Sitting of 14 July 1982

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

    Seat Belts
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to introduce regulations on wearing seat belts.
    Mr. Sheermanasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the type of information which he intends to give the public concerning seat belt wearing; when it will be published; and how it will be distributed.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid the wearing of seat belt regulations before Parliament in draft on 6 July. They had to be relaid due to a minor correction on 13 July.
    After the regulations have been approved, we shall use press and leaflets to inform the public about the starting date of the new law, whom it will cover, how to apply for medical exemption and how to improve the comfort and fit of seat belts. We shall then have further publicity shortly before the day when seat belt wearing becomes compulsory.
    Mr. Jessel: As for timing, is my hon. Friend aware that every week's delay in putting the regulations into force costs 14 lives and about 200 serious injuries? It is now almost a year since the House, by a majority of 77, voted for the law—the House of Lords having done so earlier by a majority of 40. Will the Department of Transport hasten to comply with the clear will of both Houses of Parliament and bring forward the day from the twenty-third Monday after the regulations have been voted on, which has been suggested, and put the rules into action as quickly as possible?
    Mrs. Chalker: Nobody regrets more than I the loss of life, but people do not need compulsion to wear seat belts. The provisions of the Transport Act 1981 require us to lay a statement of proposals before Parliament three months before the regulations are laid for approval. We issued a consultative document last December, which went to all representative organisations and the general public. It is important to get this matter right. Seat belt wearing has been more effective in those countries, such as Australia and Sweden, which took their time, rather than in those countries that rushed their introduction. We shall speed the matter as soon as Parliament completes its necessary consultation and approval procedure.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does the Minister agree that it was anticipated by her predecessors in the Department that compulsory wearing of seat belts would be introduced by late this summer? That seems to be getting further and further away, and perhaps dangerously near to a general election. That would worry many of us, because this type of measure has been put off by that kind of event before. Is there any possibility that measures to improve protection for children in cars could be brought in earlier? Seventy children lose their lives every year in cars. That would be an improvement—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not really fair, because we had a preamble as well as an argument after the question.
    Mrs. Chalker: I shall see whether the provisions for the protection for children, which I had intended to introduce at the same time as compulsory seat belt wearing, can be brought forward. We have not sought to delay bringing forward this measure. We want to get it right. I believe that that is the sensible way to proceed.
    Mr. Lawrence: Before my hon. Friend introduces the regulations will she consider the unfairness of allowing an exemption for driving examiners—half of whose passengers are competent drivers—and refusing an exemption for driving instructors, nearly all of whose passengers in the earlier stages are incompetent?
    Mrs. Chalker: Because an examiner should not intervene during a test until the last moment, to see whether the provisional driver has corrected the fault, we thought it necessary to give examiners the right not to wear seat belts if they felt that there could be a hazard. It is a different matter for instructors. They should be setting an example. The British School of Motoring has advised that seat belts must be worn at all times during tuition by pupils and instructors. I believe that is right.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister consider exempting taxi drivers from having to wear seat belts? Is she aware that taxi drivers are frightened of being attacked and robbed while wearing seat belts and not being able to protect themselves?
    Mrs. Chalker: We have already included that among the exemptions in the regulations, for the reason the hon. Gentleman cites.
    Mr. Stott: The Minister will be aware that it is right and proper to allow sufficient time for adequate and appropriate consultation on these matters, but she will recall what the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) said earlier. It is almost a year since I stood at the Dispatch Box and asked the House to approve the seat belt regulations. I accept that the hon. Lady is not responsible for the business of the House, but will the regulations be debated in the House before the Summer Recess?
    Mrs. Chalker: That is not a matter for me. I should like the regulations to be debated soon and I am using my best endeavours of persuasion to ensure that that happens.

    GLC (Transport Policies and Programme Document)
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the Greater London Council's transport policies and programme document.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): All county and metropolitan councils have been asked to submit their transport policies and programme documents by the end of July.
    Mr. Proctor: Would it not be in the best interests of London's travelling public if London Transport were removed from the GLC's sticky paws and placed temporarily with his Department so that a study can be made of the possibility of privatising the entire operation? Would that not be in the best interests of London's transport consumers?
    Mr. Howell: From bitter experience, there is something to be said for a changed structure within which London Transport can work. I await with interest the report from the Select Committee on Transport on the right structure for the administration of London's transport. I understand that the report is due soon. I shall study it with great interest, as will many others.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Does the Minister's last answer mean that the Government now believe in new quangos and have given up their desire to reduce them? Does the Minister agree that London Transport fares are far too high? If the GLC puts a plan to the Minister under which, gradually, they can be reduced in real terms, will he agree to it?
    Mr. Howell: My last answer means what it said. I think that Londonders have had a raw deal in transport organisation. New thoughts are not out of place. I hope that the GLC will produce a firm and sensible plan. I detect some signs that the GLC now accepts that its "Fare's Fair" experiment was unrealistic and unworkable nonsense and, therefore, I have hopes that it will produce a sensible plan. I should like lower fares and lower costs. They are too high. The plan must be formulated around that aim.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour-controlled GLC is breaking an election pledge in deciding to go ahead with the new bypass and terminating it at the White Hart roundabout in Northolt? Does he agree that that will have catastrophic effects on local people and does he not deplore that appalling behaviour?
    Mr. Howell: I note what my hon. Friend says. He will have enough experience of politics to know that election pledges are not always fulfilled to the letter.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State undertake to have no truck with the nonsense expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor)? More important, will he consider discussing not only the Select Committee's report but the GLC's proposals? May we have a firm assurance that before coming to a conclusion he will publish a Green Paper so that all the ideas can be thoroughly canvassed and discussed before any change is made in London Transport's structure?
    Mr. Howell: I cannot give an undertaking now about the precise way in which we shall carry the debate forward, but I hope that the GLC will have some views on a changed and improved structure for transport for London and the surrounding counties. That would be desirable. The chairman of London Transport, among others, has made his views known, and other views have been offered to the Select Committee. We should wait for its conclusions.

    British Rail (Dispute)
    Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the consequences of prolonged industrial action to British Rail.
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on industrial relations on British Railways.
    Sir David Priceasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about public investment in British Rail in the light of recent industrial disputes.
    Mr. David Howell: I shall be making a statement later today about the current industrial action on the railways. But it is clear that strike action can only have the most damaging effects on the future prospects of the industry and its work force. The present strike is bleeding the industry of vital resources, which could be used for better and more modern equipment.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Perhaps hon. Members would prefer to be called to ask a question after the statement has been made. I shall call them then if they do not ask a question now. Hon. Members who are called now cannot expect to be called later.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that prolonged industrial action will have a detrimental effect upon investment in further electrification and, what is more, could affect the private sector, in that such desirable projects as the Channel tunnel are unlikely to receive the Government's blessing because British Rail will not be in receipt of the infrastructure investment that is vital for that project? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that project would create substantial employment in all parts of the country and be beneficial to the regions?
    Mr. Howell: Prolonged industrial action and strikes can do nothing but harm to all aspects of the railways' future.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Now that the Leader of the Opposition is to meet Sir Peter Parker with the object of resolving the dispute, will the Prime Minister do likewise?
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Is the Leader of the Opposition taking Sid Weighell with him?
    Mr. Howell: Hon. Members should await my statement.

    London (Public Transport)
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is yet in a position to make a statement about the future of public transport in and near London.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre): My right hon. Friend is still considering the future organisation of transport in the London area and awaits with interest the report of the Select Committee on Transport. In the meantime, we have made it clear to the GLC that what is needed is a decent transport system for London with lower fares and better value for money within the considerable resources available to London Transport.

    1021
    We have asked the GLC to prepare a plan on that basis. How it measures up to the task will be a factor in decisions about organisational change.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware of the reliance of many of my constituents on the Epping-Ongar and Central line of London Transport, which is the responsibility of the Greater London Council, upon which my constituents' local authorities are not represented? Will the Secretary of State, therefore, expedite proposals for setting up a public authority for London transport which is able to do justice to all its users?
    Mr. Eyre: I appreciate the complications, which will be taken into account when we consider the Select Committee on Transport's report and my right hon. Friend's proposals.
    Mr. Jay: Is the Minister aware that his total inactivity on London Transport affairs for months is doing as much damage to London as his inactivity over the rail dispute is doing to the country as a whole?
    Mr. Eyre: The right hon. Gentleman should understand that the damage to transport in London was caused by the ill-conceived GLC "Fare's Fair" policy. That is why my right hon. Friend is right to call on the GLC to prepare sensible plans to deal with London's transport requirements.
    Sir Anthony Royle: When the Minister is considering discussions with the GLC, with a view to removing responsibility for London Transport from it, will he consider the possibility of taking away the GLC's responsibility for main roads in the London area, in view of the GLC's failure to deal with the heavy lorry problem?
    Mr. Eyre: That will be taken into account.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the unfair deal that his hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) mentioned is the responsibility not of the GLC, but of the ill-considered and ill-judged intervention of one or two Bromley councillors? Since both British Rail and London Transport gain revenue support from the Government, does the Minister agree that representation and organisation of transport in London can be separate from those of national support?
    Mr. Eyre: On reflection the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Lords' judgment was misrepresented in its effect by the GLC, which has now realised that it does not require it to break even without subsidy. The hon. Gentleman should understand that the GLC plans did enormous harm to businesses and to a great number of private individuals as a result of the excessive burden of rates that was placed on them.
    Mr. John Page: When my hon. Friend is publishing and considering his future plans for public transport in London, will he also consider finding a new parent for London Transport which could be a new parent for the Hackney carriage industry and the private hire car industry?
    Mr. Eyre: I appreciate the importance of my hon. Friend's points and they will be taken into consideration.

    Railways (Investment)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet representatives of the railway workers' unions to discuss future investment in the railways and matters pertaining thereto.
    Mr. David Howell: I have done so, at a meeting of the Rail Council, and I hope that a similar opportunity will arise in the future.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State urge British Rail to give further consideration to ASLEF's claim, as the dispute has already cost about £100 million, which is more than what British Rail would hope to gain by the introduction of flexible rostering, even over the next decade? Does not today's decision to set up a special Cabinet Committee to preside over the possible closure of the complete railway network, and the inclusion in that Committee of the chairman of the Tory Party, prove conclusively that the Tory Party is trying politically to engineer and exploit the dispute to try to smash the trade union movement?
    Mr. Howell: Those are fantasies in the hon. Gentleman's mind. If consideration is to be given, perhaps it should be consideration by those who have called this strike and, indeed, the strike action earlier in the year. Both caused much misery and suffering to the travelling public, to families going on holiday, grave difficulties for the commuter and have drained away millions of pounds that could have gone into investment in a modern railway.
    Mr. Lyell: Before my right hon. Friend discusses with Mr. Buckton any further investment, will he make it clear to Mr. Buckton that his protestations this morning on radio, that he wants to negotiate with British Rail, would come from him rather better if he had not run through a full year of negotiations on flexible rostering and failed to implement anything that was discussed, including the report of Lord McCarthy, for which he asked?
    Mr. Howell: Those points are self-evident and widely understood by those who want to see a modern railway and believe that some unwisdom has been shown by the ASLEF executive in charging into the strike and causing great damage to the railways' future.

    M1
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he now anticipates that the current major roadworks on the M1 will be completed.
    Mrs. Chalker: The M1 widening scheme between junctions 5 and 8 in Hertfordshire should be completed by the autumn of 1983. Several major maintenance contracts are also in progress on other sections of the motorway and should be completed during the summer and autumn of this year.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister agree that the existence of major roadworks on the M1 not only creates delay, aggravation and expense, but potentially grave danger, especially when traffic is flowing in both directions on the same side of the motorway? Is she aware that I was involved in a serious accident only a few days ago near Leicester on the M1, when the lives of everyone in the car were undoubtely saved by seat belts and by the existence

    1023
    of a crash barrier? Will she please do all she can to see that the occasions on which there is a contra-flow system are kept to a minimum?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am sure that the whole House will join me in saying that we are relieved to see the hon. and learned Gentleman safe and sound and to learn that he was wearing his seat belt.
    I am aware that the extensive repairs and reconstruction not only cause inconvenience, but, unless properly planned and well thought through, could also cause additional danger. It is for those reasons that we have extended the preparation lanes into the contra-flow system. We have changed the original system and I hope that motorists using the contra-flow system on the motorways will bear in mind the advised speed limits. They are being exceeded all too often by motorists who are trying to make haste. That causes accidents.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is still considerable dissatisfaction among users of the motorways about the apparent coning of parts of surrounding areas that are involved in motorway reconstruction but where there does not appear to be any work going on? Will my hon. Friend look closely at the problem, as it delays many of her right hon. and hon. Friends as they travel to their constituencies?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am concerned not only with my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members, but with the whole travelling public. We have asked our regional directors to ensure that coning on the motorways is carried out only when necessary. The fact that works may not appear to be going on is because the asphalt may be drying out. If we did not allow that necessary procedure to happen, there would be a waste of the investment in the resurfacing work.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Minister satisfied with the liaison between her Department and the police authorities? Is she aware—I reported this to her office on Monday—that when I came down the M1 on Sunday, drivers were using the hard shoulder as though it were the outside, fast lane? Will she join me in deploring that dreadfully dangerous practice? Is she further aware that there was not a policeman in sight to take action? Will she see that that is remedied as soon as possible before there is a major accident and loss of life at those roadworks?
    Mrs. Chalker: I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. I, too, had noted this. We have asked the police to take special note of those who are travelling on the hard shoulder. As I said in an earlier reply, we appeal to all motorists to observe the speed restrictions, which are put there not for fun but to save lives. I hope that motorists will take heed of that.

    Commuter Transport (Financial Support)
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide direct financial support for all public transport undertakings which are heavily used by commuters.
    Mr. Eyre: The Government already provide substantial financial assistance for local transport services through transport supplementary grant and for British Rail passenger services through the PSO grant.
    Mr. Newens: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the refusal of the Essex county council, on principle, to pay
    1024
    any transport supplementary grant towards the support of the Epping-Ongar section of the Central Line, on the ground that British Railways' commuter services receive a 100 per cent. subsidy and do not receive a 30 per cent. contribution from local authorities? Is it fair that that section of the line should be burdened with premium fares that are driving travellers away and are continually forcing the question of closure to be raised when these problems have nothing to do with the travellers there? Will he instruct Essex county council that it should pay TSG straight over to London Transport—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is answering his question as well.
    Mr. Eyre: The provision of local transport services on the Epping-Ongar line, which are provided by London Transport, requires the Essex county council to decide whether it will give support to those services. If it does so decide my right hon. Friend will assist the council by giving sympathetic consideration with regard to the TSG grant and to any proposal that it makes. It is essentially a local matter.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm to the House that it is not part of his policy to turn railways into highways, an idea that is being promoted a great deal on television, but that it is part of his policy to give public transport the opportunity to provide the type of service that consumers are entitled to expect?
    Mr. Eyre: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he does not expect any substantial closure to take place on the railways. The hon. Gentleman will understand that there are parts of the country, mainly the rural areas, where lines are now unused and where it is sensible to bring forward alternative proposals, such as cycle tracks.
    Mr. Skinner: If we can get back to the question—[Interruption.] We have strayed a little. Will the Minister give a guarantee that when the Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council submits a scheme for free transport for all its elderly and disabled persons in the near future he will ensure that any shortfall that has to be paid to public and private undertakings for bus services will be made good by the Government?
    Mr. Eyre: Sensible and responsible plans prepared by local authorities are always considered carefully and sympathetically by my right hon. Friend.

    British Rail (Public Funding)
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for Transport how much money he now expects to be paid to British Rail out of public funds in the current financial year.
    Mr. Eyre: Grants from public funds are expected to total about £915 million.
    Mr. Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that his answer shows that the Government are putting huge sums of money into the railways? Is it not also true that the Government and the taxpayer are providing about £2 million each day to keep open uneconomic lines for social reasons? I can understand the need to subsidise the railways, but is my hon. Friend aware that the public

    1025
    demand that the railways are run as efficiently as possible and that their money should not be used to maintain outdated working practices which other railway systems have long abandoned?
    Mr. Eyre: I agree with all the points that my hon. Friend has made. In real terms, total support under the Government has been set at £186 million more than in the last full year of the previous Administration, but within the grant system there will be adjustments to take account of the strikes.
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: What is the cost to public funds of maintaining uneconomic and marginal lines such as the Kings Lynn—London railway link? Will the Minister confirm that the future of those lines will depend very much on the present industrial dispute coming rapidly to a close?
    Mr. Eyre: The costs of the lines to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are borne partly within the PSO grant of £915 million, to which I have referred. It is realised on all sides that the continuation of the industrial strike will do enormous harm to the economy and future of the railways, which naturally gives rise to great concern about the pattern of the railway services.
    Mr. Forman: I recognise that when this damaging dispute is over it will be necessary for my hon. Friend's Department to continue subsidising the social services by British Rail, but what ideas does my hon. Friend's Department have for ensuring improved performance and productivity from the whole British Rail industry?
    Mr. Eyre: It is difficult to answer my hon. Friend fully when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is about to make, after questions, a serious statement about the railways. The earmarking of part of the PSO for maintaining lines was one of the steps that were taken to ensure more efficient use of resources in the railway system.
    Mr. Flannery: When will the Minister realise that the present trouble on the railways is due entirely to lack of proper investment by the Government? When will he realise that not only is that bringing the Government to an unnecessary collision with the railway men but is antagonising the entire trade union movement and causing an unnecessary struggle? Does he realise that railway men have had to put up with so-called flexible rostering for years, that to try to intensify flexible rostering by making more and more cuts meant that a stand had to be made at some time, and that that stand by the trade union movement is now here?
    Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman insistes upon ignoring the facts. I have given direct evidence that the PSO payable under the Government has been greater in real terms than under the previous Government. There has been more than £2 million of investment in the railways since 1976, one half of that since 1979. The hon. Gentleman must understand the significance of that, but the essential requirement is modern working practices to make good use of that investment.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I do not accept the Minister's figures for the amount of PSO grant and so on. Does he understand that one of the reasons why the Government were compelled to increase the amount of money was the economic plight facing the railways—a plight that was caused by the Government's actions?
    Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the railway also failed to hold this business in certain respects—for example, in parcel traffic. Those adverse factors were taken into account in the unusually high grant that was given to the railways last year.

    British Rail (Investment)
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment in the railways.
    Sir Albert Costainasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment in the railways.
    Mr. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the British Railways Board to discuss investment levels.
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment plans for the railways.
    Mr. David Howell: I meet the chairman frequently to discuss various matters of mutual interest.
    Mr. Parry: The Secretary of State will be aware of recent cuts in inter-city services. Does he accept that such cuts lead to unemployment, particularly in areas such as Liverpool? Does he agree that the Government adopt double standards on service to the general public? When there is an official strike by the rail unions the Government attack the trade unions, yet when there is industrial peace the Government support cuts in services and jobs?
    Mr. Howell: On the railways it makes sense in management terms to adjust capacity and supply of rolling stock and services to demand. The running of many empty trains is a waste of resources that would otherwise go into modern equipment, resignalling and all the other things that we want to see on a modern railway. That is a sensible course to follow. The vast majority of railway men who want to see investment in a modern railway system and who do not want to strike are right to support good management practice.
    Sir Albert Costain: My question could be altered by the Secretary of Slate's statement, Mr. Speaker. May I reserve my question until the statement has been made?
    Mr. Speaker: I shall not say, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look in my direction.
    Mr. Anderson: Does the Secretary of State accept that, despite current levels of investment and the increased PSO, there is a continual rundown of the railway system, which in part is the background to the current crisis? What priority do he and his Department give to the continued retention of the net work at its present level?
    Mr. Howell: We have made it clear that we do not want substantial cuts in the network. I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the present resources of the railway system are being bled away. Even with the vastly greater social grant last year and this year than previously, even with the investment programmes, which were mentioned a few minutes ago—£1 billion since 1979 and another £1 billion spent on track renewal—and even with special parts of the current increased grant being reserved for track renewal, there is

    1027
    bound to be enormous pressure on all parts of the system in future. Severe difficulties will have to be faced in maintaining the railway network that we had before this hideous and disastrous strike action.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need for more investment in the railway system, but only when the railway unions accept that we no longer live in 1919? If they would bring their practices up to date, it would be worth while investing more money in the future railway system.
    Mr. Howell: I agree.
    Mr. Spriggs: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the British Railways Board, will he encourage him not to withdraw the new flexible rosters? I come from the railways and I have examined the new rosters. They are the best working rosters that I have seen in the last 40 years.
    Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman speaks from great experience and with wisdom about the railway system. He echoes the views of Sidney Weighell, who has made it clear that the flexible rosters are a social and economic benefit to his members. I only wish that other senior and responsible people in the trade unions would bring home the same message that Sidney Weighell has given, who has had experience on the footplate and on other parts of the train.

    Bus Lanes
    Mr. Higginsasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will carry out a survey of bus lanes to establish their effect on traffic flows in urban areas.
    Mr. Eyre: The effects of bus lanes on traffic flows have been widely studied and my Department has issued advice on design.
    Mr. Higgins: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people believe that bus lanes slow down the flow of traffic not only for cars and other vehicles but for buses? As there will be new data because bus lanes have been withdrawn during the present rail crisis, will my hon. Friend make sure that statistics on the traffic flow of buses and other vehicles during this period are compared with those for periods when the bus lanes are in operation?
    Mr. Eyre: I know that my right hon. Friend will understand that some traffic experts maintain that properly administered bus lanes can help to ease traffic congestion. I assure him with pleasure that his points will be carefully considered. The matter is being monitored.
    Mr. Eggar: Will my hon. Friend take immediate action to remove the GLC's power to impose bus lanes in outer London boroughs against the wishes of residents associations and local councils?
    Mr. Eyre: I assure my hon. Friend that some of the technical objections to some of the GLC's actions are well understood. The Secretary of State does not have the power to take the type of action for which my hon. Friend asks.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Minister agree that bus lanes would be far more successful if more people used public transport and, in London, the Underground? Does he agree also that bus lanes are part of a package that
    1028
    includes cheaper public transport fares? Does he agree, further that the GLC and other councils have the right to reduce fares as well as to introduce bus lanes?
    Mr. Eyre: The main problem lies in the balance with which the plans are prepared and implemented. We are taking careful account of traffic engineering requirements. It is said that they can help, but ill-prepared plans do only harm.

    Public Transport
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's plans for support for public transport.
    Mr. Eyre: Our plans provide for the continuation of substantial financial support for public transport.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister agree that the present problems of British Rail and the difficulties of public transport in Staffordshire, about which he has received several representations, including some from the county council, are a direct result of the low level of support that the Government have given to public transport as compared with the support that is given by many of our industrial competitors?
    Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the case in Staffordshire. I am told that on revenue support that is accepted for transport supplementary grant, Staffordshire does better than average for non-metropolitan counties, per head of population. Staffordshire receives £3·08 per head of population whereas the average for the English shire counties is £2·51 per head. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.
    Mr. Dorrell: I welcome the Government's continuing support for public transport. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can justify that support to our constituents only if it provides the service that they require, rather than subsidising outdated working practices that jeopardise the public transport system?
    Mr. Eyre: I agree with my hon. Friend.

    A564 Stoke-Derby Link
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the actual construction of the Blythe bridge to Uttoxeter section of the A564 Stoke to Derby link to start.
    Mrs. Chalker: In four of five months' time. Tenders for the construction work are to be invited later this week.
    Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Draycott, Tean and Checkley will be delighted to hear that date confirmed? When is it expected that the work on that section of the road will be completed and the road will be open to traffic?
    Mrs. Chalker: I agree that the residents of Draycott, Tean and Checkley will benefit a great deal. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We hope that the work will be completed within two years and that it will start later this year. The more speedily it is done the happier we shall be.

    Cycling
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Transport what priorities he is now giving to the various policies on cycling set out in his statement of 26 January.
    Mrs. Chalker: Our top priority is to encourage the provision of better and safer routes and to make cycling safer on all roads through training, improved standards for new bicycles, and promoting wider awareness of cyclists' problems and needs.
    Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware of the vast increase in cycling in the past 18 months? We welcome the fact that the hon. Lady is a member of the all-party cycling group. Does she agree that the Government should be treating the reasonable paper plans with more urgency? Does she agree that local authorities should be put under greater pressure to implement those plans? Is she aware that the British Medical Association report, which was published this week, suggests that there is an urgent need for cycle lanes? Will she do something about that urgently?
    Mrs. Chalker: The BMA is not quite up to date on the progress that has been made. All of the initiatives in the January cycling policy statements are important and are being pursued. That is one of the reasons why we issued a circular to local authorities three months ago asking them to advance cycling schemes in their TPP bids by the end of this month. We promised favourable considerations for that in the 1983–84 TSG supplement. We hope that they will take the hint.
    Mr. Forman: I warmly welcome the Government's support for cycling. Is my hon. Friend's Department prepared to examine one of the most unpleasant aspects of cycling in London—the emission of smoke and diesel fumes from motor vehicles? Does the Department have any plans to increase the control of emissions?
    Mrs. Chalker: All HGVs and PSVs must undergo a smoke test in their annual inspections. Smoke and diesel fumes are extremely unpleasant. The maintainers of those vehicles must be conscious of it as it is a hazard not only to cyclists but to pedestrians and car users.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister gave an encouraging initial reply. Will she now give one example of each of the improvements that have been achieved?
    Mrs. Chalker: I should be out of order if I were to give a long list. I shall, however, give the hon. Gentleman one good example. It is the recent opening of the Albert Gate crossing on the GLC's ambassador route, to which my Department is making a contribution of £53,000. Other schemes are in progress. As I said to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand), I shall do what I can to ensure that they are considered favourably.

    Ports (Northern Region)
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Secretary of State for Transport how many ports he owns, or owns shares in, in the Northern region.
    Mr. Eyre: None, Sir. Two ports in Cumbria, Barrow and Silloth, are owned by the British Transport Docks Board, a nationalised industry for which my right hon. Friend is responsible.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that Maryport harbour in my constituency, which is publicly owned and has lain fallow for 30 years, could be a good object of capital investment as it is in a community that is desperate for work? Will he consider such investment?
    Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the ownership of that trust port is vested in the harbour commissioners as the statutory harbour authority and owners. I understand that the Maryport Steamship Company intends to provide a permanent exhibition of historic vessels in that harbour and that a grant is being obtained from the tourist board. I hope that that proposal will be helpful.
    Mr. Colvin rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the question relates to ports in the Northern region and that a supplementary question must be on that subject.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend bring the House up to date with plans for the disposal of the British Transport Docks Board? If he has no plans, are discussions in train to formulate some?
    Mr. Eyre: The British Transport Docks Board is continuing with its responsibilities to prepare for privatisation.

    Railways (Investment)
    Mr. Les Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to discuss major investment projects, for which his approval is necessary, with the chairman of the British Railways Board.
    Mr. David Howell: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir. A. Costain) and Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and the hon. Members for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) and Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
    Mr. Huckfield: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, irrespective of any current dispute, he will have to take certain basic investment decisions next year on proposals already submitted to him by the chairman of the British Railways Board? Will he confirm that those decisions are his responsibility and that he is therefore responsible for the future size of the railway network?
    Mr. Howell: I certainly confirm that important investment decisions have to be made both now and in the future, decisions that are essential for a modern and efficient railway. As the Government have always made clear, however—this is widely supported both outside and within the industry—progress on investment must go hand in hand with progress on working practices to operate it. It is no use having new trains standing by if the work practices to operate them are not brought forward. I think that the hon. Gentle man will accept that the two must go together.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Job Statistics
    Mr. Norman Hoggasked the Minister for the Civil Service what the reduction in Civil Service jobs in Scotland has been since May 1979.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): Information is not available about the reduction in Civil Service jobs since May 1979, but between January 1979 and January 1982 the number of civil servants in Scotland fell by 3,300.
    Mr. Hogg: Is the Minister aware that by reducing the number of civil servants he is contributing to the economic decline of Scotland? Is he aware that 341,232 people are already unemployed there, that unemployment in Strathclyde is running at 17·7 per cent. and that cuts in the Civil Service simply make matters worse?
    Mr. Hayhoe: It is important that our Civil Service should be efficient, and it is right that reductions are being made. In percentage terms, however, the reductions in Scotland are smaller than those in many other regions of the country.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister give an undertaking that proper consultations will take place with all interested parties before any Civil Service jobs in Scotland are lost as a result of jobcentre closures that might follow Sir Derek Rayner's latest report? Incidentally, is Sir Derek Rayner a civil servant? If he is, will the Minister please sack him?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Certainly not. Sir Derek Rayner is making very valuable contributions to the overall efficiency of Government. I think that the hon. Gentleman should put his question about jobcentres to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: How do the Minister's figures for job reductions in Scotland accord with the Government's promise to divert Civil Service jobs to Scotland and the regions?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The dispersal of more than 2,000 jobs to Scotland is going ahead and the dispersal to East Kilbride has been completed ahead of time, but Scotland cannot be exempted and insulated from the overall reduction of jobs in the Civil Service.

    Promotion Systems
    Mr. Cryerasked the Minister for the Civil Service whether official discussions she proposes to hold with trade unions in the Civil Service will examine promotion systems.
    Mr. Hayhoe: There has been no request from the trade unions for central discussions on promotion. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal is always ready to discuss such questions if the trade unions so wish.
    Mr. Cryer: Is the Minister aware that there is great resentment among the vast majority of civil servants who carry out the humdrum tasks in the operation of the Government machine at being held down to a paltry wage increase while senior civil servants in Whitehall not only receive an 18 per cent. increase but have their own promotion system whereby they promote themselves into the boardrooms of the major corporations on leaving the Civil Service? Is he aware that many people believe that this amounts to a form of corruption and that the sooner it stops the better, so that people can then see that our Civil Service is completely impartial?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I believe that our Civil Service is impartial and I pay tribute to it once again. Its integrity compares exceptionally well with any other civil service in the world. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman can speak on behalf of the Civil Service. Certainly the trade unions do not reflect the views that he expresses.
    Dr. Hampson: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that management ability is given sufficient weight in promotions within the Civil Service.
    Mr. Hayhoe: The whole impetus in recent months has been that management experience and ability should play a considerable part in determining promotion for senior civil servants.
    Mr. Alan Williams: In the context of promotion systems and the good image and good management of the Civil Service, will the Minister confirm that, recently, instead of an internal promotion being made to the post of head of the Property Services Agency, the Government appointed a person lacking the Civil Service Commission certificate of qualification, although, according to the Government, the appointment of persons without that qualification should be extremely rare? Will he further confirm that instead of directly employing that person, the Government are paying a fee to a company set up by that person just before his appointment in which he and his wife are the only shareholders and which has no trading record? Has not the Treasury shown a serious lack of judgment in involving itself and its employee in what could be construed—wrongly, I hope—as an exercise in tax avoidance?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I can confirm some of the details given by the right hon. Gentleman, as I believe that I gave them to him in a letter or my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal made them available. I do not believe that tax avoidance arises in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. The individual concerned was appointed because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and others felt that he was the best man for the job.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Can the Minister tell us what action the Government propose to take on the recommendations of the Megaw inquiry?
    Mr. Hayhoe: No, I cannot, because the valuable report produced by that inquiry is now under consideration. As this is the first occasion on which it has been mentioned, however, I thank Sir John Megaw and all his colleagues for the speedy way in which they carried out their task and met the deadline given to them.

    Unions (Discussions)
    Mr. Parryasked the Minister for the Civil Service what matters she expects to discuss at her next meeting with the Civil Service unions.
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Minister for the Civil Service what matters she intends to discuss on the next occasion she meets with representatives of the Civil Service unions.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Plans for my next meeting with Civil Service unions have not yet been made.
    Mr. Parry: When the Minister meets the Civil Service unions, will he discuss with them the representations that he has received, particularly from the Civil and Public Services Association and others, about the Rayner report on employment? Does he accept that the recommendations to cut jobcentres in areas such as Liverpool and Merseyside, where unemployment is running at 30 or 40 per cent., is nothing short of criminal and should be rejected?
    Mr. Hayhoe: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is responsible for these matters. So far as I am aware, the report would not bear the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman seeks to place on it.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the Minister next meets the Civil Service unions, will he discuss the location of the Government Laboratory and direct their attention to the annual report, which shows that accommodation at Cornwall House is insufficient and, indeed, offends the terms of the health and safety legislation? Will he point out to them that there is still prime land in West Cumbria on which a Government laboratory could be built, as that is what we understand they want?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I have not seen such representations from the Civil Service unions, but if they are made to me I shall of course consider them.
    Mr. Woolmer: I thank the Minister for confirming to me in writing that in the Civil Service the job release scheme is running into considerable difficulties and is thus frustrating the aim of taking people off the dole queue in return for others retiring early. What steps will he take to ensure that the scheme will work effectively, particularly in the Inland Revenue service?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I know that there have been some changes in the rules for the scheme for the Civil Service. Again, the changes have been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I am certainly prepared to consider representations about difficulties in the Inland Revenue.
    Mr. Alan Williams: When the Minister meets the Civil Service unions, will he inform them of the timetable that he envisages for negotiations on the Megaw recommendations? Does he hope and expect that the new system will be operating by next April? If the Megaw proposals are accepted by the trade unions, does he expect the new system to begin with one of the major four-yearly comparison reviews to provide base figures for the future? If the negotiations and calculations are not completed by next April, will arbitration be assured for the 1983 pay round?
    Mr. Hayhoe: As I said, the Government asked the Megaw committee to report this summer. The committee met that timetable and I hope that its recommendations can be considered in good time for the 1983 settlement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that the Government intend to begin discussions with the unions
    1034
    as soon as both sides are ready, but it is too soon now to judge how much progress may be made towards reaching a new agreement that can be effective for the 1983 negotiations.
    Later—
    Mr. Spriggs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the Minister made an error when referring to the Rayner report. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) raised a question about jobcentres on Merseyside. The Minister implied that the Rayner report did not deal with jobcentres, but it did, and St. Helens—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will be grateful for that correction, if it is a correction. I do not know.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) commented on the detail of the report. I fully accept that the committee referred to jobcentres, and that is why I said that it was a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

    Management Information Systems
    Mr. Eggarasked the Minister for Civil Service what progress is being made with the production of new management information systems throughout Departments.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Each major Department has been asked to prepare a specific programme to improve its financial management. Departments are considering their requirements for management information systems in that context.
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend gives very encouraging news. Will he say by what date such schemes must be given to the Treasury? Will he confirm that in future more power will be given to the centre, particularly the Management and Personnel Office and the Treasury, to impose systems on other Departments?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The Departments have been asked to submit to the Treasury and to the Management and Personnel Office early next year their plans for improving their financial management. Further details will be included in the Government's response to the helpful and constructive report from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.

