will take on the work of another, and I think the safeguard is highly necessary in this case to make certain that the practitioner who detains a patient for three days should have personally seen the patient and examined him within the last 24 hours before taking that action. I hope the Government will be able to accept the amendment.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: The first point I should like to make is that we were a little confused by the placing of the brackets in this amendment. There is an odd number, which seems hardly possible, and so I think the amendment may be slightly defective in that way. However, that is by the way.
My main concern is that we are talking about an emergency. Section 30 of the 1959 Act is used when an informal patient suddenly tries to leave hospital when his mental condition and circumstances are such that, if were he not already in hospital, compulsory admission would he necessary in his own interests or for the protection of others. Section 30 is used when there is no time for an application by a mental welfare officer and a second medical recommendation. We are proposing in this clause to resolve problems which have arisen when the doctor in charge of the patient's treatment is unobtainable. If we weigh the emergency procedure down with provisos like the one suggested in this amendment, we may make doctors reluctant to use it

579
even when it is in the patient's own best interests that he stays in hospital.
I appreciate that the amendment is intended to ensure that the doctor in charge of the patient's treatment may report that he should be detained only if he personally has examined the patient within the previous 24 hours. The doctor in charge will usually be a consultant. As is usual medical practice, he is likely to have less day-to-day contact with the patient than some other members of the professional team, but will give overall direction to the patient's treatment based partly on his own observations and partly on the reports of others. I do not think it is necessary that the consultant himself should have examined the patient within the previous 24 hours. Section 30 already has the safeguard that the doctor in charge must consider, at the time he makes the report, that an application for compulsory admission ought to be made so the doctor must himself be satisfied that the patient's condition is serious enough to justify detention. The amendment might lead to daily cursory examinations which did not benefit the patient and were not the best use of the consultant's time.
The proposed amendment suggests that the power to detain a patient for three days may be used arbitrarily in that a doctor who is unfamiliar with the case may be persuaded to make the report. While I share the concern of the noble Baroness that an informal patient should not be prevented from leaving hospital unless the doctor who has the responsibility for deciding that he should be detained for three days has first-hand knowledge of the patient, I believe the noble Baroness' fears are misplaced. First, we have to bear in mind that the doctor in charge of the patient will have had to nominate a particular doctor to act in his absence. The nominated deputy is likely to be a junior doctor in his team and will therefore already be familiar with the patient and his medical history. The nominated deputy may, however, be any other medical practitioner on the staff of the hospital—for example, another consultant. As a matter of good practice, the doctor in charge of a patient's treatment would discuss the patient's case with another doctor whom he was nominating as his deputy, and might invite the deputy to examine the patient.
Secondly, the nominated deputy may only detain the patient if it appears to him that an application ought to be made for the patient's admission to hospital under compulsory powers. The doctor who makes the report must himself be satisfied, in the light of his knowledge of the patient's case history and his present condition, that compulsory admission is justified. The nominated deputy would therefore, as good practice, examine the patient before making a report, and he would have to account for his action when a decision is made about the patient's treatment when the 72 hours have elapsed. Thirdly, an additional safeguard for patients will be provided by the proposed Mental Health Act Commission which will be responsible for looking at the way in which doctors exercise powers such as these. I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: May I ask the Minister this? If the patient is not seen during 24 hours, who prescribes drugs? There is great concern about the
580
prescribing of drugs to patients who have mental problems.
Lord Elton: Prescriptions often run for more than 24 hours. If a new prescription is needed at the end of 24 hours, I do not doubt that the proper doctor is there to do it, but very often it happens that a person's course of drugs can last for some weeks.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: But if he has not been seen by a doctor?
Lord Elton: I think neither the noble Baroness nor anybody else in this Committee would expect to be seen by a doctor every day they take drugs that have been prescribed. The noble Baroness looks dissatisfied but I assure her that I take drugs under medical supervision on occasion, for instance, when I have 'flu and so on. I expect to see a doctor only once and he expects to see me barely then.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: But you have not been admitted to hospital.
Lord Elton: This is becoming a very informal exchange and also a very personal one. No, I have not, for the purposes of this debate. However, even when I have been in hospital I have not seen a doctor every day.
Lord Auckland: Presumably the patient would go straight to a very senior consultant, who would have the power to order an injection of Largactil or whatever the drug is if it is part of an emergency procedure. Not being a doctor, like others of your Lordships who are taking part in this debate, I am not medically qualified, but I should have thought from my own very limited experience of a committee of a mental hospital that there is a senior medical officer on call who could prescribe a suitable drug in emergency. Perhaps my noble friend would confirm that.
Lord Richardson: Briefly, I am certain that would be the case in any well-ordered hospital. There could be no question of a patient's being left without some medical supervision with the ability to prescribe drugs that are necessary in an emergency, or indeed to prescribe drugs the order for the dispensing of which has lapsed.
Lord Elton: This has been a fascinating and illuminating exchange, but not altogether relevant. What we are discussing is whether somebody else, who it has been decided by the responsible medical officer is appropriate to exercise this power if an emergency takes place, shall then exercise that power. I am confident that the responsible medical officer will be competent to decide who can, and who cannot, exercise this power and I hope that your Lordships will decide accordingly.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, for his long reply. He said that it is his view that no responsible medical officer would take a decision of this kind without knowing and examining the patient. I think that I am quoting him correctly. If that is so, what harm is there in putting