British Rail (Dispute)
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the current industrial action on the railways.
In the face of the continuing strike imposed by the executive of ASLEF against the new work rosters firmly recommended by Lord McCarthy's tribunal, the British Railways Board has within the last two hours announced that it will be forced to close the railway system down from next Wednesday unless there is a substantial return to work by the drivers.
All those on strike on the previous day will be dismissed. At the same time, they will be offered immediate re-employment on the same terms, provided only that they agree to work to the new rosters.
The decisions to which the British Railways Board has been driven are clearly very grave. The strike which has caused them is a pointless one that should never have been called and should and could easily be lifted even now by the ASLEF executive.
The McCarthy railway tribunal has left no doubt that flexible rostering should now be adopted by ASLEF, with no fewer than 13 safeguards, as it has been by the rest of those working on the railways to their clear benefit. The British Railways Board has all along been willing to discuss details of how the new rosters should be brought in and ways of making the change as easy as possible for the engine drivers. Its proposals to this end were met with the blunt response by the ASLEF executive of an all-out strike call, although having pulled this trigger the ASLEF executive then suggested further talks, but still with no clear commitment whatsoever to any change in principle.
The board has informed me that its further offer of constructive ways on which flexible rostering could be applied, once ASLEF has lifted its strike and accepted the principle, has again been rejected by the ASLEF executive in the last 24 hours.
The path ahead for the railways of this country is now very dark. Vast resources are being bled away. Thousands of jobs could disappear for good. Travellers and holiday makers are being caused much bitter misery and suffering.
Those who called this unnecessary strike, as well as those who have given comfort and succour to the strike, carry an immense and direct responsibility for all this damage and all this suffering.
It remains in the hands of the ASLEF executive to call a halt to the destruction; and it is the duty of all those who believe the public should be protected and the railways and those who work in them saved from disaster to urge the executive of ASLEF to desist from its futile course.
Mr. Albert Booth: Will the Secretary of State tell the House why his statement makes no reference whatever to the ACAS initiative to resolve the dispute which has been running since last weekend? Will he belatedly join me in welcoming the intiative taken by Pat Lowry and his staff in an attempt to avert a continuation of the dispute and the shutting down of the railways that the Secretary of State has just announced? Will the Secretary of State also join me in expressing disappointment that the initiative has not succeeded? Will he tell the House whether he has studied the ASLEF
1036
proposals to ACAS and say whether there is anything in those proposals that he thinks justifies their rejection by British Rail?
Why has there been no Government initiative to date in an attempt to resolve this dispute? Is the Secretary of State aware that there are those who have spared no effort in the last few days in an attempt to bring about a resolution of the dispute and that they look to him with increasing despair for some assistance in such efforts?
Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the threat of dismissing strikers will only serve to make the settlement more difficult and heighten hostility? What is needed is an attempt to de-escalate the dispute and reduce hostility.
Finally, will the Secretary of State recognise that the present railway crisis owes much to the policy of the Government in its making and that his role in the matter is an abrogation of his responsibility to try to get the railways running again?
Mr. Howell: Certainly I regret that the last-minute effort of the Arbitration, Conciliation and Advisory Service, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded the House, has not succeeded.
I have studied the proposals of the British Railways Board and ASLEF. There was no sign in the ASLEF proposals of a change of heart, or of a firm commitment to flexible rosters. If there had been a sign that it would lift the strike and accept the introduction of flexible rosters, I believe that the British Rail Board, and the Government, would have been extremely anxious to accept, and would have welcomed the consequent discussions that could have lead peaceably to the introduction of flexible rosters.
However, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is not the position that ASLEF has taken. If there had been a genuine change of heart, ASLEF would have lifted the strike and made a firm commitment to flexible rosters. It would have taken up that position before calling the strike on the railway system. It did none of those things, and the difficulty now is that under the shadow of the strike the ASLEf offer would postpone and delay again an issue that has been fudged and delayed for a long time. That would not be in the interests of the railway, the nation, or the vast majority of workers on the railways who have adopted the new practices and who want to get on with building a modern railway.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about an initiative. I believe that a good initiative by the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour Party would be for them to go back on their bizarre statement at the weekend and the announcement at Durham racecourse—which apparently was not given because the right hon. Gentleman ran out of time—which gave comfort and support to ASLEF and instead to listen to the wise words of Mr. Sidney Weighell, who urged the Leader of the Opposition to behave like a leader. When I hear the right hon. Gentleman apportioning blame for the railway crisis, I feel that we should all refer to the words of Mr. Sidney Weighell:
"We have grave doubts about you and Albert."
Mr. Terence Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British Railways Board is absolutely right to take its decision, given that members of ASLEF and the Left-wing executive of Mr. Buckton have exploited to the full for more than a year the antiquated negotiating procedures in the railway industry? In those

1037
circumstances, British Rail was right to seek to impose flexible rostering. Will my right hon. Friend also note the contrast between the view expressed by the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and that expressed by Labour Back-Benchers—for example, the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs)—who realise that flexible rostering is essential if the railways are to survive?
Mr. Howell: My right hon. Friend is correct. I recognise that many people, regardless of party—I suspect on the Back Benches on both sides of the House—look with great sadness on the actions that have now been forced on those managing the rail system and on the consequences to the public by the calling of this strike. As I said in my statement, I believe that even now it is right that all who have influence on ASLEF and other trade unions should seek to exercise that influence to bring home the disastrous course upon which ASLEF is set. It will not help if further comfort and succour is given to the ASLEF executive, as appeared to be the case over the weekend, although I hope that that has now changed.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: order. I propose to call first those hon. Members who deferred their supplementary questions at Question Time so that they could be called on the statement.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that four days before the strike began ASLEF offered to withhold the strike and was prepared to recall the ASLEF conference to embark on two experiments on flexible rostering? Is he aware that the British Railways Board rejected that and refused to withdraw its imposition of flexible rostering and that Parker and the board are now embarked on an unholy conspiracy with the Tory Government to smash ASLEF? Is not that confirmed by the fact that, even on its own figures, the British Railways Board will save only £l½ million in a full year as a result of flexible rostering, whereas the strike is costing £9 million a day?
Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman's figures are wholly wrong. In fact, flexible rosters are the direct key to £35 million of benefits a year and are the gateway to the working of a modern and efficient railway. Unless movement on flexible rosters is achieved, it in effect puts a bar on all advance into the modern technology of an efficient railway system.
I understand that at no time did ASLEF give any evidence that it was ready to commit itself to the introduction of flexible rosters as set out in National Railways Staff Tribunal decision No. 77. Indeed, when British Rail made proposals by which the rosters could be introduced sensitively, carefully and in line with all the safeguards, the response after 24 hours or more was a blunt refusal and the calling of the strike. As I said in my statement, it appears that after that ASLEF had some second thoughts and suggested some talks about talks that might further raise the issue. Had ASLEF been serious, and had there been a genuine change of heart—which I and the British Railways Board would like to see—it would have lifted the strike and made a firm commitment to the introduction of flexible rosters. It could then talk with the British Railways Board about how they should be introduced.
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, unless this strike ended quickly, a closure of the railway system was always inevitable? Does he further agree that ASLEF's so-called offer to end the strike is nonsense because it is dependent, not upon the ASLEF leaders, but upon reference to a delegate conference of the ASLEF members who over the last year have demonstrated that they are incapable of reaching agreement on measures that are necessary to modernise the railway system?
Mr. Howell: I believe that to be the position. As many people warned, there were bund to be grave difficulties for the railway system if the ASLEF executive persisted in its strike call. As I have said many times, I believe the strike to be unnecessary. It could now easily be lifted and the ASLEF executive could enter into talks about the introducition of flexible rosters. The opportunity for it to do so still exists. That would save the threat to many of its fellow railway workers and the future of the system.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman step aside from his lengthy brief and apply his mind to the country's transport needs? The train men are proud craft workers, and his task is to get them and the British Railways Board around the table as quickly as he possibly can. He should understand that the Transport and General Workers Union, with its giant membership, will not stand idly by while he tries to destroy ASLEF.
Mr. Howell: Neither the hon. Gentleman nor many of his hon. Friends needs any brief to be reminded that the National Union of Railwaymen has accepted the principle of flexible rosters; that following an inquiry, a promise and an undertaking that they would be introduced, the railway tribunal recommended that ASLEF should also accept flexible rosters; and that they can be introduced in ways that will be compatible with the operation of sensible hours for engine drivers. All that can be done. All it requires is for the ASLEF executive to lift its strike action and enter into the discussions on introduction. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should use his influence, which is considerable in the trade union movement, to ensure that common sense prevails with the ASLEF executive before great damage is done to people in many other unions as well.
Sir Albert Contain: Does my right hon. Friend see any similarity between this small group of persons who are stopping the future development of the British Rail system and the landowners who, 100 years ago, prevented the development of the railways because they thought that it would upset their own selfish ends? At that time public opinion took over and convinced them that they were wrong. What steps can my right hon. Friend take to ensure that public opinion takes over in this instance?
Mr. Howell: It is regrettable that the decision of the executive of this union—and it was only the executive—to call the strike appears to have been taken without any regard to public or union opinion. I share the views of those who counsel against trade unions charging into industrial action irresponsibly without any regard to the understanding of public opinion or the real issues at stake.
Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members who are now

1039
opposed to the flexible rosters do not know the first thing about them? As a railway man of many years standing, I have examined the new flexible rosters, and I believe that they will be of real service to every railway man in the country.
Mr. Howell: I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman's practical wisdom, based on hard and real experience, will be listened to closely by his more theoretical colleagues around him who seem all too eager to plunge the industry into grave dangers for no good reason at all.
Mr. John Major: Does my right hon. Friend share my fear that if the rail network closes for a reasonable period many lines may never reopen? Will he ask the British Railways Board to confirm that? Will he also ask it to advise railmen of that fact? Will he further ask it to publish a list of the likely casualties so that both the public and the railway men can be in no doubt about the likely result of ASLEF's unreasonable action?
Mr. Howell: No one in the industry, in the Government or in the unions has disguised the fact that every day the strike proceeds the goal of a comprehensive, modern and efficient railway system recedes. That is a very great danger, and there can be no doubt that in reviewing the future of the railway system, as the Serpell committee is now doing, the impact of the present dispute is bound to lead to a revision of views about the kind of railway system that can be run.
Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Liberal Party thinks that his attitude, and that of his Government, to public transport, and the railways in particular, needs to be greatly enlightened? It would help enormously if investment could be promised now for genuine productivity. [HON MEMBERS: "It has."] It has not been promised by the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, the Liberal Party supports the British Railways Board in the announcement that it has unfortunately had to make today. Like the Secretary of State, we urge on the members of ASLEF a return to work without further delay and the calling-off of this pointless strike.
Mr. Howell: If I heard aright, the hon. Gentleman in the end came down in support of the British Railways Board and its determination to obtain higher productivity and a modern railway system. That is what it is after, and that is what everyone interested in the future of the railways should be after. That is why he, his colleagues, and many hon. Members in the Labour Party as well should support the British Railways Board and try to bring home to ASLEF the futility of the course on which it is set.
Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are many hon. Members who have been doing their utmost to find a solution to the problem? Does he understand that, although there is a genuine difference of opinion between the NUR and ASLEF as to the approach to flexible rostering, they have nevertheless tried to find a peaceful solution to the confrontation? When will the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State allegedly responsible for employment, do something about getting people round the table to talk about this problem?
1040
Does he not appreciate that many people believe that the Secretaries of State have abdicated their responsibility, and that hurling abuse at my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition does nothing but exacerbate the problem?
Does the right hon. Gentleman further agree that, although there may be a case for turning off the money tap and closing the railways from next Wednesday, there is no excuse for putting a sacking notice on the drivers, which will only exacerbate the position and unite the trade union movement behind ASLEF?
Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman, who is experienced in the railways, will know that time and again there have been attempts to bring the ASLEF executive round the table to accept the principle of flexible rostering and to discuss how to introduce it.
Mr. Ted Graham: Not by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Howell: He knows, too, that the response of ASLEF was not to agree to the talks but to call a strike. I am sure that he will accept that the need is for ASLEF to lift the strike and to agree to the discussions about the introduction of flexible rostering, and then there will be progress on the railways. That is the aim, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will share.
Sir Raymond Gower: Has my right hon. Friend noted the description by the general secretary of the NUR that this has been a selfish and sectional action by ASLEF? Is it not true that the action taken by ASLEF will inflict much suffering on members of the NUR and the TSSA.
Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is right. The strike is not in the interests of railway men and does not even represent the interests of the vast majority of railway men. The action is wholly against their interests and may greatly damage the future for all of them.
Mr. Les Huckfield: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is factually correct that it was the British Railways Board which refused to negotiate when the ASLEF executive offered two weeks ago precisely what the board had been seeking? It was the board who refused to negotiate. Does he accept that this week the local management of British Railways Board has been using threats, bullying and intimidation against members of ASLEF? Such tactics only confirm what many of us believe—that both he and the board have been seeking throughout a deliberate confrontation with the union. Does he accept that he as much as anyone else is responsible for the dispute, and should do something about resolving it?
Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman talks about correct facts, but staring him in the face is the fact that he cannot escape, and which no rewriting of history can change. The board has bent over backwards to provide ways by which flexible rosters, as recommended by the Lord McCarthy tribunal, can be introduced, but the blunt response of the ASLEF executive, on the evening of 29 June, was to call the strike. The facts cannot be put aside, rewritten or changed by the hon. Gentleman.
If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is now a change of heart by ASLEF, that will be welcome to the British Railways Board. In that case, let him recommend to ASLEF that it lifts the strike, agrees to the introduction,

1041
in principle and in practice, of flexible rosters and gets down to discussing how it can be done for the benefit of everyone, including ASLEF members.
Mr. Robert Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that en route from Nuneaton to Wigan the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) would be well advised to stop off at St. Helens, where the views of the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) represent those of many ASLEF men that I know—that the new flexible rosters will bring them benefits, not disadvantages?
Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to point out to the Opposition and to the country that we are dealing not with a private sector employer in the nineteenth century trying to grind the faces of the poor, but with a management doing its damnest in difficult circumstances to run a major nationalised industry as best it can for the benefit of the customer and the nation? Does he agree—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that I would call four more hon. Gentlemen from either side of the House. I shall be able to call only two if we have long questions.
Mr. Howell: I agree that we are dealing with the management of a major nationalised industry aiming for good productivity and good services as the basis for good investment, modern equipment and a good railway for the future. That is what the British Railways Board is trying to achieve, and it should be supported. All this talk about union smashing, or any of the other fanciful suggestions, is a distraction from the basic aim that should be backed by all those who have the railways' interests truly at heart.
Mr. Tom Bradley: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement condemning this disastrous strike is very much in line with what the leaders of the two other rail unions—the TSSA and the NUR—are saying? With that advantage behind him, why does the right hon. Gentleman still continue to shrug his shoulders? It is not inconceivable that the Government have responsibility in this matter and, therefore, why will the Secretary of State not take an initiative, as his predecessors have done on many post-war occasions, in bringing the parties together round the table to negotiate and resolve this unsatisfactory position? What does he intend to do?
Mr. Howell: I am sure that the hon. Member will be the first to accept that as long as there is the fact of the strike hanging over the issue—which is what has happened—it is difficult for anyone to see how sensible discussions can take place about the introduction of flexible rosters. It would be highly desirable, and the board and the Government would welcome it, if the ASLEF executive now took steps to accept the Lord McCarthy tribunal recommendation, lift the strike, and enter into discussions on how to introduce flexible rosters. That must be the first step. It is a sensible step and one that all the other unions, anybody interested in the railway industry and the general public wish to see taken. That is where the change of heart is required so that the railways' future can be secured.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of regular commuters in my constituency are fed up to the back teeth with Mr. Bucicion and the ASLEF executive, and the one thing that they would not understand would be the Government or the
1042
board, which are involved directly or indirectly in the dispute, backing down on the sensible way forward that has been suggested?
Mr. Howell: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. That view is shared by the vast majority of those concerned—the travelling public, the other railway unions and the staff and management of the industry. It is also shared by the Government. It seems that everyone except the ASLEF executive shares that view. Members of the executive should quickly change their stance, as they could, to save themselves and many others in the industry grave difficulties in the future.
Mr. Stanley Cohen: As one of the four assessors on the McCarthy tribunal, I can make one or two points. The first question is whether the right hon. Gentleman believes that consultation is preferable to confrontation. The second question is whether the Government have faced up to their responsibilities or passed them on to the board. Sir Peter Parker and the BRB will find themselves in an extremely difficult position.
When will the Government intervene to try to resolve what is obviously a difficult problem? The majority of railway employees do not want to be involved in a dispute, but the Government must accept their responsibility and take action.
Mr. Howell: Of course, consultation is always better than confrontation. When the hon. Gentleman says that it is a very difficult problem, he is right as far as ASLEF is concerned. However, the NUR did not find flexible rosters a difficult problem. It was able to undertake to introduce them and its members received a pay increase for that change in working practices and for others which, unfortunately, they have not been able to deliver. The NUR was able to go forward on the basis of higher pay and better social conditions for the guards involved. There was no difficulty for the NUR, and it is, therefore, necessary to get over to ASLEF—I believe that it is getting across to many ASLEF members—the fact that there is no real difficulty in that union also accepting flexible rosters. The sooner that message gets over, the sooner we shall be able to avoid the grave damage that is taking place.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems that we face in the dispute is that many Labour Members believe that beer and sandwiches at No. 10 will solve every problem? Is not the damaging intervention by the Leader of the Opposition part of the syndrome that if we meet together as Government and unions the give has to come in the middle? Let us all realise that the give has come already. 1919 is dead. Will my right hon. Friend agree that if the unions agree to realistic rostering they will have a good living, a good future and a high employment level? We all want that, but giving in, as the Leader of the Opposition wants to do, will ruin the railways and the whole country.
Mr. Howell: I agree with my hon. Friend. Frankly, I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition wants to do at this stage. I hope that, no matter what position the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) adopted at the weekend, they will use their influence and authority to do what I understood the whole trade union movement was trying to do earlier in the year, which is to get the ASLEF executive

1043
to agree to the implementation of the McCarthy tribunal's recommendation that flexible rosters should be introduced.
Mr. David Stoddart: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his lack of commitment to the railways for some time, his threats and the use of the mailed fist instead of negotiation have led to the lack of morale and industrial unrest that we have witnessed on the railways recently? Will he accept that the railways are the responsibility of him and of Parliament and not only of British Rail? It is no good the right hon. Gentleman believing that he can wash his hands of the situation, as if he were a latter-day Pontius Pilate. He will have to intervene eventually, particularly if the capital comes to a standstill. Why does he not intervene now?
Mr. Howell: When one considers the extra hundreds of millions of pounds that have gone into British Rail in recent times—the vast increase in the social grants, the investment programmes and many other resources—it is difficult to recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of recent events as accurate. I urge that, instead of using that sort of description, which is a distortion of the facts, the hon. Gentleman should try to bring it home to the industry and its workers, and particularly to the ASLEF executive, that the Government have supported British Rail with substantial investment. Even now, new equipment that ought to be in operation is not running because the appropriate work practices have not been agreed. There is no question of a lack of synchronisation on that side.
The essential precondition for a successful future for the industry is that the ASLEF executive accepts what the vast majority of workers in the industry have already accepted, which is that the practice of more flexible rosters is the right one for our industry, as it is for almost every other railway industry in Europe that has made progress.
Mr. John Peyton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that accusations that he has been excessively tough and has resorted to the mailed fist are about as wide of the mark as are the suggestions that the British Railways Board is packed full of tough Tory politicians and that Lord McCarthy, who has not been mentioned often in these exchanges, has Conservative leanings?
Mr. Howell: I am grateful for what I think is my right hon. Friend's recognition of reason, balance and a fair-minded attitude when he sees them. It is not for me to comment on the other directions in which he cast his views, but I believe that the board has gone a long way to try to introduce the rosters recommended by the McCarthy tribunal sensitively and carefully and to recognise all the problems raised by the fears expressed by engine drivers and, on their behalf, by the ASLEF executive. A great deal of reason has been shown and the response has been this cruel strike. If we are to see a change of heart, an intervention or a movement to change the situation, that is where the change should begin.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his statement will intensify and deepen the problem? Does he not also realise that the struggle is long past flexible rostering and has become a major struggle between the entire trade union movement and this dictatorial Conservative Government?
1044
Will not the right hon. Gentleman accept that railway men have had flexible rostering for many years and that the Government are trying to impose on them inflexible rosters which they will not accept and which they say will cause serious difficulties for them in their daily lives? When will he make a proper intervention and call all the parties round a table to get them to examine the offer made by ASLEF, which has proposed that the two systems should run in parallel before a decision is taken on which is better? Why did the right hon. Gentleman refuse to accept that offer?
Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman may wish to see this as a struggle by the entire trade union movement, but if he consults many of his colleagues he will find that it is not that at all. If there are struggles and arguments, they are between members of the labour movement about common sense practices that should have been adopted in our railway system long ago and have now been adopted by four-fifths of railway workers. That is what the hon. Gentleman will find if he listens and talks to those who are trying to ensure that the railways have a better future.
The only struggle for the board is its attempt to get new productivity methods introduced. That is a sensible way forward. It is recognised as such by the majority of trade union leaders and objected to only by the ASLEF executive.
The dispute is about higher productivity, better wages and better conditions on the railways, not about smashing the unions or the struggles of organised labour against capitalism. That is fanciful talk that has nothing to do with the present problem.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State accept that he is under a genuine misapprehension that the strike can be called off only by the ASLEF conference? Has he studied the proposals that were discussed late last night, when it was clear that there was some movement on both sides and that the ASLEF executive was prepared to call off the strike today? As he is so seriously mistaken, does not that expose his difficulty in not having met the parties personally to discuss the issues? Instead he has relied on second or third-hand reports, however genuine they may be.
Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that many hon. Members—not only among the Opposition—have tried seriously to sustain the negotiations for as long as possible to enable a return to work on the railways and an end to the damage that will be done to the British economy? Surely he must understand that he cannot stand aside and allow the railways to be closed for a prolonged period without accepting his share of the responsibility, which will be a major share if he does not at least attempt to live up to the stature of the office that he holds.
Mr. Howell: There is no misapprehension. The board and the Government have been anxious for the ASLEF executive to change its attitude, call off the strike and accept the principle of flexible rostering as outlined in the National Railway Staff Tribunal's decision No. 77. That has been recommended by the tribunal and by successive inquiries and that is what was promised by the general secretary of ASLEF last August in return for higher wages. They were duly taken, although the promise was not delivered.
There is no misapprehension among the vast majority of railway workers. There is a realisation that the ASLEF

1045
executive has called the strike and refused to accept the flexible rostering recommended by the tribunal. The executive is not prepared to move from that position. The vast majority of hon. Members, including many Labour Members, believe that the position should be changed by ASLEF realising that it is running itself, the industry and the future of the railways into a disastrous cul-de-sac. It is essential for Labour Members and all who are worried about the future of the railways to bring home to ASLEF the need to lift the strike and to accept flexible rosters before disastrous and permanent damage is done to the railway system.

London Airport (Redundancies)
4.13 pm
Mr. Russell Kerr: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the recently announced redundancies at London airport involving 7,000 British Airways staff and their effect on the employment situation in the area."
The matter is specific because it refers to a report in The Guardian on 12 July quoting British Airways management as announcing 7,000 redundancies in addition to the 10,000 announced last year. It has thrown a deep depression over that part of West Middlesex and elsewhere. It affects my constituents, many of whom are employed by British Airways, which is the largest employer in the area.
As the latest victim of the Government's ill-judged monetarist policies, the flag-carrying British airline feels especially bitter because, as one of Britain's high technology industries with a distinguished record as a leading international carrier, British Airways has been a mobile shop window for British skill and technology and has been of enormous benefit to British industry in its relations with other countries.
The rundown of British Airways is tied to the sale of the airline to private interests—the privatisation about which we hear so much today from people whose ignorance of the industry is matched only by their capacity to talk through their pockets. It should not blind us to the fact that the dismantling of British Airways is equivalent to the sabotage by stealth of one of Britain's major economic assets, on which we are told that our future will depend increasingly and in which the skill and inventiveness of the British workman is as nothing compared with the thirst for profit exhibited by the entrepreneurs.
No one will deny that, whoever ultimately owns the airline, it is important not only to my constituents, many thousands of whom gain their livelihoods as British Airways employees, but because aviation is the industry in which Britain leads the world, although any British breakthrough must cross the Atlantic to achieve proper recognition. Few, if any, of the world's aviation observers would doubt British skills in this industry.
The problem demands urgent consideration and the arithmetic of the proposals argues the case most eloquently. Although the series of redundancies, totalling about 10,000 during the past year, has in many cases resulted in a fairly thick cushion being provided to soften the discomfort of job loss, at least temporarily, thousands of British Airways' highly skilled workers are being slung unceremoniously on to the labour market at a time when economic prospects, according to almost every economist except the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have hit rock bottom.
If we do not succumb to the Chancellors's gloom, in a year or two we may, with luck, have a Labour Government and some adult economic policies in place of the juvenile monetarism that is the best that we can manage at the moment.
It is important that we realise that the profit entrepreneurs, who are interested not in the industry but

1047
in its money-making opportunities, now have the scent of victory in their nostrils and are being encouraged greatly by the Government in their hunt for quick profits from the exploitation of Government assets. When the full extent of the "steal" being operated by those highwaymen is understood by the public, the position will probably correct itself, so great will be public revulsion. In the meantime, those of us privileged to see the pattern from long association with the industry are seized of the idea of urgent action being taken by the House of Commons to protect the people's interests and their property before it is too late.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) gave me notice before noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing
"the recently announced redundancies at London airport involving 7,000 British Airways staff and their effect on the employment situation in the area".
The House listened with concern as the hon. Gentleman outlined his anxieties. He knows that I am instructed to give no reason for my decision. I must rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

"Atlantic Conveyor" (Replacement)
4.19 pm
Mr. Don Dixon: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The building by British Shipbuilders of a replacement to the 'Atlantic Conveyor'."
The importance of this order being placed in this country is evident from the fact that no fewer than three early-day motions about it appear on the Order Paper—541, signed by 123 right hon. and hon. Members, 545, signed by 59 right hon. and hon. Members, and 602, signed by 31 right hon. and hon. Members.
The importance of the order being placed with British Shipbuilders was stressed only this morning by a deputation which was led by my hon. Friends the Members for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) and Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans), together with the leader of the Tyne and Wear county council, Michael Campbell, and senior shop stewards from the Tyne shipbuilding yards.
On the river Tyne, almost 10,000 men work directly for British Shipbuilders and many more thousands work in the supporting industries. Whole communities depend on British Shipbuilders for their livelihood. The order would save not only many hundreds of jobs, but would give an important boost to the British shipbuilding industry throughout the world.
It is important for the House to have an urgent debate, because there has been talk that the order may go to Japan or Korea. It is no good Lord Matthews, the chairman of Cunard, telling the British people through his newspapers during the Falklands dispute that they should be patriotic, and then giving an order for the replacement of a ship that was sunk during the war to a shipyard outside this country. That would seem to be a betrayal of all the relatives of people who were killed and injured and who fought in the Falklands war.
The debate would also give us an opportunity to stress the importance of the British shipbuilding industry to this country, and to pay tribute to the men and women who worked so hard to put the task force to sea.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) gave me notice before noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The building by British Shipbuilders of a replacement to the 'Atlantic Conveyor'."
The House will have listened with anxious concern to the hon. Gentleman as he brought undoubtedly important matters to our notice. However, he and the House are aware that I decide not whether the matter should be discussed, but solely whether there should be an emergency debate of three hours.
The House has instructed me to give no reasons for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the hon. Gentleman's representations, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Leasehold Flats Reform
4.23 pm
Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform the law relating to long leasehold flats; to provide for the right to extend leases and to establish a Commission to recommend further reforms; and for related purposes.
I ask leave to introduce a measure of leasehold reform for the benefit of those who are the owner-occupiers of flats and maisonettes, but for the sake of brevity I shall refer only to flat owners.
In 1967, Parliament passed the Leasehold Reform Act, which enables the resident owners of leasehold houses, as opposed to flats, to extend their leases by up to 50 years, or to buy the freehold. At that time some of the Tory defenders of landlords called it "Rachmanism in reverse". However, the Act was a great success, and it was strengthened only recently by the present Government in the Housing Act 1980.
However, the 1967 Act contained one important omission: it did not apply to flats and maisonettes. Now the problems of those who own flats are becoming more acute as leases grow shorter and less saleable and as defects in the form of leases become more apparent. This problem exists not only in urban areas and cities, but it is also quite acute in some seaside areas where houses have been converted to flats.
In the Bill I propose three reforms. The first is to give every resident owner of a flat the right to call for an extension of the lease by 50 years on reasonable terms. The 1967 Act created that right for leasehold house occupiers, and in my view it should be extended to flat owners. The selling of flats started in large numbers in the 1930s, because of the pressures on land, and those leases, some of which were granted for 99 years and others for shorter periods, are now less than 50 years old and as the leases grow shorter they become less mortgageable and less saleable and people's mobility is put in jeopardy. The greatest asset of lessees is withering, and there is evidence that landlords are not merely unreasonable but sometimes guilty of downright exploitation in the terms on which they give a renewal or extension. The bargaining power between landlord and tenant is usually unequal, and it needs to be remedied by law. The citizen's security of his home is a sacred right, and I want to protect and extend it.
Secondly, a number of covenants need to be implied into leases of flats and maisonettes so as to cure defects that have become apparent. Let me give some examples of the way in which those defects impair the transferability or value of a leasehold flat. In some cases, the landlord has the power to repair the main structure of which the flat forms a part, but although he has the power to do that, there is no obligation on him because of the drafting of the
1050
leases, even although the landlord recovers all his expenses from the tenant. I propose that a clause that puts an obligation on the landlord to repair the main structure should be implied in every lease.
In other cases, although landlords may reserve the right in leases to carry out insurance themselves, many of them do not undertake to insure for the full replacement value, nor are they willing to note on their policies the interest of lessees and mortgagees. As a result, the property may not be fully insured, or there is the unnecessary expense of double insurance, or in some cases actual resistance by building societies to grant mortgages on them.
Thirdly, landlords sometimes charge excessive fees for licences to assign. My opinion, on the whole, is that the licence to assign can be dispensed with altogether. I see no reason why the landlord's permission is needed in ordinary cases. It is a relic of serfdom which, in my view, should now go.
There is a fourth point, that many covenants in leases should be mutually enforceable. So I propose a number of implied covenants to deal with these problems.
Lastly, I propose a step towards a major reform in leasehold law. At present, it is difficult to legislate for freehold flats. The law needs a thorough reappraisal. I propose that long leasehold tenants generally should collectively have the right that is given to leasehold houseowners individually—that is, the right to own, control, and manage the freeholds of the properties in which they live. Many enlightened property developers do this in new developments now. The drafting of such a scheme is ambitious. There is not the facility in a Private Member's Bill to do that. I therefore suggest the establishment of a commission to look into the possibility, on the one hand, of freehold flats, and on the other hand of the establishment of a condominium for the management of leasehold blocks. That practice is common in the United States and in many parts of Europe.
I believe that the relationship between a man and a woman and their home and land is fundamental. This Bill will make that relationship more secure and more free from exploitation and abuse, and I ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill for those purposes.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Fraser, Mr. John Tilley, Mr. A. W. Stallard, Mr. John Wheeler, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Frank Allaun and Mr. Christopher Price.

Leasehold Flats Reform
  LEASEHOLD FLATS REFORM
  Mr. John Fraser accordingly presented a Bill to reform the law relating to long leasehold flats; to provide for the right to extend leases and to establish a Commission to recommend further reforms; and for related purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 165.]
Orders of the Day
  SUPPLY
  [24TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered
  SUPPLY

    Regional and Industrial Policies
    4.29 pm
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move,
    That this House is appalled at the drastic increase in unemployment throughout every region in the United Kingdom, and the continuing decline of Great Britain's industrial base; condemns the Government's regional policies and the recent proposals on assisted areas as totally inadequate; and calls for the implementation of the policies of the Labour Party's 'Plan for Jobs' which would lead to increased investment and employment.
    The motion addresses itself to the disastrous three years of unemployment that have been imposed on Britain. In three years of Tory rule we have had the highest level of unemployment, the largest fall in total output and the greatest collapse of production since the 1920s, and the end is not yet in sight. Against that background, no regional policy, however generous and powerful, can possibly hope to achieve its objectives—to end regional disparities, both economic and social, within our regions.
    In the past six months I have spent at least four days in every region of the United Kingdom, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). We have witnessed the despair and the tragic waste of human and capital resources in the regions. Today, there are over three million registered unemployed—12·8 per cent.—in our employment exchanges. For every 100 people unemployed at the time the Labour Government left office, the Government have added to the dole queue in the Saatchi poster a further 227 people.
    I have no desire to hide the fact that there was increased unemployment under Labour. I take that as a measure of the increasing economic crisis that many of the developed economies are beginning to face in the future as in the past decade. That should give us some idea of the policies that are necessary to solve our problems. However, the depth of a recession and the scale of unemployment are directly related to the policies of any Government. In the five years of the Labour Government up to 1979, despite unemployment doubling, we were able to increase jobs so that at the end of our term of office a quarter of a million extra people were employed as a result of our regional and central policies.
    Under the three years of Tory Government the scale of job loss has been phenomenal. It makes even the three-day week under the Heath Government look good. Under Labour, unemployment grew by 160,000 a year over five years. Due to deliberate Government policy, unemployment has grown at the rate of 566,000 a year—3·5 times the rate of increase in unemployment under Labour. The Government have certainly set about creating unemployment with a vengeance.
    No doubt the Secretary of State will tell us today, as we were told last week, that such unemployment is due to
    1052
    world recession. That is reflected in the amendment to our motion. Funnily enough, we did not hear much of that from the Conservatives when they were in opposition.
    I have been to the Library to look at the OECD figures in order to see the scale of that world depression. Between 1964 and 1979 Britain's unemployment followed the middle way of the seven largest developed nations. Average unemployment grew from 2·9 per cent. in 1964 to 5·6 per cent. in 1979. Increasing levels of unemployment and inflation in all developed economies were coupled with reduced returns on profits and growth. Those factors inevitably create conflicts, difficulties and crises, particularly in developed economies experiencing stagflation.
    However, between 1964 and 1979 the United Kingdom's unemployment record stayed in the middle range of percentage of unemployment for OECD countries. The present average rate of unemployment in OECD countries is 7·5 per cent. Britain's growth in unemployment at 12·4 per cent. is 3·5 times greater than the average increase in OECD countries.
    With that measure it is possible to quantify the effect of the world depression upon the various economies, particularly upon the British economy. While it is a crude estimate, it is reasonable to suppose that if we had stayed on the middle course of the past 15 years, there would have been an increase in unemployment of approximately 400,000 people. If that figure is deducted from the unemployment created by the Government, it can be seen that for one reason or another, directly or indirectly, they have presided over an economy that has produced 1·3 million more unemployed than in the similar economies of OECD countries.
    Mass unemployment is inevitably the result of Government policy and was predicted when they made clear their belief in the monetary policies that they intended upon. Some Tories have professed surprise at the scale of what has occurred. Other people, such as myself, believe that it was part of a calculated policy. The Government are committed to reduce inflation at the direct expense of jobs and growth as a result if their fanatical devotion to monetarism, high interest rates and the abolition of exchange rate controls. The results were predicted by the relevant economic forecasting institutions.
    The increase in unemployment is not the result of any coincidence or natural law. The Government are committed to public expenditure cuts, although looking at the figures as a proportion of the gross domestic product, public expenditure continues to increase due to unemployment pay. However, the main effects of Government policy have been upon capital expenditure, investment and job creation—as has been borne out time and time again in debates in the House. One sees that effect in local authorities housing programmes, for example, and in investment in nationalised industries such as British Rail. The inadequacy of British Rail investment did not begin in 1979 but the effects have accumulated. British Rail is today attempting to close workshops to save 8,000 jobs and £18 million while at the same time the Government are considering giving £180 million to bring Nissan to Britain for 5,000 jobs. I come from one of the areas that are bidding for that project. I hope that the Secretary of State will give us a statement on the latest position. I am sure that many of my hon Friends would like

    1053
    to hear what he has to say. One well understands the concern about that in view of the present rate of unemployment.
    The Government's priorities in public expenditure programmes are reflected in cuts in housing and nationalised industries in order to increase spending on defence, law and order and increased benefits for more and more unemployed. Therefore, it is no surprise to see an acceleration in the many thousands of jobs that have been lost in the public sector.
    The Government's high interest rate policy has inevitably caused a collapse in demand. The mass private sector has collapsed with a record number of bankruptcies and there has been an accelerated reduction in manufacturing investment which, compared with when the Labour Government left office, is a 24 per cent. reduction in real terms. All those factors inevitably contribute to the reduction of available jobs.
    A major area for attention must surely be the manufacturing sector. Cuts there have had tremendous effects in the West Midlands and other areas. There has been a loss of 2 million jobs in the manufacturing sector since 1976. All that must be added to the lunatic policy of capital outflows, which was debated in the House last night, and which has resulted in the net flow of over £6·5 million out of Britain to investment abroad.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) pointed out that in one year alone three companies were responsible for one-third of that cash outflow and that they had contributed to the loss of over 17,000 jobs through lack of investment. Indeed, 22 per cent. of British investment goes abroad, whereas in Japan 0·6 per cent. of investment goes abroad. In other manufacturing countries, no more than 5 per cent. is invested abroad. I think that I have made the case that in this country investors invest abroad rather than in our industries. The Government's policies have directly encouraged that.
    No doubt we shall be told that the real problem is high labour costs. Although Britain's workers have the lowest wages in Europe, and although Britain's investment per man is the lowest in Europe, we shall no doubt again be treated to the Government's argument about the problem of labour costs. The Government's words will have a hollow ring compared with the examples that can be cited in both the private and public sectors. For example, in the textile industries of Yorkshire, Humberside and the North-West, 300 plants and 50 per cent. of the labour force have been lost, although, even according to the Government, productivity is as high there as elsewhere. Nevertheless, the market cannot be protected without import controls or some quotas as the Government are doing.
    British Steel has witnessed a massive cut in manpower and it can now claim that its productivity is as good as that in Europe. However, even with those high productivity levels, no one can give any guarantee or assurance about the future size of that industry. Perhaps the Secretary of State will give us some idea of the future for those industries, as their problems have given rise to considerable concern in most of the regions that I have visited.
    Against that economic background, no regional policy has any chance of working. If the Government do not get the central economic policy right, regional policies will be unable to work effectively to reduce unemployment. However, in 1979, the then Secretary of State for Industry,
    1054
    the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), proceeded to dismantle the regional policy that then existed. He scrapped the planning economic councils, which the counties are now desperately trying to replace with some form of organisation. He gave a commitment to review assisted area policy so that he could save money and he decided to abolish industrial development certificates. The market place was to determine everything and there was to be a reduction in regional development grants.
    Given the catastrophic effect on employment, I should have thought that the Secretary of State would have reconsidered his policy when he realised its results. However, in our debates last week we were treated only to the news that another 1 per cent. of the population may be covered. Given the scale of unemployment, that news is not worthy of comment.
    Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Since 1976, £3,740 million has been spent on regional aid. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that that aid has created new jobs that have not been lost elsewhere?
    Mr. Prescott: We must all address ourselves to that fundamental point. The Select Committee was right to query whether the £5,000 million spent has been deployed effectively. However, that is not to say that we should not allocate resources to disadvantaged areas or that regional policies have not provided extra jobs. However, regional policy can no longer be directed towards minority areas. There is mass unemployment in every part of the United Kingdom and regional policy has a major part to play. Nevertheless, I accept that we must rethink its role.
    Today, we are dealing with the Government's record. They have had two years in which to consider the problem. They have begun to review the situation. Last week, there was a statement on their conclusions. Unemployment stands at 12·8 per cent. and many travel-to-work-areas have unemployment rates as high as 30 per cent. and even 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. Unemployment in every area has doubled. I notice that there are not many Conservative Members in the Chamber from constituencies in the South-East. I am sure that the Tory Party has more Members of Parliament for constituencies in the South-East than the one or two Conservative Members now nodding their heads.
    In the South-East and the West Midlands, unemployment has increased faster than in many of the traditional areas of unemployment. Even in the traditional areas, unemployment has doubled. The usual approach has been to consider the traditional areas of high unemployment such as Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, whose problems have doubled since the Conservative Party came to office. The West Midlands now joins those areas and wants development area status. It ranks with the traditional areas in terms of the percentage of those unemployed.
    However, in any consideration of regional policy, the absolute levels of unemployment must be taken into account. The absolute levels become important when considering the mass unemployment that faces us today, which is likely only to increase. For example, the South-East now accounts for 24 per cent. of unemployment and the problem is particularly severe in the London area. Unemployment in that area has increased from 337,000 to 700,000. The West Midlands now accounts for 12 per