581
that into the Bill so that we can be certain that it happens? However, I am conscious of time and I should not want to press this amendment until I had read that very full reply which the noble Lord gave. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 5, line 4, leave out subsections (3) to (5).
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment which is asking for information on a position which I do not quite understand. Nurses currently have a common law duty to restrain patients from leaving a ward, if they are a danger to themselves and to others. I can quite well see that it is a very good thing, if there is not a doctor anywhere near, for a nurse to be able to restrain a patient. If it has to be an approved nurse, may I ask, first, whether there are enough approved nurses for there to be one available and near at hand for every ward? Secondly, if only approved nurses are to be able to restrain a patient for six hours, will that not give a sense of inferiority, or of a lack of responsibility, to the other nurses who, as I said earlier, have a common law duty to restrain patients from leaving a ward? I do not propose to press this amendment, but I just want clarification. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I believe that my noble friend does not intend to press this amendment and merely seeks information. We have introduced the powers given in the subsections with a very definite end in view. The legal position of nurses who wish to prevent a mentally disordered informal patient from leaving the hospital in which he was receiving treatment has, in fact, up to now been uncertain. My noble friend referred with confidence to the common law, but I think that that confidence is not shared by those people whose only protection it was. This made it difficult for a nurse who felt the need to prevent such a patient from leaving the hospital, but was not sure whether he or she had the protection of the law in so doing. The holding power will make the position clear for everybody. It will provide protection and will make sure that no nurses hesitate to prevent a patient from leaving,
because of fear of the consequences for themselves.
At the same time, though, we had to make sure that the power which we are introducing is not misused or abused, as throughout the Bill we are anxious to protect the rights of the patient. That is why the power will extend only to nurses who hold recognised qualifications in nursing the mentally ill or the mentally handicapped. This will ensure that the serious decision to prevent the patient from leaving, to stand between the informal patient and the outside world and say "No, you may not leave", will be based on a sound understanding, at least, of mental disorder. The nurse who is looking after a patient where this situation might arise would invariably, in any case—I may reassure my noble friend—be so qualified.
I hope your Lordships will agree that the power which we are introducing is a necessary and useful one—it is hedged about with sanctions, as your Lordships will see—and that the restrictions which we are placing on it are also necessary. To remove this
582
power could throw us back into some confusion, but I understand that it is not the intention of my noble friend so to do.
Baroness Faithfull: May I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Guardianship applications]:
6.45 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 28 and 29:
Page 6, line 8, leave out ("handicap") and insert ("impairment").
Page 6, line 9, leave out ("handicap") and insert ("impairment").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 30 and 31 all relate to the amendments which I moved at the beginning of the Committee stage, and your Lordships were happy for me to move the consequentials en bloc. By leave of the Chair, I think that I may move them only in pairs, because Nos. 28 and 29 are in Clause 7 and the others go elsewhere. Therefore, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 28 and 29.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Effect of guardianship applications]:
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: There is a small but important point on this Bill. I have not tabled an amendment, because I spotted it only today. But I suggest that in line 25 on page 6, after the word "occupation", the word "education" should be inserted, because there will be cases when a patient may be required to receive not only training but also education. The two things have a different meaning in our statute law, and I suggest that education should be covered. Perhaps my noble friends would look at that between now and Report stage.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to my noble friend for recognising that I cannot answer him at once. Of course, I will look at it and will speak to him in the interim between now and Report. He will then do as he thinks fit.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Re-classification of patients]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 30 and 31:
Page 7, line 10, leave out ("handicap") and insert ("impairment").
Page 7, line line 11, leave out ("handicap") and insert ("impairment").
The noble Lord said: These are the other two amendments which I was eager to move en bloc, and I now so do. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Duration of authority for detention and guardianship]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 8, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert ("then he will consult an approved social worker who will interview the patient and satisfy himself that detention in hospital is the most appropriate means of ensuring that the patient continues to receive the care and treatment he needs and the responsible medical officer and approved social worker shall furnish to the managers of the hospital where the patient is liable to be detained reports to the above effect on the prescribed form").
The noble Baroness said: I am in some difficulty in moving this amendment, because the debate which we had earlier on Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 applies also in slightly different circumstances, though the principle is the same, to Amendment No. 32. Your Lordships will remember that I stated that I thought that approved social workers, and indeed the social work service, should take a partnership responsibility with the doctors in dealing with admissions and that, in the first instance, the social worker should be enabled to see what were the community facilities and to ensure that the patient's needs were met.
We debated earlier the need for patients to understand—and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was very anxious that patients should understand—what was happening to them, and I submit that, if an approved social worker were put in touch with the patient and interviewed him and the relatives, the social worker would be able to help the patient understand at a very early stage. In this amendment I am recommending that application for detention in hospital should in the first instance go to the approved social worker. I do not want to waste your Lordships' time on this matter. The arguments are exactly the same as those put forward on the two earlier amendments. However, I feel very strongly that we must build up the social work service and the community service and that we shall not do this unless social workers are in partnership with the medical profession. In the light of our earlier debate, I ought to say at this stage that having heard the Minister's reply I shall not be pressing the amendment. However, I should like to hear what the Minister has to say on it.
Lord Sandys: I am obliged to my noble friend for the way in which she has introduced this amendment. I can only speak on the information we have relating to both Amendments Nos. 14 and 15, which the noble Baroness has rightly said apply in somewhat the same context, and this amendment. I agree completely with the view that the role of the mental welfare officer should not stop once an application for compulsory admission has been made. The social worker will be involved—the noble Baroness has referred in this
584
amendment to the social worker—in plans for the patient's discharge. It is the social worker's role to resolve the problems at home or to look for alternative accommodation for the patient, including group homes or hostels provided by the local authority or other agencies. But I do not think it is possible to involve the mental welfare officer formally in renewal of detention, as this amendment proposes. One of the conditions which the responsible medical officer must be satisfied about before detention can be renewed is that—perhaps I may paraphrase it—it is necessary for the health or safety of the patient or for the protection of other persons that the patient should receive medical treatment in a hospital and that it cannot be provided unless he continues to be detained. It is good practice that the responsible medical officer should take account of advice from a social worker in considering alternatives to detention before he makes his report.
Clause 16 provides that a mental welfare officer must consider whether detention is appropriate before he makes an application. At that stage the mental welfare officer is the applicant and the doctors are only providing supporting recommendations. The social worker has to be satisfied that an application should be made. Once the patient has been admitted, though, he becomes the responsibility, as the name shows, of the responsible medical officer, and it is that psychiatrist who has the key responsibility of deciding whether or not detention should be renewed on grounds which are essentially matters for his clinical judgment. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to this particular point.
Other professional staff, including also nurses, make a contribution to the responsible medical officer's review of the case, but the decision is his—that is, the psychiatrist's—alone. Doctors cannot require a mental welfare officer to make an application for admission. I believe it is right that a mental officer should not be able to prevent the responsible medical officer from renewing detention. We must also remember that patients will have more opportunities to apply to a mental health review tribunal and this will provide additional safeguards for them. With those remarks, I hope that my noble friend may feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: While thanking my noble friend Lord Sandys for that reply, I should like to make one comment before withdrawing the amendment. So far as medical matters are concerned, I accept that a medical decision must be taken but, as so often happens with patients, there is another side. The home side, the family side, the community side also have to be considered. It was for that reason that I wished to draw attention to the fact that although, where medical decisions are concerned, it is the doctor who takes the decision, the doctor, if he is wise, will want to know about the social and community backgrounds to the case. If he does not know what those backgrounds are, he can do a great disservice to the patient. Having said that, I will read Hansard and, if necessary, come back at Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.55 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 32A:
Page 8, line 43, at end insert—
("() Except in extreme cases of mental handicap, children who are mentally handicapped or severely mentally handicapped shall not be brought up and live their lives in hospitals; and finance is to be made available to voluntary organisations and local authorities to provide for their upbringing in the Community.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I ought to say that I am a little surprised that children have not been mentioned at all in the Bill. Those of us who are concerned with children have been worried for a considerable period of time about children in hospitals. The Department of Health and Social Security have also been worried—so much so that I would draw your Lordships' attention to the King's Fund project paper which deals with bringing mentally impaired children out of hospital.
I speak with very great feeling about this problem. I am the vice-chairman of Dr. Barnardo's. One of the things which Dr. Barnardo's do is to care for mentally impaired children not only in the community but in hostels and homes, and to provide education and training for them. This is something which children cannot always get in hospitals. I do not decry for one moment the care which these children receive in hospitals, but it is beyond the bounds of possibility for these children to be given anything like a normal life in hospital. I am not going to weary your Lordships with statistics and figures. They can be seen here. However, we as a country should move towards getting impaired children who are cared for in hospitals out into the community and leading a much more normal life. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness has touched on ground in which I have a close interest. I have great sympathy with her views. I was interested that she prefaced her remarks with a reference to the excellent booklet which shows ways of getting children out of institutions and into the community. It was commissioned by the department from Ann Shearer. I applaud also the admirable work being done by Dr. Barnardo's and I congratulate the noble Baroness on the part she plays in it. I would be the last person to deny the importance of the matter which my noble friend has raised, but the amendment has nothing whatever to do with Clause 12, which relates to the duration of authority for detention and guardianship. As very few mentally handicapped children are detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act, my noble friend, I presume, intends the amendment to apply also to mentally handicapped children who are informal patients. The amendment refers to cases of extreme mental handicap. But under the operation of the Bill this will not be an acceptable way of defining this condition, apart from the definition of severe mental impairment.
It is a question for the family of the child and the health authority, in the light of relevant professional advice, to decide whether the medical needs of a mentally handicapped child, who may be severely physically handicapped as well or who may be suffering from severe behavioural disturbance, make it appropriate for him to have long-term treatment in a mental handicap hospital.
586
My department has quite recently asked health and local authorities to look at the needs of the approximately 2,000 children now in mental handicap hospitals, to decide whether there should be any alternative forms of care, what form that alternative care should take and how it might be provided. It has been made clear that those children who require health care should receive this in small, homely units outside the large mental handicap hospitals.
I do not want to spend too long on this amendment because I feel it falls outside the Bill, but my view is that local authorities are reluctant to earmark funds for particular services but that Care in the Community, the document which was issued in July 1981, did discuss ways and means of transferring resources with patients from hospitals into the community. Then again, the £1 for £1 scheme made available £1 million over four years to match funds raised by voluntary bodies, to help get children out of large mental handicap hospitals and this has raised a great deal of interest. There are a number of promising schemes coming into the department and I hope that the noble Baroness, having given me the occasion to drum up some more interest in that, would have done us a service. I must say that the amendment is inappropriately placed where it appears on the Marshalled List.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, may I ask him how many children there are in long-stay hospitals? I know of one hospital in Yorkshire, which is called Claypenny, which is a very large hospital for mentally handicapped patients. There are many children there and it is very sad to see them. The staff do the very best they can for them. There is also a school, which is excellent. But still I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and with the noble Lord the Minister, that it is no place for children.
Lord Elton: We are all agreed that we want wherever possible mentally handicapped children to be taken out of large institutions—out of all institutions if possible, but out of large institutions in particular. I believe the scale of the problem is about 2,000 children. It sounds therefore as if the noble Baroness has personally seen a great proportion of the problem. I welcome her support in this, and perhaps we can pursue it further outside your Lordships' House.
Baroness Faithfull: I apologise to my noble friend Lord Elton for popping this in, but I had to put it in somewhere because I simply had to get it off my chest. I am sorry to be so personal but it was very difficult to know where to put it. I do realise, of course, that the children are not detained patients; but although they are not legally detained patients they are morally detained patients because in a way there is no other alternative. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will forgive me for putting this in on moral grounds and not on legal grounds. It is quite obvious that my noble friend the Minister has sympathy for this matter and I am sure his department will pursue and will give thought to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 33 and 34:
Page 8, line 27, leave out ("handicap") and insert ("impairment").
Page 8, line 28, leave out ("handicap") and insert ("impairment").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 follow Amendment No. 3, and I beg to move them together.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 38:
Page 8, line 38, leave out ("handicap") and insert ("impairment").
Page 9, line 5, leave out ("handicap") and insert ("impairment").
line 6, leave out ("handicap") and insert ("impairment").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 38 are all consequential on Amendment No. 3 and I beg to move them together.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 9, line 25, after ("officer") insert ("or the patient's nominated medical attendant").
The noble Lord said: There is a slight difference in this amendment, but nonetheless it is also consequential and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 17 agreed to.
Lord Elton: May I crave the leave of the House because I did say that Amendment No. 39 was consequential. It is in fact technical. If noble Lords wish me to return to this point at Report, then of course I will, but I trust that your Lordships will bear with me.
Clause 18 [Power to make hospital order]:
7.5 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42:
Page 11, line 31, leave out first ("handicap") and insert ("impairment").
Page 11, line 31, leave out second ("handicap") and insert ("impairment").
Page 11, line 41, leave out ("handicap") and insert ("impairment").
The noble Lord said: Here together, with Amendments Nos. 41 and 42, we do have consequential amendments and I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 12, line 5, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) For subsection (3) there shall be substituted—
"(3) Where a court is of the opinion that the most suitable method of disposing of a case is by means of an order under this section, the court shall have the power to direct that an offender be admitted to a suitable hospital, and the effect of such an order shall be to impose a duty on the Minister to make the appropriate arrangements to comply with the order.".").
The noble Lord said: The existing subsection (5) of Clause 18 modifies the conditions for a hospital order
588
to be made by the courts so that in Section 60 of the principal Act the court, in satisfying itself that arrangements have been made for the admission of the defendant, which has to be done within 28 days, shall have evidence of the medical practitioner who would be in charge of the case if the patient was admitted, or of some other person representing the management of the hospital. What we are doing is perpetuating the veto of the hospital on an order made by a court of law. The judges have expressed themselves on this matter, and I believe that the public at large would agree that it is highly unsatisfactory to have a power which is in the statute yet which cannot be carried into effect because we have so far failed to provide the resources to the Department of Health which would enable the courts to carry out their responsibilities. So we are removing this veto of the hospitals in the amendment we now propose and placing responsibility firmly on the Secretary of State to provide appropriate accommodation.
I would draw your Lordships' attention particularly to the word "suitable" because it may be argued, if this amendment were agreed to, that what would happen would be that the courts would invariably have to send the patient to a special psychiatric hospital. This might be deplorable, because many of them might be patients who could benefit from treatment in some other kind of institution. That is why the word "suitable" appears in this amendment. I believe it is essential that Parliament should make its voice clear at this opportunity and that we insist that resources are made available for the Department of Health and Social Security to provide the accommodation which is necessary for the courts to carry out their powers. I beg to move.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I should like to support this amendment because over many years, although not over very many cases, we in the magistrates' courts have had occasion to refer somebody who has been before us to a psychiatric hospital. The result of that has been that we have been told there are no places and that the beds are full—in fact, that they will not be admitted. The result has been that the offender has had to go to prison for a psychiatric assessment—which the prisons are able to do, but in my submission it is not done as well as it would be done at a psychiatric hospital. Therefore, this amendment, from the way it is worded, will, I am sure, help the courts a very great deal. The Minister is to make the appropriate arrangements and this will underline and perhaps bring out into the open the difficulties courts have had for many years. I for one am certainly very much in favour of this amendment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I too support this amendment from the point of view of the health authorities. I am aware of many occasions in the evenings when my regional medical officer has had to spend a whole evening in the office ringing round from one hospital to another, trying to find a hospital that would agree to take a convicted patient or a patient from a court. The power not only of the medical profession but also of the nursing staff to refuse to take difficult patients is very great today. I do not blame them because we have changed the psychiatric

589
hospitals to the open-door principle and it is difficult to create new conditions and suddenly to take maybe just one patient or a small number of patients and give them the security that is necessary. In many cases but not all it is very often a question of being able to provide the right form of security. Not always, but quite often, it is a question of being able to provide the right form of security. Until we have regional secure units for assessment of these patients so that we can properly assess which unit they should go to, we shall never be able to solve this problem, and it is quite wrong that as a result some of these patients remain in prison.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I am acutely aware of the reason why concern has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others of your Lordships on this particular amendment, because although the numbers of those in prison who should be in hospital are assessed by prison medical officers as being small in number, any number is too many. But, with respect to the Committee, I am not sure that this is the way to go about it. May I first of all ask your Lordships to look at the way in which the amendment is framed.
The Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended that a court should be able to override objection from a hospital and direct that the hospital should admit any offender who in the view of the two doctors who had given evidence to it meets the criteria for admission. I thought when I first saw this amendment that this was very much along the same lines. But the present amendment proposes a slightly different approach, but a significant one, from that of the Select Committee.
As I understand it, instead of making an order specifying a particular hospital to admit the person concerned, under this amendment the court would simply make a hospital order and it would then be the responsibility of the Minister concerned to put that order into effect by finding a suitable place for the offender. The terms of the proposed amendment do not, however, make it clear what powers the Government would then have, that is to say the Minister would have, to enable him to discharge this duty. What I am really saying is that the trouble with the amendment is that it does not end up by placing any duty on the hospital specified, and therefore I think as it stands this amendment would be unworkable and is therefore defective.
But I know that Committees of your Lordships' House do not like arguments to amendments to say that they are defective when they can be put right at a subsequent stage. But there are other things which would make the Government unhappy about this amendment. Although certainly from the Home Office point of view we are as keen as noble Lords moving the amendment to see the proper use of hospital orders taking pressure off the prison system, I think there are these formidable difficulties. First of all the amendment is open to the same objections of principle in relation to clinical freedom as was the previous proposal by the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
I would be unhappy, speaking on behalf of the Government, about proposing by legislation to compel the staff at a local National Health Service hospital to
590
admit a particular patient if in their professional opinion—that is, the opinion of the doctors as well as the staff—the person concerned was not suitable for or could not benefit from the treatment offered by the hospital, or possibly that the presence of the offender would significantly impair the provision to others of the treatment given there.
Moreover, I think I must reveal to your Lordships that my department's experience of the operation of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act, under which there are only about 20 to 30 cases per year, has not been a very happy one. These are cases which frequently require the expenditure of very considerable amounts of time and effort where the procedure is very much as under this amendment being put forward, except that at the end of the day there is a duty on the hospital to receive the patient. Nonetheless, I have to reveal that there has been very great difficulty under that piece of legislation in order to get those few cases into a hospital where the Minister has the duty to find a place.
May I come back to the general context of this. In reply to the Select Committee of the House of Commons last month, the Government indicated that—I quote from the reply—
"it does not believe that the best way of ensuring that more of these offenders find their way to hospital rather than to prison service establishments is to put a legal obligation on a hospital to admit such an offender on the order of a court".
That reply also quoted the view of Lord Butler's committee that it was,
"not unreasonable that consultants should establish criteria for selecting patients for treatment"
and that,
"psychiatric hospitals would find it impossible to do their work if they were forced to accommodate all such cases as the court thought right to send them, regardless of their ability to provide suitable treatment".
With very great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the Government feel so strongly about this amendment that it is much more than a question of providing resources. There is the question of clinical freedom which comes into it, and this is what Lord Butler and his committee put their fingers on. Your Lordships may think, as I do, that these views coming from the Butler Committee, an independent committee which had conducted a wide-ranging review of arrangements for dealing with mentally disordered offenders, and which was chaired by a very highly respected Member of your Lordships' House, tell powerfully against the thrust of this amendment.
Indeed, in relation to offenders in respect of whom a court might be minded to make a hospital order the Butler Committee went even further. They argued that there should be a statutory requirement on a court to obtain the consent of a doctor in the receiving hospital for making a hospital order with restrictions. Such a requirement would have the totally opposite effect to that intended by this amendment. But may I quickly say the Government do not think it necessary to go as far as the Butler Committee recommended, although we have made provision in this Bill for requiring a court to receive a report, either orally or in writing, from a doctor in a receiving hospital before making a hospital order. But the views of the doctor who would be clinically responsible for the patient if a hospital order was made, we feel are very important and should not be lightly set aside.