    1055
    cent. of unemployment and unemployment there has increased from 132,000 to 350,000. Those two areas are not traditional areas of high unemployment, yet they are now responsible for 36 per cent. of unemployment and for 1·5 million of the unemployed. That fact cannot be ignored by any Government. Unemployment has doubled in the traditional areas and even the most profitable wealth-producing areas have been reduced to problem areas.
    It is sad to go to the West Midlands and to be told that it is now a candidate for development area status. Last week, the Secretary of State told us that he had not received any representations from industrialists to make the West Midlands a development area. Can he honestly say that about the local authorities that have been knocking on his door asking for something to be done about unemployment? Against that background, the Secretary of State told the House that he would carry out a new review which would bear in mind two principles. First, there were to be acceptable limits. Presumably, that means money. When the Government lay down conditions, they always involve money. Secondly, the Government said that they wanted to concentrate aid where it was most needed.
    I shall examine the Secretary of State's proposals and measure them against his own criteria. I have suggested that the acceptable limits refer only to saving money. To reduce the areas covered by two-thirds and to make aid available to only 26 per cent. of the population, will produce a saving of only £200 million or £300 million. After the announcement I looked at the figures that had been given for regional aid. The Secretary of State told us that in 1982, he proposed a limit of £850 million, which would fall, by 1983, to £768 million.
    I asked the Library to put those figures against a common base line. The reality is that between 1964 and 1974, we spent £350 million on regional aid with ½ million unemployed. Between 1975 and 1980 we spent £520 million per annum with 1 million unemployed. The amount was almost doubled in line with the increase in unemployment. However, the Government now propose to reduce the sum to £324 million, when unemployment stands at 3 million and is rising. Dated back to 1975, £324 million is the real figure, according to Library sources. The Government apparently intend to spend as much as was spent in 1967 on the same minority areas although the problem is six times greater than it was then. Anyone who can consider devoting resources under those circumstances cannot have thought about their proper use. Judged by the criteria of the 1960s and 1970s, because of the percentage of unemployment, most areas would be eligible for aid.
    Mr. Frank Hooley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but, in addition, there is the compounding effect of the massive cuts in housing, and the cuts in public expenditure that have shown that there is a lack of interest in regional policies.
    Mr. Prescott: The point is a powerful one. I am sure that it is not lost on this side of the House. These points are constantly made during debates and at Question Time, but they do not appear to have a great deal of effect on the Government. Scotland, Wales and the North, which are traditionally areas of high unemployment, have double the problems that they had when the Government took office. Those areas account for 29 per cent. of the country's
    1056
    unemployed people, but due to mass unemployment that has reduced to 26 per cent. The Government propose to increase aid to those areas from 56 per cent. to 65 per cent. of the money available. I do not question that those areas need every penny that they can get. In Yorkshire, Humberside and the North-West unemployment remains at 45 per cent. and there has been a cut from 34 per cent. to 17 per cent. in assisted area status. The rest of the United Kingdom accounts for 44 per cent. of the country's unemployment and yet they receive no aid under the proposals.
    The Government seem to believe that unemployment in the regions is concentrated in a minority of areas on which a minority of the money is to be concentrated. That was their thinking in the 1960s. It flies in the face of the evidence and reflects their ignorance of what is happening in the peripheral areas of the country. We should want to correct that in any new regional policy proposals. I believe that the Government's regional policy is underfunded and wrongly conceived.
    It is not surprising therefore that local authorities with high levels of unemployment should try to do something about jobs in their areas. Counties such as the West Midlands or the GLC, which are Labour authorities, are developing enterprise boards connected to pension funds, and are beginning to create jobs. District authorities, such as Sheffield, Norwich, Hull and many others that we visited, are not just dealing with land use planning, but actively using their money to create permanent jobs. They have shown what can be done by local authorities and a possible way forward. They have used section 317 and the 2p rate as a means of financing such activities.
    A report from the Association of District Councils—most of which, I believe, are Tory controlled—demands from the Government more power and resources to develop jobs in their areas. It points out that every unemployed man costs £4,380 a year. I am using the figures from the report. That is 70 per cent. of the average wage. If that sum was added to local authority public expenditure programmes, they could at a stroke contribute effectively to reducing unemployment in their areas. A powerful case is made out for that.
    What has the Government's attitude been towards local government? They attacked local government about the 2p rate and sought to reduce it. They failed to achieve that in the House of Lords because the Tories revolted against the Government denying local authorities the chance to do something about their problems.
    The Government have set up urban development corporations and enterprise zones and sent a busload of bankers around. They all undermine the role of the local authority and give power to outside bodies. They remove accountability for public money from local people and deny them the opportunity to deal with their own problems. Regional policy must reflect the fact that local authorities have a powerful role to play in developing indigenously their own economy. The day of mass mobile industries roaming our country being tempted with bags of gold, has gone. We are saying not that we do not want them, but that that is not the answer to the problem. A great deal of money was given away with a lack of corresponding accountability and was largely concentrated upon manufacturing.
    I look at the Government's policies to see what might happen in the future. I look at what the Cambridge Economic Policy Group says—I have about six various

    1057
    institutes' projections here—and it has projected that by 1990, if the Government's policies continue, 4½ million people will be unemployed. It predicts that 3·4 million people will be unemployed by the end of the year. The Government have rejected those figures, but Sir Terence Beckett said last night in this Palace that he believed that that would be the figure by the end of the year.
    It seems that the Cambridge Economic Policy Group is on target with this year's figures. They are better projections than the figures given by the Government during the past year. At least half a million jobs a year must be created to reach the employment levels the people are entitled to expect. We believe that the mixed economy and market forces cannot produce that growth in the rate of jobs. It cannot produce the rate of growth necessary to obtain extra investment and create jobs.
    We commit ourselves in a detailed policy statement to reaffirm a principle that was embodied in the 1944 White Paper which we have included in our "Plan for Jobs". It states:
    "The Government accept as one of their primary aims and responsibilities the maintenance of a high and stable level of employment."
    We reaffirm our commitment to that. We reject that the control of inflation is a precondition to achieving high growth in employment. By our "Plan for Jobs" we aim to reduce unemployment to at least 1 million in four years. We have detailed our plans for expansion in the public sector in all the documents that we have produced over the past few months. I do not have time to go over all the details, but they are published and no doubt people will study them. We might hear something about them from the Secretary of State today.
    We spell out what we believe to be the way forward. We have not yet completed all the details of our proposals, but we are continuing to work on them. We have plans for expansion. We shall effectively operate import quotas to protect our industrial base. We shall have exchange controls and work on exchange and interest rates to provide resources for growth and job creation.
    The Cambridge Economic Policy Group has assessed our alternative strategy and has said that it will reduce unemployment to 2 million. We dispute that figure, because we believe that we can achieve more than that. The different figures that it gives for our policy and the Government's—a difference of 2 million—justify our policy. People believe that our policy is feasible. I accept that it will not be easy to achieve.
    We seek to implement our policy against a framework of industrial democracy and plans at both national and regional levels. Our policy at national level is one of major planning intervention. That is identified in the alternative economic strategy. It will be necessary to reflect that in the regions. We shall give all the regions planning boards and development agencies. We shall actively encourage local authorities to develop their indigenous economies. We shall make such bodies accountable to the regions and in the regions. That will ensure a positive regional policy with resources to match, determining its priorities and co-ordinated within a national economic strategy, to reduce the curse of unemployment.
    More work is being done on the interface problems between regions and the centre, the instruments of accountability and the criteria of need and resource allocation. We believe that those plans are necessary to achieve our goal—deeply committed to it as we are—of
    1058
    returning our people to fun employment, using all their skills both at national and at regional level. We reject a Government who call on men to produce ships and to man them in that South Atlantic war, and then after the war to say to them "You cannot build the replacements. You cannot sail on the ships, because you are too expensive." Our policies, combined with the talent and energies of our people, can throw off the scourge of mass unemployment which has been deliberately impressed upon us by this Government.
    4.59 pm
    The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'this House, whilst sharing the deep concern for the unemployed, recognises that today's unemployment reflects a loss of competitiveness over many years as well as the effect of the world recession; supports Her Majesty's Government in their objective of creating conditions in which all parts of the country can prosper; further supports Her Majesty's Government in concentrating their regional industrial policy in the areas of greatest need; and rejects the proposals of Her Majesty's Official Opposition as leading only to higher inflation and more unemployment.'
    We do not often hear the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) speaking from the Dispatch Box. By any standards, he made a forceful and effective speech and I congratulate him. He has earned a reputation for doing his homework. His speech was studded with figures and facts, the product of his efforts and those of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). Hon. Members will wish to study those facts and figures.
    The gloss that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East put upon the policies that would be pursued by the Labour Party if it came to power scarcely reflects reality. I shall draw the attention of the House, and of employers and employees, to what might lie in store for them if the Labour Party ever comes to office again and the country has the misfortune to live under a Labour Government. Labour Weekly did a signal service in alerting us to the horrors in store. The hon. Gentleman referred to few of them.
    I shall set out the position of British industry as I see it. The hon. Member properly concentrated on regional policy and I shall say something about that. We can agree that all the regional policy in the world will not solve the long-standing, deep-seated problems of many areas which go back over many decades, unless we get the health of our industry right and the economy once again producing the wealth that we need. I shall examine the main thrust of the Government's industrial policy, where it is succeeding and where there is still much progress to be made.
    The hon. Gentleman made some wild charges. I resent the accusation that the Government deliberately set out to create unemployment. I hope that we can debate the issues without flinging around such accusations. I hope to present the House with a more balanced picture.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Jenkin: No. I have only just started my speech.
    When we put our policies before the country at the last election we made it clear that after many decades of relative industrial decline and lost competitiveness, we would not be able to put things right in a year or two. We

    1059
    said firmly in our manifesto that the job would take two Parliaments. We are just one-third of the way through that period.
    Mr. Jack Straw: Where was that in the manifesto?
    Mr. Jenkin: If it was not in the manifesto, it should have been.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made no reference to the word "competitiveness". My proposition is one of such stark and obvious truth that even the hon. Gentleman might be prepared to accept it. It is that the success of British industry lies in winning markets and providing jobs for the people of Britain. That depends upon industry being competitive. It means being competitive not only on price, but in design, technology, quality and reliability, in delivery and in after-sales service. Where we are competitive we can hold on to our markets and win new ones.
    In the course of my peregrinations round the country I have had contact with many splendid firms—large, medium and small—which are doing just that. Many are taking on extra people and increasing their share of the market. Many are exporting between 60 per cent. and 80 per cent. of their output. We have lost markets generally because we are, or have become, uncompetitive.
    The second fact which we must keep firmly fixed in our minds is that between 1975 and the beginning of 1981, industry in Britain became about 50 per cent. less competitive in terms of unit labour costs vis-à-vis our main industrial competitors. There is no magic in the period that I have chosen. The figure was given in the recent paper that the National Economic Development Council discussed last week. By far the biggest cause of our disastrous decline in competitiveness is the fact that wage and price inflation over the period sent our costs and prices rocketing. At the same time North Sea oil was coming on stream. That underpinned our currency and prevented the slide in the value of the pound which such inflation would otherwise have produced.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East used the word "inflation" twice when talking about the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in general. At no stage did he recognise that Britain's inflation record over a long period, not just when the Labour Government were in power, has been significantly worse than that of most of our industrial competitors. Our relative lack of competitiveness goes back many decades during which productivity in other countries advanced faster than in Britain.
    When world markets were rising strongly our falling share of world trade still allowed us to expand our markets. and so to achieve over the years a modest rate of economic growth. The repeated oil shocks; by slowing down the growth of world trade, left us losing absolutely as well as relatively and brought home to us starkly how far we had lost competitiveness compared to the rest of the world. The prime aim of any Government must be to restore the competitiveness of British industry.
    Mr. Albert Roberts: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that to become competitive inducements must be given? No inducements have been offered by the Government. If workers do not receive inducements they do not give of their best.
    Mr. Jenkin: I agree with most of that. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recognition of the role of incentives. An incentive was provided by cutting the rate of income tax. People are only human and they respond to incentives. That philosophy has been at the heart of my party's policy for many years.
    If inflation coupled with lack of productivity is the most serious cause of our loss of competitiveness, winning the battle against inflation is perhaps the most valuable thing that we can do to help industry. The good news is that inflation is now in single figures. The prospects are that the rate of inflation will come down steadily for the rest of this year and into next year. The trend is firmly down, and I hope that that can be common ground between us.
    I have said on many occasions that the Government's first task is to aim to create the conditions and climate in which industry can prosper. Curbing inflation is by far the most important element in that task. I shall remind the House yet again that on present trends the Government will be the first since the 1950s who will face the electorate with a lower average rate of inflation than the Government they followed.
    Mr. Straw rose—
    Mr. Jenkin: I shall come to the connection between inflation and jobs in a moment. The key to becoming competitive is to reduce inflation. The key to getting more jobs is to become more competitive. That is the essential truth. In the 10 months that I have held my present office, I have met hundreds of industrialists of all shades of opinion. I have met hardly any who do not accept, first, that the control of inflation is the most important single benefit we could bring to their businesses and, secondly, that the Government's policies to achieve that must be sustained if they are to succeed. Of course industry is concerned about high interest rates. Of course industry is worried about the costs imposed on it by central and local government.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East sought a much larger role for local government in job creation. I am convinced that more jobs are lost by the impost of high rates on industry than are ever created by all the well-meaning efforts of local government to create employment. Of course industry wants to see its markets expanding so that it can make and sell more goods.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government's figures show that rates, as a proportion of manufacturing industry's total costs, are 0·66 per cent. of the total, a tiny proportion, particularly when compared with interest charges, which are very much greater? It is the increase in interest charges, created by the Government, which has lost thousands and thousands more jobs than rate increases.
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion. When I go out on the Terrace of the House and see that ridiculous banner on County Hall and know that the GLC put a 93 per cent. rate increase on commerce and industry in the Greater London area, I wonder whether profligacy can go further than that.
    Mr. Cryer: The GLC poster has really hurt the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Jenkin: It does not hurt at all because it is humbug.

    1061
    Industrialists are realistic. They recognise that high interest rates, rising public sector costs and falling markets are some of the results of high inflation.
    As I go round the country I am left in no doubt whatever that if we were now to embark on policies which would lead inexorably to the resurgence of inflation, we would forfeit, and rightly forfeit, the confidence of the great mass of British industry. Higher growth, higher employment and higher investment are our objectives. But they will not be achieved unless we first master inflation. That is why sticking to the medium term financial strategy is absolutely crucial to the health of industry and, the overwhelmingly majority of those responsible for managing industry in this country support that to the hilt.
    If it is the Government's responsibility to control inflation, it is industry's responsibility to become efficient, to raise productivity and to win back market share. Let us consider productivity. Part of the cause of our loss of competitiveness lies with past productivity performance which, when compared with our neighbours, has not been good.
    Productivity rose rapidly last year. In the first quarter of 1982, output per head in manufacturing industry was 12 per cent. higher than at the end of 1980 and 5½ per cent. higher than the average for 1979, a peak year in the productivity cycle.
    I would not deny for one moment—here again there should be common ground—that this marked improvement in productivity is partly the result of the straightforward reduction in overmanning, which has been one of the symptoms of the British disease. Of course this has contributed to the present distressingly high unemployment figures. However, it must be good for Britain, for instance, that the same amount of steel is now being produced at Port Talbot in South Wales by 5,500 men when it used to take 12,000 men to produce. It must be good for Britain that, on the production lines at Longbridge, productivity has improved 100 per cent. over the past year. It must be good for Britain that up and down the country firms large and small are beginning to get their costs under control, their output per head rising fast and their goods priced more competitively. Pay is a vital element in costs, and the more moderate pay settlements of the past year have greatly helped to improve competitiveness and so to save jobs.
    The link between pay moderation, unemployment and the creation of new jobs is vital to the understanding of the problem of unemployment. The combined effect of rising productivity and more sensible pay settlements has been to improve dramatically the rate of increase of unit labour costs. Compared with a rate of over 25 per cent. 18 months ago, in the year to the first quarter of 1982, unit wage and salary costs rose by only 2½ per cent.—a rate on a par with Germany, and better than Japan, America and France. That is the way that we shall win back markets. That is the way to create jobs. There is no other way.
    There is another lesson.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman has not denied the assertion of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that labour costs in Britain are smaller than those of many of our competitors. Does he agree that the unit labour cost figure, which he has just quoted, includes the use of that labour, the skills of management and the costs of many other factors? He should admit that the cost
    1062
    of labour in relation to our competitors, particularly in Europe, is a vital factor, which has been kept down despite inflation.
    Mr. Jenkin:.I was comparing the movement in unit labour costs. We lost 50 per cent. of competitiveness, measured in terms of unit labour costs, over the six years between 1975 and 1981. We have won back a part of that but we have a long way to go.
    Mr. Straw: Rubbish.
    Mr. Jenkin: If this improvement—there has been a worthwhile improvement—is to succeed it must be sustained over many years. As I said a moment ago, we regained about 10 per cent. of the 50 per cent. we have lost. We have a long way to go even to get back to the relative position that we held in 1975. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was absolutely right to stress as he did the other day that there can be no let-up on pay.
    All the efforts of industry to raise efficiency, to come out with improved designs and competitive products, to fight for markets across the world, and to create employment at home will come to nothing if the whole benefit is swallowed up in higher pay and if labour costs are allowed once again to run out of control.
    On the contrary, as inflation falls, it makes sense from every angle that pay settlements should also come down. Indeed, we must continually hammer home the message that higher pay must be earned by higher output. Those who determine the level of pay claims need to have at the forefronts of their minds the simple truth about the link between pay and unemployment. If higher pay pushes up costs faster than those of our competitors, the consequence can only be lost jobs and longer dole queues.
    While pay moderation cannot guarantee employment—no one can guarantee employment—it will be a powerful help in sustaining employment. Some hon. Members may think that I am labouring the point too much.
    Mr. Prescott: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman may be right because I believe that those essential truths are becoming well understood on the shop floor of industry. Much of the moderation and the common sense that we have seen in the past year or two is—
    Mr. Stanley Orme: If the Secretary of State is laying such emphasis on pay policy, where is the justice in the Government giving judges and senior civil servants pay rises that are far in excess of what is being offered to Health Service workers and many others?
    Mr. Jenkin: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman, with his customary care and meticulousness, has studied the comparative figures over a period. He will know that those covered by the Top Salaries Review Body were never subject to the catching-up exercise, which, when I presided over the Health Service, increased the pay of people such as nurses by more than 50 per cent. in two years.
    That essential truth about the link between pay, competitiveness and employment must be understood by everyone. Some people talk about making sacrifices for the common good. I do not want to use that language because it is a matter of sheer common sense and self-interest.

    1063
    We all want to see industry succeed. We all want to see faster growth, rising standards of living and better social services. We shall achieve them to the extent that we as a nation, through our industry, manufacturing and services, can earn them by our own efforts. Yes, we are beginning to win back lost competitiveness, but we have a long way to go.
    If the defeat of inflation and the restoration of competitiveness is our first object, the second is to remove obstacles in the way of industry's greater success. Much has been done. We have abolished pay, price, dividend and exchange controls. The burden of United Kingdom Corporation tax now compares favourably with other countries. With the improvements introduced by this Government, we have a system of capital allowances and stock relief among the most generous anywhere. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) jeers at those things, but they affect the ability of industry to compete. We have cut the top rates of personal tax, which were inhibiting enterprise in industry, we have improved the tax treatment of share options and we have made a start on cutting the national insurance surcharge, a direct cost on industry, which was imposed by the Labour Party and increased by the Labour Party. We have begun to cut it back. We have taken measures to reduce the burden of the public sector on industry.
    Mr. Michael McGuire: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Jenkin: I have given way many times. I must continue my speech. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
    Wherever possible, nationalised industries, or parts of them, are being returned to real public ownership and the disciplines of competition.
    Mr. Prescott: The profitable ones.
    Mr. Jenkin: They are the only ones that anyone is prepared to buy.
    Mr. McGuire: On the question of assistance—
    Mr. Jenkin: I shall not give way.
    The list of firms returned to public ownership is long, including British Aerospace, Cable and Wireless and the National Freight Corporation. There are others in the pipeline. Competition is being opened up. I have licensed the world's first competive telecommunications network in Mercury, to compete with British Telecommunications. Where we cannot have competition, we must have exacting performance targets backed up by financial disciplines and monitoring.
    There should be common ground across the House about small firms. Lord Lever persuaded the Labour Party that small firms had an important role to play. They have faced a wide range of obstacles in obtaining the appropriate finance and advice. The Government have introduced over 90 specific measures to help new and existing small businesses, including perhaps the most successful, the loan guarantee scheme.
    Mr. McGuire rose—
    Mr. Jenkin: Since its introduction in June 1981 the loan guarantee scheme has provided nearly 5,000
    1064
    guarantees to small firms for bank loans totalling over £166 million, every penny of which must have meant the safeguarding or creation of jobs.
    There is a new understanding by the banks, the City, local authorities and Government Departments of the significant role that small firms play in our economy. However, we need to do more to see that they know what help is available and what changes have been made in their favour.
    Mr. McGuire: On the question of assistance—
    Hon. Members: Give way.
    Mr. Jenkin: I shall give way, as I am fond of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. McGuire: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Is he aware that in his office he has on file a request for assistance for a company named Hughes International which, if it receives that sensible assistance from the Government, which other Governments are giving to its competitors, will create 1,000 jobs in Skelmersdale, where there is one of the highest rates of male unemployment in the country? All that firm wants is a sensible appreciation by the Minister of the fact that the export credit guarantee system is too rigid at present. Jobs are being lost. There are people on the dole who could be working.
    Mr. Jenkin: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I know thoroughly the position in Skelmersdale. That request is not on my files but on the files of the Department of Trade, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter on the Floor of the House I shall look into it and see that he receives an early reply.
    We want to see that small firms know what is available. Following the successful business opportunities programme last year, we are considering how best to spread the message to small firms and their advisers—the bankers, solicitors and accountants—up and down the country.
    Mr. Michael Grylls: The loan guarantee scheme has been outstandingly successful. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it has made the financing of small businesses as good as in any other industrialised country, which was not so before? Will my right hon. Friend extend the upper limit of the loan from the low level at which it started as a pilot scheme, of £75,000, to £250,000. This would bring in the medium-sized company, which still finds it difficult to raise money for expansion. Such firms could create many new jobs.
    Mr. Jenkin: No one is more assiduous than my hon. Friend in pressing the interests of smaller businesses. I take careful note of what he has said. He will know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been reviewing the operation of the loan guarantee scheme. A report has been made to the House. We shall consider the result of the review and determine how best to carry it forward in the future.
    Our third purpose is to encourage innovation and new technology. That is crucial to future competitiveness. We need to spend more on investing in the future and less on supporting the casualties of the past. There can be no doubt about that. We have begun the task of moving the balance of industrial expenditure away from nationalised industries and the public sector and towards measures to help industry to innovate.

    1065
    My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology has been tireless in his championing of schemes to support product and process research and development, microelectronics, robotics, flexible manufacturing systems, fibre-optics and optoelectronics, advanced office systems, computer software and biotechnology. Support has more than doubled in real terms since the Government came to office and that is a measure of our commitment to the advancement of innovation. Only recently I announced an increase in the level of grants under the Science and Technology Act and for innovation-linked schemes under section 8 of the Industry Act from 25 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. That was much welcomed by the industries that use those grants. Our scheme to give a shot in the arm to small engineering firms—intended as a temporary boost—which need to invest in new, advanced equipment was an outstanding success, so much so that despite increasing the resources from £20 million to £30 million we had to close the list to applications much sooner than we had anticipated. In the event, the sum to be offered will be about £35 million, which is nearly twice the sum originally planned. I can reassure those who are concerned with these matters that that can be met by switching sums from other heads in my programme. I know that there was some disappointment that we had to halt the scheme. However, the effects of the small engineering firms investment scheme on machine tool and other industries will be felt for some years yet.
    We have introduced many other measures to stimulate industry and encourage enterprise. The enterprise allowance scheme is just one. It is being piloted in several hard-pressed areas. I am glad that by 30 June 1982 almost 800 applicants for the enterprise allowance had been accepted and that 724 are now in business and receiving the allowance of £40 a week. Those new firms are spread across a wide spectrum of industry. The jibe that they are all window cleaners is untrue—there are fewer than one in 100. The favourite sectors are construction, distribution and services such as motor repairs and catering.
    The Department's small firms service is heavily involved in the scheme, especially in the provision of management advice. I shall give just one example of the effect of the scheme. One of our counsellors, who is involved with the pilot area in North-East Lancashire, has reported that of 33 people whom he has advised, 27 have started in business. During the previous 12 months, before the pilot scheme operated in that area, only three out of 97 people whom he had advised had made a start in business. That shows that, although it is a pilot scheme, the results so far are encouraging. We shall review those results fully.
    The experimental enterprise zones are intended to test how far commercial and industrial activity can be stimulated by easing tax burdens and cutting out bureaucracy. Early results in Swansea, Clydebank, Dudley and Corby are encouraging. There has been considerable promotion effort in those areas. The financial institutions are becoming involved. There is ample evidence that enterprise zones are stimulating economic activity and creating jobs which would not otherwise have resulted.
    I was astonished that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East attacked urban development corporations. I understand that he comes from Merseyside and knows the area well. Anyone who is aware of the tremendous improvement in the south docks of Liverpool, the general
    1066
    environmental improvement, the industrial development and the creation of jobs can bear witness to the effectiveness of the Merseyside development corporation. Where is the evidence to suppose that local authorities in the area would have been able to achieve half as much? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment set up the new urban development corporation there because they could not.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East rightly spent much time on regional industrial policy.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only real benefit of enterprise zones is rate relief? Does he agree that the Government could make a national concession in that regard and that it would have a significant impact on the economy?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He cannot expect me to comment on it now. I do not agree that it is the only benefit of enterprise zones. There are others, such as substantially less bureaucracy, substantially simplified planning procedures and exemption from development land tax. It is never possible to isolate the effects of each. If he is suggesting that a high rate burden on business is a disincentive, many of my hon. Friends would agree passionately.
    The Government are as committed as anyone to help, by encouraging industrial and other development, areas that have intractable problems of structural unemployment. We aim, as did the Labour Government, to reduce economic imbalances between different parts of the country. The issue between us is how that may best be done.
    Regional policies have been with us for half a century. In the 1930s the decline of traditional industries led the Government of the day to adopt measures that were designed to attract new industry to develop in the old industrial areas. In the 1960s, the emphasis moved from merely unemployment to other factors such as population changes, migration, communications and remoteness. Regional policy is based on travel-to-work areas. They have been used by all Governments because they are relatively self-contained labour markets and the smallest geographical areas for which reliable unemployment figures can be provided.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to small pockets of high unemployment. It is impossible to devise a regional policy that can be selective in that way. By 1979, assisted areas covered nearly half of the country. Differentials were so narrow that the drawing power of the incentives was gravely weakened. Regional policy had become an instrument for massive subsidies at the taxpayers' expense. One must always measure the jobs that are lost against the expense to those who must pay the taxes to finance the schemes.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems of regional policy is not so much that it has created new jobs but that it has taken jobs from established areas at huge cost without creating wealth? It has been an illusion—rather like a rabbit coming out of a hat—rather than a creation of real prosperity.
    Mr. Jenkin: As I said in my statement, it is notoriously difficult to measure the effects of regional policy.

    1067
    Nevertheless, there is evidence that unemployment and the creation of new employment has responded to it. The loss of jobs elsewhere is dependent upon the general movement in the economy.
    The huge spread of funds narrowed the differentials. Industrial development control was hampering decisions and preventing necessary development. In 1979, therefore, regional policy was a mess. The Government have done three things. We have reduced, and are continuing to reduce, the coverage of regional industrial help to the areas that are in greatest need. We have widened the differentials and we have suspended industrial development control. The effect of this has been masked by the quadrupling of unemployment since the mid-1970s. It is difficult to measure the impact of individual measures. Nevertheless, in spite of the detailed figures that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East produced, the proportionate rise in unemployment in assisted areas has been less than that in the rest of the country, although the absolute figures are higher. That is some evidence that regional measures are having some effect.
    When my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Industry announced his policy in June 1979, he said that there must be time for people to adjust. He undertook to listen to the evidence, especially from those areas that were losing assisted area status. He said:
    "unless we have greatly misjudged the circumstances, I would be wrong to hold out hope of correction in the proposals announced."—[Official Report, 24 July 1979; Vol. 971, c. 364.]
    Nevertheless, we were convinced that there were some areas in which the relative deterioration in employment—relative, that is, to the country as a whole—called for adjustment. I shall not weary the House by repeating all the changes that I announced in my statement two weeks ago.
    I knew that we would be criticised whatever we did. Contrary to what appeared in some West Midlands papers, the great mass of industry in the West Midlands was greatly relieved that we did not opt for a massive extension of the development areas. The problems of the West Midlands are essentially those of competitiveness, not those of remoteness or the lack of a proper industrial base. Many industries in the West Midlands are making heroic efforts to regain markets that have been lost to their competitors. They would not be helped if they were within assisted areas.
    We gave a commitment to maintain stability in regional industrial policy until the end of this Parliament. If we now start chopping and changing on a major scale, the credibility of regional incentives will vanish. Of course we have not abandoned regional policy. Regional measures are costing £800 million this year, so it scarcely lies in the mouths of Labour Members to talk of the Government having abandoned the regions.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about Nissan. One of the most effective ways of using regional assistance is for inward investment. Over the years, this country has had a marked success in attracting investment—and with it jobs, technology and the rest—from overseas. After Canada, this country has the largest volume of American investment overseas and 60 per cent. of Japanese investment in Europe has come to this country. There are major investments by overseas industrial companies in all parts of the country and they make a notable contribution.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: What about British investment?
    Mr. Jenkin: Representatives of the Nissan company will be visiting Britain later this month and discussions are continuing about the project. It will be for the company to decide, in the light of its own assessment, whether to go ahead with the project and, if so, on what scale and in what location. It would not be helpful if the House sought to press the Government to disclose details of the discussions at this stage. By any standards, this will be a most important investment project for Britain. The Government made it abundantly clear to the company that we would welcome such a major investment in a car-making facility in Britain.
    We now have an economic, industrial and regional policy that is beginning to work to produce a genuinely efficient and competitive economy. That is the only basis from which industry can expand.
    There is welcome news, too, on production. Yesterday's figures show that industrial production was up in May and that, in the three months to May, manufacturing output rose by 1½ per cent. The underlying level of output is expected by most forecasters to rise in the second half of this year.
    There is a new and welcome sense of economic realism right across the country—except in the Labour Party, which now poses the greatest threat to the sustained recovery of British industry. Labour Weekly has published the facts. It is vital that the country should be made aware of what the Labour Party wishes to do.
    I suspect that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East does not accept all the proposals put forward by the Labour Party. Indeed, it would be interesting to know whether the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) supports all that Labour Weekly puts forward as he has had experience in the Department and knows a thing or two about these matters.
    We are told that there are a number of key elements in Labour's programme. A massive increase in public borrowing lies at the heart of it. Either this will trigger off a new wave of inflation, or it will starve private industry of funds for investment and jobs. Probably it will do both. The Labour Party also claims that it wants a clamp-down on prices while allowing wages to rise without limit. That is a
    "prescription for bankruptcies, closures and unemployment".
    Those are not my words. They are the words of that realistic trade union leader Mr. Sid Weighell.
    The Labour Party has acknowledged that its programme would involve a massive devaluation of the pound. The Guardian said of the Labour Party's economic proposals:
    "Confidence in sterling could be sapped so quickly that the pound would drop like a stone. With so much sterling held by foreigners, exchange controls would be of limited value".
    The Labour Party further proposes that Labour Ministers and Whitehall civil servants should step in and tell companies how and from whom they should buy their supplies and when and how much they should invest. If the companies refused to obey, control would be taken out of the hands of the directors and placed in the hands of a new State commissar, the Official Trustee.
    Mr. Prescott: That is what the Government are doing in the North Sea.
    Mr. Jenkin: The Labour Party would not stop there. It proposes the State takeover of our most successful

    1069
    companies. Moreover, this would be done not by an Act of Parliament in each case but by statutory instrument, thus suppressing all the processes of primary legislation. That is perhaps as disturbing a suggestion as any for our democratic parliamentary procedures. Is the Labour Party really prepared to nationalise companies by statutory instrument? I hope that the right hon. Member for Salford, West will give a clear answer on that when he winds up the debate.
    The Labour Party then proposes to make industry more democratic for the workers. At least, that is how it is described, but the small print makes it clear that the proposal is to hand over power not to the workers but to the trade unions. The ASLEF dispute is scarcely the best propaganda either for more nationalisation or for more trade union power.
    Economic reality is scarcely allowed to intrude into the Labour Party proposals. There is no mention of inflation or competitiveness, of the right goods at the right price, of the need to keep costs down or the need for profits to keep people in jobs and to create new investment and new jobs for the future. British industry must be clear about what the Labour Party is offering.
    The whole thrust of the Government's industrial policy is to lay firm foundations for sustained and sustainable growth in British industry. That is being achieved by cutting inflation, by industry becoming more competitive, by increasing productivity, by removing obstacles, by encouraging the growth of small firms, by regional policy, by supporting innovation and by encouraging the industries of the future.
    I urge the House to support the Government amendment because it is the only way forward.
    5.47 pm
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I am delighted to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, so early in my time in the House. I invite the tolerance and the forbearance of hon. Members during my maiden speech, in what I accept—and I am sure we all accept—is one of the most crucial debates of this parliamentary Session.
    I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, the late James Dempsey. Jimmy Dempsey had many qualities, but principal among them were common sense, dedication and kindness. Those qualities will never be forgotten in Coatbridge and Airdrie. I know from my short time in the House that the affection for Jimmy Dempsey is widely shared not only among hon. Members, but among members of the staff, including the police. His courage will, I think, inspire us all for many years to come.
    I should like to say a few words about my constituency. I must say that there were times during the recent election campaign when I did not exactly appreciate or even understand some of the descriptions that I read. Indeed, I did not always appreciate or understand some of the descriptions of myself.
    I do not complain, though, about what was said about my local outdated sewage plant. I say to the leaders of the other parties that if their candidates fail to turn up again in my constituency at the next election we should not be too hard on them. It would probably have a great deal more to do with the smell from the sewage works than the prospect of yet another lost deposit.
    I also assure Mr. Keith Raffan of the Daily Express —who seems to have a nose for these matters—and,
    1070
    perhaps more important, my constituents, that a solution to the problem is extremely important. If we had received a fairer share of regional aid in the past we might, as local authorities, have been able to deal with it more speedily.
    For example, the Scottish Office graciously conceded £45 million, or 20 per cent. of the Scottish share of regional aid. Even a fraction of that could have helped my constituency to deal with those and some of our many other problems.
    Coatbridge and Airdrie has a proud industrial heritage going back to the Airdrie weavers and the Coatbridge colliers in the eighteenth century, to the halcyon days of the "Iron Burgh" of Coatbridge which exported all over the world. In recent years, we have perhaps become famous as the bowling capital of the world. Our indoor bowling stadium has been used for the annual bowling world championships. That stadium is an example of improving the environment for our people, while its construction provided jobs.
    I had fully intended to mention Monklands district hospital. However, it might be more appropriate for my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) to do that in his capacity as a consumer. We are proud of that hospital. I stands as a constant tribute to the Administration headed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).
    I shall not dwell, much as I am tempted, on our industrial, social and cultural past. For example, I am tempted to mention the Boots factory in Airdrie which produces cosmetics and toothbrushes—to be used at a time convenient to those who buy them. However, in view of the industrial and economic deterioration in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland I am compelled to contrast our great industrial past with the gloom and despair that has descended upon my constituency and the rest of Scotland.
    In these debates we quite properly hear statistics, but we must never forget that these problems involve families and individuals, and are about dashed hopes and broken dreams.
    The two jobcentres in Airdrie and Coatbridge deal entirely with that area and to some extent some of the villages in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith). In that area 22·9 per cent. of all eligible workers are unemployed. In Airdrie the male register of unemployed stands at a staggering g 31·5 per cent. On 10 June 10,285 people had registered for jobs. There were exactly 218 unfilled vacancies.
    For young people the scene is even bleaker. On the same day 1,534 youths had registered for work. There were no notified vacancies. The situation has not changed in the past few weeks. The Bannermans shirt factory in Airdrie, which was doing extremely well in selling its products and finding new markets, employs 250 people. Suddenly it has found the official receiver on the doorstep. Tomorrow those employees will be receiving redundancy notices. I fully realise that it had the misfortune to be part of a group that was not as progressive as Bennermans itself.
    The Scottish Development Agency and everyone involved in trying to rescue the firm should be given all possible support by the Government and by the Secretary of State for Industry. Not only do those employees have