591
I do feel that I must reply before sitting down to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which I absolutely accept comes into the amendment, about resources. I do not think I can sit down and leave that aside. Before coming to the House this afternoon the latest information I could find was that the establishment of regional secure units is continuing to be looked upon by my right honourable friend's department and the Department of Health and Social Security as a priority. A 30-bed unit has now been opened in the North East at Middlesbrough. Building is in progress on four other sites to provide 136 places. On the basis of present plans about 170 permanent places should be available by the end of this year, and by 1985 over 500 are expected to be available. As an interim measure all health authorities have been asked to designate particular hospitals to provide treatment in conditions of security until such time as permanent regional secure units are provided, and some 380 places are now available and a further 200 places are planned.
I should not like your Lordships to think that in resisting this amendment, which I fear I must do, we are sitting back and doing nothing. We are trying to do something to improve the provision which is to be available so that the sentence of the court can be put into effect. To go as far as this amendment would wish, which would be in many ways to dragoon those who in their clinical judgment feel in some cases that they cannot accept a patient, would not be a wise way to proceed.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Before my noble friend the Minister sits down I should like to raise a point of clarification. We are—at least I am, but perhaps it is only me—talking about assessment which is one of the pivots of the Bill. If two doctors say that an offender should be assessed as to whether he can benefit from treatment in a hospital are we then still to say that, unless they agree in court to take that offender under their wing for the 28 days' assessment and perhaps short-term treatment, that offender would still have to go to prison to get the assessment? It is the 28 days' assessment that is the problem. It is in that connection that we have not been able to get places in hospital.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, answers that point I should like to say that I am a member of a regional health authority in Yorkshire and we have one planned. Also, as the noble Lord has said, there is one in Middlesbrough. I asked a question on Second Reading to which I did not receive a reply. I shall repeat it now in the hope that I shall get a reply. If a patient needs assessment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, has just said, can he or she be sent from the south to the north, as we in the north seem to be better equipped—and will be shortly even better equipped—with these secure units?
Lord Belstead: I should have thought that the answer to my noble friend Lady Macleod is surely included in Clause 27, which, of course, we have not yet come to. One of the reasons, which I did not mention
592
in the interests of time, why I feel that there is an alternative way of approaching the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and other noble Lords wish to approach through this amendment, is that in the Bill we are providing for the courts new powers to remand accused prisoners to hospital for observation and for reports and for the making of interim hospital orders on persons for whom the courts are not certain a hospital order proper would be the appropriate disposal. When these new arrangements are in operation it should be much easier in cases where there is doubt about a person's suitability for treatment in hospital for the matter to be examined by the courts and by the health authorities without any irrevocable commitment on either side.
We believe that the operation of these arrangements should in itself further strengthen the links between the courts and the hospitals and, frankly, make it easier to get those offenders into hospital who ought to be in hospital. As to whether it will mean the transfer of people from one region to another, I am afraid that I must tell the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that I cannot answer that question. I shall try to get the information as quickly as possible and let the noble Baroness know the answer.
Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the comprehensive way in which he replied to the amendment and also for the remarks he has just made drawing attention to the effect that the interim hospital orders will have on the relationships between the courts and the hospitals which I think is a matter of some importance and may well result in more frequent compliance with the wishes of the courts when we come to Section 60 orders.
However, I wonder whether the noble Lord does not exaggerate the difficulties of an amendment such as we have proposed arising from the issue of clinical freedom to which he has quite rightly drawn attention. I had the privilege the other day of visiting the interim secure unit at Bethlem Hospital and discussing the problem there with the consultant Dr. MacKeith and members of his staff and being introduced to a number of the patients there. I must say that I was very impressed indeed with the régime and with the care that the patients were receiving and the general atmosphere which was immensely superior to that of a prison and, I should have thought, of very much greater therapeutic value.
No one in the ISU in Bethlem Hospital told me that there was difficulty in accepting patients there from the courts and I believe that the problem is one of resources. Indeed, when we come to the provisions that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was mentioning, the permanent buildings which will be able to accommodate 500 patients by 1985 will not be cheap either in terms of capital expenditure or the staff that have to run them. I am very glad that the noble Lord has taken the opportunity of reaffirming that the Government are absolutely committed to achieving, he said I think, 170 places by the end of 1982 and 500 by 1985.
I hope that in assuming this commitment it is well understood by the Government and by the Treasury that we are taking on a fairly substantial piece of expenditure within the NHS and that it would be absolutely fatal to back down at the last minute and say