    1071
    the right to work and to continue to sell, but it would be a tragedy for industry and the employees if the company went to the wall and its markets were taken over, as seems inevitable, by our overseas competitors.
    Three weeks ago Strathclyde regional council advertised for 31 apprentices. It received 3,585 written applications. I cannot possibly condone any suggestion that those young people should take to the streets or show public rebellion and disorder against the Government's policies. However, it is naive in the extreme to offer those young people the prospect of being history's forgotten generation and not to expect repercussions from them.
    There is nothing new in what I have said. We have been warned in the past. In his book "Full Employment in a Free Society", written in 1944, Sir William Beveridge made that point. It is appropriate when, over the past few weeks, we have heard a number of references to the end of a war elsewhere. Sir William said:
    "Full employment is something that the British democracy should direct its Government to secure at all costs, save the surrender of essential liberties. Who can doubt that full employment is worth winning at any cost less than surrender of those liberties. If full employment is not won and kept, no liberties are secure, for to many they will not seem worthwhile."
    Our young people, especially, respond to those words. It is despairing in the extreme to say, as a society, that there is no alternative. Of course there is. There are the alternatives that have been discussed even in today's debate. There must be a clear commitment to increasing investment in the private and public sectors, aimed at providing essential jobs. The construction industry has appealed for more public works and more homes, for motorways and for sewers. The Government should respond to that appeal.
    Local government should have the right to reassert itself. It can thus make a major contribution to job creation and to job opportunities.
    The Secretary of State mentioned rates and their impact on jobs. When I served as president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities I had the privilege to lead the negotiations on finance with three successive Secretaries of State of different political persuasions. I say in all candour that rate increases reflected far more central Government's decisions on rate support grant than the influence of any one local authority.
    We ought to build more hospitals for all our people, not forgetting our handicapped and geriatric friends. In so doing, we are entitled to look at the equipment that is used. Where we can do so, we should encourage hospital boards to buy British equipment. I am sure that that should be done, because of the employment implications.
    The resources available for an attempt to secure full employment include our great natural indigenous resources such as coal, oil and steel. Lanarkshire Members like myself are particularly concerned about the future of Ravenscraig and Gartcosh. I hope that before the end of the debate we shall be assured by a ministerial statement that those who have given their lives to the steel industry in Lanarkshire will be able to feel that they and their families have a future and that Ravenscraig and Gartcosh will be saved.
    Our finest industrial and regional development asset is our people; our success depends on society making the best possible use of our people. That is why our education
    1072
    system should be geared to the industrial challenge that lies beyond school, college and university. I am not absolutely certain that that is the case today.
    I have the privilege of representing a constituency which in the eighteenth century exported iron and equipment for railway construction in Russia and America and which has never been insular or introspective. It is a constituency that has always been concerned about the wider problems of the world. Our concern now is that, as the Brandt report indicated, we live in a world where 9 million children die of hunger each year, yet in my region, men, mills and machinery are standing idle.
    We believe that world poverty offers a greater challenge to peace than any other consideration. We are convinced that by reinvigorating all our regions we can change Britain's industrial pattern and make a contribution towards solving the problems of an increasingly disenchanted world.
    6.3 pm
    Mr. Peter Hordern: The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Aidrie (Mr. Clarke) delighted the House with his warm and witty speech. He spoke first of his predecessor, whom all of us well remember, sitting in his corner seat just below the Gangway. He was a warm and gentle man whom everyone in the House counted as his friend.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke with obvious and detailed knowledge of his constituency. Not everyone knows as intimately as he does the exact location of the local sewage works. It is perhaps possible that the hon. Gentleman has more reason for doing so than some of us. He also spoke with deep knowledge of the industry in his constituency, his constituency's history and the state of employment in the area.
    It is not for nothing that the hon. Gentleman is known as the burgomaster of Coatbridge, such is his intimate knowledge of his constituency. He also spoke with obvious knowledge about poverty, the works of Beveridge, education and the evil effects of unemployment. The House will welcome the hon. Gentleman speaking again on these subjects, but it should not surprise him if on other occasions he finds it more difficult to entertain us.
    I should like to follow the hon. Gentleman's remark about our assets, in particular our possession of coal and oil. It is a paradox that our possession of oil has created considerable difficulties. The impact of that oil has been felt sharply in the past three or four years. It has meant that we have not imported anything like the same quantity of crude oil. It has also meant that the price of our exports has been higher than it would otherwise have been. The consequence has been visited severely on employment, especially in our industrial areas.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made that point in an excellent speech. He also dealt fairly with the Labour Party's proposals. It is extraordinary that anyone should talk about the economic policies of the new Cambridge school as though they should be followed, but I suppose that the Labour Party must try to claim some academic distinction for its policies.
    If the Labour Party's policies were followed, there would literally be no floor for sterling. One need only look at the experience of France to see what would happen. The French have greater reserves and a lower public expenditure as a proportion of GNP than we have, but

    1073
    within a few short months they have had to give up their dash for growth. They are now suffering from high interest rates, a six-month prices and incomes freeze and all the difficulties that occurred in 1964 under the Government of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) when they tried to pursue similar policies. Exactly the same would happen again.
    As my right hon. Friend said, there are some encouraging signs. Notable among these is the fact that wage costs per unit of output are now even lower than at the beginning of the year. If world trade recovers, as everyone hopes, we shall be much more competitive than for a long time past. I have no doubt that we shall recapture a larger share of world trade because of our more competitive position. However, I wish there were a sign that world trade would recover soon or that there was the natural increase in demand that we should all like to see.
    My right hon. Friend also mentioned British Telecom and the involvement of his Department with the corporation in the frontiers of science. That I commend, but we would advance investment in British Telecom more if it were denationalised. It could then stand the test of the market and would not depend upon the Treasury for borrowing from the PSBR. There is no escape from that. British Telecom will either expand because it stands the test of the market, or my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to judge whether money should be advanced. I have no doubt that British Telecom should stand the test of the market so that the market can judge how far investment should proceed, and it could proceed far.
    With all these encouraging signs, there are nevertheless serious difficulties, which no hon. Member can doubt. I refer to the high levels of unemployment not only in the North-West, the North-East, in Scotland and in Wales but increasingly in places where it was unheard of before, such as the South-East, where unemployment is growing rapidly. The clouds are not so dark in the South-East as they are in other parts of the country. However, because of the part that oil plays in our economy and the fact that we no longer have to export so much to command the same price for our currency, the effect on our manufacturing industry has been very striking.
    In 1965 manufacturing industry employed 8·4 million. The number has now declined to 5·7 million. Those who represent constituencies in the West Midlands will know the position much better than I do but, in 1965 unemployment in the West Midlands was below 1 per cent. Today it is over 14 per cent. in what was once, and still is, the heartland of manufacturing industry.
    It is true that a large sector of this population has moved into service industries, and the public sector in particular. This movement puts a greater strain on productive industry than it used, because public service industries have to be provided for by the private sector. It is not only in the West Midlands. In places such as Northern Ireland the problems are severe. About 20 per cent. of workers in Northern Ireland are unemployed, which obscures the fact that nearly one-quarter of men in Northern Ireland are out of work. It is not as though Northern Ireland is such an exception. In Wales and the North, unemployment is over 15 per cent., and in the West Midlands 14½ per cent.
    I can give more detailed figures for Northern Ireland. In Belfast 17 per cent. are out of work and in Cookstown, Dungannon, Newry and Strabane one-third of the working population is out of work, and if we take men alone it is
    1074
    over 40 per cent. We have to look closely at our regional and industrial policies to be sure that they are the most appropriate for the conditions of employment.
    Whatever the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) may have said and thought about regional policies under the Labour Administration, he has to remember that a serious review carried out by Professor Marquand in his Department was able to establish only that it was difficult to see whether any impact had occurred because of regional policies carried out under the last Administration. I do not think that the present regional policies that are, as my right hon. Friend explained, better than our predecessors' are necessarily alone those that will generate further employment. We therefore have to look at other practices and strategic blocks on progress in our economy and industry.
    I am not talking about trade union restrictive practices, about which we have heard a great deal. I am talking about other practices, that have gone on for a long time, in particular practices such as those of the wages councils. I do not dispute that the wages councils do good work, but is it any longer appropriate that a system of wages councils, which was in many cases started before the first World War, can now be considered appropriate when unemployment and supplementary benefits exist where they did not before?
    As it is, about 3 million workers are employed in wages councils and determine wages and conditions of work for many people. They determine what an employee in a tobacconist shop in Horsham may get as being the same wage as somebody who works in Tesco. The result can only be that many apprentices and young people are not offered the chance to work. Therefore, why do we not scrap them? It appears that we are bound by the International Labour Organisation convention of 1928, but we may denounce ratification in June 1985 and go our own way, just as the Americans have always done.
    We should not continue to be bound by a convention which causes such heartbreak to the people it is designed to protect. If it is decided that we cannot immediately scrap the wages councils, we must change them. There are at least five wages councils which award young workers of school-leaving age a minimum rate of pay in excess of £40 a week. In West Germany, the country with the lowest ratio of youth to adult unemployment of all the OECD countries, the average pay for vocational trainees is equal to 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the initial wages of the skilled workers. In Britain, the minimum rate of pay in a typical four-year apprenticeship is about 70 per cent. of the adult minimum wage in engineering and nearly 75 per cent. in the construction industry.
    For that reason among others, the number of apprentices fell by one-third in Britain between 1970 and 1980. Not only are there about twice as many qualified craftsmen in the German work force as compared with the British work force, but twice as many are now being produced. All of us hope that the new youth training scheme, for which the Government deserve every credit, will transform our record in vocational training, which is at present, and has been for many years, virtually the worst in the EEC.
    That is for the future, but what of the present? There are already powerful incentives in tax reliefs, rate reliefs and investment allowances, which, as my right hon. Friend said, are among the best in Europe. However generous, they are not achieving their purpose, which is

    1075
    to restore full employment. In America there are foreign trade zones, which exempt imports from customs duties until they are moved to other parts of the United States. Is it not time to try such an experiment in some part of the country to see whether it works? What more suitable place to try than in Northern Ireland?
    Payments of mainstream corporation tax by companies operating solely in Northern Ireland are estimated to be running between £35 million and £40 million a year. What would happen if corporation tax were abolished for all such companies in Northern Ireland? Companies might change their structure to take advantage of the new position, and more revenue might be lost, but what would undoubtedly happen is that many more companies would be formed, stimulated by the prospect of earning much more money, which they would be allowed to keep. This process would transform Northern Ireland into a corporate tax haven, generating many more jobs and reducing the strain of unemployment and supplementary benefit. I have concentrated rather on the particular problems of Northern Ireland because they are the worst in the United Kingdom, but they are not unique.
    Of all the damaging effects of inflation, perhaps the worst is the high price of land and property which stands in the books of our public authorities. In the life of an ordinary person or a company, spending more money than one receives means selling assets, but not so in the public sector. There they sit, our local and statutory authorities, borrowing money to hold land they cannot use now, or in the foreseeable future. It is a shameful misuse of banks', taxpayers' and ratepayers' money, which impoverishes us all. These public authorities are behaving like elderly spinsters counting their pearls, while we pay their bills.
    The 360 local authorities in England have now reported that they own 87,280 acres of land, all of the plots being over one acre, which could be developed, and which are not. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has the power to order local authorities to sell their land, and he should use it. To argue, as some authorities do, that the market cannot support such sales is to substitute their judgment for that of the market, and to do so at our expense. When we consider that that judgment is preventing the sale of land that could be developed and used for production and employment without delay, we realise that it is a highly offensive judgment. The money gained from such sales by local authorities should be used to repay their bank debts that amount to about £10,000 million.
    The same paralysis of thinking about assets siezes the minds of those who run our nationalised industries and health authorities. Unused or underused assets—and I refer only to those—tie up vast sums that ought to be used for the production of goods and services and would be so used if they were released. We should remember that those who provide the wealth of our country do so, for the most part, from the private sector. They not only provide the cash for a vast body of public servants, but find that their own access to the cash is blocked, to some extent, because it is financing unused assets in the public sector. When will we be allowed to make the best use of our potential?
    We read so much about trade union restrictive practices, which are damaging enough, but it seems to me that the greatest restrictive practice is that which excludes
    1076
    the profitable use of national assets at the right price, which is their present market value. It is time that we put all our national assets to work.
    6.21 pm
    Mr. William Rodgers: I join the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke) who made such a fluent and confident maiden speech. I found it difficult to disagree with anything that the hon. Gentleman said, and I greatly enjoyed his graphic description of his constituency.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to his constituency as the bowling capital of the world. He certainly quickly bowled himself into the sympathies of the House and made what many of us regard as one of the best maiden speeches for a long time. One of the special qualities of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that it was relevant to the debate. Many of us will remember that that was not a characteristic which we were always able to combine with what we wanted to say in our maiden speeches.
    The hon. Gentleman's description of the problem in his constituency and his reference to families' dashed hopes and broken dreams summed up vividly the subject of the debate. Although the title is the
    "Government's Regional and Industrial Policies"
    we are actually debating unemployment—and rightly so.
    Unemployment is the largest single issue for Britain and for the House, and it should be the largest single issue for the Government, whether we are discussing the economic consequences in terms of wasted resources, or the social consequences in terms of personal failure and disappointment. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie was right to refer to William Beveridge and full employment in a free society. Those two ideas have been linked in our minds over many years and are coming back vividly today.
    We recognise that international and other factors make it difficult for any Government to promise to get rid of the vast burden of unemployment in a short time, but there is a danger that we may become complacent and think that unemployment is inevitable and inescapable. At one stage we began to live with inflation in double figures and did not believe that it could be otherwise, and there is a danger that we may begin to believe that we can live with three million unemployed without having to bother further. We have not yet reached that point, but we could do so.
    Each of us has his prime concern among the various aspects of unemployment. History's forgotten generation of school leavers is one such aspect, but I am deeply worried about people over 50 who lose their jobs and have no prospect of ever working again. They are the saddest men and women of all. We are living longer and those people have longer to live with nothing to do, with all the consequences for their self-respect, their families and the sort of home life that they ought to have the right to enjoy.
    The other aspect that bothers me greatly is the number of long-term unemployed, which was not referred to by either Front Bench speaker. About 1 million men and women have not worked for a year. We may accept that people will have to be out of work for a while when changing jobs and we may recognise that that period has become longer, but a year is a very long time.
    Another figure encapsulates the nature of our problem. More than 160,000 people have been out of work for three years. It is as if all the able-bodied men and women in

    1077
    Bristol ceased to work three years ago and have not worked since. That is the depth of the problem that we face.
    It may be argued that our problems are not wholly domestic. I agree with that, but unemployment in the big seven industrialised Western countries was 5 per cent. in 1979 when unemployment here was 5·7 per cent. Unemployment has risen to 7·4 per cent. in the big seven, but here it has risen to 12·4 per cent. and it is still rising. It is an international problem, but it is far worse in Britain, largely because of the Government's policies.
    The Secretary of State put an optimistic gloss on the indicators that are pointing in the right direction, but even he was extremely cautious in quoting the most favourable statistics and he said, not once, not twice, but three times, that we have a long way to go. Indeed we do.
    The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) sought leave earlier to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss the desirability of placing the order for the new "Atlantic Conveyor" in this country. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, as does most of the House. It is tragic that after the high investment in shipbuilding, the industry's decline—with acute consequences for the Clyde, the Tyne and other parts of Britain—and after three years of this Government, with their emphasis on competitiveness, either the British shipbuilding industry is not competitive enough or the Government are not prepared to intervene when other countries make competition unfair by giving subsidies to their shipbuilding industries.
    Industrial profits have declined, with serious consequences for the country, fixed investment is 25 per cent. down from the modest peak of 1979 and there has been a decline in competitiveness. One set of figures demonstrates the situation vividly. Between 1971 and 1981, our exports of manufactured goods rose by 52 per cent. That may seem a good record, but the imports of such goods rose in the same period by 132 per cent. That is further evidence that we have been dangerously uncompetitive. If we want another measurement, we can look to the North of Britain where GDP per head fell by 8 per cent. between 1980 and 1982.
    Against that background, both the Government and the Opposition have been looking for false remedies. The Government, with their monetary squeeze, deflationary fiscal policy and obsession with the public sector borrowing requirement, have been concerned more with selling bits of the public sector than with making the public sector do an efficient job. The story of Amersham International is a shameful one.
    Nor should the main preoccupation of the chairmen of nationalised industries be to prepare parts of those industries for privatisation. I am in favour of efficiency. There is much to be said for an audit commission to ensure that monopolistic nationalised companies are efficient, but to change the frontiers between the public and private sectors in that way is a misdirection of energy.
    For the most part, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made a good and thoughtful speech, but his party does not attach priority to the issues that matter most to him. He mentioned a plan for jobs and we must all welcome such plans from whatever source. But those who read "Labour's Programme 1982" will conclude that it is a plan for fewer jobs and perhaps none. The result of much of what is proposed in that document would be a siege economy tightly controlled from Whitehall by Ministers and civil servants who are
    1078
    incompetent to make the necessary decisions. The plan would produce a vast centralised bureaucracy that would do nothing to solve our main economic and industrial problems. The only additional jobs that it would create would be in the central planning bureaucracy.
    Our debate is not only about broad industrial development but about regional development. The vast apparatus of central planning and control would do nothing for the needs of the regions. Every hon. Member who has a constituency or a special interest in those regions that are far away from the South-East has demanded for many years that regions should have a larger say in their own affairs.
    As a member of a Labour Government, I was privileged in 1964 to play a part in setting up the regional economic planning councils. They pointed in the right direction. My regret was not that they were allowed to decline, so that their abolition would become the natural step for a Government such as the present one, but that they were not developed into something much more effective in providing regions with more identity and a larger say in their affairs. I should have wished those nominated regional economic planning councils to turn into elected regional governments.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not do it then?
    Mr. Rodgers: I expressed my view at the time and I regret that the regional planning councils did not move in that direction. I do not criticise any individual but, with hindsight for those who did not see the opportunity, and in retrospect for those of us who did, I say that elected regional government would have given important responsibilities back to those regions with the most acute problems of industrial decline and high unemployment.
    Mr. Sheerman: Why does the right hon. Gentleman ignore the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)? He spoke about the Labour Party's commitment to a fresh examination of the relationship between democratic control and regional structures. His speech contained one of the most important and innovative ideas that we have heard for a long time.
    Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) could not have heard me when I paid tribute to much of what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said. Time prevents me from reading substantial chunks from "Labour's Programme 1982", the thrust of which goes against the grain of what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, and which is against the idea of giving more power to the regions. Today many documents emanate from the Labour Party, including "Labour's Programme 1982", "Plan for Jobs", and the document to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred, which was published today. Many of those documents are contradictory and some are better than others, but their general thrust is towards a more corporate State with more public ownership, more central planning and control and, in the end, less say for the people who live in the regions who should be allowed to determine much of their own future.
    I have paid so many tributes to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that he will become embarrassed, but I agree with what he said about the shortcomings of mobile, large-scale industry. We have all

    1079
    been disappointed by firms that open branches and subsidiaries in our constituencies and then, once the climate changes, close them. That is not the road for the future. I hope that there will be much more emphasis on indigenous industrial schemes. We have something to learn from the experience of the British Steel Corporation in Corby. I hope that we can have cheaper loans through an industrial credit scheme. I could advance a detailed proposal if the House wished, which is contained in an excellent document entitled "Partnership for Prosperity". I shall make free copies available to all hon. Members.
    In the regions we should put the emphasis on innovation and technologically-based industries. It is crazy that the growth in high technology and service industries is within 100 miles of London. That is the verdict on the attempts of successive Governments—I make no narrow party point—during 10, 20 and even 40 or more years since the special areas were set up. We have an immense task and much more power to the regions—with regional development corporations if that is the right way—will do much to remedy the position.
    The Government must have an industrial strategy. Governments cannot fail to intervene, although they should do so with the market. Non-intervention was the policy of the Secretary of State's predecessor and although the Secretary of State is trying to do a delicate and unspoken U-turn, it is still the Government's philosophy that they are not prepared to intervene even if it means moving with the market. But if we cannot rely upon market forces, nor can we rely upon centralised planning and a massive extension of public ownership.
    Industry is or should be the top priority for every Government if we are to get Britain back to work. But we shall get Britain back to work only if the Government seek a genuine partnership with industry. That is the route to a balanced approach and to achieving a prosperous Britain that would also be a caring society.
    6.37 pm
    Mr. John H. Osborn: This is the first time that I have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I welcome the fact that you are in the Chair. I pay tribute to the excellent maiden speech of the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke), which proves that a route to the House of Commons can be through local government, especially if the hon. Member has distinguished himself.
    There have been many debates on industry and on regional policy and development since I entered the House of Commons. We have just heard an interesting speech from the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers). To intervene constructively is difficult. However, the next debate that I attend will be in the Assembly of the Council of Europe in September, when I shall refer to this matter.
    My roots are in Sheffield and more than 40 years ago I began to work with new technologies, work study and process control. Fifteen years ago I saw a factory to which I referred in one of my early speeches being sold and taken over by another—the name of that factory was Osborn Precision Casting. About 30 years ago I, with some directors from my group of companies, pioneered a rationalisation scheme that resulted in a company called
    1080
    Osborn Steels in Ecclesfield. I have seen that firm close in the past six months and the final closure of the work of some 25 years, and a lifetime, in industry.
    Today I am worried about the thousands of people who look to me, and others, for leadership and jobs and I return to Sheffield with mixed feelings. That is what regional policy is about and this week I shall attend a meeting of the trustees of the founders and benefactors of the company with which I was associated to see how we can help those who have no job and who have no prospect of obtaining one for some time. I say that because it is said that Conservative Members do not care. I hope that Opposition Members realise that I have lived through an experience that has as it were, "burned my soul" and made it difficult even for me to think about the future. On the other hand, as I go round my city—or the Peak District of Derbyshire—in this fine weather, I find people walking and cycling, and the shops are still crowded. So perhaps there is another side to the scene of despair that I have outlined.
    I cannot support the word "appalled" in the motion, but I deeply regret the increase in unemployment and I deeply regret, too, the decline in Great Britain's industrial base. I listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, and I agree that inflation has been controlled and controlled without the impedimenta of bureaucracy. That makes the prices and incomes policy of four years ago a farce. There has been an increase in productivity. The wage costs per unit of output have decreased. Interest rates are coming down.
    However, this summer, one or two other stark realities have come home to me. What I feared for 30 years as inevitable has materialised. As a young man, after the Second World War, I was worried that what has come home to roost in the 1980s could have descended on Sheffield, Great Britain and its basic industries in the 1950s. That is why, as a young manager and then as a director of a basic industry company, I was keen on overseas sales, overseas investment and overseas manufacture as essential components of rationalisation, reorganisation and modernisation—in my case, in Sheffield. Those policies, incidentally, have been resisted by the Opposition throughout my life.
    Over the past 20 or 30 years there have been pressures in Britain—and, for that matter, in Western Europe—on the basic industries, of which management of ten, 20 and certainly 30 years ago was unaware. Let me give one example about which I have spoken in the House before. In 1964, I intended to set up a company in India, and I visited Jamshodpur and particularly Durgapore. I saw Davy United people, with the help of United Steels and other companies, training people to run a steel works in India, with cheap power, and of course, with the raw materials. In 1970, on an IPU visit, I visited the new steel works on the Orinoco. It had the ingredients for a steel industry. In 1953, and again two years ago, I saw the same in Australia. So there are economic changes that we must live up to and accept.
    During the past three months Great Britain has faced the challenge of the Falklands crisis. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) mentioned this. The Prime Minister faced the challenge with resolution. It stirred up patriotism and unity in the country. Perhaps it is disunity, promoted by various factors in our country and cities, that has caused some of our biggest troubles. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)

    1081
    has not made the Government's policy in the Falkland Islands easy. Nor did his followers in Sheffield and on the South Yorkshire county council. Those are the people whom the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) must hold responsible for their non-reselection as candidates.
    Why do I say that? Local government in my city has not been easy for a Conservative Government to handle or encourage. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to have an enterprise zone in Sheffield, but the ideals of the city of Sheffield were so contrary to those of a Conservative Government that it was not possible. Thus, the agonies of the citizens increase.
    This week I should be attending—I cannot do so, because of other commitments—an economic development advisory committee, run mainly by the Sheffield city council, but Members of Parliament are invited. Unemployment in Sheffield is 12·5 per cent. compared with the national figure of 12·4 per cent. In some areas it is as high as 16 per cent., which is an increase on last year's figure. The agenda will be urban development grants, the local campaign for assistance, and particularly the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, which was the theme of the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) on May 25. Hidden subsidies are dangerous, but if there is assistance, particularly on a European scale, it should be available in Britain, and assisted area status makes that much easier. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, in winding up, will say a word about that. Then, too, there is the enterprise allowance scheme, which I should like to see in my city.
    One thing that will not be on the agenda in South Yorkshire and my city is the steel strike that took place two years ago. It destroyed the resilience of the private sector, and posed a challenge to BSC, in spite of what was said in the annual report yesterday.
    Redundancies have been announced, and in Sheffield there is obviously worry about the future of Phoenix 3. There must be rationalisation, but I shall come back to that matter later. I do not oppose Phoenix 3 if it provides future security for the steel industry.
    Another item which will not appear on the agenda is the cost of transport. I could refer to the statement made earlier this afternoon, but the activities of Ray Buckton and, Sidney Weighell and the problems of reducing transport and rail costs, if not successfully accomplished, will ensure more unemployment in Sheffield. That, too, will not be on the agenda.
    An article in The Economist last week reminded us that electricity is now manufactured from coal. In fact, 82 per cent. of our electricity comes from coal, instead of 68 per cent. two years ago. The NUM leader, Arthur Scargill—to judge from cartoons and from what he has said—will present a dilemma. Increasing miners' wages and increasing the cost of coal will guarantee more unemployment in the steel industry, which depends on electricity produced from coal-fired power stations. Those are the dilemmas that must be faced. France, shortly after the Macmillan programme, embarked on a nuclear energy programme. Fifty per cent. of its electrical energy will be nuclear by the middle of this decade.
    Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that British coal is still the cheapest in Western Europe, and that mining production, in the main, has risen constantly for half a decade? We are producing more tonnes per man shift than we have produced during the past five years. Does that not contradict what the hon. Gentleman says? Is it not imperative, as the Government recognised two years ago, that there is still a call for massive investment in the mining industry so that we can obtain the full fruits of production and thus further reduce the cost of coal?
    Mr. Osborn: The costs here for those who run industry and depend on electricity are considerably higher than the electricity costs of their competitors. This is a problem that any Government would have had to face.
    The hard facts are that, in Sheffield, steel and engineering orders have not come in during the past three or four months. I have had meetings with the chamber of commerce and with the Engineering Employers Federation. It may just be a low ebb, and orders could pick up. However, Sir Terence Beckett spoke to a Conservative committee yesterday, and it appears that the optimism in industry of six months ago has taken a slightly more depressing turn.
    There are, of course, other problems. Reference has been made to the protectionism of the United States. I have pressed that issue in the United States and in the House. Anyone in Sheffield who exports to the United States must show his books for examination. Can the Minister assure me that anyone who exports steel to Britain is exposed to the same detailed examination that is demanded by the State Department of the United States of America?
    The demand for steel will not double this decade. Therefore, I should like a world review of Canada's and America's problems and of the cost of production.
    The import of manufactured goods into Britain should not increase but the danger is that it is increasing. The exports of manufactured goods is contracting, although this country has an advantage from oil exports. There are issues on which I have yet to question the Secretary of State for Trade.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry outlined many new technologies. Biotechnology and certain aspects of information technology have been considered by the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, of which I have been a member. Britain must not only have a lead in design and technology; production costs must also be competitive.
    It must be borne in mind that whoever is in Government in Western countries is being challenged by an Opposition, whether it be a Social Democrat Government, as in the case of France and Germany, or even a Republican Party Government, as in Washington. Therefore, I welcome the fact that Britain's problems are also discussed in the European Parliament and in the Council of Europe. It can be seen from the OECD reports that unemployment in the OECD countries will approach 30 million—16·5 million from Western Europe.
    At Usinor in France, I gather, the concern is so great that some of the workers set fire to their headquarters. Old industries in France also have their troubles. For a country that is not well endowed resources are another factor.
    Mr. Sheerman: Did the hon. Gentleman refer to the setting fire to the premises with relish? During the travelogue that we have been listening to, that seems to be the one thing that he felt intensely about.
    Mr. Osborn: That is an irrelevant remark. Who would relish the fact that certain headquarters have been set fire to? That is typical of the destructive statements that are all too frequently made.
    The provision of food is all important, in view of the world-wide increase in population, as is dependence on the Middle East for energy. All those factors affect Western Europe and Britain.
    The OECD reports on unemployment and such solutions as work sharing, reduction in the working week and acquisitions of new skills are positive approaches. They can increase the quality of life in Britain and in Europe. I hope that there will be a change, and I welcome the fact that the Government have given so much encouragement to small businesses and new industries, even in those areas that are struggling.
    6.53 pm
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: The House must listen with concern to any hon. Member from Sheffield, with its industrial commitment, certainly to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) who has been concerned with one of its firms.
    I do not wish and have not the time to take up the hon. Gentleman's points in detail, although I would fault a great deal of his logic. I understand, for example, that 50 per cent. of electricity costs are for transmission. They are not necessarily only dependant on the cost of coal, and as has been pointed out, miners' wages are not the only factor in that cost anyway.
    I am pleased and proud to be the first member of his party to congratulate my new hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke). He made an outstanding speech because of his humanity.
    We must remember that the Beveridge report, "Social Insurance and Allied Services", brought out in the middle of the war, appealed to the hopes and fears of men and women everywhere. It was a report about security and now all regions of Britain are facing insecurity. I cannot help feeling that the Government, and many hon. Members who support them, are dismantling the post-war concordat that was reached between the parties as a result of that conflict, of which the Beveridge report was one element. The Beveridge report and the Education Act 1944 came out under a Conservative Government. The Government are certainly dismantling local government, of which there has been some mention today.
    As a Londoner, I intervene briefly to point out one or two matters concerning London's regional policy. I understand the position of other hon. Members and shall not take long.
    First, London has lost a third of its manufacturing industry in the past few years. It has 344,000 unemployed. Conservative Members who travel in official cars to the airport might notice at the Chiswick roundabout that a modern factory is being demolished. That was built in the last 10 or 15 years and now it is being replaced by an office block. I question the free enterprise economics that make such a thing possible, and I hope that Conservative Members will do the same.
    The hon. Member for Hallam mentioned the Sheffield enterprise zone. He may have been illogical, because the
    1084
    main point of enterprise zones is the rate relief that they enjoy which cannot be replicated elsewhere. I do not think that they will be successful, but if they are I do not believe that they will provide a genuine solution. They are like a flush of blood to a sick patient's cheek—they are not fundamental.
    While urban development corporations might be successful in certain parts of Liverpool because the conditions there may suit their methods of administration, I do not think that the one in London—perhaps the biggest feature of the Government's policy for London—is successful in the way that it was imagined it would be.
    First, it takes over from local government and gives the Secretary of State considerable powers. It gives a planning board the powers of local authorities but without the requirement of proper meetings, minutes or, at the moment, good information services. Planning consents are no quicker than they were before, and I understand that that can be statistically illustrated. Planning delays are sometimes blamed on local authorities, but I suggest that they are often due to developers wanting too much cream rather than as a result of an awkward local authority.
    My local chamber of commerce and the London chamber of commerce have said that the London Docklands development corporation is not very good at communicating. East London is an area of considerable unemployment. There are 14,000 unemployed in the London borough of Newham, 14,000 in the London borough of Tower Hamlets and 28,000 in the north docklands alone. Unemployment must be almost 35,000 or 40,000 in the area as a whole. However, the Secretary of State said that the urban development corporation would be dynamic and would attract industry just as the new towns did. That has not happened yet.
    In East London there is considerable controversy about the corporation's work in relation to land and the building of private homes. However, I do not wish to go into the details or to overemphasise, in what is—I hope—a constructive contribution, the central factors in its establishment and operation. Nevertheless, if the Government are to have a successful regional policy for London they must pay attention to two factors. First, the GLC is planning a rapid transit system which could become part of a new deal for transport in London. Everyone wants that. Secondly, the royal docks cover an enormous area, equivalent in size to Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens put together, and they are now available for development.
    This week, I sent a short memorandum—which I also made public—to the Secretary of State setting out the concept of a trading estate, with road, rail and water transport connections. As some hon. Members know, there has also been talk of an airstrip in the docks. That would not necessarily cost any money. If it was founded on all-party agreement there would not be the controversy of the past and the estate could outlast the London Docklands development corporation.
    In this sorely tried area of London the Government have an opportunity to ensure that there is proper transport and that the administration of the royal docks goes well beyond the remit of the LDDC. In doing so, they could show the way towards developments in other sorely pressed parts of the country. It is clear that industrialists and the work force will be confident only if there is agreement in both local and central Government about the policy for those areas. The Government have not provided that and unless they

    1085
    do so the regions that face such high unemployment will not get the social, human and physical infrastructure that is so necessary for their recovery.
    7.2 pm
    Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: We have had many debates on regional development. Indeed, I made my maiden speech in May 1979 in a debate on industrial policy and employment. I should like to make some of the same points again today, because they were true then and are true today.
    However, I shall begin by quoting an extract from a speech that I made in the House on 20 June 1980. I said:
    "Since 1947 one good-hearted and woolly idealist after another has introduced one good and woolly idea after another in an attempt to get industry to go here, there and everywhere. [Official Report, 20 June 1980; Vol. 986, c. 2016.]
    As a result of industrial development certificates and the regional policies followed by one Government after another, 77 firms moved into Birmingham after 1945, creating 9,500 jobs. However, Governments love to issue "holiday brochures" telling people how good things are in the North-West, Wales, Scotland and so on. As a result of those offers of gold, 337 firms moved out, costing Birmingham 114,000 jobs. The situation would not have been so bad if those jobs had been transplanted and if, like flowers, they had blossomed into more jobs. However, let us consider what happened to the firms that moved from Birmingham or that were asked to have production lines 200 miles long, just as British Leyland was asked to have. Very often those firms have not grown but withered. As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) £3,730 million has been spent on regional aid. But to what effect?
    The problem with politicians is that they think that they can create jobs. I heard it said this afternoon that people look to us to create jobs. However, all I would accept is that they look to us to create the environment in which industry can grow. Labour politicians, like many of us, are sometimes unable to learn from the past. There is one thing that will not restore prosperity. If the Labour Party wins the next general election, it intends to create a planning department with substantial new powers, but that will not do any more good than the economic planning councils did.
    A national planning council that has more resources than any existing body will not do anything either. Indeed, I tremble even more at the thought of a national planning college for key planners, managers and trade union planners. However, I agree that that will create jobs; by Jove it will. It will create many more planners who will get in the way of those who make the money to pay for them. Therefore, the Labour Party's plan is just a busybody's charter.
    However, there are things that Governments, including the present Government, can do. We need stable costs in the nationalised industries. The enormous increases in the electricity and gas charges, like the oil increase, were nearly disastrous. In addition, we must get rid of the restrictive practices in nationalised industries that cause such increases. I am sure that all hon. Members read The Guardian. It pointed out that more than £600 million of the money that British Rail was getting was going to feather-bedding restrictive practices. Such practices must go.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: How does the hon. Gentleman account for the fact that when the British Gas Corporation had profits of £300 million the Government obliged it to raise its charges?
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: One reason for that was the competitive price of oil.
    We also need stable rates. Rates that used to be a small burden on industry have once again become an almost catastrophic burden. Local authorities bear a heavy responsibility when they talk about creating prosperity by increasing rates so that they can spend the money on creating jobs that they destroyed in the first place.
    In his next Budget, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider the national insurance surcharge because it needs again to be reduced. If we are to help industry, we must also look again at the short-time working subsidy. That scheme will end in September or October. Given the state of industry, I hope that that scheme, or something similar, will continue so that industry can carry on its delicate return to prosperity. The Department of the Environment's inner city area scheme is one of the most useful aspects of regional aid. Money does not have to be thrown at one area or another. We cannot buy industries and set them down in areas as if we were playing Monopoly. However, many of us represent the older cities and we can ensure that their inner city areas are attractive for those who live and work in them. Morey spent on that is money well spent and I hope that the scheme will be enlarged yet again.
    I want to say two things on behalf of the motor industry upon which Birmingham, Coventry and the whole of the West Midlands depend. Hire purchase restrictions were imposed when the motor industry was too successful and taking labour and resources from elsewhere, and I hope that they can be reduced to the same as those applying to other goods—a 25 per cent. deposit with three years to pay. That would mean that 70,000 or 80,000 more cars would be built which would bring attendant prosperity to component manufacturers.
    We should make sure that we compete fairly with people who import goods. I am not in favour of one restriction after another, but if we let people import goods we should be allowed, fairly, to export to them. Our Japanese friends do not compete honestly and fairly with the motor industry in this country. I should like to see many more Japanese cars stripped down so that one could make sure that all the numbered parts are correct. That is what many other countries do.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) talked about problems in the steel industry. Let us make sure that the imposts are right, because there is no sense in allowing people to destroy our industry by unfair competition. I am not asking the Government to give Birmingham or the West Midlands another £500 million and to build this, that or the other, but they should make sure that the imposts on our industry are no worse than they are in other countries. The nationalised industries, about which private industry can do nothing, should not be allowed to charge so much that private industry cannot compete.
    Regional aid has cost the West Midlands and the rest of the country dear. It has not created new jobs. It has shifted them about like deck chairs on the "Titanic". We have to make sure that there is genuine free enterprise to

    1087
    enable industry to grow. If industry is left alone, it will grow and prosper, usually in spite of Government intervention, not because of it.
    7.12 pm
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: The Secretary of State for Industry tried for no less than 48 minutes to revive the spirits of the Government Benches. Judging from the speeches that we have heard so far, he did not succeed. I am not surprised. I have considerable sympathy for the Secretary of State because he is required to preside over an area that has been made a desert by his senior colleagues. He reaps the appalling harvest sown by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am surprised that a man of such spirit and decisiveness as the Secretary of State, is prepared to put up with it. It is an intolerable job, and not all the resourcefulness, determination and episcopal gravity that he possesses is capable of making up for the appalling economic background against which he is required to man the treadmill.
    The Secretary of State tried to hoodwink the House by speaking rapidly towards the end of his speech and referring to the alleged surge in industrial output during May. He should have taken the precaution, that I am sure Members of all Opposition Parties have taken, to inquire of the Central Statistical Office what effect the spring holiday had had on the May figures, as it came at the end of that month. A seasonal adjustment is made of several days' production in the monthly figures in respect of a bank holiday. In Yorkshire we all take the Tuesday, including Members of Parliament. The Central Statistical Office said that in view of the unusually late bank holiday Monday the May figures are useless unless they are taken with the June figures. That was an unfortunate claim by the Secretary of State.
    It was odd that, having been a member of the National Economic Development Council since September 1981, the Secretary of State made only one passing and hurried reference to a powerful report that the NEDC has just issued. It categorically denied the Government's central article of faith, that economic recovery will be spontaneous once certain economic intermediates have been brought into a miraculous conjunction. The Secretary of State denied that. It suggested that the NEDC should be instructed to carry out a survey of methods of reflation and the extent to which they could be safely embarked upon. I and my colleagues believe that we need an engine of recovery. Recovery will not take off like a balloon when specific economic factors enter a certain conjunction. I protest at the Government's extraordinary shibboleth that the public sector is to be either dismantled or put into the doghouse and shunned.
    Surely the Government can see—I have some evidence of this from friends of theirs—that most of the public sector provides essential orders for the private sector. The National Coal Board does not make its own equipment, the National Health Service does not manufacture operating tables and sterilisers and so on. Recovery can be partly got off the ground by a timely and selective expansion of some of our public services based on value for money. That was plainly shown by the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on unemployment. Conservative, Labour,
    1088
    Social Democrat, Liberal and independent Members of the other place were unanimous in urging that kind of anti-unemployment scheme upon the Government.
    It is appalling that the Government should have reduced our manufacturing capacity so that it cannot take up the available spending power and so that there is a surge of imports, as in the last three months, whenever a little more money is spent. Until the Government allow British industry to provide for our needs they will have a great deal to answer for.
    I shall give one example. In my constituency employers, employees and the local community did the right thing according to the Government's book. Employers in an engineering firm decided to branch out into producing coal-face mining equipment for the National Coal Board. The employees came from three mills in the small township of Marsden where they had been employed none for fewer than 15 years, in wool textile weaving. They realised that their jobs were about to be lost—and that is another story. They accepted a completely different type of work—welding by a new process. Great ingenuity was displayed by all. They were filled by a spirit of enterprise and within five weeks the weavers, all in middle age, were turned into welders. The firm secured some good orders from the NCB and four years ago the project seemed to be going well.
    Because of Treasury restraints on the NCB and the Government's prejudice against any public ownership, that admirable enterprise had to close and the mill is once again a vacant sepulchre. There are many examples in the public sector of how a little more understanding and less prejudice would help private industry to revive and provide more employment.
    I can be brief about the regional aspects of the debate. My right hon. and hon. Friends believe that the only way to provide the regions with real and lasting help is to take their wishes into account. That is impossible at present because the regions have no means of giving full expression to their wishes. If only the regions had had a proper say in the appalling white elephants which Governments of both parties have inflicted on them we should not have experienced the false priority of the Humber bridge, for example. If the regions had had a say we should not have experienced the de Lorean disaster or that absurd and ugly white elephant the Kielder dam in Northumberland to provide water which is not needed until the middle of the twenty-first century. Regions can flourish only if they are given a voice.
    Mr. Neville Trotter: I should have thought that nobody would be stronger in pressing the case for regional and local white elephants than the members of the regional bodies to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Mr. Wainwright: I hope that I made it clear that the bodies that I propose would be directly and regularly responsible to the electorate. The trouble with our centralised system of government is that although we all tut-tut about disasters such as de Lorean, because they are dispersed throughout the United Kingdom they are not brought home properly to any unit of Government. There may be a shudder in the higher ranks of a Government Department until everyone has forgotten the scandal, but no losing of political office or electoral disaster results from such blunders, as they would if we had democratic regional government.

    1089
    I remind the Government what their appointees have said about their policies. The Department of Industry is required by the Industry Act 1972 to lay an annual report before the House. The annual report for 1981 contains statements from each of the industrial development boards. The Northern industrial development board states:
    "The chemicals sector suffered a large fall in output … in common with those by other industries … as a result of the high value of the £ sterling and the relatively high prices of feedstocks and energy. In many instances imports replaced domestic production … The resulting lower domestic outputs were less able to absorb the costs of overheads and thus added to the difficulties occasioned by the high exchange rate".
    That does not tie up with the boast that industry is becoming fitter and leaner. Industry is becoming starved and emaciated and unable to carry its overheads.
    The Yorkshire and Humberside industrial development board reported:
    "The year under review has seen industry in Yorkshire and Humberside contending with a progressively deepening recession of a severity not experienced since the inter-war years. High interest rates, the strength of sterling and rising fuel costs were among major factors which contributed to squeeze company profits and liquidity. Faced with these very difficult conditions many companies were forced to cut back their production … and this was reflected in a rising toll of … plant closures and short-time working."
    The CBI director for the Yorkshire region said only at the end of last week that so far as he could tell industry in the area was as "dormant as a dodo".
    The East Midlands industrial development board reported:
    "Those industries dependent on public sector contracts such as aerospace, telecommunications, electronics and mining equipment are showing increasing problems with the cut-back in public expenditure."
    The North West of England industrial development board included the following in its long and dreary report:
    "In the past year imports have extended their market penetration with the higher pound sterling."
    In none of the reports is there any paean for the Government's policy or any of the gratitude which apparently is showered on the Secretary of State whenever he makes his royal progress.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Has my hon. Friend noticed that no Minister from the Department of Industry is on the Front Bench to hear our views?
    Mr. Wainwright: I have noticed that. Since the Secretary of State regaled us for no less than 48 minutes it is a little hard that he is not here to hear our comments, even if he does not relish them.
    On regional and industrial policy the Department of Industry is crippled and shackled by the Government's perverse economic policies. Until the policies are reversed and constructive measures put in their place there is no hope for our unemployed or for those responsible for industry.
    7.28 pm
    Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I shall confine my remarks to the distressed North-West region. That region, with its great industrial history and its magnificent wealth of aptitude, experience and expertise, going back to the Industrial Revolution and progressing through most of this century, has experienced a tremendous upheaval in its industrial base.
    Conservative Members must not delude themselves. The Secretary of State said today that prosperity was on
    1090
    the horizon; a new spirit was within industry and the Government's economic policies were at last succeeding. But what has happened in my region? I do not like entering into statistical slug-outs about numbers, but the scale of unemployment reflects the fact that Government policies in the main have failed abysmally. A Government who have pursued such suicidal economic policies over the past three years with their basis in an obsessive adherence to monetarism, which has resulted in the highest interest rates for industry and commerce in the past two decades, cannot say that unemployment and job insecurity can be used as psychological weapons to hold down workers' earnings. It is nonsense for Ministers to suggest that.
    Parliamentary representatives of the North-West region went to see the Secretary of State's predecessor in August 1979 when he introduced proposals for downgrading 80 per cent. of the North-West area. He said that it was an honour and a privilege for an area to be downgraded and that there was hope in such a downgrading. He was suggesting that viability and stronger competitiveness would arise in the region through Government policies. I have heard the old saying that if one lives in hope one dies in despair. There is now a great deal of frustration and hopelessness among the region's unemployed.
    The North-West has the second highest number of unemployed of all the regions, with the exception of the South-East and Greater London. There are 441,000 unemployed in the region. Of the adult working population, 15·7 per cent. are unemployed and 32 per cent. of school leavers are unemployed. The Government have the audacity to remove in the main all forms of regional incentives. It is a crying shame that that should be done at this time.
    The North-West industrial development association is an expert body composed of industrialists, trade unionists and people in local government, who are drawn from all parts of the region. The association has suggested measures which, if they were adopted by the Government, would go some way towards solving most of the economic problems in the region. The association wrote to the Prime Minister, but she declined on that occasion its request for discussions with her. The association thought that it had been snubbed.
    The North-West region is the second largest in Britain and is larger than Scotland or Wales and second only to the South-East. One in seven of the labour force in the North-West is unemployed and we are conscious of the tragic waste of labour resources. Both in human and economic terms this is a tragic waste of human resources, which are untapped just because the Government believe that if we wait long enough the recession will come to an end and all our problems will come right, rather than adopting a sensible and mild reflation of the economy. We do not suggest that we should dash away like an unbridled horse. A sensible and methodical reflation is needed in the expectation that the world recession will end and that we will turn the corner sooner or later.
    My region has and will continue to claim a greater share of public investment. The region has a proud record. It has served the nation well and has made a wonderful contribution to the nation's resources. We shall endeavour to use our parliamentary strength to achieve our objectives.
    I turn now to regional aspects of the debate. I have certain scruples about the types of regional financial instruments that we should use. I welcome the new

    1091
    thinking on this issue and I should like to see a closer and more detailed examination of the criteria we use for development areas. Lord Pilkington of Pilkington Brothers, the glass company of international renown, was once my teacher. He told me that he was given a grant simply because his factory happened to be seven-eighths of a mile within the ring fence. He said that he received £750,000 in Government grants in a year. The company was a great innovator. Lord Pilkington said that he had £14·5 million in assets that he could plough back in investment. Such grants should be based on need and accountability.
    I turn now to travel-to-work areas in the industrial areas of Britain. Why should there not be elements in the criteria for granting finance that recognise mass urban obsolescence, the cost of urban renewal, the problems of communications, travel and transport? Those elements should be examined in detail with a view to drawing up new criteria. I am not convinced that unemployment should be the principal element on every occasion when making a judgment on whether one should invest in a particular area or attempt to interest, by financial inducements, a firm to move from one area to another.
    I must be careful not to stray from the subject, but my constituency has an interest in this matter. There are difficulties. Recently, the Minister wrote a letter saying that the regional social security and insurance office was to be moved from Manchester to Liverpool. Liverpool and Manchester are both in the North-West, so the Government are robbing Peter to pay Paul. We are used to that. That was not a surprise to many of us.
    The Government cannot carry on with this silly, obnoxious and abysmal industrial strategy. It has not worked in the region that I have talked about. According to the contributions that have been made by other right hon. and hon. Members, it will not work.
    I remember when the Secretary of State's predecessor said some time ago that the Government's policies would produce a galaxy of entrepreneurs. We are still waiting for that. He said that industrialists need to be set free. They did not need financial help because they could stand on their own feet. We have witnessed that. Many of them are now on their backs. Thousands of family firms in my part of the world have closed and will never open again. That is the great tragedy of the Government's nonsensical strategy.
    The right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) made great play of the fact that, in its programme for jobs, Labour has never hidden the fact that, in any circumstances, increased public spending would have to be paid for. We have said that that will be the basis of Labour's jobs programme for the future. It is no use Conservative Members trying to make it appear that we were saying that that could be done as if we were pulling a rabbit out of a hat. The Government have said that we must switch resources from the wealth-consuming public sector to the wealth-producing private sector. A balance would have to be struck, where the two could come together in some form or another. I am not saying that there should be a partnership. It is difficult to get a redistribution of resources. That is one of the problems of regionalisation. There are too many in-built disparities in
    1092
    the system. There is no comparison between the North-West and the South-East in per capita spending, health, education and industrial investment.
    The problem could be solved by regional instruments. If we get value for money, and put our money in the right place at the right time for those in the greatest need, with a sense of urgency, and if we pursue policies that will give firms encouragement, we can try to re-establish confidence in industry. Although interest rates are high, firms could take heart to proceed, borrow cash and move in the right direction towards creating jobs not just in the North-West but in the whole country.
    7.44 pm
    Mr. Neville Trotter: We are not looking wide enough in our discussion. The first thing that occurs to me when I consider the future of our industry is the world scene.
    Reference has been made to the "Atlantic Conveyor", which will be replaced in the near future. It is a long story and I shall not go into it fully now. Two proposals were made by the Opposition about the reason why the order might not go to this country. The first was that we were not competitive—in other words, that productivity was not high enough in our shipyards. The second was that unfair advantages were being given to our competitors overseas. That was a wise summary of the problem.
    However, it is a question not just whether the "Atlantic Conveyor" is replaced in this country but whether so much of our productive industry can compete in the world against competition from developing countries, for example, which pay low wages. I have seen shipyards in the Far East where the hours worked are twice as long as in this country and the rates of pay are perhaps one-third of the rates in this country. It is against that competition that not just our shipyards, but a large part of industry, must succeed if we are to have a future. Unfair competition is not always, but sometimes, encountered when we deal with foreign competitors.
    When we consider the serious problems of unemployment and the misery that goes with it, which every hon. Member understands, we must remember that that problem is not confined to this country, but is to be found all over the Western industrial world. In the United States in 1980–81, the car industry lost over $5 billion. Shipyards have closed from one end of Europe to the other. The steel industry world-wide is in desperate circumstances. That is the result of a world recession on a scale that we have not seen since the 1930s.
    We are suffering badly from the recession because of decades of fudging the issue in our industry. Perhaps we have been living in cloud-cuckoo-land. When I listened to the interesting speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), I felt that he was living in cloud-cuckoo-land because of the proposals that he made for dealing with our problems. There is no way that planning boards, committees, planning Ministers and civil servants will be able to solve the problems facing our industry in the North-East, or any other region.
    Mr. Prescott: The Japanese do.
    Mr. Trotter: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should adopt Japanese practices, I do not think for one moment that we can say that their method of operating is possible for our country or any other. Japanese start in the

    1093
    morning with prayers for the management and owners. Their way of life and philosophy is completely different from ours. It is unrealistic to suggest that it can be adopted here.
    Mr. Prescott: Why is Nissan coming to this country?
    Mr. Trotter: I hope that Nissan comes to this country and that it comes to the North-East. I suspect that it will be for other reasons if it does not come. Opposition Members have been pessimistic and have made unhelpful comments about taking us out of the Common Market, thereby reducing the size of the market available to us. They have sneered about foreign investors in this country as if all foreign people who did so were evil. However, I believe that in almost every case, foreign firms that have invested in this country have brought sustained employment and benefit to the areas in which they have invested.
    There is a suggestion that one can spend one's way out of those problems. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said that the Government have a terrible monetarist policy. The Government are at fault in not having defended their fiscal policy resolutely enough in the past two years. The figures that I obtained from the Library after the hon. Gentleman's speech show that in the first two years of the Government's period of office, the public sector borrowing requirement in real terms was 15 per cent. higher than in the last two years of the Socialist Government.
    Mr. Prescott: That is what I said.
    Mr. Trotter: It is not possible for the hon. Gentleman to have it both ways, and imply that the Government's monetarist policy is based on not spending money when the statistics show that they are spending more now than was spent during the Labour Government's period of office.
    Mr. Prescott: There is a difference between the quantity and quality of the investment. I was talking about capital investment problems.
    Mr. Trotter: The hon. Gentleman also commented on the Government's general monetarist policy, which I thought meant the total spending of the Government. Capital investment under the private sector has held up in the past couple of years to the same level—if not higher—as it was before the change of Government. If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East disagrees, he is at liberty to pay a short visit to the Library as I did after his speech. No doubt it will give him the same statistics. I do not have the exact reference but no doubt the Library
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East accused the Government of creating excessive interest rates. I cannot understand how any right-thinking or sensible person can suggest that even more money can be spent and yet interest rates will be reduced at the same time. If one spends more borrowed money, interest rates will increase. That is a fundamental law of economics.
    There is a cry that more should be done to aid industry. I was heartened by what Mr. Duncan McDonald, the chairman of Northern Engineering Industries, said recently. That company is successful and is managing to weather the storm in heavy engineering. He said that the Government have a role to create an environment in which
    1094
    businesses can operate successfully and that industry is not looking for grants on a charitable or begging bowl basis. He said:
    "I do not shirk from accepting that ultimately the responsibility for success or failure rests with management. That is our job, and ours is the responsibility to obtain maximum unified thrust from management, the work force and the unions."
    The management, work force and unions in that company have succeeded. They are an example to us all.
    Regional aid programmes have been with us for some time. Without them, there would be greater imbalance between the regions. Although we must defend the regions, we must be careful not to become too involved in any one of them at the expense of another. It is sometimes said that the North-East receives less aid than Wales, but it is forgotten that we receive more than the Scots. One gets nowhere on that argument. We must continue with the policies, but we must not set one region against another.
    The future of British industry and our standard of living depends entirely on industry's productivity. It is growing. Our record in the 1970s was appalling. Between 1970 and 1980, productivity in Britain rose by little more than 2 per cent. a year, whereas it rose by 5 per cent. a year in the rest of Western Europe. Increasing our productivity to match that of our competitors is a serious problem. Much is being done to that end.
    The Government are right to concentrate as much as they can on industries that have a clear future—those in which there is more automation and advanced technology. It may be argued that that will lead to a reduction of jobs in manufacturing industry. That is a world-wide feature that cannot be avoided. Machinery will take over from brawn and, to some extent, from brains. We should not run away from that.
    Many jobs are extremely dull and repetitive. If they can be done by robot so much the better, provided that alternative jobs can be found for the work force. The future lies in the leisure industry and the public sector. I strongly favour a larger public sector, but we have enlarged the public sector before the country can afford it. I have confidence in Britain's long-term future.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East interrupted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to correct him about our manifesto at the last general election. It is encouraging that he has read and remembered every word of it.
    Mr. Prescott: I have a copy with me.
    Mr. Trotter: Irrespective of whether we stated that the long-standing faults of British industry would take more than five years to correct, that is the case. That was in my mind and those of my colleagues at the general election. The deep-seated problems will not be put right in the short term. It will take two Parliaments to achieve that. We are on course to enjoy the full benefits of an improvement in employment and prosperity on that time scale.
    7.55 pm
    Mr. Harry Cowans: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak at last. I listened to the Secretary of State's speech. One need not wait for a Supply Day to hear him claim successes. For a moment I thought that I had wandered into another Chamber, far from these shores. Having listened to him I could not believe that there were 3 million people unemployed. He mentioned everything but that figure.

    1095
    The right hon. Gentleman accused my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) of not mentioning inflation. I shall make a counteraccusation. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned unemployment but never the unemployed. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) summed the matter up neatly. He said that even the Secretary of State's employees do not agree with him. The Secretary of State missed the hon. Gentleman's pearls of wisdom.
    The Secretary of State said that he had travelled all over the place. If that is so, and the people whom he employs do not agree with him, one can only assume that they were out when he reached their district. Has the right hon. Gentleman ever been to the Northern region?
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I had two interesting days in the North-East a few weeks ago. I visited Teesside and several factories in Durham. I look forward to a visit to Newcastle and some factories there later in the year. I try to get around a little. I hope that I shall visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Mr. Ron Lewis: What about Cumbria? It is also in the Northern region.
    Mr. Cowans: I hope that the Secretary of State will visit my constituency, Durham and Cumbria. If he has time during the recess, he could make a different type of visit. I am willing to take him to places that he will never see on official visits. Perhaps he would then get the true picture of what is happening.
    Mr. Cryer: The problem is what the Secretary of State does after he has made a visit.
    Mr. Cowans: The House's first opportunity to debate the Northern region after the Government came to power was in January 1980. My right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) was aghast at the unemployment figure at that time—8·5 per cent. Conservative Members said that they were not responsible. They have repeated that today. They said that the problem was inherited from the previous Administration which had caused the problem. That argument cannot be valid now. The Conservatives have been in power since 1979. What has happened? I welcome the debate as it gives us an opportunity to examine the glowing successes that the Secretary of State described.
    If the Government's policy had been successful, the 8·5 per cent. unemployment rate would at worst have remained and at best would have been reduced. Yet in the period from June 1979 to December 1981 the Northern region lost 85,000 manufacturing jobs. In other words, 20 per cent. of the region's manufacturing base has disappeared as a result of the Government's policy. Total employment fell by 151,000, or 12 per cent., in about 18 months. That is one area in which productivity has been achieved—the Government have been getting rid of jobs faster than anyone could have dreamt. My right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring would have more to complain about than he had in 1980 because unemployment in the region has effectively doubled.
    One would have thought that a caring Government would have looked into the matter and tried to do something about it. Indeed, they have done something. That must be acknowledged. They have progressively
    1096
    weakened regional policies to their lowest level in 20 years. That is the kind of action that they have taken, but there is worse yet. In their expenditure plans from 1982–83 to 1984–85 the Government anticipate a further reduction of 30 per cent. in regional assistance. That is bad enough, but still worse is to come in the second phase of the marvellous policy put forward by the Minister today to reduce the number of areas with assisted area status, to be implemented next month. Conservative Members have trotted out parrot fashion the idea that aid should be concentrated in assisted areas and special development areas, but the effect will be to reduce the percentage of the nation's employed who are in assisted areas from 40 per cent. to 27 per cent.
    The Minister said that he had visited the Northern region. Even he must admit that a tremendous number of jobs have been lost. For example, Consett's Scotswood, the Workington steel works and the textile industry have been ravaged. There is a significant factor in each of those cases. Without exception, the people there played by the Government's rules. They increased their productivity, and that is on record, but they ended up on the dole.
    Sir William Elliott: The hon. Gentleman says that Government policy has reduced employment in the region from which both he and I come. We were both involved in doing our best to keep Vickers Elswick in being. I hope that in his remarks on a motion claiming that Government policy has not worked he will not forget to mention that the enterprise zone secured a £7 million injection of capital for that company which will guarantee 700 jobs. There is a good side to what is happening in the North-East, as well as the aspects that he has mentioned.
    Mr. Cowans: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. After every downpour, small puddles are left. Without any doubt, the Elswick factory has been saved. It has moved into the enterprise zone and I welcome the number of jobs that remain, but the total work force has been reduced. I welcome the new factory and the fact that the firm still exists, but there has been a net loss of jobs. That must not be forgotten. Of course I welcome any jobs. If I could find jobs in the North-East for all Conservative Members I would be happy to send them there.
    Mr. Bill Homewood: The Government constantly advertise Corby in my constituency as an example of the success of regional development aids. There is no difficulty in getting Ministers to come to my constituency. They queue up to come. But even in that success story that the Government claim for their regional development programme we are losing jobs as fast as we are attracting them.
    Speaking with local people this morning, I heard that 500 jobs were to be lost from the local steel works. That equals the total gain in the past 15 months. I welcome the regional policies, but—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is turning into a speech.
    Mr. Cowans: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to finish his speech if he succeeds in catching your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks as he helps to make my case. The idea that the Government's policies are working is an illusion. We are pumping in a great deal of money, although the

    1097
    Government are trying to cut the amount, and we are running as fast as we can, but we are not even standing still.
    The idea that the Government can slash public expenditure and still put their hand on their heart and say that they are trying to create jobs is the biggest myth ever to be perpetrated. It is amazing that when the Government talked about cutting public expenditure so many business men in the Northern region jumped out of their chairs and cheered. Less visible were the number of letters that I received when they suddenly found that because of the cuts their contracts with local authorities ceased. There were no more housing contracts. The same applied to equipment, stationery and everything else. That is another adverse effect that the Government have caused, and they could do something about it immediately. Nobody is saying that they should go berserk about it, but it is about time that this policy was reversed in the Northern region, albeit on a gradual, phased basis. It must be recognised that the Government's policies have not worked.
    What is in the pipeline for the region? Unfortunately—again, this is Government policy—due to the failure of an amendment to the Finance Bill yesterday there is the prospect of a further 10,000 redundancies on Teeside. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) mentioned the "Atlantic Conveyor". If the Government do not take a realistic view — it is not yet clear that they will—about ordering the replacement of that vessel, the shipbuilding industry in the North-East could come to an end right now. The situation is as bad as that. Perhaps on his next trip the Minister will visit the shipbuilding areas in the region.
    The seriousness of the position applies not only to shipbuilding. Whenever a major company in a region closes down, there is a spin-off affecting the subsidiary firms that supply it. In shipbuilding that could lead to a loss of 12,000 jobs.
    The Minister made great play about the British taxpayer. He was concerned that the taxpayer had to pay for this and for that. If the taxpayer is to pay for anything, it should be on projects where he gets a return. In the replacement of the "Atlantic Conveyor" we have the logic of the lunatic asylum. The British taxpayer is pouring money into compensation for a vessel that was lost in the service of this country, but that money will provide jobs in Japan. The people who received strong praise from Conservative Members during this crisis, and who toiled night and day to get the "Illustrious" out eight weeks ahead of schedule, are now to be told "It is a pity, but it looks as though there will be no jobs for you because we are paying money to make sure that the jobs go to Japan."
    The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) argued that we live in the real world and that everything costs money. One does not need to be a Conservative Member to know that. Everything costs more since the Conservatives came to power.
    It is argued that there is a difference between the tenders from Japanese companies and those from British Shipbuilders, but what will placing the order abroad cost the British taxpayer? First, he will have to foot most of the bill for the work going to Japan. Secondly, he will have to face the cost of redundancy payments, social security and unemployment benefit. He will be paying for the luxury of putting 12,000 of his fellow citizens out of work. By any standard that is the logic of the lunatic asylum. Perhaps the Minister will explain to the public how he
    1098
    works that out. It is because the second part of the bill—redundancy payments, social security payments—do not appear in the Government's ledger. If they did, the people would halve a very different attitude towards the Government.
    Shipbuilders on the Tyne have increased their productivity. They have a record second to none in building warships. They have a very good record in building merchant ships. They have done everything the Government have asked to increase productivity. The reward for the workers is the dole. These are the facts of life in the Northern region. The Minister may paint a picture of success, but, unfortunately, I am living right beside some of the failures. The dole—or "unemployment" if he prefers that word—is increasing across the board. It is 16·7 per cent. There are pockets in Sunderland—for example, Consett—where unemployment is 50 per cent. and other areas where it is between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent.
    Even in Cumbria, a rural area, unemployment is much higher, but we arrive at that average of 16·7 per cent. However, the Minister has the audacity to paint a success story.
    Mr. David Watkins: The Government are always telling us about their alleged successes—I use the word "alleged" deliberately—in dealing with the unemployment that followed the shutdown of the Consett steelworks. However, only about one-fifth of the unemployed people in my constituency are from the Consett steelworks. The Government are talking about an alleged success for a fraction of the population. The reality is that the Government have brought about the complete collapse of the economy in the area. The Secretary of State visited my constituency in 1966 when he canvassed against me in that year's election.
    Mr. Cowans: Before I refer to Consett, may I remind the House of a tune that I think everyone in the House at sometime in his life has either sung, hummed or whistled. That tune is appropriate to the shipbuilders in the Northern region. It is called "Land of Hope and Glory." The shipyard workers are being told that they have had their moment of glory and now they are to be given very little hope. The Minister has the power to turn that round.
    In these debates the Government frequently refute any arguments that they may be abandoning the North. I have warned the right hon. Gentleman that he might not like some of the facts. If he says that the Government are not abandoning the North, will he explain to me and to the people in the North how, when the group of Northern Members wrote three letters seeking to meet him—not to do any damage, but to talk about the financial arrangements for NEDC—we were refused? That was scandalous. It would have been common courtesy for him to meet us. He would have heard some of the facts that I have been stating tonight and I would not have needed to make this speech.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman met my hon. Friend the Minister of State and had a long discussion on the subject of NEDC financing. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that.
    Mr. Cowans: The Minister of State did meet me, but there must be some misunderstanding. We did not discuss NEDC financing. I suggest that the Minister checks his records. I have copies of the letters and the Minister's

    1099
    replies. He must also have copies. Although I met the Minister of State, it was on another matter. I hope that the Secretary of State will not mislead the House.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: If I am wrong, I apologise. The hon. Gentleman will know whom he met and what subject was discussed. There have been long meetings with my hon. Friend about NEDC, culminating in a letter that he wrote recently and a question that he answered in the House. I beg the hon. Gentleman to believe that we take the problems of the Northern area seriously.
    Mr. Cowans: I beg the Minister to believe that granting a meeting would have proved his concern. I have the correspondence in which that meeting was refused. Since then, without his having the courtesy to meet representatives from the region, it is proposed to increase the NEDC financial arrangements. However, this will not be done until the next financial year. That was one of the subjects we would have discussed with the Minister had we been given the opportunity. A meeting would not be too late, even now, and it would be to our mutual benefit. The Minister hardly projects a caring image when he refuses to meet the elected representatives of the Northern region to discuss such matters with him. It is bad for him to project that image and I am sure that he will put that right.
    Conservative Members have already mentioned the election that brought the Government to power. The people of the Northern region certainly recall the posters that appeared during the campaign depicting the long dole queues. I shall let the Government into a secret. Some of those posters are still there.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Saatchi and Saatchi.
    Mr. Cowans: I thought that Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck had drawn them up. That certainly appears to be the case now, because those posters are stuck on empty factory walls. At that time, the Conservative Party said that the dole queues were too long. They are now three times as long in the Northern region. It will be impossible for the Government to use that poster again, because they would need a roll of wallpaper to depict the current situation.
    Neither the Secretary of State nor hon. Members should get carried away with the illusion that we are doing very well. The right hon. Gentleman has talked about successes and for the umpteenth time we have been reliably informed that the situation is getting better. I cannot speak for other regions, but it is getting no better in the Northern region.
    I shall give the right hon. Gentleman an audience if he wishes to challenge that view—one that is superior to the one sitting here tonight. I shall accompany the Secretary of State, because I might be needed. Perhaps he will tell 300 young kids in Newcastle who applied for one vacancy that things are getting better, but I doubt whether he will be able to convince them. In fact, the Government stand indicted of doing too little too late, of robbing Peter to pay Paul and of seeking to conquer inflation off the backs of the unemployed.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I should inform the House that the wind-up speeches are expected to begin at 9.10 pm. Many hon.
    1100
    Members who have been present throughout the debate still wish to speak, and I therefore appeal for short speeches.
    8.23 pm
    Mr. Barry Henderson: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) wanted to get a great deal off his chest, but, in view of what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks.
    Curiously enough, despite the extravagant terms of the Opposition motion, I detect some surprising areas of consensus. It may be trite to say that there is agreement that unemployment is a bad thing. It is recognised that certain areas of the country suffer from particularly severe unemployment. As a result, there is an onus on us all to ensure that Government assistance should go especially to the areas with the greatest problems. In other words, there is a consensus that, as far as practicable, we should try to create one nation of reasonable equality.
    There is also a feeling that regional policy is a good thing, but hon. Members have questioned whether the way in which that policy has been carried out in the last 20 or 30 years has done very much good.
    There is a paradox that although we think regional policy is good we are not sure it is working. We are not clear whether we are talking about that aspect of the policy concerned with improvements to the infrastructure to improve opportunity for development, or whether regional policy is about the amount of money given by the Government to encourage someone to do something that he might not otherwise have done. I hope that the debate will further stimulate thoughts about the nature, content and precise definition of regional policy in the future.
    Scotland has done particularly well from the concentration of development area status on those areas most in need. That does not include most of my constituency, but 72 per cent. of the Scottish population live in areas with assisted area status, and more than half the population live in special development areas.
    Having said that, I believe that the best way to use public funds is to encourage the growth, development and starting up of new firms. My right hon. Friend referred to the 90 new measures that have been taken to stimulate and assist small business. That kind of assistance has been extremely helpful, probably more directly helpful in the creation of jobs than much of what has traditionally been regarded as regional policy, which, as some hon. Members have suggested, does not create many new jobs.
    We should perhaps take a radical look at the principles of regional policy and decide on the incentives that will be most useful in the creation of new businesses and jobs. We should consider making those available in the first instance regardless of geographical area. We could perhaps relate a percentage increase to a basic level of entitlement, depending on the level of unemployment in a particular employment exchange area where the business is being carried out. I put that as a thought arising out of the nature of the debate.
    We have to recognise something that Labour Members seem reluctant to recognise. That is that jobs come from employers, and that they depend for their business on customers. The prosperity of those employers and employees alike in business depends on the satisfaction of the customer with the goods and services that they have provided. Among those things that have positively harmed

    1101
    employment is brute force trade unionism and slack management. So often, short-term cheap popularity can be gained easily by the manager who turns a blind eye to bad practices. In the same way, cheap popularity may be gained by a slack Government who turn a blind eye to bad practices in the nation. There have been too many of these, and the Government have now turned a sharp and beady eye on some of them.
    Not least among these practices is the way that some State-backed monopolies have gone about business in the past. One Labour Member referred to British Airways and said that the Government were doing horrid things to them. However, here is a classic example of a major national resource which has increased the cost of business, industry and individuals because of slackness about its manning.
    For donkey's years we have been told in Scotland that the Highlands and Islands air service could never he run at a profit, and BA resisted the suggestion of anybody else being allowed to run it. It said that it could not be run at a profit and that they required substantial funds from the taxpayer. They have now found that they can run the air service at a profit and with a better service for the customers. That is only because of the pressure of events and the encouragement of the Government.
    Mention was made of the coal industry, which is heavily subsidised. For every person employed in the coal industry £35 of taxpayers' money is paid out every week of the year. There is also the case of British Leyland. The cartel that it has organised throughout the country is costing the people and the business community thousands of millions of pounds. The typical price of a car in this country, even a British-made car, is between £1,000 and £5,000 more than the price for which the car is available on the Continent. If that is multiplied by the millions of cars registered every year in this country, one realises that it costs the country thousands of millions for the benefit of the small number of people in the British motor car industry.
    We heard much about British Rail and its overmanning earlier today. It received £870 million of taxpayers' money this year, which would provide much infrastructure for the regions.
    I wish to make one brief constituency point. My constituency is a microcosm of the national position. Broadly speaking, we have fractionally under the national average unemployment. We have had more new firms starting up than have closed by a substantial degree, although there has been a net decrease in employment. We have one unemployment black spot in Levenmouth which has a special problem with a particular firm. The problem results from the company falling between two stools in a deal between multinational companies. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the industry Minister at the Scottish Office for what he and his Department are doing to ensure that no artificial measures can be taken to prevent the continuing of a viable business in that plant.
    Last, but not least, I emphasise that one of the most helpful things that could happen in my constituency is not the handout of money to individual firms, but the rapid establishment of the East Fife regional road.
    8.34 pm
    Mr. George Park: The Government, in their amendment, once again repeat that their policy is to concentrate regional aid in the areas of greatest need, although in making that statement, which
    1102
    on the face of it sounds eminently fair, less attention is paid to the fact that they may be reducing the total amount of cash available by about £230 million. They do not shout too much about that and they are not forthcoming about how they identify "need". We in the West Midlands have been trying for months to find out how the Department of Industry defines need, but we have had no success.
    The judgment cannot be based on crude unemployment figures, but Ministers are coy about discussing the other factors that they take into account. Inevitably many hon. Members seek to prove that their areas are in the greatest need and that that should be recognised. The sad fact is that the whole of Britain is in difficulty and the Government's policies have contributed substantially to that.
    The scourge of unemployment has followed those who came to the West Midlands from all over the country seeking work. Our percentage increase in unemployment, at more than 190 per cent., is the highest in the land. Even the relatively prosperous East Midlands is finding that, because of Government policies, basic industries in that part of the country, such as knitwear, are being undermined.
    We have to tell those who advocate that the unemployed should travel round to find jobs that in the West Midlands there are 55 candidates for every vacancy, compared with six in May 1979. The 1981 census showed an unemployment level of over 30 per cent. in the Deritend area of Birmingham and that more than 30 wards in the West Midlands county council area have unemployment of over 20 per cent. of the working population. The youth unemployment figures are even worse and are as high as 40 or 45 per cent. in some areas. And still the numbers increase. Last month more than 3,500 people lost their jobs, taking the county's unemployment figure to 225,000—over 16 per cent. of the work force. We shall have to add to that number the summer school leavers for whom there will be few jobs.
    The human tragedies contained within the cold statistics must not be forgotten—tragedies such as a man of 40 or 45 years of age being told that he is too old and the youngster who will never have even the chance of a job.
    For those in work there is constant tension and insecurity. We have the spectacle of Alvis in Coventry winning the Queen's award for exports and making one-quarter of its labour force redundant the next week. Coventry Climax, another of the disposables from British Leyland, is embarking on rationalisation, which is a euphemism for redundancies.
    British Aerospace is closing a plant with an excellent record in Leicestershire in order, we are told, to concentrate in other areas. The Government wash their hands of any involvement because the firm has been privatised, but the company is telling all and sundry that unless there is funding from the Government it will have no future. If the company requires Government funding, why, apart from reasons of dogma, did the Government privatise it?
    Improvements in productivity in the car industry, of the order of 40 per cent., at Talbot and British Leyland, Longbridge, have resulted in short-time working. The employees have worked themselves out of a job.
    The Government may not be too keen to listen to Labour Members, but perhaps they will listen to the new president of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. He wants an end to fiscal discrimination against