593
that we are not going to proceed with the programme that the noble Lord has outlined. I believe that, however expensive it may be, this is a very sensible expenditure of taxpayers' money and one which will certainly relieve the burden on the prisons—which are now, as we saw from the NACRO figures published the other day, costing £7,000 per annum per inmate; and that, I think, was the 1980–81 figure and it must have increased since then—and indeed the burdens on society which arise from the offences caused by the mentally abnormal offender who may be treated in one of these units. So I think that every encouragement should be given to the work of consultants such as Dr. MacKeith and his staff.
There is another point that I should like to make while the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is here from the DHSS to listen, and that is that I think that we need to look very carefully at the provision of the larger regional secure units as compared with the idea which Dr. MacKeith has advanced of having a number of smaller units dispersed throughout the region—at Oakwood, for example, Cane Hill and so on—so that the management of the patients can be on an intensely personal and individual basis. I think that this approach may well be more successful than the larger psychiatric hospitals, and particularly if we compare it with the special psychiatric hospitals such as Broadmoor where the ratio of staff to patients is nothing like as good. I think that we shall not find that the post-release experience in an establishment of that kind is anything like as favourable as it is with these smaller units.
As I have said, I did not find in discussing this matter with Dr. MacKeith—and I must say that I did not go into the question of this particular amendment with him—that there would have been much of a problem in accepting patients who were sent there by the courts. Certainly on remands—the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod—it is, as I see it, one of the functions of the ISUs to try to take the patients out of the prison system when it is a question of assessments.
But I think that several important and complex issues have been raised in the course of this debate and none of us would like to reach a final conclusion before we had had a chance to study the Minister's reply in detail and to take advice from the people in the health service that we are consulting and from organisations like MIND. So, with many thanks to the Minister for his thorough reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 44:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
(" Applications in respect of patient subject to hospital order.
.—(1) After subsection (3) of section 63 of the principal Act (effect of hospital orders and guardianship orders) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) Without prejudice to any provision of Part IV of this Act as applied by this section, an application to a Mental Health Review Tribunal in respect of a patient admitted to a hospital in pursuance of a hospital order may be made by the nearest relative of the patient—

(a) in the period between the expiration of six months and the expiration of twelve months beginning with the date of the order; and

594

(b) in any subsequent period of twelve months."

(2) In subsection (4) of that section the words "admitted to a hospital in pursuance of a hospital order, or " shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 44. Although this amendment stands by itself and appears to be quite distinct from Amendment No. 51 to Clause 26 and the proposed new schedule, Amendment No. 114, for which Amendment No. 51 is a paving amendment, this amendment is in fact very closely linked with Amendments Nos. 51 and 114. This amendment is, indeed, a part of the package of amendments which have been prepared to take account of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of X v the United Kingdom.
The net effect of that package, which is, as I say, mainly contained in Amendments Nos. 51 and 114, is very substantially to increase the rights of patients detained in hospital subject to restriction orders in line with the spirit and purpose of this Bill, which is to increase the safeguards available to all detained patients. I am emphasising this point about increasing the rights of patients as being the purpose of this Bill, because paradoxically, the precise effect of this amendment is, I regret, to remove an existing right belonging to those patients who are sent to hospital by the courts without restriction orders.
The amendment will prevent a patient detained under Section 60 of the 1959 Act from having his or her case reviewed by a mental health review tribunal until the person concerned has been detained for a period of six months. At present, such a patient may have the case considered once in the first six months after initial detention and then again when he has been detained for 12 months. Clause 12 of this Bill will give such a patient a new right to go to a tribunal in the second six months of detention in hospital; and the net effect of Clause 12 and of this amendment could, therefore, fairly be described as postponing from the first six months' detention to the second the initial tribunal entitlement of a patient who is detained under a hospital order without restriction.
Your Lordships will say: Why are the Government doing this? The need for this change is entirely bound up with our response to the judgment of the European Court in the case of X v. the United Kingdom. X was, of course, a restricted patient. In broad terms, what the European Court decided in that judgment was that all offender patients who are lawfully detained on the grounds of their mental disorder must have equal safeguards available to them. We were found to be in breach of the convention because a restricted patient, unlike an unrestricted patient, could not have his case considered by a tribunal with a power to discharge him. The convention contains provisions prohibiting discriminatory treatment and it seemed to the Government that, in order to be certain that we were complying with the provisions of the convention, we should provide exactly the same rights of access to a mental health review tribunal for restricted patients as we are providing for unrestricted offender patients.
Therefore, it is our desire to keep those two entitlements in line which lies behind this proposed amendment. When the Crown court is considering whether or not to make a restriction order on someone who

595
appears to meet the criteria for detention in hospital for treatment, it may be doing so after the person concerned was convicted of every serious criminal offences, up to and including manslaughter. We doubt whether it would be acceptable either to the general public or to judicial opinion that an offender sent to hospital following conviction for a very serious crime should have an immediate right to have the grounds for his continued detention in hospital for treatment considered by a tribunal with a power to discharge him if it was satisfied that the criteria for detention in hospital for treatment were not met.
The Crown court would have been considering this very point and would have had to take evidence from two doctors before making the hospital order. It was perhaps always something of an oddity that even a nonrestricted patient should have had a right of judicial review of the grounds for his detention in hospital immediately after the question had been considered by a court which decided to make a hospital order—especially perhaps when it is recalled that the patient had no such right in the second six months of detention in hospital when perhaps such a review would have been more appropriate.
Therefore, if this amendment is agreed to, restricted and non-restricted patients will have the right to go to a tribunal, not in the first six months of detention, but in the second six months, and thereafter all offender patients will be able to go to a tribunal once in every 12-month period. If we are to treat all patients, whether subject to restrictions or not, exactly alike—as we believe the European Convention requires us to do—this seems the fairest way to amend the law. I therefore commend this amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I am sure that your Lordships' Committee is grateful to my noble friend Lord Belstead for the clear explanation that he has given of what is really quite a complicated matter. I say without hesitation that the Government are to be congratulated upon promptly attempting to carry out the wishes, as embodied in their decision, of the European Court of Human Rights.
However, my noble friend was very candid in pointing out that in one respect he is removing a right which exists under the 1959 Act, and I think that that is regrettable. I do not think that it is necessary in order to comply with the decision of the court. Indeed, on the contrary, I think that it is against the spirit of the decision of the court to say that merely for the sake of consistency—a strange kind of egalitarianism—in order to give one type of patient a new right, we must remove an existing right from another type of patient. Therefore, although I greatly welcome all the package except on this one point, I would seriously suggest to my noble friend that between now and the Report stage he should consider striking out subsection (2) of the new clause embodied in Amendment No. 44.
That would leave him with a degree of inconsistency, but so long as it complies with the decision of the Court of Human Rights—and I think that it would be said to do so—it would appear to be in order. But to leave this package of amendments with that anomaly is, I find, disappointing and strange. Therefore, I hope that
596
the Government will consider the removal of subsection (2) of the new clause, whether or not they put anything in its place.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I should very much like to support the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He has said it much better than I can. We are looking at a Bill where we are trying to ensure that the rights of patients, of whatever kind, are improved, and we are using it to make the conditions less favourable for one section of the people within our hospitals. It seems to me that it should not be beyond human wit to get it right. Although it says in this very clear explanatory annex that I was kindly sent by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that:
"one inference to be drawn from the judgment of the European Court is that the safeguards for all persons should be the same",
even if it means that it is a farce to have a case reviewed again within the first six months, for the benefit of those people who have been entitled to that benefit before, we should go through that kind of procedure. I believe that it is quite wrong to diminish the rights of non-restricted patients by this amendment.
Lord Belstead: The first thing that I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, is that I may have misled her in the papers which I sent her; or that the noble Baroness may have had a slight slip of the tongue. Let me put it on the record that the Home Office does not think that it is the judgment which requires the consistency which is incorporated in this amendment and which my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Baroness are criticising. We believe that the consistency which we need to write into our legislation is required by the terms of the convention itself. I just simply say that to give absolute clarification of what we believe from the Home Office is the position in which we find ourselves in this country at the moment. We do not think that it is the judgment of the court which required this consistency; we believe that the convention itself, to which we have to direct ourselves because of the judgment of the court, is requiring the consistency.
What I should like to ask the Committee to agree to would be this. I would be grateful if it would be possible for the amendment to be agreed to and written into the Bill, so that the debate can be read in Hansard and the new clause can be seen on the face of the Bill. But I will give an undertaking that I will be very ready to meet the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Renton to discuss this, because I think we shall want to look at the terms of the convention and the judgment again as a result of this brief exchange this evening. It would be most convenient if we met to have a talk about it to see if there is any way in which the Government can move towards the position which the noble Baroness and my noble friend have taken. So that I do not mislead the Committee, we feel, if I may repeat it once more, that we are in a position as a contracting State to the convention, that as a result of the judgment we must, because of the convention, achieve consistency so far as matters relating to the case of X v. United Kingdom are concerned.
Lord Renton: I am sure that the Committee would be right to accept the request of my noble friend Lord