    1103
    the car and reciprocal action against those using tariff and non-tariff barriers against British exports. He wishes to lower fixed costs to industry, including energy costs, and he wishes greater Government investment in industry for research and development.
    Alternatively, the Government might heed the West Midlands CBI. In a recent survey, it said that success in raising competitiveness can be sustained only if the Government act to remove some of the externally imposed constraints on companies. The West Midlands CBI also calls for an immediate increase in capital spending by the public sector to provide an initial stimulus to economic recovery. There is plenty of work to be done and it must be tackled at some time. The longer the work is left, the greater the problems will become and the more expensive it will be to do this work. Examples where stimulus should be provided include new housing, housing repairs and renovations, roads, sewers and railway electrification. All those projects are bedevilled by Government policy and all have the potential to take people off the dole. North Sea oil resources could be used to rejuvenate our economy instead of paying for social benefits. Even the initiatives taken by local authorities to encourage new industry are in jeopardy if the amount of money allocated for this purpose is reduced.
    What consideration has been given to the effectiveness of the present regional strategy? The Public Accounts Committee tried to find out what benefits had accrued to regions after the injection of financial aid. The Committee could not reach any conclusion, and that casts doubt on the Government's present policy. Judging by ministerial statements, there also seems to be a conviction that aid given to British Leyland—the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) is under the same illusion—is all retained in the West Midlands. That is untrue. I understand that that conviction is one reason why the Government decided that the West Midlands should not be given assisted area status. That decision in turn denies us access to European funds.
    In a gravely weakened economy, where we already have two nations—the employed and the unemployed—in which, even if there is an upturn in the economy, major industries will never again employ the numbers that they formerly employed, great stress has been laid by the Government on the formation of new small businesses. It is appropriate that the Minister responsible for small industry should be sitting on the Front Bench. In itself, the encouragement of new small businesses is laudable, but such measures are completely inadequate to meet increasing unemployment, especially in the Midlands, where 500 businesses went bankrupt in the past six months. That figure is 8 per cent. higher than for a similar period the previous year.
    Even when the Department of Industry hit upon a scheme that was attractive to small business men, the Treasury soon put a damper on it. The Treasury provided one extra sum of £10 million and then the lists were closed. The Minister of State knows that that is true and that there were many more potential customers for that scheme.
    The current regional aid is nowhere near equal to dealing with the increasing problem of bankruptcies and unemployment and any reduction in that aid will exacerbate the problem. A complete reappraisal of regional policy is required, in greater depth and scope than the most recent one, so that specific rather than general aid
    1104
    is provided. The major objective of that reappraisal should be the reduction of mass unemployment. But given the Government's dogmatic approach, I doubt whether they are willing or able to take an objective view. The only alternative is the return of a Labour Government—
    Mr. William Wilson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it has been estimated by the West Midlands county council economic unit that, as a result of unemployment, that area is now losing £960 million every year, which represents massive purchasing power?
    Mr. Park: I had noticed that statistic, but I have tried not to give the House too many statistics because we have had a surfeit of them today. The problems of the West Midlands seem to have been noticed because both Front Bench speakers and other hon. Members have mentioned the rapidly deteriorating position.
    The only alternative is the return of a Labour Government committed to a policy of expansion.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: I pay tribute to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke). It was amusing, relevant and effective, and I look forward to hearing him again.
    In Scotland today 341,000 people are unemployed. That is a monument not just to the Government but to the rundown of the economy in Scotland and in the United Kingdom. It is clear from our debate that there is an inter-relationship between the overall economy and regional policy.
    I do not wish to deal with industrial policy but to concentrate on regional economic development. We must realise that in Scotland we have lost 42 per cent. of our manufacturing industries in the past decade. Part of the employment losses have been made good in the service industries but there has been a substantial increase in unemployment. People have begun to turn a jaundiced eye on regional policy because, although it has made a contribution, it has not been the miraculous solution that we once expected.
    John Pollock, president of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, in his speech at this year's conference, made some enlightening remarks about industrial development. He put his finger firmly on the need for the decentralisation of economic policy. He said:
    "On past evidence, I do not believe that the United Kingdom Parliament is capable of introducing overall economic policies for the United Kingdom which, without substantial modification, are flexible enough to meet the particular needs of all areas in the United Kingdom. That is why the General Council of the STUC has used one of its three motions before the Congress to reiterate its determination to achieve a Scottish Assembly with legislative and economic powers … A Scottish Assembly must have the power to influence significantly the economic and industrial health of Scotland."
    He also said that, as there is evidence of a flow of employment opportunities towards the South and South-East of England, Scotland's economic strength and its mineral wealth should be used to counterbalance the drift south. That is one of the strongest points that the STUC president could make, because there is no doubt that, although Scotland has suffered badly from unemployment, it is a wealthy nation and its resources have not been put to work in order to build up employment opportunities.
    The Monopolies and Mergers Commission, in a series of reports, the last of which dealt with the Royal Bank of

    1105
    Scotland, said that there were continuing problems with the centralisation of industry. It said that every time firms were taken over there was a loss of talent, opportunity and power of direction in the Scottish economy and that, overall, it was unhelpful. In other successful economies on the Continent and in the United States there tend to be political and economic counterbalances in the system, so it is not necessary to put all the money into regional policies, as the highly centralised United Kingdom Government have done.
    It has been said that the public sector presents one of the best opportunities for future growth. I accept that economic growth depends frequently on the amount of investment that central Government are willing to put into any area of development. However, it is equally significant that nationalised industries do not operate an economic policy that is designed for the particular needs and circumstances of the Scottish economy, and I think that the same argument could be applied to other areas of the United Kingdom. Nationalised industries are responsible to Departments in Whitehall, and major decisions on economic policy affecting Scotland are taken in London by Departments such as Industry, Trade, Employment and the Treasury. So many nationalised industries in Scotland are merely regional branches whose function is to carry out the policies that are dictated by the centre and designed to serve overall English needs. That is a severe weakness in the United Kingdom, and it is one that we should view with fresh eyes, in view of the pressures that are now being put on the Government to spend more money on areas of the United Kingdom that in the past have not made those demands.
    The world recession has caused many factories—many of them in multinational ownership—to close their doors. We all know that those doors will not easily be reopened. Nor will replacement jobs appear from outside. We are in competition with countries throughout the world for a share of the international investment. That is why more and more of us now believe that it is more important to build up indigenous industries, although of course we welcome what jobs and new technology we can get from abroad. Unless we can create employment through entrepreneurial activity in our country, we shall get nowhere.
    I shall truncate my remarks, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I ask the Minister to look closely at the operation of regional policy. Between 1945 and 1971, using the figures that were provided by Mr. R. R. MacKay of Bangor university, the net employment gains in Scotland were 15 per cent., in Northern Ireland 32 per cent., in Wales 36 per cent. and in the North of England 25 per cent. Too many employment grants go on plant and machinery, and too few on employment creation. Regional policy can also be criticised in that much of the money goes on projects that would probably have come to a given area anyway, because the industrialists concerned found that it was the best site.
    Dundee in my constituency has special development area status. Certainly, it has been useful, but it has not proved to be the manna from heaven that many areas think it is. Probably the best advantage of that status is the help and asistance and cheap loans that the area can get from the EEC. Without special development area status, an area might not qualify for that help. However, few jobs are a direct result of having special development area status.
    1106
    There have been many spectacular plant closures in Scotland over the past two years. There was the smelter at Invergordon, the Talbot car plant at Linwood, the pulp mill at Corpach, Plessey and Bathgate. British Leyland in Bathgate is in difficulty, and Ravenscraig is under threat. Overall, that points to the inadequacy of regional policy.
    Regional policy has not managed to cure Scottish economic problems. So we should turn our attention more and more to decentralisation of the economy, particularly as the United Kingdom Government have not managed to run the British economy in an effective and efficient way so as to provide economic growth. If we cannot do that on a centralised basis, we must rely more and more upon the mechanisms and machinery for development at regional and, in Scotland's case, national level. New ideas must be deployed.
    As a result of last night's vote, I am worried about the petrochemical industry. The Labour Party pushed to a vote an issue that would have been detrimental to Scotland and it caused Scottish Labour Members to vote with the Conservative Party in order to safeguard Scottish interests vis-a-vis those of their own party. It is because of the Labour Party's failure to protect Scotland's interests, and indeed the failure of the Conservative Party to improve the economy, that I am utterly convinced that we require a Scottish Parliament to solve our problems.
    8.55 pm
    Mr. Fred Silvester: I have had the pleasure of listening to every word of the debate, and what strikes me most is its familiarity. Everyone who listens to debates on regional policy in the House has a strong sense of deja vu.
    There are three fundamental errors in our attitude to regional policy. We seem to regard it as temporary, as charity and with regard to industrial matters only.
    Regional policy is not temporary. People express surprise that it has been going on since the 1930s. However, it will continue until the 2030s because it deals with a fundamental situation that will not go away. There is nothing that we can do, short of maintaining a policy from Government and using Government funds, to correct the permanent imbalance between different parts of Britain. It is important that we should understand that, because it affects the way in which we deal with the individual policies.
    I get fed up with the way in which people talk about the application of regional policy to different parts of Britain as though it were an act of charity or a subsidy. It is nothing of the kind. Regional policy is a bargain struck between the regions and an over-centralised country. Because of the flow of funds in Britain there would be a continuous flow to the South-East if there were no bias in public expenditure. The differences between the regions would become unacceptably acute.
    We tend to discuss regional policy in terms of industrial policy. Most hon. Members today have spoken of the £900 million that goes in industrial aid on the regional Vote. Again, that is not true. The most valuable forms of regional policy are those that take into account expenditure on all forms of government. One of the most interesting aspects of the partnership development was the attempt to bring together the Votes of different Departments to ensure that policies in relation to health, housing, transport and roads were all brought together with the Vote for industry.

    1107
    At this hour I shall not belabour a local point, but I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that his attitude towards the question whether the Manchester and Salford inner city partnership area should or should not be a development area—I apply this to all those other inner city areas which are not covered by urban development corporations—is based simply on the criteria relating to the travel-to-work area and unemployment statistics.
    The essence of the partnership area is that every Department makes its contribution. The Minister's Department's contribution is to deal with regional development grants and regional policy. My hon. Friend the Minister could and should make his contribution towards getting things moving in the inner cities. The argument that is based on the narrow ground of travel-to-work areas is bizarre.
    I listened with great respect to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I would love to believe him. However, I see no evidence of the upturn of which he spoke. There are certain swallows and signs in the clouds that we would love to believe. Indeed, earlier in the year I thought that there might be a sign of change when we saw that lovely point in the graph at which the level was beginning to flatten out.
    In the North-West, the unemployment figures show that in December, January and February the trend was in our favour. In March, the figures began to get worse, in April they were a little worse, and in May even worse, and the provisional figures for June are again worse. There is room for intelligent relaxation. The Department of Industry and related Departments could take many steps that would prove to be of permanent benefit to the economy and that would provide temporary relief for unemployment. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will direct their attentions to such matters.
    9.1 pm
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: I shall, of necessity, be brief and truncate my speech. However, I must not omit to add my congratulations to those that have already been given to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke) on his maiden speech. I warn him that if my experience is anything to go by that will be the last time that he is called to speak so early in a debate.
    However, my hon. Friend's speech reminded me of the time when I made my maiden speech, three years ago. Despite the rising tide of unemployment, the number of industrial collapses and the general misery that faces us, there has been a decline in the strength of passion expressed in speeches in the Chamber. One cannot keep up such a level of passion for ever. My hon. Friend reminded us how passionately we should feel about the awful situation facing Britain.
    As a Member of Parliament from the Yorkshire and Humberside area, I know that that area has been devastated in the past three years by the Government's policies. Indeed, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), because he made one of the most interesting and fresh speeches that we have heard for a long time. It showed that the Labour Party is not sitting on its backside saying that it will try the same old policies. The Labour Party sent two of its Front Bench spokesmen into the regions to talk to
    1108
    people at every level of industry and local government to ensure that the new structures that are needed will be relevant and creative and will bring an end to mass unemployment. That is a sign of fresh thinking.
    In my maiden speech I warned that we look too often for panaceas and for easy, simple solutions that will cure everything. In July 1979 I warned against becoming too hooked on monetarism. However, the Government have become hooked on it. When I go round Yorkshire and Humberside I meet business men, trade union officials and ordinary working people. They do not have any grand ideas about completely new structures to meet the needs of today. They do not talk as coherently as the chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside CBI. On 8 July he said that Yorkshire and Humberside were stagnating and:
    "The economy was as dead as a dodo. Everything would seem to suggest that we are back into another recession before we have even come out of the last one."
    The chairman does not call for a 0·5 per cent. decrease in interest rates but for a reduction of 2 per cent. to 4 per cent. He calls for a mini-Budget and a realisation that the position of most business men in Yorkshire and Humberside is desperate and that they cannot hang on until April. That is the message from the CBI and Yorkshire Post business section, which states:
    "Business failures in Yorkshire hit record level."
    That is now, and it is not in cloud-cuckoo-land. In view of that evidence, we do not need just a mild reflation or, as the chairman of the CBI was saying, to embrace Keynesianism. Let us reflate our economy. We can talk about regional policies, but most people want a modest start to a reflation of business activity at every level.—[AN HON. MEMBER: "At any price?"] Not at any price. As sensible business men, and the Labour Party point out, we need a programme of relatively non-inflationary public works and investment—gas-gathering, new sewerage schemes, and electrification of the railway lines. That could start the country back on the road to recovery, and it is the way we must go, if not much further.
    During our period in Opposition we are creating policies for alternative structures that will go far beyond embracing Keynesianism. Our plan for responsive democratic structures in the regions will make a great difference. No hon. Member could be satisfied with previous regional policies. The evidence is that about 250,000 jobs were created during the growth period from 1960 to 1976 by regional policies. That is not a negligible number. However, many other jobs were lost because of the change from urban to rural development. Those changes in the geo-economic life of the country are often more important than what Governments do.
    From 1976 regional policies have not achieved what they should have done, because they do not work against a backcloth of decline. Regional policies have to be much more innovative if they are to deal with regional regeneration in a time of recession. Two things have to go hand in hand. We have to reflate our economy and have regional structures and development. There has been a television advertisement that annoyed many hon. Members from the regions. It comes from the London Docklands development corporation and says:
    "Why go to the middle of nowhere when you can go to the middle of London?"
    My constituents and most people in the regions outside the South-East believe that the Government have no conscience about what they believe to be the middle of

    1109
    nowhere. The Government should remember that in Yorkshire, Lancashire and the West Midlands—in the middle of nowhere—the people have the vote. When the next election comes, they will give the Government the answer.
    9.10 pm
    Mr. Stanley Orme: My first job is pleasant. It is to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke) on his outstanding maiden speech. He brought a great deal of wit and amusement to his speech, but he made it with dignity and compassion. We shall hear a great deal more from him and he will bring from Scotland much expertise and experience. I sincerely congratulate him.
    We have had a major and important debate, which has exposed the blatant failure of Government policies. My hon. Friends have highlighted the problems of unemployment and industrial decline in almost every region. It is important to emphasise the need for a regional policy. Major arguments were advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) in a fine speech. We must have a nation-wide strategy. The Labour Party and the TUC liaison committee, in a major policy statement issued yesterday, point the way forward.
    The Secretary of State mentioned Labour Weekly. Perhaps he will have time in the next day or two to study our up-to-date policy statement in which we spell out the areas where there must be change and development.
    The Secretary of State made a miserable announcement about assisted area status. In 1979, the Government cut regional aid, which then covered 40 per cent. of the population, to cover 26 per cent. of the population. Last week they increased that by a mere 1 per cent. I cannot get the figures from the Department.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The figure involved is about £6 million.
    Mr. Orme: I thank the Secretary of State. That is £6 million compared with a £233 million cut in 1979. That £233 million was not to assist the regions but a straight public expenditure cut to save money when the Government were giving money to taxpayers in the higher tax bracket and others. If ever there was a case of fiddling while Rome burns, this is it.
    Over 3 million people are unemployed and there is no sign of an improvement. The rosy picture painted by the Prime Minister and other Ministers is false. Even one of the Secretary of State's hon. Friends cannot see an upturn. He has seen a few swallows but no summer. That is underlined by independent sources. For example, the London Business School's latest outlook predicts a growth of 1 per cent. over 1981 for the year. That is the fourth successive time that the school has downgraded its growth forecast. A year ago it predicted that output would grow by 2·8 per cent. in the current year.
    The OECD "Economic Outlook" states that its main themes are the grave prospect for jobs and the uncertain prospects of a substantial revival of investment. It forecasts that unemployment will continue to rise. It shows that the situation in Britain is worse than that in any other major industrial nation.
    1110
    The justification given by the Government for the economic state of the country is that the recession is world-wide and no fault of theirs. That is just not so. The report states that while unemployment rose by about 2½ per cent. in the major seven countries between 1979 and the first quarter of 1982, in Britain alone it rose by 6¾ per cent.
    We also have evidence from last night. The Tory Back-Bench finance group met Sir Terence Beckett, the president of the CBI. The Guardian states today:
    "Sir Terence gave the committee an unpalatable forecast that unemployment was likely to reach 3,250,000 by the turn of the year. He predicted that British industry, the 'Mr. Atlas' who was holding up the British economy, was now looking more anaemic and seedy than at any time in the past.
    He complained that the Government had failed to deliver its promised help for productive industry. He called on the Government to increase industrial investment."
    Those are the words of the president of the CBI. He is saying directly to the Secretary of State that the policies that he is pursuing are not working. That is the evidence from industry. He said that the cause was lack of investment and lack of the will of the Government to turn round the situation.
    Similar gloomy predictions have been made by ICI, for example. There was a debate about ICI last night. It forecasts that to the end of the decade it cannot see anything but 1 per cent. per annum of growth. One of the tragedies, which the Government should be doing something about, is that ICI is threatening to transfer its investments overseas, in other words to take British capital out of the United Kingdom and to take British jobs out of the United Kingdom at the same time. A company such as ICI should be told that it has a responsibility to the British economy, under which it has prospered so well in the past. That is another example of disaster for British industry and jobs.
    The manufacturing sector of industry has been severely eroded. In the engineering industry the forecast is minuscule growth. The Engineering Employers Federation stated this week that the present rate of improvement was so slow that we would not get back to the 1975 figures of output until 1986. Those are not the words of a Left-wing organisation. I have experienced the EEF at the negotiating table. It consists of hard-headed business people.
    One of our major industries is steel. Once again, the British Steel Corporation is in crisis. The weakness of Britain's main steel-consuming industries—engineering, motor cars, shipbuilding and construction—is cutting the ground from under BSC. The problem is simply one of demand. As Mr. MacGregor said recently:
    "The great tragedy of British Steel is not the decline of the British Steel Corporation but the decline in the British manufacturing industries."
    Mr. MacGregor is a hard-headed business man who was appointed by the Government to reorganise BSC. He has now achieved reorganisation, improved output and growth. He now says that it is not the efficiency of British Steel but the lack of demand that is responsible for his problems. The Government must be answerable for that lack of demand.
    Car production has dropped to its lowest level since the 1950s. The textile industry is once again in one of its major slumps. They seem to occur more regularly than ever. Investment in manufacturing continues to decline, yet the Government fail to obtain vital orders for British industry. The latest example is the proposed Cunard order for a replacement of the "Atlantic Conveyor". It is to be built

    1111
    in either Japan or South Korea. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) raised the matter under Standing Order No. 9 earlier today. The original ship was lost in the Falklands conflict. Seamen's lives were lost with it. The seamen should be decorated. The directors of Trafalgar House should be charged with treason.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd rose—
    Mr. Orme: I shall name them. Lord Matthews, Nigel Broackes, E. W. Parker, Sir Francis Sandilands, G. H. B. Carter, W. B. Slater, the Marquess of Tavistock, V. A. Grundy—
    Mr. John Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a member of the Opposition Front Bench to make charges of treason that he cannot substantiate?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The right hon. Gentleman must take responsibility for his speech.
    Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a member of the Opposition Front Bench to mention a Member of the other place in such terms?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman cannot accuse Members of the other place of treason.
    Mr. Orme: I withdraw. Nevertheless, I have made the matter clear. The Secretary of State has some responsibility. Ministers go around talking about buying British but when it comes to purchasing British and telling Cunard and Trafalgar House to invest in the British economy, they are silent.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: All hon. Members would like British Shipbuilders to be able to tender effectively and competitively for a container ship. However, it is unwilling to do so, it is unwilling to build a ship of that complexity and it cannot do so competitively. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that burden should be deliberately placed on British Shipbuilders?
    Mr. Orme: Throughout the Falklands crisis, when we needed ships and they had to be turned around quickly, men in the North-East and elsewhere worked night and day. British Shipbuilders could build the new container ship competitively. It merely needs the chance to do so.
    The story is the same throughout every sector of British industry—lack of investment, collapse of demand, layoffs, redundancies and short time working. The economic news is universally bad, despite the latest output figures. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) suggested how the May figures were calculated in relation to the bank holiday. There was also undoubtedly a Falklands crisis factor involved as well.
    The Government have no strategies to deal with the tidal wave of destruction. They continue to rely on market forces without reference to the needs of our industry. They look no further than occasional tinkering with the problems. They are blind and deaf to the death rattle of British industry. Wherever one looks, unemployment is reaching new records—441,000 in the North-West, 350,000 in the West Midlands, which is currently the area with the highest growth rate, 223,000 in the North-East and 699,000 in the South-East. One could go on. The
    1112
    figures speak for themselves. The banner on the front of County Hall has obviously hurt the Secretary of State because it tells the truth about the number of unemployed in the Greater London area.
    Despite those horrific figures and imposible Government policies, people are fighting back. I congratulate the GLC on setting up its enterprise board to create jobs in the capital. I also congratulate the West Midlands and Lancashire enterprise boards. Local authorities are fighting back to create jobs. That has been their major priority since they have been attacked and partly dismantled by the Government's policies. Their task is to create jobs in their areas. Whether it is on a large scale, as in the case of the GLC, the West Midlands, Corby, Sheffield, St. Helens, Salford and many other areas, or on a smaller scale, jobs are being created. Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides only a 2p rate, but it is being used to create employment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) has said.
    Against that gloomy overall picture, we were given a taste of what a further dose of Thatcherism would mean for the British people in the recent speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He spelt it out very clearly. Instead of talking about growth, productivity, investment and unit costs, he gave the familiar anti-trade union speech threatening further privatisation in industry and in local government, including health and education. All that adds up to a policy of two nations—discrimination by a favoured minority against the majority. A nation torn by dissent with rising unemployment, social deprivation and a rising crime rate is the reality of Tory policies.
    Yesterday, the Labour Party and TUC liaison committee launched a major part of its industrial policy under the heading of planning and industrial democracy. That policy is completely opposed to Thatcherism and monetarism. It will lay the basis for industrial recovery. The plan for jobs spells out an economic future for this country that will restore employment opportunities, based on the concept that investment linked with a major public sector and the implementation of industrial democracy is a radical and Socialist alternative to the Government's disastrous policies.
    We must restore competitiveness without conflict. We shall use planning to expand capacity and replace outdated equipment. We shall lower the rate of the pound to make British industry competitive. We shall certainly do something about the export of capital that is still leaving the United Kingdom at a disastrous rate for our economy. Investment should be made in the United Kingdom.
    Our policy statement makes it clear that we want to see an expanded Department of Industry that will have powers in its own right. Transfer forecasting and medium-term forecasting must be removed from the Treasury and given to the Department of Industry. Expenditure planning could also go to the Department of Industry. We want industry to be financed by a national investment bank. We also want to attract pension fund investment.
    The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) referred to a national planning college. There are about 36 universities in the United Kingdom, but not one of them is solely committed to training people for management in industry or the public sector. Continuously, we have to obtain management for the public sector from the private sector. We need to train people ourselves for the public sector. We would set up a training college for that purpose.

    1113
    Within this infrastructure there is clearly a need to strengthen regional policy and the contribution that regional and local planning can make to our objectives. In the past few years there has been a rapid decline in the traditionally prosperous areas, with unemployment rates reaching levels usually associated with the deprived areas. Critical problems are emerging within our inner city areas.
    A Labour Government will get the economy moving and create growth and employment, but there is no doubt that areas will be left behind, in parts of Scotland, the North-East, Wales and Merseyside, that will need a regional policy. At present every region needs a regional policy and an overall policy is necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has been visiting such areas and discussing the measures that will be necessary to solve their problems. We accept that the policies implemented by past Labour Governments have not filled the bill. We need to look afresh at these areas and to regenerate industry.
    The Secretary of State referred to inflation. I agree, that is important. He referred to unit costs, and that, too, is important. He talked about competitiveness of British industry. Yes, that is important. We want to see industry moving, because without a successful British industry we shall not create wealth in our society, let alone improve or even maintain our standard of living. The manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom is approximately 26 per cent. of the insured working population. Therefore, a great responsibility rests on the manufacturing sector.
    The proposals put forward by the Opposition are an alternative to the policies pursued by the Government. The position now is not two or three times as bad as it was when the Government came to office, but five or six times as bad. That is a condemnation of Government policy. The sooner we can implement the policies outlined by the Opposition this evening, the better it will be for Britain.
    9.34 pm
    The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): I join the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) in congratulating the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke) on his maiden speech. The hon. Gentleman is a rare phenomenon in the House—a Labour victor at a by-election. He told us in most amusing and attractive terms about the largest bowling alley in the country, and, as the right hon. Gentleman observed, he bowled the House over. He made some well-deserved tributes to his predecessor, Mr. Dempsey, who was well respected and well liked on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman has great experience in local government, and we very much look forward to hearing from him again.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) spent much time talking about the basis on which our announcement on assisted areas was made. Our major consideration was the maintainance of stability in regional policy. We wanted to keep changes to a minimum. That has been one of the things that business men have asked of us repeatedly.
    The factors that we considered in that review were relative unemployment rates, not just in the short term but over a period; the geographical location of individual areas; their distance from markets; and the consequences for neighbouring areas of an up-grading or down-grading. We also took absolute numbers into consideration.
    1114
    Because of that emphasis on stability, we have attempted to rectify only the worst anomalies. I am not saying that some areas do not have higher unemployment rates than others—
    Mr. Prescott: You can say that again!
    Mr. Lamont: Of course I can, because there are no fewer than 380 travel-to-work areas, and the idea that we can chop and change, or put areas on and off the map in response to short-term movements in unemployment rates, is absolutely impracticable and quite impossible. Our commitment, which business men have wanted, is to maintain the stability of the map, and we intend to do so until the next election.
    Mr. Prescott: To save money.
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman will know that changes to areas in the intermediate class do not produce great savings. Therefore, the motive was not money, it was stability.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) referred to the Manchester-Salford partnership area. He and other hon. Members have uttered some strong criticisms of the decisions that have been made. I accept that the interaction of our urban area programme and regional policy requires further examination, and my hon. Friend made some valid points.
    I cannot hope to cover all the areas that have been mentioned in the debate, although it was surprisingly free of regional lobbying of the kind that one might have expected.
    The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) mentioned the North-West. The Government have recognised the most serious problems in that area. Between 1979 and 1982, we have given £400 million in regional assistance to the North-West. Most of it has gone to the development areas and special development areas, and they will continue to receive the bulk of that help. Even after the changes that we have made to the map in the North-West of England, 45 per cent. of the population there will still be in assisted areas. That is the second highest of any region in England, and far higher than in the country generally.
    I understand the strong feelings of hon. Members who represent constituencies in the North-West, but they should take into account the strong feelings of those who represent the West Midlands, feelings epitomised in the speech of my hon. Friend for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). Many parts of the West Midlands have higher unemployment than the North-West, but they are not assisted areas. It would be nonsense to make large parts of the West Midlands assisted areas. In fairness to that part of the country, the representations that we received did not call for that. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked who had made representations to us and whether we had received councils.
    Yes, we have seen councils, and, yes, we have seen Labour-controlled councils, and industrialists. However, when we put it to Labour-controlled councils that there was not a strong case for assisted area status for the West Midlands, they did not dissent. They wanted the end to discrimination against the West Midlands. That is why we have removed the IDCs that have been a restricting influence on that area. The councils wanted to be able to

    1115
    compete fairly with other areas. How could we say that the West Midlands was able to do so when there were areas in the North-West for which Labour Members are advocating assisted area status even though they have lower rates of unemployment than the West Midlands?
    Mr. Park: I do not know whether your minutes are faulty, or whether your hearing is faulty, but certainly on two occasions when I attended with delegations in your office—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing wrong with my minutes.
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman did not attend when the West Midlands county council came to see me, or when I talked to the Birmingham chamber of commerce. I assure the House that what I have said reflects the true position.
    Some scepticism has been expressed on both sides of the House about the effectiveness of regional policy, and there is every reason for this scepticism. It is a sobering thought that those areas which were assisted in the 1930s are the ones that are assisted today. What is our reaction to that to be? Is it simply to carry on with the same regional policies for ever? Our view is that regional policy, to be effective, needs to be sharpened, and it makes no sense, even in a deep recession, for half the country to be covered by assisted area status. That is not a regional policy, it is half a national policy, and not a very good one at that.
    Regional policy needs to be more concentrated to become more effective. The changes that we have made will strengthen the relative position of the assisted areas. Labour Members have drawn attention to the differences in unemployment rates in the country in different regions. The object of regional policy is to narrow those gaps, but we must be realistic. All countries in Western Europe have differences in unemployment rates and it is my impression that the rates here are little different from those elsewhere. No one can say, when we are spending £800 million a year on regional policy, that regional policy does not have a high enough priority.
    The right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) drew attention to the absence of head offices and research and development facilities in the regions. I agree with the thrust of his remarks. One of the problems with regional policy is that we have placed too much emphasis on assistance to manufacturing industry, which has not been the growth area for employment opportunities. If the regions are to be redeveloped, we need more service industries, head offices and research and development facilities there. That is why the Government have put more emphasis on the Office and Service Industries Scheme. We believe that regional policy should be directed more towards service industries.
    A number of hon. Members referred to the British Steel Corporation. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie asked about Ravenscraig. The corporate plan that is in operation is based on the assumption that there will be no change in the configuration of the BSC, and no suggestion has been made to us that Ravenscraig should be closed.
    It was predictable and understandable that a number of hon. Members should raise the question of the new "Atlantic Conveyor". I understand the strong feelings and
    1116
    emotions that the issue arouses, though I deplore the language used by the right hon. Member for Salford, West. I am sure that he will regret it tomorrow.
    The Government would certainly prefer the order to be placed in the United Kingdom. We are keeping in close touch with British Shipbuilders and with the situation. We give the company considerable assistance in obtaining orders. However, for that assistance to be effective British Shipbuilders must be competitive and come within striking distance of the prices of its competitors. Naturally, we note what has been said in the debate.
    I agree substantially with the speech of the right hon. Member for Stockton, but it reminded me of what Harold Macmillan said about the Liberals—they had many sound and original ideas, but the trouble was that the original ideas were not sound and the sound ideas were not original.
    The SDP has expressed its support for the loan guarantee scheme, the business start-up scheme and competition in the public sector. All that is sound, but not original. The right hon. Member for Stockton's plans for regional administration were original, but not sound. He outlined a plan for the revival of the Saxon kingdoms, with 12 regional authorities that would have taxing and spending powers. We have always heard that the SDP is an elitist party, but the right hon. Gentleman's ideas are irrelevant and of interest only to politicians and administrators.
    The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) referred to the manufacturing production figures. Yesterday's figure of a 1½ per cent. increase on the May level is not one on which too much emphasis should be placed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should not take one month's figure in isolation, but the May figure confirms that a gradual recovery is taking place. Manufacturing output is 2½ percent. above the level of last spring.
    Whatever anxieties there may be about future demand, it is futile to think that we can expand our way out of recession faster than other countries, unless our rate of inflation is lower than that of other countries. We have made substantial progress in bringing down the rate of inflation, but it still remains higher than that of Japan and Germany. We intend to get our rate down to their level.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: The Secretary of State for Industry is paid to be a member of the National Economic Development Council, but in the 48 minutes of the House's time that he pre-empted to say nothing new, and to crowd out one of his own Back Benchers, he did not refer to the request of the director general of the NEDC that he be allowed to examine straight away the scope for an expansionary policy. Will the Minister of State say something about the Department's attitude to the NEDC request?
    Mr. Lamont: I am sure that the request and any proposal from the director general of the NEDC will be considered and that there will be a response from the Government. Whatever the NEDC may say, the most important task is to get the rate of inflation down.
    Labour Members seem to query the relevance to industry of reducing inflation, but that does matter to industry. We need lower inflation to get confidence for investment, to be competitive and to get lower interest rates.

    1117
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to what he called the crisis in developed countries. The level of interest rates is a cause of anxiety to business men all over the world. If anything, unprecedentedly high interest rates show that the world is suffering from excessive Government borrowing and high inflation that have undermined investors' confidence. After a decade in which inflation was three times that of the previous decade, it is hardly surprising that lenders and investors should be sceptical and cautious about whether inflation has come down permanently. If we can get inflation down and keep it down, companies can borrow at a fixed and controlled price. That is the path to faster growth and more jobs.
    There are signs that we are making progress. Rates of interest have fallen by 4 per cent. since the beginning of the year. That is significant because the fall has occurred when international forces have been pushing up interest rates in other countries. Our lower interest rates have occurred because the Government have concentrated on the one factor within their control—their own borrowing. That policy has reduced our interest rates. If inflation falls, interest rates will fall and we shall reap a harvest of investment, growth and jobs. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said that the recession in Britain had been worse than elsewhere and the right hon. Member for Salford, West repeated that charge. But the hon. Gentleman made that assertion without acknowledging that British inflation at the beginning of the recession was much higher than in other countries. Our competitiveness was undermined for many years and we suffered from much concealed unemployment that has now come out into the open.
    All that we hear from the Labour Party is that it will embark on the biggest programme of expansion that has ever been undertaken, regardless of the effects on inflation, on interest rates and on the balance of payments. The Labour Party seems to believe that, because a policy of high spending and expansion worked in the 1930s, it can work now, but there is a great difference between the position then and now. Then we were suffering from falling prices, whereas now we are living through a period of high inflation and the greatest threat to the world economy is that inflation will rise again.
    The Opposition's proposals are similar to those now operated in France.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why do Icelandic conservatives say that it is possible to have high inflation and almost no unemployment and British Conservatives say that that is impossible?
    Mr. Lamont: The Conservative Party has never based its policies on those of Icelandic conservatives.
    The Opposition are advancing a prescription similar to that now being put into practice in France. The prescription is higher spending and the creation of more public sector jobs. I can think of nothing that Britain needs less than the creation of more public sector jobs. The public sector is already overmanned, and if we went down that road we should sacrifice all the gains that have been made in the past two or three years.
    The Opposition's prescription will be no more successful in Britain than it was in France. The French policies have led to two devaluations, a 20 per cent. rise in unemployment and one of the highest inflation rates in
    1118
    Europe. While our interest rates have fallen by 3 to 4 per cent. since the beginning of the year, France's has risen. We shall not find the solution to our problems if we follow the example of France.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said many times that the Government have exaggerated the effect of high rates increases on business. It is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman should accuse us of not talking to business men. If he does not believe that high rates increases are greatly resented by business men, he has spent little time in his tours of the regions talking to business men.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Would it surprise the Minister to know that two months ago the Engineering Employers Federation said that the recession was caused by high interest rates, high energy prices and the inflow of subsidised materials? It said that the effect of rates had little to do with the recession. Yet that is one of the employers to whom the Minister says we should talk.
    Mr. Lamont: The Engineering Employers Federation said that, and we all agree about the need to reduce interest rates. However, that federation, together with the CBI and many chambers of commerce, stressed the absurdity of Labour-controlled councils in areas of high unemployment pushing up the rates and causing more unemployment.
    Mr. Straw rose—
    Mr. Lamont: I shall not give way.
    The Opposition chose not to dwell on their programme because they know that it is unpopular, anachronistic and irrelevant. They have chosen not to spell out their plans for the nationalisation of banks and for greater State control and ownership. It is intriguing that the Labour Party said that its programme must be combined with exchange controls against an inward flow of capital. Its problem will be an outflow, not an inflow, of capital.
    All the ideas advanced by the Opposition parties will undermine our long-term competitiveness, increase inflation and lead to more unemployment. All that they offer is the atrophy of State ownership and control. Those ideas are widely regarded both in Britain and in the House as an obstacle to prosperity and opportunity. Competition and private ownership are ideas whose time has come. The Government were elected to bring about a decisive reversal of our long-term decline. We shall not be deflected from those policies just when they are bringing about a long-worked-for and hard-earned benefit. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the Opposition motion and to vote in favour of the amendment standing in the names of my right hon. Friends.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 330.

    Division No. 275]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Abse, Leo

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Adams, Allen

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Allaun, Frank

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Anderson, Donald

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

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

    Ashton, Joe

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

    Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

    Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

    Bagier, Gordon A.T.

    Buchan, Norman

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

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

    Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

    Campbell, Ian

    1119

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

    Cant, R. B.

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Kerr, Russell

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Clarke, Thomas C'b'ge, A'drie

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

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

    Lambie, David

    Cohen, Stanley

    Lamond, James

    Coleman, Donald

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

    Leighton, Ronald

    Cook, Robin F.

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Cowans, Harry

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

    Litherland, Robert

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

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Cryer, Bob

    McCartney, Hugh

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

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

    McElhone, Frank

    Dalyell, Tarn

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Davidson, Arthur

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

    McKelvey, William

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

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

    McMahon, Andrew

    Deakins, Eric

    McNamara, Kevin

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    McTaggart, Robert

    Dewar, Donald

    McWilliam, John

    Dixon, Donald

    Marks, Kenneth

    Dobson, Frank

    Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

    Dormand, Jack

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Douglas, Dick

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Dubs, Alfred

    Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Dunnett, Jack

    Maxton, John

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Eadie, Alex

    Meacher, Michael

    Eastham, Ken

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

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

    Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

    English, Michael

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Ennals, Rt Hon David

    Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Newens, Stanley

    Ewing, Harry

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Faulds, Andrew

    O'Neill, Martin

    Field, Frank

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Fitch, Alan

    Palmer, Arthur

    Flannery, Martin

    Park, George

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Parker, John

    Ford, Ben

    Parry, Robert

    Forrester, John

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Foulkes, George

    Pendry, Tom

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

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Prescott, John

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Race, Reg

    Golding, John

    Radice, Giles

    Gourlay, Harry

    Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

    Graham, Ted

    Richardson, Jo

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Hardy, Peter

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

    Robertson, George

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Rooker, J. W.

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

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

    Rowlands, Ted

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

    Ryman, John

    Home Robertson, John

    Sever, John

    Homewood, William

    Sheerman, Barry

    Hooley, Frank

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    Howell, Rt Hon D.

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Hoyle, Douglas

    Short, Mrs Renée

    Huckfield, Les

    Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Silverman, Julius

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Soley, Clive

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Spearing, Nigel

    John, Brynmor

    Spriggs, Leslie

    1120

    Stallard, A. W.

    Welsh, Michael

    Stoddart, David

    White, Frank R.

    Stott, Roger

    White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

    Strang, Gavin

    Whitlock, William

    Straw, Jack

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

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

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

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

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Wilson, William (C'try SE)

    Tilley, John

    Winnick, David

    Tinn, James

    Woodall, Alec

    Torney, Tom

    Woolmer, Kenneth

    Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

    Wright, Sheila

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

    Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Watkins, David

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Weetch, Ken

    Mr. George Morton

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Churchill, W. S.

    Aitken, Jonathan

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

    Alexander, Richard

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Alton, David

    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(Preston N)

    Costain, Sir Albert

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

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Critchley, Julian

    Banks, Robert

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Beith, A. J.

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Bendall, Vivian

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

    Dover, Denshore

    Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

    Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

    Best, Keith

    Durant, Tony

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Eggar, Tim

    Blackburn, John

    Elliott, Sir William

    Blaker, Peter

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Body, Richard

    Eyre, Reginald

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

    Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

    Faith, Mrs Sheila

    Bowden, Andrew

    Farr, John

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes

    Fell, Sir Anthony

    Bradley, Tom

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Bright, Graham

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

    Brinton, Tim

    Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

    Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Forman, Nigel

    Brotherton, Michael

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

    Fox, Marcus

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

    Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Fry, Peter

    Bruce-Gardyne, John

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

    Ginsburg, David

    Buck, Antony

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Budgen, Nick

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Goodhew, Sir Victor

    Burden, Sir Frederick

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Butcher, John

    Gorst, John

    Butler, Hon Adam

    Gow, Ian

    Cadbury, Jocelyn

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Carlisle, John (Luton West)

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Gray, Hamish

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

    Greenway, Harry

    Cartwright, John

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

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

    Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

    Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Chapman, Sydney

    Grist, Ian

    1121

    Grylls, Michael

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Gummer, John Selwyn

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Hamilton, Hon A.

    Moore, John

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Hannam, John

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mudd, David

    Hastings, Stephen

    Murphy, Christopher

    Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

    Myles, David

    Hawkins, Sir Paul

    Neale, Gerrard

    Hawksley, Warren

    Needham, Richard

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Nelson, Anthony

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Neubert, Michael

    Heddle, John

    Newton, Tony

    Henderson, Barry

    Normanton, Tom

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Nott, Rt Hon John

    Hicks, Robert

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Onslow, Cranley

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

    Holland, Philip (Carlton)

    Osborn, John

    Hooson, Tom

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Horam, John

    Page, Richard (SW Herts)

    Hordern, Peter

    Parris, Matthew

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Patten, John (Oxford)

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

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Pawsey, James

    Howells, Geraint

    Penhaligon, David

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Percival, Sir Ian

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Irvine, Bryant Godman

    Pitt, William Henry

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Pollock, Alexander

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Porter, Barry

    Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Jessel, Toby

    Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Kershaw, Sir Anthony

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Kimball, Sir Marcus

    Rathbone, Tim

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Knox, David

    Renton, Tim

    Lamont, Norman

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Lang, Ian

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Latham, Michael

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Lee, John

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

    Roper, John

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Loveridge, John

    Rossi, Hugh

    Luce, Richard

    Rost, Peter

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

    Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    MacGregor, John

    Scott, Nicholas

    MacKay, John (Argyll)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

    Shepherd, Richard

    Madel, David

    Shersby, Michael

    Magee, Bryan

    Silvester, Fred

    Major, John

    Sims, Roger

    Marland, Paul

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Marten, Rt Hon Neil

    Smith, Dudley

    Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Mawby, Ray

    Speed, Keith

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Speller, Tony

    Mellor, David

    Spence, John

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Sproat, Iain

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Squire, Robin

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Stainton, Keith

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Moate, Roger

    Stanley, John

    1122

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

    Steen, Anthony

    Walker, B. (Perth)

    Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

    Waller, Gary

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    Walters, Dennis

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Ward, John

    Stokes, John

    Warren, Kenneth

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Watson, John

    Tapsell, Peter

    Wellbeloved, James

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Wells, Bowen

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wheeler, John

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Whitney, Raymond

    Thompson, Donald

    Wickenden, Keith

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Wilkinson, John

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Williams, D.(Montgomery)

    Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Trippier, David

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Trotter, Neville

    Wolfson, Mark

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Viggers, Peter

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Waddington, David

    Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wakeham, John

    Mr. Anthony Berry and

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Mr. Carol Mather.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 246.

    Division No. 276]

    [10.13 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Budgen, Nick

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Alexander, Richard

    Burden, Sir Frederick

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Butcher, John

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Butler, Hon Adam

    Ancram, Michael

    Cadbury, Jocelyn

    Arnold, Tom

    Carlisle, John (Luton West)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

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

    Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

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

    Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

    Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Baker, Nicholas (N Corset)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Banks, Robert

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

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

    Cockeram, Eric

    Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

    Colvin, Michael

    Best, Keith

    Cope, John

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Cormack, Patrick

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Corrie, John

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Costain, Sir Albert

    Blackburn, John

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Blaker, Peter

    Critchley, Julian

    Body, Richard

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

    Dover, Denshore

    Bowden, Andrew

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes

    Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Durant, Tony

    Bright, Graham

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Brinton, Tim

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

    Eggar, Tim

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Elliott, Sir William

    Brotherton, Michael

    Eyre, Reginald

    Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

    Bruce-Gardyne, John

    Faith, Mrs Sheila

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Farr, John

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

    Fell, Sir Anthony

    Buck, Antony

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    1123

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

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

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

    Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

    Madel, David

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Major, John

    Forman, Nigel

    Marland, Paul

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Marten, Rt Hon Neil

    Fox, Marcus

    Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

    Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

    Mawby, Ray

    Fry, Peter

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Mellor, David

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Gorst, John

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Gow, Ian

    Moate, Roger

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Gray, Hamish

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Greenway, Harry

    Moore, John

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

    Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

    Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Grist, Ian

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Grylls, Michael

    Mudd, David

    Gummer, John Selwyn

    Murphy, Christopher

    Hamilton, Hon A.

    Myles, David

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Needham, Richard

    Hannam, John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Neubert, Michael

    Hastings, Stephen

    Newton, Tony

    Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

    Normanton, Tom

    Hawkins, Sir Paul

    Nott, Rt Hon John

    Hawksley, Warren

    Onslow, Cranley

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Osborn, John

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Heddle, John

    Page, Richard (SW Herts)

    Henderson, Barry

    Parris, Matthew

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Patten, John (Oxford)

    Hicks, Robert

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Pawsey, James

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Percival, Sir Ian

    Holland, Philip (Carlton)

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Hooson, Tom

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Hordern, Peter

    Pollock, Alexander

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Porter, Barry

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

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Irvine, Bryant Godman

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

    Jessel, Toby

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Renton, Tim

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Kershaw, Sir Anthony

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Kimball, Sir Marcus

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Knox, David

    Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

    Lamont, Norman

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Lang, Ian

    Rossi, Hugh

    Latham, Michael

    Rost, Peter

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

    Lee, John

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Loveridge, John

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Luce, Richard

    Shepherd, Richard

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Shersby, Michael

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Silvester, Fred

    MacGregor, John

    Sims, Roger

    MacKay, John (Argyll)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

    Smith, Dudley

    1124

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Speed, Keith

    Viggers, Peter

    Speller, Tony

    Waddington, David

    Spence, John

    Wakeham, John

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Sproat, Iain

    Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

    Squire, Robin

    Walker, B. (Perth)

    Stainton, Keith

    Waller, Gary

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Walters, Dennis

    Stanley, John

    Ward, John

    Steen, Anthony

    Warren, Kenneth

    Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

    Watson, John

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Wells, Bowen

    Stokes, John

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Wheeler, John

    Tapsell, Peter

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Whitney, Raymond

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Wickenden, Keith

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

    Wilkinson, John

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Williams, D.(Montgomery)

    Thompson, Donald

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

    Trippier, David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Trotter, Neville

    Mr. Anthony Berry and

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Mr. Carol Mather.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

    Adams, Allen

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Allaun, Frank

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

    Alton, David

    Deakins, Eric

    Anderson, Donald

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Dewar, Donald

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Dixon, Donald

    Ashton, Joe

    Dobson, Frank

    Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

    Dormand, Jack

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

    Douglas, Dick

    Beith, A. J.

    Dubs, Alfred

    Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Dunnett, Jack

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Eadie, Alex

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

    Eastham, Ken

    Bradley, Tom

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

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

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

    English, Michael

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

    Ennals, Rt Hon David

    Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Buchan, Norman

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

    Ewing, Harry

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

    Faulds, Andrew

    Campbell, Ian

    Field, Frank

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Fitch, Alan

    Canavan, Dennis

    Flannery, Martin

    Cant, R. B.

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Ford, Ben

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Forrester, John

    Cartwright, John

    Foulkes, George

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

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

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

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

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Ginsburg, David

    Coleman, Donald

    Golding, John

    Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Cook, Robin F.

    Graham, Ted

    Cowans, Harry

    Grant, John (Islington C)

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

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

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

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Crawshaw, Richard

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

    Cryer, Bob

    Hardy, Peter

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

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

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Dalyell, Tam

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Davidson, Arthur

    Heffer, Eric S.

    1125

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

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

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

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Home Robertson, John

    Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

    Homewood, William

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Hooley, Frank

    Maxton, John

    Horam, John

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Howell, Rt Hon D.

    Meacher, Michael

    Howells, Geraint

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Hoyle, Douglas

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Huckfield, Les

    Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Morton, George

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Newens, Stanley

    Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    John, Brynmor

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Kerr, Russell

    Palmer, Arthur

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Park, George

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Parker, John

    Lambie, David

    Parry, Robert

    Lamond, James

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Pendry, Tom

    Leighton, Ronald

    Penhaligon, David

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Pitt, William Henry

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Litherland, Robert

    Prescott, John

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

    Race, Reg

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Radice, Giles

    McElhone, Frank

    Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Richardson, Jo

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    McKelvey, William

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    McMahon, Andrew

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Robertson, George

    McTaggart, Robert

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    McWilliam, John

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William

    Magee, Bryan

    Rooker, J. W.

    Marks, Kenneth

    Roper, John

    Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

    1126

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Torney, Tom

    Rowlands, Ted

    Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

    Ryman, John

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Sever, John

    Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Watkins, David

    Short, Mrs Renée

    Weetch, Ken

    Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Silverman, Julius

    Welsh, Michael

    Skinner, Dennis

    White, Frank R.

    Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

    White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

    Soley, Clive

    Whitlock, William

    Spearing, Nigel

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Stallard, A. W.

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

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

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

    Stoddart, David

    Wilson, William (C'try SE)

    Stott, Roger

    Winnick, David

    Strang, Gavin

    Woodall, Alec

    Straw, Jack

    Woolmer, Kenneth

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Tilley, John

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Tinn, James

    Mr. Hugh McCartney.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House, whilst sharing the deep concern for the unemployed, recognises that today's unemployment reflects a loss of competitiveness over many years as well as the effect of the world recession; supports Her Majesty's Government in their objective of creating conditions in which all parts of the country can prosper; further supports Her Majesty's Government in concentrating their regional industrial policy in the areas of greatest need; and rejects the proposals of Her Majesty's Official Opposition as leading only to higher inflation and more unemployment.

  Northern Ireland (Industrial Development)
  10.26 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
  That the draft Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.
  If I needed extra confidence to commend this draft order to the House, I could take it from the fact that the proposals that it represents have been subjected to a high degree of outside scrutiny throughout most of their development. After the outline of the Industrial Development Board, which the order establishes, was put forward by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins), in August last year, as part of his proposals to streamline the machinery of government in Northern Ireland, it was first subjected under my chairmanship to the expert attentions of the steering group composed of Mr. Colin Anderson, Mr. Ken Bloomfield, Sir Charles Carter, Mr. Denis Faulkner and Mr. Eric McDowell, who elaborated the original plans into a detailed blueprint with great skill and judgment. I would like to thank them all again tonight.
  While the group deliberated, there were numerous consultations with interested outside bodies, and then, in the form of a proposal for the present draft order, the design for the IDB was twice considered by the Northern Ireland Committee of the House. I think I may say that, in the Committee's debate, there was a large measure of agreement that we had put forward a plan for a new industrial development body that had all the characteristics sought for it by public opinion, consistent with the need for public and parliamentary accountability. The substance of the plan lies not only in the order; it is also to be found and amplified in the guidelines, to be issued by the Government to the board of the IDB elaborating the framework for the organisation's activities.
  I dwelt in depth in our debates in the Northern Ireland Committee on the history and rationale of the present proposals, and I do not think that the House would want me to recapitulate them in great detail today. The proposals involve the creation of a new Department of Economic Development which will embrace and continue the functions of the present Departments of Commerce and Manpower Services, and of which the executive of the IDB will be an important arm.
  The advantages of a unified industrial development organisation in place of the two existing institutions—the industrial development divisions of the Department of Commerce and the Northern Ireland Development Agency—were clear enough to us; but we have not sought to carry the principle of unification so far as to take in with the IDB the Local Enterprise Development Unit. LEDU is performing a most valuable role in the development of the small business sector and whilst it will co-operate closely with the IDB we believe that it will continue to meet best the special requirements of small business if it continues as a separate entity.
  To set the IDB's executive arm within a Government Department was to recognise the realities of industrial development in Northern Ireland. The amounts of money
  1128
  involved, both in individual cases and as a proportion of the total Northern Ireland budget, would alone dictate close accountability to Parliament, the more so since it is often paid out in large, and sometimes controversial, packages of assistance which inevitably involve an element of risk. Moreover, consideration of industrial development cases so often hinges on social decisions of the type that only a Minister responsible to Parliament, or to an elected Assembly, can properly make. At the same time we were aware—indeed, we were constantly reminded—that a body with some independence from Government—independence both of action and of outlook—could have advantages. We were aware that it was likely to make case decisions on the foundations of hard-headed commercial judgment, that it would apply a consistent set of criteria in such decisions, that it could move more swiftly than a body encumbered by bureaucracy, and that generally it would behave in a businesslike way.
  We therefore created the design that is set out in the order and is more fully defined in the draft of the detailed guidelines that we propose to issue to the board when it formally assumes office.
  The executive arm of the IDB will be within the new Department. The board's statutory role will be to advise and oversee it. Both will operate within a framework of broad policy prescriptions set out by Ministers. The draft guidelines now circulated incorporate a clear statement of the policy under which they will operate. Of course the views offered by the board on policy issues will be a major determinant of any revision that Ministers decide upon. On the implementation of policy, and in its application to individual requests for industrial development assistance, the board will advise the executive, and oversee the executive's work. For the most part, as the guidelines make clear, the board's advice will be for action by the executive without Ministers having to pronounce on it.
  The board and executive will operate as a single unit with its own distinct identity. Ministers' ultimate answerability for the actions of their Departments obviously rules out any guarantee of non-intervention, but we firmly intend to give all possible weight to the commercial expertise that we are assembling among the board members. It would make no sense to do otherwise. In practice, we shall be putting much responsibility on the chairman and the rest of the board members and the executive. In general, Ministers' active involvement will be limited to two sorts of cases—when the social factors that I mentioned earlier are to the fore, and when specified large sums are involved. In those cases, of course, the board will still make recommendations that will carry much authority, but Ministers will have to address wider questions that are outside the board's special competence. The financial limits that we have proposed have been welcomed by most observers as sensible and as permitting sufficient freedom of action. Without the prior approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel being sought, the IDB will be able to provide to any company up to £3 million in selective financial assistance for projects that create employment, plus possibly an equity stake of up to £2 million, the appropriate level of training assistance, and the lease of an advance factory. That will provide the organisation with considerable flexibility and effective autonomy over a wide range of cases.
  The IDB is an organisation of novel design. It incorporates the best features of the private sector in a

  1129
  public sector organisation. The draft guidelines set out how Ministers expect the organisation to operate and make it clear that the board and executive of the IDB will work as a cohesive unit. While the executive will be an integral part of the Department of Economic Development, it will have its own clear executive responsibilities, for which the chief executive of the IDB will be accountable. We shall make clear the importance of co-operation in the areas of shared concern. The permanent secretary of the Department will provide resources and services that will take much of the time-consuming and bureaucratic work off the back of the IDB to free its energies for its main executive tasks. He will not be there to second-guess the judgment of the chief executive in commercial matters.
  Some concern has been expressed about the possibility of duplication between the IDB and the rest of the Department and the possible trespassing of the permanent secretary on the domain of the chief executive, but their two roles are clear. The two parts of the Department have a mutual interest in improving the economic well-being of the Province and they will work closely together. The chief executive of the IDB, however, will have clear responsibility for industrial development and, significantly, will be accountable for expenditure of public moneys under certain Votes. On matters involving industrial development, Ministers—where they are brought in—will look directly to the executive for advice.
  I hope that what I have told the House so far shows that our design for the new organisation is far more than a cosmetic rejigging of the present system. It is a thoroughgoing reconstruction—the product of much new thinking. This is particularly the case with the staffing of the organisation. We have not ignored the excellent staff resources that we already have, both in the Department of Commerce and in the Northern Ireland Development Agency.
  They will be the backbone of the new organisation, but their wide-ranging experience will be supplemented by the appointment of high calibre staff from outside the central Government machine. Most of the new people will come in on secondment and I am glad to pay tribute to the generous way in which the private sector has offered us staff. Others will come in on short-term contracts.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does that mean that there will be an increase, and not a saving, in staff?
  Mr. Butler: Taking the Northern Ireland Development Agency and the present divisions of the Department of Commerce involved in industrial development work—the two areas being brought together—I assure my hon. Friend that there will be an overall saving in staff, including those coming in from the private sector, whether on secondment or on short-term contracts.
  The most crucial post, of course, will be that of the chief executive. In debates in Committee and elsewhere I did not hide the fact that I should have preferred the appointment to be made at an earlier stage, but I can now say that we were right to wait. As hon. Members may know, we announced late last last month the appointment of Mr. Saxon Tate as chief executive. From his most impressive background in industry he will bring to the IDB qualities that we may expect will greatly enhance its performance. He will undoubtedly want to impose his own
  1130
  stamp on the IDB, its organisation and its working methods. I believe that the structure so far drawn up will be sufficiently flexible to permit him to do so.
  As for membership of the board, I have made it clear that the criteria of appointment will be experience and expertise. There will be no representatives of outside interests as such, but only private individuals, chosen for the personal contribution that they can make. We have been very pleased to secure the services of those so far designated as prospective board members. Already they are meeting under the chairmanship of Sir Desmond Lorimer to gear up the new organisation for its formal takeover—subject to the approval of Parliament—on 1 September.
  In the debates in the Northern Ireland Committee I was impressed by the feeling of a number of hon. Members that trade union experience was sufficiently valuable to an organisation of this sort to require two such members for the board rather than the one that I had originally proposed. After discussing this and other issues with the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress, I have accepted that view and I am pleased to say that two trade unionists have now been appointed to the board—Mr. John Freeman and Mr. Pat McCartan. Like other board members, of course, they will serve as individuals and certainly will not be subject to any kind of mandate.
  The guidelines are, as I have indicated, critical in setting the tone of the new body. We have circulated a draft for comments among a wide range of interested people, including hon. Members on the Northern Ireland Committee—copies are in the Vote Office—and have had many views on them, which we are still assessing. There was some feeling among respondents that the guidelines suggested that the board and executive were to be distinct entities, whereas our intention was, of course, just the reverse. They should be perceived as a unitary role. We shall be looking at the presentation of this in finalising the guidelines, which will still, of course, have to reflect the scheme of the order, where the distinction is necessarily made.
  A number of people have also properly sought clarification about what we mean when we talk about the IDB acting "commercially". In a sense the word covers two separate points. First, it is intended to convey that the IDB will be run along businesslike lines and that it will be as free as possible from the constraints of bureaucracy. Secondly, it also refers to what we see as the need for the IDB to take "commercial" decisions about individual cases.
  I accept that that is a dificult concept to be put into operation by a body which is providing grants—an act which, in itself, may be regarded by some as being the antithesis of commercial operation. Certainly the IDB cannot adopt the same criterion of commerciality in looking for a financial return on that grant as might, for example, a merchant bank in seeking a return on its investments.
  The return on a grant cannot come in the form of a pecuniary dividend—it must be measured more in terms of the creation of lasting jobs in viable operations. It is that word "viable" which I regard as crucial and which, in this context, is the test of commerciality. It should be the aim of the IDB to provide assistance to companies only where it is satisfied that following the one-off injection of such assistance the company will be capable of standing on its own feet without further special subsidy. Put another way,

  1131
  it should be reasonable to suppose that the non-Government or private investment, reduced as it is by the provision of grant aid, will generate an adequate commercial return. When loans on equity are involved, again the IDB will need to apply the test of viability.
  I accept that some judgment may be exercised in determining viability and it may be that the IDB would be justified, given the state of the Northern Ireland economy, in accepting a rather slower build-up to viability than might be expected by other commercial institutions.
  I have set out the substance of our plans for the new organisation. I should like to turn for a few minutes to the detail of the draft order. Article 3 sets up the board, and in schedule 1 is prescribed its constitution. Article 4 provides for the ambit of the IDB to be set. The powers of selective assistance in part III obviously cover the mainstream of the IDB's work: but it will have many related activities, such as overseas promotion, provision of sites and factories, trade support and marketing assistance.
  Article 5 sets out the functions of the board, and provides authority for the issue to the board of the directions which are the principal element in the guidelines. Article 6 deals with reports and accounts. Of particular note is article 6(2), which entitles the board, if it wishes, to a statement of reasons for publication in its annual report where its advice is not followed in a particular case. The article also makes clear the Comptroller and Auditor-General's role in the IDB's affairs.
  As for the rest of the draft order, for the first time all the powers of industrial development, at present scattered among half a dozen or so statutes, have been brought together with amendments and repeals to produce a single, coherent and up-to-date code. They are vested in the Department of which the executive is an integral part.
  Article 7 will be the main power under which the IDB will provide assistance to companies for creating and maintaining or safeguarding employment. It also embraces powers at present accorded to the Northern Ireland Development Agency to provide loans or loan guarantees and to make investments but, as in Great Britain, shares or stock will be provided only as a last resort, with the company's consent, and where no other form of assistance is appropriate. Article 8 includes the general industrial development powers of NIDA, which will enable the IDB to establish, carry on and develop industrial undertakings, to give advice to companies, and so on.
  Article 9 amends existing powers to extend the range of circumstances in which assistance can be provided to encourage companies to undertake research and development work and in the marketing of their products. The article will also enable the IBA to assist appropriate scientific research and further the dissemination and practical application in industry of such research. We view that change as most helpful to the generation of research and development work in the Province, and hope that it will attract such work from outside.
  Article 10 will give the IDB powers for acquiring and developing land and providing factories. There is a new provision to enable the IDB to make agreements with others to develop land for industrial use, thus encouraging greater private sector involvement in these functions, which I think can only be beneficial.
  1132
  Article 11 requires the IDB to take account of the needs of different parts of Northern Ireland, for example enabling higher levels of assistance to be paid in areas of highest unemployment. It also contains an amendment, similar to one recently made in Great Britain, requiring the IDB to promote private ownership of interests in industrial undertakings, by disposing of its own interests.
  Article 13 covers a miscellany of general powers by which the IDB will be able to publicise its activities, carry out research and assist visits to the Province by potential investors.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In outlining the articles, the Minister has in each case prefaced his statements with the words "the board". The order actually speaks of the Department. Is the board an integral part of the Department?
  Mr. Butler: Where I have used the words "the board", I have done so to distinguish it. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, this is an advisory board to the executive. It may be that on occasion I have used the IDB as a term that embraces both the board and the Executive. However, in the earlier part of my speech, I made a distinction between the two, and, where necessary, included reference to both the board and the executive.
  Mr. Powell: I apologise for interrupting the Minister again. Article 8 deals with the carrying on or establishment of industrial undertakings, but in that case the Minister said "the board" instead of "the Department". Who will carry on these undertakings? Will it be the Department through the executive or the board? I think that the Minister said the board.
  Mr. Butler: Obviously I would need to check back to see whether I said the board. In fact, the Department, of which the executive is an integral part, will have these powers, because the advisory board will not have powers by statute other than to advise and to oversee the work of the executive. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and the House if I made a slip, but he has allowed me to make it absolutely clear. He was right to read from the order and to draw attention to an important and vital feature of it.
  Part IV of the order—articles 16 to 25—consolidates existing legislation on the standard capital grant scheme. A few useful amendments have been introduced, including a broadening of the definition of a computer, so that grants can be provided to qualifying industrial companies for such items as word processors and microcomputers, which were previously ineligible. This seems a most appropriate change, coming as it does in information technology year.
  In future, the range of industrial activities qualifying for standard capital grants will be open to amendment by statutory rule in a manner similar to the regional development grant provisions in Great Britain.
  Part V of the order, articles 26 to 29, re-enacts the existing provisions about the industrial enterprise fund. This fund has proved over many years to be a useful way of giving small amounts of assistance to deserving projects falling outside the criteria of the main assistance schemes set out in this order.
  Part VI of the order is largely devoted to miscellaneous and supplementary provisions, but I might single out article 30, one of the purposes of which is to give authority for the continued funding of the Local Enterprise Development Unit.

  1133
  One never knows on these occasions quite how much to put into a speech on a subject that has been debated in Committee, but I feel that it was appropriate to cover in some detail what the order provides, because some right hon. and hon. Members will not have been privy to our proceedings before. Therefore, I have spoken with some speed, but I hope that what I have said has been intelligible.
  I have been talking about our proposals for the IDB. I should like to say again that they envisage an organisation which, although within the ultimate responsibility of Ministers, will have a clear identity of its own, and a high degree of commercial freedom in its day-to-day affairs. I am sure that these proposals represent a significant advance. The IDB's work, we all recognise, is of vital importance. There are no organisational panaceas for Northern Ireland's problems. It has a daunting task, but potentially a rewarding one. It is a formidable task and the IDB will need support from all quarters in Northern Ireland. Now that this organisation and our intentions as to how it will operate are more widely known, I am confident that it will receive that support. I commend the order to the House.
  10.52 pm
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: This is a short debate and I shall not, after two sittings in Committee, follow through the lines of the order as we did then. Furthermore, we have the Appropriation debate on Friday and some of the things that we might have wanted to cover in a debate such as this can be forgone until Friday.
  The Opposition welcome the idea of the IDB, and recognise the difficult and demanding job done by the board, the chief executive and the Minister. Whatever is in the draft order and the guidelines, I am satisfied that at the end of the day it is the Minister who has the most important part to play in putting the order into effect.
  The Government have presided over the destruction of jobs to the extent that there is now unemployment of more than 20 per cent. overall in Northern Ireland, and 40 per cent. in the towns. The decimation of whole industries has created a lack of confidence in Northern Ireland that will be difficult to retrieve. The IDB will have to direct much of its energies into developing confidence again for some time.
  I visited Northern Ireland last week and was expecting in my naive way that, after all our efforts in the House, I should be talking about devolved powers in Northern Ireland or about security. I found to my surprise that nobody wanted to talk about them, as they are "back numbers". The only topics of conversation were the unemployment rate and the lack of jobs.
  I found a lack of will, because the commitment had gone, and an acceptance of what was happening. If an unemployment rate such as that existed in my constituency, I assure those hon. Gentlemen who were absent last night that I should have been here looking after my 40 per cent. unemployed to see that they got back the 5 per cent. abatement that was pinched off them by the Government. Many of the unemployed in Northern Ireland will want to know why their Members of Parliament were not here last night to look after their interests.
  If the IDB is to work, and it must work, it will have to remove the air of gloom and despondency, not only from the people of Northern Ireland but from those who have the unenviable job of selling Northern Ireland abroad.
  1134
  I met the chairman, Sir Desmond Lorimer, and other members of the board and I think that they know what has to be done. It seems that the Minister has brought together an excellent group of members. As we say in north Nottinghamshire, they are ready to give it a go.
  I am particularly glad that the Minister agreed to our plea that two trade union representatives should be appointed to the board. I know that he has appointed them as individuals, but I think that they will be invaluable, just as they have been to NIDA. When the Minister is talking to industrialists and entrepreneurs around the world he will find that the help and assistance given by the trade union movement, through the board members, will be exemplary.
  There does not seem to be much disagreement over the guidelines. I have received no representations against them. As I said in Committee, the financial limits are fairly generous and the Minister will be involved above the limits. I approve of that.
  Many of us are worried about the phrase "commercial viability" which is a common thread in the order and the guidelines and was referred to by the Minister. We need an explanation of what those words mean in Northern Ireland. Commercial viability means one thing in the rest of the United Kingdom but something different in Northern Ireland, which starts a pace behind Britain. The Minister must define the phrase more clearly.
  I asked the board whether it would be responsible for defining those words and whether the phrase would give it sufficient flexibility. If the board has to operate within the Government's monetarist policies, it cannot expect to achieve much success. As long as the Minister recognises that commercial viability has a different meaning in the Northern Ireland context and the board has the necessary flexibility, I shall be happy. I want the scheme to be successful and I shall measure success by whether the Government get back quickly to the circumstances that they inherited in May 1979.
  Much will depend on the board and the energy and drive of the chairman and board members. I commend the Minister for bringing together such a board. I have not met the chief executive, but he has fine credentials and world-wide experience—and he will need all of that. In addition, the Minister will have to throw off some of the dogma of the Government's monetarist policies and think a little more about the people of Northern Ireland.
  There must be no more slip-ups, such as occurred over Hyster, which the Minister of State and the Secretary of State referred to in Committee. It was a rather unfortunate episode. The Industrial Development Board, the Minister and other officials in the Department must gear themselves up and not make such a mistake again. It was a terrible knock to confidence in Northern Ireland. During my visit I found that there seems to be an acceptance that the Province will cease to be an industrial area and that the disappearing jobs are a sign of the times. That should not happen.
  The Opposition wish the board and the Minister all success for the future not only of the board but of the work force. We shall allow the order to go through without opposition and we hope that the board will bring success and more jobs, which are desperately needed, to Northern Ireland.
  11 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: As the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said, for certain reasons Ulster Members were not present last night in full strength. But if the Labour Party had had 20 per cent. of its members present and voting in the numerous Divisions on the Northern Ireland Bill, it would have a clean record and could look the people of Northern Ireland in the face. It may even select some candidates and test its policies at the polls.
  Mr. Concannon: The difference is that we were not opposed to the Northern Ireland Bill. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he supported the proposal to retain the 5 per cent. abatement?
  Mr. Molyneaux: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that sometimes it was difficult for the Committee to discover whether the Labour Party were in favour of or opposed to the Northern Ireland Bill, because Labour Members said nothing. The right hon. Gentleman said that we spent much time on that Bill. That accusation could be levelled at the Government Front Bench, at my right hon. and hon. Friends and I and at other Ulster Members, but not at the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) because they spoke on only two issues.
  In our first debate in Committee on the Northern Ireland Bill at the end of March, the Minister said that he had appointed six members to the board. I regret that he enlarged that figure, because it has been our experience that, where decision-making is the vital consideration, six would be much more efficient than 12. If the enlarged board is sluggish because of its size, the result will be that decisions will be taken by the Minister, the chairman and the chief executive. That may not be bad, because speed is essential and we are in favour of streamlining and efficiency rather than trying to win the battle against unemployment by committee.
  Article 5 provides that the board's functions will be

  "(a) to advise the Head of the Department…

  (b) oversee the exercise by the Executive of its functions."

  The first function need not be a great problem because Ministers are accustomed to listening to advice and are well-versed in the art of disregarding it. I exclude the Minister of State from that category.
  The second function is more likely to cause trouble. Ideally, the board would support, encourage and inspire its chief executive. A good board could always provide a bank of experience and knowledge, from which the chief executive could draw. But I fear that it will not do that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said in an earlier debate, it is more likely to form a layer of fog through which elected representatives and entrepreneurs alike will grope in search of answers and decisons. With the best will in the world, it is bound to be so. We have all found from experience that any structure interposed in the machinery of government always becomes a buffer behind which incompetence, inefficiency and indecision rapidly multiply. I fear that it will be so in this case.
  In the second function there is a disturbing phrase that the advice is to be given
  "in relation to specific cases".
  As one would expect, the draftsmen hedge their bets when they say
  1136
  "advise the Executive, both generally and in relation to specific cases".
  One would expect any well-bred board to advise generally. That is what boards are for. The advice may be sound or unsound, but that will not prevent or inhibit it from offering advice. So we can take that as read.
  Nevertheless, what is meant by
  "in relation to specific cases"?
  Does it mean that the executive will seek the board's advice on projects of a rather doubtful nature? We have had far too many of them in Northern Ireland. Does it mean that the board will meddle and attempt to decide by committee? I hope that it means that the board, and particularly its chairman, will keep a general watch on events to ensure that disasters are avoided but that the chief executive will be free of all shackles and allowed to get on with his job of making things happen.
  I hope, too, that the chairman will be encouraged to sanction and approve important decisions without waiting for the stated meeting of his board. In a competitive world—one example was brought to our notice tonight by the right hon. Member for Mansfield—delay can cost contracts and new jobs.
  In short, the chairman of the new board will have to become almost as full-time as his chief executive. At this stage, perhaps I might be permitted to pay a sincere tribute to the chairman of the Northern Ireland Development Agency, Mr. Denis Faulkner. Over the years, he has proved to be a man of sound judgment and the utmost integrity. He has inculcated those qualities in his NIDA staff who, with their new colleagues from the combined Department of Commerce—formerly the Departments of Commerce and Manpower Services—will form the backbone of the administrative base of the new board.
  The new structure faces a daunting challenge, as the Minister said. With a forecast rise in national unemployment to 3½ million, there will be a proportionate increase in the Northern Ireland figure, and of course, that increase will take much longer to reverse than in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is admitted that the causes of that disastrous total are varied and complex, but it is important that the scale of the jobless in Northern Ireland should be placed firmly on the record now so that the structure created by this order tonight and any elected body in Northern Ireland in the future will not be saddled with blame for further failures.
  In recent months, Ulster has not been untouched by the boost in national morale. This contradicts what the right hon. Member for Mansfield said. He seems to have spoken to people of a pessimistic turn of mind when he was in Northern Ireland, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends who have been there recently will take the opposite view. People are now eager to get on with their jobs and utilise those talents that have been smothered for several years. I hope that the amalgamated Departments and the new board will match that mood and, above all, recognise that theirs is an opportunity that may never come again.
  11.10 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to make a brief comment on the speech of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). I shall not be afraid to face the electorate of Northern Ireland on the question of unemployment. I do not think that he would suggest that his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West

  1137
  (Mr. Fitt), who was not here last night, was not interested in unemployment in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman knows the circumstances of Northern Ireland on 13 July.
  I have consistently voted on the principle that a different employment policy should be pursued by the Government, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). If the right hon. Gentleman checks the lists in the Lobby tonight he will find where my vote always lies in that regard. I am glad that the Government have promised that the 5 per cent. will be returned. I trust that that promise will be kept at the appropriate time.
  We are discussing tonight the machinery under which jobs can be created, promoted and increased in Northern Ireland. To that end, Northern Ireland should have the best possible machinery. No hon. Member, and especially the unemployed and others in Northern Ireland, should be under any misapprehension that to have the proper machinery will suddenly resolve the cancer of unemployment in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has serious unemployment. It is a running sore in our community. However, I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Mansfield that people in Northern Ireland are not concerned about terrorism. The right to live is the most important right of all. If one does not have the right to live, the benefits of a job cannot be enjoyed.
  I regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not visit the Unionist side of the fence on his visit to Northern Ireland. Had he done so, he might have had a more balanced view of events in Northern Ireland. Despite the dark and difficult days that people in Northern Ireland have undergone, there is a buoyant spirit there—the spirit of the Ulster-Scots that has been the foundation of Northern Ireland from its plantation. That spirit has always conquered and I am confident that it will conquer now.
  I congratulate the Minister on his agreement on flexibility. It is important that there should be flexibility in the working of the new board and the executive. Without that, there will be more sad stories about job promoters who would have come, but who have gone elsewhere because of the difficulties and the insufficient flexibility. The House should face up to the fact that the Irish Republic is our competitor in this field. It will offer everything that it can to those in the United Kingdom who are interested in promoting new jobs. If they intend to choose Northern Ireland, there will be a play-off. Those who intend to come to Northern Ireland go to the Department to find what it can give them. They then go straight to Dublin to ask how much it will give them, and make their decision accordingly. I want the board to be flexible so that it can take decisions quickly.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) put his finger on it when he said that the decisions must be taken quickly. That is at the heart of our case. Industrialists who are keen to promote jobs and to set up manufacturing industries in Northern Ireland want a quick decision. Can the chairman and the executive make decisions without waiting for a regular board meeting? If there is to be a delay before a regular board meeting is held, we shall often miss the boat.
  Has the Minister completed his nominations to the board? Is the board now complete? I am glad that the hon. Gentleman listened to the representations made by the Opposition, by my party's representatives and, particularly, in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for
  1138
  Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). They requested that there should be two representatives from the trade union side. I am glad that the Minister conceded that point. I am also glad that they have not been appointed from the Irish Congress and that they are independent men with trade union experience. Indeed, Mr. John Freeman has already done signal service in this area. Those of us involved in job promotion know of his energy, dedication and commitment to bringing employment to Northern Ireland. I am sure that Mr. Freeman's colleague will share the same spirit. All who are appointed to the board will no doubt be dedicated and I trust that that dedication will show.
  We stressed to the Minister that there should be a place on the board for Sir Charles Carter, chairman of the Northern Ireland Economic Council. I do not know whether he has yet reached a decision. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the last meeting, but I read the report of it. I believe that the Minister talked to Sir Charles Carter about that. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will say whether he has completed his nominations to the board and whether Sir Charles Carter is to be a member.
  Indeed, I pay tribute to Sir Charles Carter and to the way in which he has chaired the Northern Ireland Economic Council. His independence has encouraged those of us who want to hear that independent voice I trust that the Minister will make a full statement about that. I understood the Minister to say that the Executive will be able to give grants of up to £5 million, excluding factory accommodation. That shows the Minister's liberality. Is the Minister to suggest a ceiling on job costs? That is an important point. Indeed, I think that the right hon. Member for Mansfield raised it in Committee. I do not want the Minister to tell us that that is the limit and that that is that, but perhaps he will comment on it and confirm that there will be some flexibility and that the board will be able to deal realistically with job costs.
  There are many factors that tell against job promotion and the solution of the unemployment problem in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is short of natural resources. It has difficulty with transport and high energy costs. At the heart of the problem lies terrorism. Terrorists who burn buses in Londonderry, make railway lines unusable and destroy property, tell against the injection of money and investment in the Province. There is a world recession and the Government's monetary policy has been detrimental to Northern Ireland.
  The Minister has to face up to the fact that, if we are to obtain outside investment, the Government must put their money where their mouth is. They have to invest in Northern Ireland. That is important. I trust that the Minister will be able to push the Treasury on those matters, and that we shall have news of Government investment in Northern Ireland. That is of the utmost importance.
  There is no doubt that the credentials of Mr. Tate, the new executive member, are very fine. I listened to the first broadcast he made in Northern Ireland, and I believe that he struck the right note when he talked about the importance of promoting indigenous industry. The indigenous firms which have borne the brunt of the trouble should be encouraged to expand their work forces. In that way vital progress will be made.
  Many employers say to the representatives of the public "If we had a southern American drawl and a large cowboy hat we might get more money from the Department. Because we are Ulstermen we do not get the