597
Belstead. It is clear that we should accept this group of amendments at the moment. I am grateful to him for saying that he will reconsider this deprivation of an existing right. In doing so, I hope that he will bear in mind that the consistency which the convention, as he rightly has reminded us, requires would easily be met by preserving the existing right and making the new rights consistent with that. I see no difficulty about that at all. Indeed, I do not think it requires even an act of stupendous generosity on the part of the Government to achieve that result.
Lord Belstead: I do not want to prolong this but I think—and I am afraid I cannot find the relevant note in my papers—that our concern with my noble friend Lord Renton's suggestion is not that the Government are worried about this. We want to go as far as possible towards seeing what is right and what your Lordships' House believes is right. I must discuss this with my noble friend, but I think that the Government would have to take cognisance of what the courts would feel about having their decisions subject so immediately to a tribunal review. However, with that caveat, just so that I have it on the record, if we could proceed in the way I have suggested I would indeed be grateful.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I would he most happy.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Removal to hospital of persons serving sentences of imprisonment etc.]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 12, line 36, leave out ("handicap") and insert ("impairment").
The noble Lord said: This is consequential on Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 46:
Leave out Clause 20, and insert the following new clause:
("Removal to hospital of persons serving sentences of imprisonment etc.
20.—(1) For section 72(1) of the principal Act there shall be substituted—
"(1) In the case of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment the Secretary of State may, if he is of the opinion having regard to the public interest and all the circumstances that it is expedient to do so, by warrant direct that that person be removed to and detained in such hopsital (not being a mental nursing home) as may be specified in the direction.
(2) No direction shall be made under this section unless a Mental Health Review Tribunal is satisfied that—

(a) the said person is suffering from mental illness or psychopathic disorder, and

(b) the mental disorder is of a nature or degree which warrants the detention of the patient in a hospital for medical treatment, and

(c) such treatment is likely to alleviate or prevent a deterioration in his condition."

(2) Subsection (4) of section 72 of the principal Act shall be repealed.").
The noble Lord said: Part V of the principal Act contains all the powers for sending offenders compul-
598
sorily to hospital. We have dealt with Section 60, which allows the courts to make an order that a person convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment should be detained in a hospital, and Section 72 then contains similar powers exercisable by the Secretary of State in respect of a person who is already serving a sentence of imprisonment to send him to a hospital. If it is felt necessary to do so for the protection of the public, the court may, in addition, impose a restriction order under Section 65 for a person who is the subject of a hospital order under Section 60, and the Secretary of State in the analogous case may impose a restriction order under Section 74 in the case of a person transferred from prison to a psychiatric hospital.
Clause 20 of this Bill alters the criteria for the use of Section 72 so that in the case of a psychopathic disorder they can only be applied to patients whose condition is likely to be alleviated, or may be prevented from deteriorating, by treatment. The Secretary of State has to be satisfied that the patient is suffering from mental illness or psychopathic disorder before making a Section 72 order, and in making his decision he has the advice of two medical practitioners.
There have been several cases that have come to my notice in the past few months where a prisoner has nearly reached the end of his sentence and then he is transferred to a special hospital under Section 72, and normally this is accompanied by a restriction order under Section 74. The effect has been in the past that he could not ask for his case to be referred to a mental health review tribunal until a year after the date of the transfer—long after he might have been released from prison at the proper release date. Although, as I understand what the Minister has just said, the person transferred under a Section 72 order will now be entitled to make an application to the mental health review tribunal within the first six months. But it may still happen that a person continues to be detained in a psychiatric hospital long after he could have expected to be released in the normal course of events if he had remained in the prison.
Also, if he does not succeed in the application that he makes subsequently to the mental health review tribunal, he may remain in custody for a very much longer time than he would have done normally. This is why it requires to be reviewed in the manner suggested in this amendment. Take, for example, the case of a person who has received a nine-year sentence—say for grievous bodily harm, or something like that—and who has qualified for full remission and would be released, if he does not obtain parole, at the end of six years. If, immediately prior to the expiry of that six years, he is made subject to a Section 72 order and transferred to a psychiatric hospital, he would remain there for another three years until the total sentence has been exhausted before he may be released, unless in the meanwhile the mental health review tribunal has taken the view that he should be released.
This is not an academic matter. I drew the attention of the noble Lord the Minister to a particular case recently. There are two which have come to my notice. One received a good deal of publicity. This was the case of a young man in Birmingham who had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment at Gartree Prison and was transferred to Rampton under Section 72, and remained there for some time after the

599
period in which his sentence would have normally come to an end. That was a case that caused a tremendous amount of anxiety in Birmingham, because the young man was a Rastafarian and it was considered by those who knew him well that he was not suffering from any mental disorder but that he was wrongly diagnosed by the psychiatrists within the prison service.
I do not need to underline the fact that this is an extremely sensitive and controversial matter; that it is said by the West Indian community that psychiatrists in the prisons, and indeed in the hospital service as a whole, are not properly trained in recognising the different cultures of ethnic minorities, and that as a result people may be wrongly diagnosed as suffering from mental illness when they talk, for instance, as the Rastafarians frequently do about God; a word which is not often heard on the lips of people in the late twentieth century.
Therefore, a person who is very religious—and it has now been declared by the Catholics that Rastafarianism should be treated as a religion—may nonetheless be diagnosed as suffering from mental illness. In this particular case the consequence for the young man was that he was transferred to Rampton and continued to be detained there for some time after his sentence would have expired.
The other case that came to my notice recently was of a young man who again was transferred under Section 72 very shortly before the end of his sentence. He was transferred with restrictions to Broadmoor. This case has been taken up by MIND and has been the subject of a letter which I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, which I hope he received before this debate. The young man's earliest release date was 10th February. I understand he is still in Broadmoor, even though during the last year of the time he was in prison his behaviour, I am told, was exemplary. I was not able to check on this in detail before the debate, but it seems very dangerous that no review should be conducted by some independent and impartial body when arbitrary powers exist to prolong the period of a person's detention beyond that which was imposed by the court.
That is why in the amendment it is suggested that before an order is made under Section 72, with or without restrictions, for the transfer of a person from a prison to a psychiatric hospital, there should be an opportunity to review the matter before a mental health review tribunal. I have no doubt that when he replies the Minister will say that under the amendment just accepted—which may be improved still further on Report—this person would have the right of application to a mental health review tribunal within the first six months of his transfer. But how can we be certain that the hearing of the tribunal will take place before he would have been released? That is the important question to which the Minister must address himself.
It would also compel the prison authorities to address their minds to the question of a person's mental health long before he reaches the earliest release date, something which they do not appear to do at the moment. If they were able to satisfy themselves that the patient would benefit from transfer to a special hospital during the period of his imprisonment, there would be plenty
600
of time for the matter to be endorsed by a mental health review tribunal before the expiry of his sentence. I hope that, with that argument, the Minister will feel that this would be a valuable and worthwhile addition to the rights of patients, and particularly those who are in the vulnerable position of being held in our prison system. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the ingenuity with which he succeeded in importing his views on Rastafarians into a proposal otherwise to amend Section 72 of the Mental Health Act 1959. Having said that, I could not agree with him that the involvement of a mental health review tribunal in the process of transfer from prison to hospital is appropriate or necessary. I do not think it is appropriate because, after all, tribunals exist to protect the rights of patients in hospital, rather than persons serving prison sentences, and because the involvement of tribunals in what would be for them wholly new work would almost certainly lengthen the process of transferring a prisoner to hospital. I do not think it is necessary because there are already adequate safeguards to prevent patients being transferred from prison to hospital if they do not meet the strict criteria for detention in hospital for medical treatment.
Let us not forget that we are talking about things being done on the report of two medical officers, of two doctors. Although I do not in any way accept the strictures which the noble Lord made in introducing the amendment on members of the prison medical service—indeed, I reject absolutely what the noble Lord said in that respect—nonetheless, if one was not sure about a medical report which comes from a doctor (and everybody can err from time to time) let us not forget that Section 72 requires two medical reports, and of course the safeguards are being strengthened by amendments to the 1959 Act which are being made in this Bill. Provided the criteria for treatability are met, surely there is no reason why a person suffering from mental impairment or severe mental impairment should not be transferred from prison to hospital. The noble Lord's amendment would prevent that because it refers only to mental illness and psychopathic disorder.
There is a further point, a serious one, which I would put to the noble Lord and which, with his experience of helping people in custody, he will appreciate. The involvement of doctors other than a tribunal doctor would inevitably be necessary in any proposed transfer from prison to hospital, and the involvement of a tribunal would be a further complication to the transfer process. In a case, by no means unlikely, in which a prisoner suffers a severe mental breakdown or becomes extremely psychotic, a delay in transfer arrangements would lengthen the time taken because the process would have to wait for a decision of the mental health review tribunal, and that could have a very serious effect on the health of the patient. For those reasons, the Government could not support the amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will agree that some of the arguments I have adduced are valid.
Lord Winstanley: Before my noble friend Lord Avebury responds, may I ask the Minister to clarify

601
a point which arose earlier in his answer? He said that in his view, and no doubt he is correct, the purpose of the mental health review tribunals is to protect the rights of hospital patients. I think those were his words.
Lord Belstead: Yes.
Lord Winstanley: Going on from there, may I ask whether the noble Lord would accept that a person who has been a prisoner in a prison and who is transferred to hospital shortly before the expiry of his sentence—so that after the time of the expiry of his prison sentence he is in hospital—is then a patient detained in a hospital within the very terms which the Minister used?
Lord Belstead: I think—and I am afraid I am thinking on my feet—the answer to the noble Lord is, Yes, that he is on to a good point, but the amendment has a very much wider application than the application which he has just put to me.
Lord Avebury: I could detain the Committee for a long time in replying to all the points the Minister made, but I know it is the intention to come to a conclusion fairly soon, so I will content myself with a few remarks about some of the most contentious points he made. First, the noble Lord talked about a patient who becomes ill shortly before he is due to complete his sentence. If that is the case, then presumably he would be transferred to the prison hospital, and then, as my noble friend Lord Winstanley pointed out, he becomes a person who is eligible for the protection of the mental health review tribunals, because he is then within, for example, the hospital wing at Parkhurst before he is transferred to a special psychiatric hospital.
The Minister then produced the example of someone who has a severe psychotic episode immediately before he is discharged. I do not know how many cases occur of long-term prisoners becoming severely ill just before the end of their sentences, but the Minister should take a close look at the cases I have raised and should satisfy himself that there is not an increase, as appears to me from the few cases that have come to my notice, of the use of Section 72 at the end of rather long periods of imprisonment, and the question why psychiatrists in hospitals have not been able to identify the mental illness from which the person is alleged to be suffering earlier on in the sentence.
I was not actually making general criticisms of the prison medical service, as the noble Lord seemed to imply, but I would point out that it is not perfect. If we go back to the case of the Rastafarians, I would remind the noble Lord the Minister of the case of Richard Campbell, the young man who died in Ashford Remand Centre of dehydration. He was diagnosed by the prison medical service as suffering from schizophrenia. When the prison medical service attempted to transfer him to St. Bernard's Hospital, Southall, it was said that he was suffering only from a physical illness and he was transferred back to Ashford Remand Centre, where a few days later he died of dehydration. I must say that an example of that kind shows that there can be severe misunderstandings arising from the misdiagnosis of Rastafarianism as schizophrenia, and
602
I do not think that noble Lords should brush them aside by saying that the prison medical service is perfect.
It is not a question of black or white, if I may put it that way; it is a matter of the prison medical service trying better to inform themselves of the kinds of customs and backgrounds of the ethnic minority who unfortunately find themselves an increasing proportion of our prison population. But I accept that these are very complex matters, and there is no simple answer to them. However, having studied the Minister's reply, I intend to take further advice on it, and perhaps I shall return to this matter at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
Lord Denham: I think that this might be an appropriate moment to adjourn. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

  SS20 MISSILES: DEPLOYMENT BY USSR
  SS20 MISSILES: DEPLOYMENT BY USSR
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: TRANSPORTATION POLICY
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: TRANSPORTATION POLICY
  PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BOARD: LOCAL AUTHORITY BORROWINGS
  PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BOARD: LOCAL AUTHORITY BORROWINGS
  ROAD TRANSPORT: ESTABLISHMENT OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
  ROAD TRANSPORT: ESTABLISHMENT OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
  LONDON TRANSPORT FARES JUDGMENT: COSTS
  LONDON TRANSPORT FARES JUDGMENT: COSTS