  1139
  encouragement that we should." Whether the Minister likes it or not, that is the opinion of people in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Mansfield knows that that opinion is held. It should be made obvious immediately that this new board will encourage indigenous industry. Encouragement must be given to local firms and men to keep them in business. Some of the speeches made in Committee underlined that important fact. I trust that the Minister will take that on board.
  I find it difficult to decide where the responsibility of the board and the executive end and where the Minister's responsibility takes over. Is the Minister in overall control? To whom is the board accountable? Will the Minister elighten us on that, or does he find it difficult to decide where the board's responsibility begins and ends? I hope that the board, the executive and its chairman will be able to make some impression on unemployment in Northern Ireland. They have the good wishes of the people. There is plenty of good will. I trust that it will do a good job.
  I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, South about Mr. Faulkner and the work that he did with the Northern Ireland Development Agency. Some of us had differences with NIDA, naturally, but we did not impugn the integrity of those who managed it and worked with it. I trust that some progress will be made and that the Minister will be able to announce that jobs are coming to Northern Ireland. I trust that firms that are bearing the burden and heat of the day will advance and strengthen their hold on the Northern Ireland economy.
  11.25 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Some remarks by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) had the effect of ruffling feelings in the House, As one of those who, with my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), was in the Lobby—and the right Lobby—last night, I did not take that part of the right hon. Gentleman's observation too personally and was not wounded by it. But I was distressed by something else that he said, which appeared to show that he had gathered the impression of a atmoshpere of apathy and resignation in the Province.
  I join hon. Members from both Antrim constituencies in repudiating that. The right hon. Gentleman must have been in very strange company indeed. It was untypical company. I have had the good fortune in the last three days to attend no fewer than two conferments of the Queen's award for industry involving major productive units in the Province and in a town in my constituency. There was no doubt whatsoever that the vigour and resilience of those who worked and managed the firms had made a decisive contribution to the export success of the two undertakings.
  It is a travesty to present the people of Northern Ireland as apathetic and not vigorous and enterprising in their outlook. With all the heavy unemployment, a striking feature, which all—except the right hon. Gentleman—who visit Northern Ireland recognise, is that there remains a sense of enterprise and hopefulness.
  I should not like any remarks by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to induce hon. Members less well acquainted than they should be with Northern Ireland history to equate Ulster and its beginnings with the plantation. There was an Ulster—and a distinctive
  1140
  Ulster—clearly continuous with the one that we know today, long before the plantation. The effect of the plantation has been grossly exaggerated, numerically and in other respects.
  Of course, the Scottish dimension about which my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), much to the irritation of the Northern Ireland Office, talks from time to time, is a reality. As one who represents Down, South I am in the position to understand that many more elements than the Scottish element have entered into the unique personality of Ulster.
  I assure the House that Ulster's personality is one not only of determination, but of hopefulness and enterprise, even in adversity. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Mansfield was unable to find it when so many others find it so evident.
  It would be unfortunate if we did not realise, in approving the order, what a constitutional chimera is being created by this decision. The Minister was frank and helpful this evening in his analysis of the constitutional position that will be created. He said that the whole will be within the ultimate responsibility of Ministers. I do not think that that can be faulted. He said that there would be two sections of the new Department—one would be the executive and the other would be the rest of the Department—and that the board, statutorily speaking, in so far as statutory responsibilities are concerned, would be largely of an advisory character.
  I think that that is a correct statement of the position, as I understand it in the terms of the order, but it leaves us with a potential difficulty in the future because the Minister proposes to devolve—if I may dare to use that word—certain functions which are functions of his Department to the executive working for that purpose under the oversight of the board. The fact that he does so and takes that decision does not, however, alter his financial and his political responsibilities to the House. For all the decisions that get taken, even for the smallest decision within the guidelines which is taken by the executive, even in the matters where he intends to be substantially guided by the advice of the board, the decision in the end and the action will be ministerial. It will be action for which he is responsible.
  I do not regard that, as I have said in previous debates upon this subject, as being a defect. On the contrary, there are great advantages in ministerial responsibility being undivided and clear. The danger that I see is that too much will be expected of the quasi-independence—the Minister went so far as to use the words "effective autonomy" in his speech—which will attach to the executive and to the board. We are not creating a new Heaven and a new earth. We have not discovered a method whereby the autonomy of a part of a Department or the autonomous advice of the board can be combined with the overall ministerial responsibility.
  There will be least misunderstanding if it is grasped at the outset that this board, for all that we say about it, will be advisory, hortatory and encouraging in its activities. It will not be executive. It will not be a board that will take its own line. It cannot be a board that will strike out a new policy or a policy of its own in the financing of employment and industrial development in the Province. That responsibility will lie in the proper place, where the money is answered for. It will lie with the Minister.
  I am not sure that the effect of dressing up that reality—an advisory board on the one hand and ministerial

  1141
  responsibility on the other—by the device of the executive and the oversight of the board will not cause more misunderstanding and perhaps, at a later stage, more heartburning than the effort was worth.
  It is all very well for us to make speeches now before the organisation comes into existence, but it is when mistakes are made and are seen retrospectively to have been made in industrial development, when projects that people believe should have come to Northern Ireland do not come to Northern Ireland, and when opportunities that people believe should have been taken appear to have been neglected that the criticism will start and the pressure will begin to be exerted. It will be futile in those circumstances to suppose that the board or the executive will be able to take the responsibility. They will not. They will say "We gave this or that advice" and the executive will say "This executive is a part of the Department."
  If there were any doubt about that relationship, it is made clear enough in the wording of article 6(6)(a), which relates to cases where the board has given advice to the executive and the executive has not taken it or has done the other thing. In those circumstances the board is given the right to demand a public explanation. It is the head of the Department—in present circumstances the Minister—who furnishes the explanation and takes that responsibility. So the true relationship is revealed.
  One hopes that the board will contribute something by its advice and encouragement and by the information and experience of its members. However, in the end we are relying upon the finance which is provided by the House—indirectly, perhaps, but still by the House and under the authority of the House—and the judgment and the administration of the Department to do whatever can be done for employment and enterprise in the Province on the lines of the order. It is just as well at the outset that that should not be open to misunderstanding.
  11.37 pm
  Mr. Adam Butler: It is pleasant to have had such a general welcome for the order. It is equally pleasant, despite the late hour, to have had it analysed, not least by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I have a sufficient number of minutes left to try to deal with most of the matters that have been raised. I shall not enter into the little argument, which is not entirely related to our affairs tonight, which seems to have hung over from 13 July. I was in the Province on that day enjoying myself, but I returned for the vote in question.
  The way in which the executive and the board will interrelate and the way in which decisions will be taken go to the crux of the order. The appointment of two trade unionists brought the number on the board to 10, which leaves two places below the maximum of 12. Those two places will be filled as and when we find the appropriate persons to fill them.
  As I said in Committee, Sir Charles Carter would have made a considerable contribution to the affairs of the board. I discussed with him the possibility of his serving on it. However, I put it to him that as chairman of the economic council, which is essentially an independent body, it would be probably best if he were to retain that independence entirely by remaining as its chairman and not involving himself immediately in the affairs of the board. Reference has been made to that independence, and I believe that Sir Charles and I saw very much eye to eye.
  1142
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that he was glad to learn of the £5 million in grants towards projects that created employment. That was probably a slight slip of the tongue because £5 million is a total possible figure made up of £3 million of grant and, where appropriate, up to £2 million-worth of equity investment, plus—again where appropriate—training grants and the provision of a lease of a factory. Those are fairly substantial sums. They are the right ones in the circumstances.
  The cost per job figures operate at the moment and will continue to do so. For obvious reasons, they will remain confidential, but they will operate according to the various zones that represent the different degrees of need in the Province.
  I am always pleased to repeat, although I should not have to do so so often, that under Government policy and, according to the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), Labour Party policy, there is always support for indigenous industry. The same grants are available to indigenous companies as are available to others that might wish to invest in Northern Ireland. Sometimes selective assistance to companies coming in to Northern Ireland works out higher as such investment tends to be mobile—there is not much of it about at the moment—and one must pay fairly highly for it.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said that the board should be smaller. If we were discussing an executive board, I might agree. The proposed one, however, is advisory by statute. It will need to draw on a great breadth of experience and undertake committee work. A board of the type that the hon. Gentleman suggested, therefore, might be too small. I refute his suggestion that such a board would provide a layer of fog or a buffer behind which incompetence could flourish. That is not in the nature of the beast or of the individuals who will serve on the board. Perhaps that will emerge when I deal with the two crucial points of the debate.
  I gave my description of what we mean by commercial viability with some care. We shall amplify as appropriate in the guidelines. The projects about which the Industrial Development Board advises on financial support must, with the benefit of that financial support, be expected to succeed and prosper. They must be expected to be viable. The board will not be expected to put public money into hopeless causes. To that extent, I may fall out with the right hon. Member for Mansfield, but I believe not.
  Cases that should be supported for social reasons would not be a matter for the processes that I have described. Although the board will give its advice, the decision will rest firmly with the Minister. There may be circumstances when the Minister judges that for social reasons the test of commercial viability should not apply. With regard to the Industrial Development Board, however, that test must apply. That is desirable to ensure the proper use of public money.
  Mr. Concannon: The Minister is getting on to the same plane in suggesting that there may be a political input in some of the decisions because the social background is a political input. If he is saying that that is part of commercial viability, that is fine with me. That is part and parcel of the package in Northern Ireland. The social

  1143
  package is involved in the political decisions. Only the Minister can make those decisions, and in doing so he will sometimes have to overrule the board.
  Mr. Butler: I think that that is a fair assessment, although one should perhaps also point out that the extent of grant aid and financial support that the board and the executive may have at their disposal will take into account the social needs of particular areas of the Province. For instance, the availability of the higher rates of assistance will itself reflect the social needs of areas of particularly high unemployment. Having applied the maximum grant to a project, the board and the executive must then assess whether the project can succeed with the benefit of that grant. That is the test of commercial viability—whether the project will be able to stand on its own feet once that money has been put behind it.
  The relationship between the board and the executive and the Minister has been debated at length. We have tried to find and, I believe, have succeeded in finding, the best solution. In Northern Ireland, inevitably, large sums of money are spent generally and specifically on industrial development and it is right that there should be full accountability for such expenditure. Equally, decisions in regard to that expenditure need to be taken with the full benefit of commercial experience. As has been emphasised again today, the decisions should be taken swiftly and as far as possible without the contraints of what I would describe as excessive bureaucracy.
  Therefore, we have tried to find a way in which to use all the advantages of the private sector in taking such decisions while still clearly providing for proper accountability. I do not believe that there is any contradiction in what we propose, although I acknowledge that we shall have to see how the relationships work out in practice. All those concerned—including myself, but particularly the chief executive, who will come new to his job, and the chairman of the board who will also be taking on a job that is in a sense new to him—will have to feel their way and discover how best to work together.
  Mr. John Dunlop: Will the Minister or his colleagues make it their business to direct the activities of this new organisation to those parts of Northern Ireland in which unemployment is of stupendous proportions? I refer, of course, to places such as Strabane and Cookstown. Will they come in for special attention to relieve the very high unemployment there? The Minister hinted earlier that ministerial activity would be somewhat limited but that the people appointed would be acting strongly to bring about some relief of unemployment in the Province. Will the Minister, with his knowledge of those areas, undertake that that will be done?
  Mr. Butler: The brief answer is that in the same way that the Department and I have not made it our practice to direct investment to any particular part of the Province, the Industrial Development Board will not do so either. If its members are not aware of the needs of certain parts of the Province—it should be remembered that they are all
  1144
  Ulstermen—no doubt they will become aware of them very quickly and will seek in the same way as Ministers and officials, and the Northern Ireland Development Agency as appropriate, have sought in the past to encourage investment in those areas in which the need is so great. Moreover, they will have available the higher rates of grant that apply in such areas.
  I come back to the relationship that the right hon. Member for Down, South explored with his usual thoroughness. I do not find it difficult to envisage that decisions on individual cases of a certain size can be left, in effect, to a board to advise on and an executive to act on. The reason for leaving such decisions to the board and the executive is exactly to meet the point made on previous occasions, and again tonight, that decisions should be taken swiftly and with speed, but also taken on the best commercial judgment.
  There are three important safeguards. The first is the financial limits. Although we refer to these as being comparatively generous, they are still, in each individual case, strictly limited. The second safeguard is the position of the chief executive, acting in his capacity as an accounting officer. I refer to a sentence in the draft guidelines which states:
  "Where the Chief Executive considers that for him to proceed on the advice of the Board would be inconsistent with his role as Accounting Officer, he shall report the matter to the Minister".
  This means that the chief executive, as a civil servant and as an accounting officer in the Department, will have the same responsibilities as he would have if that board did not exist. The third safeguard concerns the position of the Minister. I do not feel that I am putting myself at risk by giving this effective freedom to the board and the executive to operate. I have, in that cohesive unity of the board and the executive, a man who is an accounting officer in the Department and who also will be charged with one responsibility—to draw to the Minister's attention such cases where he believes that there may be a doubt and where the Minister should have the opportunity to comment before the cases go to the board. That, too, is written in the guidelines and was referred to in committee.
  The procedures that we have laid down can meet the points made by the right hon. Gentleman, particularly on accountability and ultimate rsponsibility, but equally give the swiftness and commercial nature that we want for the operations of the board.
  The right hon. Member for Mansfield said that he wished, with the best will in the world, to see the new Industrial Development Board succeed. I cannot ask for more than that from the right hon. Gentleman in his capacity, leading for the Opposition. His feelings have been expressed by others who have spoken in the debate. With that good spirit behind it, I commend the board and executive to the Province and I commend the order to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.

  Gaelic Athletic Association (Grants)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
  11.54 pm
  Mr. William Ross: The Minister will be aware that I tabled questions on two occasions to seek information on the amount of money paid to the Gaelic Athletic Association from public funds in Northern Ireland. The first question was answered on 7 July 1980 and the second—by sheer chance—on 7 July 1982.
  As a result of those questions, I discovered that between 10 June 1962 and 31 March 1980, the GAA benefited from public funds to the extent of £330,682. For the second period, a further £243,427 was paid to it. The grants from the Department of Education in the period June 1962 to March 1982 totalled £520,000, and in general were for pavilions and the purchase of pitches and equipment. The Sports Council gave a further £4,453 for equipment, and the rest, £48,741, also came from the Sports Council for administration, training, coaching and travel costs. As well as this, the GAA has benefited from various summer schemes and the provision of pitches organised and provided by councils.
  These sums were all paid because successive Governments have decided to treat the GAA as a normal sporting and recreational body that carries out useful work in those areas and is, therefore, worthy of support. That Government perception is not shared by anyone in Northern Ireland who knows anything whatever about the organisation. The general perception there is of an organisation that exists primarily for a political purpose and that it is using its sporting ventures as an ancillary to forward that political purpose.
  The Minister must surely be aware of the bitter reactions that are aroused among those who are opposed to the GAA's political objectives whenever and wherever it tries to establish its presence. It will try establish its presence at every opportunity, whether or not it is welcome in the area.
  I accept that there is no point in my making such allegations against this organisation unless I am prepared to submit evidence to support my contentions. As evidence from sources hostile to the GAA would, I believe, not be acceptable to the Government, I shall in the main confine myself to what is obtainable from its own official sources.
  First, I refer to revised rules 1 to 32 of the official guide, in which the GAA charter states:
  "The name of the Association shall be 'The Gaelic Athletic Association' … The Association is a National Organisation which has as its basic aim the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 county Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic games and pastimes … The Association further seeks to achieve its objectives through the active support of Irish culture, with a constant emphasis on the importance of the preservation of the Irish language and its greater use in the life of the nation; and, in the development of a community spirit, to foster an awareness and love of the national ideals in the people of Ireland … The membership and resources of the Association shall be utilised for and dedicated solely to the foregoing aims".
  Clearly, the GAA sees those aims as being fulfilled only in a united Ireland outside the United Kingdom, and it seeks that as its first objective, for the membership and resources of the association are in the first instance used and dedicated to that political objective.
  Rule 9 states that the Irish language is to be used whenever and wherever it is possible to use it.
  1146
  Rule 15 discriminates against persons on the grounds of nationality and job. It states:
  "British soldiers, navy men, and police shall not be eligible for membership of the Association".
  That rule was originally drawn up in 1884, so the Royal Air Force is excluded because it did not exist at that time.
  The rule continues:
  "A member of the Association participating in dances or similar entertainments, promoted by or under the patronage of such bodies, shall incur suspension for at least 3 months".
  There is a coercive force behind the ban, and that is applied to the general public who are admitted to the association.
  Rule 31 prohibits all other games in grounds under the control of the GAA.
  There I end my quotations from the revised rules, which were published on 22 May 1971. The official guide that preceded them is a much larger document—
  Mr. James Molyneautx: The authorised version.
  Mr. Ross: As my hon. Friend says, it was the authorised version. It was published in 1966. It is a comprehensive document and if the Minister has not yet managed to procure a copy, no doubt he will do so and read it later.
  The document starts by saying that there are legions of voluntary workers willing to make sacrifices to promote the association's ideals and carry out its daily purpose. It asks why it receives this unselfish support. This sections continues:
  "Those who play its games, those who organise its activities and those who control its destinies see in the GAA a means of consolidating our Irish identity. The games to them are more than games—they have a national significance—and the promotion of native pastimes becomes a part of the full national ideal … The primary purpose of the GAA is the organisation of native pastimes and the promotion of athletic fitness as a means to create a disciplined, self-reliant, national-minded manhood … Since she has not control over all the national territory, Ireland's claim to nationhood is impaired."
  This is a threat used throughout the whole of not only the association but republicanism in Ireland in general.
  "To-day, the native games take on a new significance when it is realised that they have been a part, and still are a part, of the nation's desire to live her own life, to govern her own affairs.
  Those who are unaware of the conditions that called the GAA into being, and of the national significance that attaches to the native games may be forgiven if, to them, one game is as good as another. But those who know our country's history and understand the role that the GAA has played in it will see that, until complete nationhood is achieved, the Association must continue to maintain an all-embracing patriotic spirit … This national side of the GAA and its dedication to the ideal of an Irish-Ireland must be kept to the forefront at all times. To the youth of Ireland, a knowledge of the circumstances in which the GAA was founded, of the part it played in the years before the Rising of 1916, of the share its members had in the fight for freedom, is merely knowledge of their own inheritance and should not be withheld from them. Such knowledge would mark out the native games as more than mere games and would show that the Association which promotes them has had, and still has, a strong influence for National good."
  Had we but more time, I could spend an hour at least on the short section that I have already read, to explain what it means in an Irish context. I only wish that there were more hon. Members here to understand it.
  On page 15 of the same paper, it says:
  "MICHAEL CUSACK conceived in the Association a powerful bulwark against the inroads of alien influences and ideas of existence. He was the uncompromising champion of all distinctive Gaelic traditions, institutions and cultural possessions and fashioned the GAA as a future army of resurgent Gaeldom."

  1147
  Dr. Croke is mentioned. It says:
  "Dr. Croke realised the immense moral benefits to be gained by organisation and discipline and as an advocate of national independence, he saw in those self-disciplined ranks an invaluable force for the attainment of that long-sought goal."
  Dr. Croke was the patron of the association and was the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel and Emly. This is the letter that he wrote on 18 December 1884, and there is no reason to suppose that the Gaelic association and those who support it have changed their attitude in the intervening 98 years. He says:
  "One of the most painful, let me assure you, and, at the same time, one of the most frequently recurring reflections that, as an Irishman, I am compelled to make in connection with the present aspect of things in this country, is derived from the ugly and irritating fact, that we are daily importing from England, not only her manufactured goods, which we cannot help doing, since she has practically strangled our own manufacturing appliances, but, together with her fashions, her accents, her vicious literature, her music, her dances, and her manifold mannerisms, her games also, and her pastimes, to the utter discredit of our own grand national sports, and to the sore humiliation, as I believe, of every genuine son and daughter of the old land.
  Ball-playing, hurling, football-kicking according to Irish rules, 'casting', leaping in various ways, wrestling, handy-grips, top-pegging, leap-frog, rounders, tip-in-the hat, and all such favourite exercises and amusements amongst men and boys may now be said to be not only dead and buried, but in several localities to be entirely forgotten and unknown. And what have we got in their stead? We have got such foreign and fantastic field sports as lawn tennis—"
  I wonder what Mr. Connors and Mr. McEnroe would think of that—
  "polo"—
  I wonder what His Royal Highness would think of that—
  "croquet, cricket and the like".
  I understand that recently the SDLP chairman of Magherafelt council refused to allow a message of congratulations to be sent to the Northern Ireland soccer team on the ground that it was playing a foreign game. That demonstrates that that attitude still underlies the whole approach of the GAA.
  There is much more that I could say, but I must not detain the House. No doubt the Under-Secretary will read the words of Dr. Croke:
  "there is something rather pleasing to the eye in the get-up of a modern young man, who arrayed in light attire, with particoloured cap on and a racquet in hand, making his way, with or without a companion, to the tennis ground."
  Evidently he did not think much of tennis or any other such game.
  Rule 10 on page 39 demands that the Irish flag be displayed at all matches. It mentions the national flag, but it means the tricolour. That proclaims the right to rule over a 32-county Ireland and it is the rejection of this House and the Queen's writ. Even if the House does not understand that, the people of Northern Ireland do. That is why the concept of flying the tricolour at Gaelic games rouses such fury in the heart and mind of the ordinary Ulster citizen.
  Rule 27 on page 53 provides:
  "Any member who plays, attends, or helps to promote Rugby, Soccer, Hockey, or Cricket thereby incurs automatic suspension from membership of the Association."
  Rule 28 provides that the chairman has the right to appoint vigilante members to
  "visit centres within the County, Province, or area … where excluded games and entertainments are held and to report to the Officer responsible … the attendance of members of the Association".
  1148
  That rule has been modified, but the ethos remains. Rule 29 on page 54 provides:
  "A Council, Committee, or Club shall not organise any entertainment at which foreign dances are permitted. No Club or Club Committee shall hold a dance, until it shall have submitted its programme to the County Committee, and until it has been approved of by them."
  The penalty for a breach of the rules is, of course, suspension.
  Rule 42 on page 61 provides:
  "County committees shall have power to confine membership of clubs to the parish in which players reside or work."
  That is the parish under the jurisdiction of a parish priest. It is a sectarian rule, although it may not appear so on the surface. The boundaries used are those of the Roman Catholic Church's parishes. Rule 82 provides that Sunday play, which is obnoxious to so many in Northern Ireland, is one of the criteria for the playing of finals in Dublin. It does not matter where the games are played; the fact that the rules are specific on that point is sufficient to raise many hackles in Ulster.
  Rule 88 states:
  "For inter-county games each Minor and Under-21 Championship player shall procure an authenticated parochial certificate of age."
  That is also a sectarian rule, because it refers to the Roman Catholic parochial certificate of age. Rule 110 on page 55 provides that meetings of the governing body shall take place on Sundays—again violating many of the standards of Sunday observance in Northern Ireland.
  The only implication of all those rules is that my contention that political objectives are paramount for the GAA is correct, as is my contention that it discriminates against persons on grounds of nationality and the jobs that they do.
  The right of the GAA to be treated as a normal sporting and recreational body was challenged by Magherafelt district council. The council lost the case, but only, I am advised, on a narrow point of law. The action was raised under section 19 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which covers discrimination by public authorities. It is followed up by section 23 of the Act. I shall not weary the Minister by reading it all. I am sure that in his preparation for the debate he has considered the case in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
  Section 19 of the 1973 Act is weaker than the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order and the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, both of which contain express provisions against indirect discrimination. Section 19 covers only direct discrimination by the governing body. I hope that the Minister will read all the rules soon because I do not wish him to rely only on my words, as the Secretary of State did recently in relation to false reports fed to him about Linfield football club. But if he reads the rules and has heard what I say tonight, I hope that the Minister will refuse further grants to the Gaelic Athletic Association.
  Judge Murray found for Purvis in the case against Magherafelt district council on the ground that the coaching scheme dropped by the council was not a direct subsidy to the Gaelic Athletic Association because it involved rental. The gist of the judge's remarks was that if a coaching scheme directly aided the Gaelic Athletic Association—if the council had proposed to hand over a substantial sum of money to the association to enable it to run a scheme—because of the continued existence of rule 15, the point made by the council's counsel would have

  1149
  been formidable. The point raised by the council's solicitor was that the rent paid to the GAA for a GAA pitch was subsidising a discriminatory body. The judge held that such a rent was a straightforward commercial, economic, transaction and the council failed to maintain its case.
  Judge Murray seems to have concluded that, as the quesion of subsidy did not arise, the council had to proceed with its scheme. However, the grants about which we are talking tonight are a direct subsidy to the GAA—the very point that the judge brought to the Government's attention. But the Government of the day did not follow up the matter.
  The Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 prohibits any public authority from discriminating against any person or class of persons on grounds of religious belief or political opinion. There have been decisions in American courts on cases of racial discrimination that could be called in aid if the Government decided to challenge the GAA's right to grants. Those cases, which went to the Supreme Court, said that a Government body could not allow indirect discrimination where it would not be allowed to discriminate indirectly.
  The GAA provides facilities to its members for the playing of Gaelic sports and rule 15 prohibits those who serve in the Army, Navy and police force from becoming members. That is political discrimination, as can be seen clearly in the context of the other rules. In the light of that, the provision of State funds to the association is unlawful as long as it retains rule 15.
  My objections are not to the games played by the GAA. I play no game, I support no game and I support no team. I care little whether players carry, catch, kick, throw or hit a ball, or whether they go hang-gliding or parachute jumping. It is up to them. I ask only that it is done with some respect for other people's views and attitudes.
  My objections are to the motives behind the games played by the GAA. It promotes a series of games and sports not for the sake of the game or the enjoyment of the players. The atmosphere is completely different from that experienced at international soccer, rugby or cricket matches, or even in the World Cup soccer matches, despite the emotional outpourings to which we have been subjected on our television screens recently.
  All support from public funds should cease forthwith, and let the GAA take the Government to court for discrimination in an effort to get it back. It is far better to spend the cash on restoring such things as swimming lessons for children who have been deprived of them. That at least might save some of their lives. That would be far better than subsidising an organisation which is master race motivated, discriminatory, bigoted and anti-British.
  12.14 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Unlike the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), I play a number of sports. I must say that I feel a little like a cricket captain who is now faced with a declaration with little time left in which to make the necessary runs to secure victory.
  I start by dealing with the money given to GAA clubs. It is important to see the grants in perspective. Between 1962 and 1982, the GAA received a total of £445,000 in grant. To put that into perspective, in the year 1980–81—the latest year for which figures were readily available—the Department of Education made grants totalling about £5·5 million to district councils for the
  1150
  provision of sport and recreation facilities. The grant received by the GAA was about 9 per cent. of the total grants that were made to voluntary sporting clubs by the Department—not the total amount of grants that were made, but the limited amount of money that was given to voluntary sporting clubs.
  I accept many of the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the rules of the GAA, but we should remember that the payment of grants to assist GAA clubs and other voluntary sports clubs with restricted membership—there are many sports clubs in Northern Ireland that restrict their membership in one way or another—dates from a decision taken by the Stormont Government in 1959 which, in turn, led to the enactment of the Youth Welfare, Physical Training and Recreation Act (Northern Ireland) 1962. So this is not something that has suddenly occurred or something that has resulted from direct rule or from decisions taken by this Government; it stems from decisions that were taken by the Stormont Administration well before the enactment of direct rule.
  In many ways I find the rules and aims of the GAA, the claims that it makes, the nature of the restrictions imposed, and the nature of the rules that it makes for those sports, repugnant, and in particular rule 15, which refers to British policemen and members of the Army and Navy. It is entirely alien to the attitude of sportsmen in Ireland as a whole and sportsmen in Northern Ireland to have such restrictions in the rules of any club or association. I and other Ministers will do our best to persuade and urge the association to change it. As I say, there are other clubs in Northern Ireland which have restricted entry.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are totally different rates of grant for open and restricted voluntary sports clubs. Since 1962 —this, again, stems from the Stormont period—clubs with restricted membership receive grants of 33⅓ per cent., whereas clubs with open membership receive 50 per cent. grants. So there is a form of discrimination against clubs that restrict in their membership, and if they wish to retain that discrimination, they forgo grant.
  It is worth repeating that all that stems from decisions that were taken by a Stormont Government with an overwhelming Unionist majority. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the publication of the rules and aims of the GAA in 1966. If one looks at the grants given by the Department of Education in Northern Ireland they were £400, £750, £180 and £600 in successive years up to 1966–67. Immediately after that publication there was a dramatic change in the grants made to GAA clubs. They increased from a few hundred pounds to £9,700, £3,500 and £6,700 in the three succeeding years.
  However offensive the aims might have been to the hon. Gentleman, there is no doubt that immediately following the publication of the document making those aims clear, the Stormont Government saw no difficulty in dramatically increasing the grants that were being made to those clubs.
  I do not see a breach of section 19 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. That was raised about four years ago. I doubt whether any court would find that the exclusions under rule 15 and others raised by the hon. gentleman are on grounds of religious belief or political opinion.
  In closing, I say that although I find rule 15 and others of the GAA repugnant, as I am sure they are to other hon. Members, it is worth reiterating the role that sport has

  1151
  played in Northern Ireland in crossing the sectarian divide. The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) may find that a matter of great hilarity but—
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I find it irrelevant.
  Mr. Scott: The right hon. Gentleman may take that view, but I do not agree with him. The GAA has its rules and I find them repugnant, but the right hon. Gentleman should recognise, as I do, the role that sport plays in crossing the division between the communities.
  1152
  Many of the clubs have done a great deal to bring the communities together. Although hon. Members may unite in declaring repugnant the GAA's attitude, it does not stop us paying tribute to the many other sports men in Northern Ireland and, indeed, in the island of Ireland, who see sport as a way of crossing the divide between the communities.
  To see an Irish rugby team and a Northern Ireland soccer team bringing great achievements, with no divisions between the communites, is a great lesson to the GAA and to all those who try to bring sectarianism into sport.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Twelve o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Divorce
  Divorce
TRADE
  Light Bulbs (Imports)
  Light Bulbs (Imports)
  Members (Airport Travel Arrangements)
  Members (Airport Travel Arrangements)
  Bankruptcies
  Bankruptcies
  Manchester Airport
  Manchester Airport
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  "The Government Record"
  "The Government Record"
  Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
  Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
SCOTLAND
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Community Land Act 1975
  Community Land Act 1975
  Religious Studies
  Religious Studies
  Unemployment (Dumfries)
  Unemployment (Dumfries)
  Peterhead Bay (Management) Co. Ltd.
  Peterhead Bay (Management) Co. Ltd.
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Margarine (Labelling)
  Margarine (Labelling)
  Dairy Industry
  Dairy Industry
  Oilseeds (Expenditure)
  Oilseeds (Expenditure)
  Public Sector Pay Settlements
  Public Sector Pay Settlements
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Badgers
  Badgers
PRIME MINISTER
  Wales
  Wales
  North West
  North West
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Policy Programme (Achievement)
  Policy Programme (Achievement)
  Jurers
  Jurers
  Political Asylum
  Political Asylum
  Hillingdon (Model Aircraft Flying)
  Hillingdon (Model Aircraft Flying)
  Prisoners (Work)
  Prisoners (Work)
  Prindus
  Prindus
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Iranian Students
  Iranian Students
  Exercise Hard Rock
  Exercise Hard Rock
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  St. Helena
  St. Helena
  Aid-Trade Statistics
  Aid-Trade Statistics
  Scientific Units (Rayner Review)
  Scientific Units (Rayner Review)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Arts Policy
  Arts Policy
  Public Sector Pay Settlements
  Public Sector Pay Settlements
  Local Education Authorities (Adult Education)
  Local Education Authorities (Adult Education)
  Sixth Forms
  Sixth Forms
WALES
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Employment
  Employment
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Welsh Development Agency
  Welsh Development Agency
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Opportunities Programme (Accidents)
  Youth Opportunities Programme (Accidents)
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Rayner Review
  Rayner Review
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Contract Cleaning
  Contract Cleaning
  Gaming Machines
  Gaming Machines
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Unused Capital Allowances
  Unused Capital Allowances
SOCIAL SERVICES
  School Dental Officers
  School Dental Officers
  Elderly Persons (Medical Care)
  Elderly Persons (Medical Care)
  Matthew Needs
  Matthew Needs
  Milk (Tuberculosis)
  Milk (Tuberculosis)
  Prescription Charges (Exemption Certificates)
  Prescription Charges (Exemption Certificates)
  North Staffordshire Health District
  North Staffordshire Health District
  Valium
  Valium
  Birth Statistics
  Birth Statistics
  Private Patients
  Private Patients
  Falkland Islanders (Medical Treatment)
  Falkland Islanders (Medical Treatment)
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
  One and Two-parent Families
  One and Two-parent Families
  Primodos
  Primodos
CIVIL SERVICE
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Ministerial Responsibilities
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Iran
  Iran
  South West Africa-Namibia
  South West Africa-Namibia
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
DEFENCE
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
ENVIRONMENT
  Strongbridge Housing Association
  Strongbridge Housing Association
  Liverpool International Garden Festival
  Liverpool International Garden Festival
  St. Michael's Railway Station, Liverpool
  St. Michael's Railway Station, Liverpool
  Public Sector Pay Settlements
  Public Sector Pay Settlements
  Manchester-Salford
  Manchester-Salford
  Royal Herbert Military Hospital
  Royal Herbert Military Hospital
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Policy Programme (Achievement)
  Policy Programme (Achievement)
  Churches Central Committee for Community Work
  Churches Central Committee for Community Work
  Assembly Election
  Assembly Election
  Spain (Ministerial Visit)
  Spain (Ministerial Visit)
TRANSPORT
  Scottish Rail Lines (Public Service Obligation)
  Scottish Rail Lines (Public Service Obligation)
  British Rail (Finances)
  British Rail (Finances)
  Low Standard Tyres
  Low Standard Tyres
  London Transport
  London Transport
  Archway Road (A1 Inquiry)
  Archway Road (A1 Inquiry)
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Clenchwarton-Terrington (Bypass)
  Clenchwarton-Terrington (Bypass)
  British Rail (Investment)
  British Rail (Investment)
  Severn Estuary (Road Crossing)
  Severn Estuary (Road Crossing)
  Port of London Authority
  Port of London Authority
  Bridges (Construction Standards)
  Bridges (Construction Standards)
  Urban Rapid Transit Railway Systems
  Urban Rapid Transit Railway Systems
  M1-A1 Link Road
  M1-A1 Link Road
  European Railways
  European Railways
  A6 (Quorn and Mountsorrel)
  A6 (Quorn and Mountsorrel)
  Hazardous Substances (Transportation)
  Hazardous Substances (Transportation)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester

Putney Bridge Station: Control
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received a report on the signal control room at Earl's Court which demonstrates that the nuisance suffered by passengers at Putney Bridge station is due to the refusal of British Rail to transfer control of the Wimbledon/Putney section of the line to London Transport and whether they will intervene to bring this about.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have seen the report by the Putney Society and sent copies to British Rail and London Transport, since it concerns matters of railway operation which are entirely their responsibility. I understand from them that there are no proposals for control of the Wimbledon to Putney section of line to be transferred from one operator to the other, but that they will look into the society's complaint about information given to passengers at Putney Bridge Station.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I am most grateful to him for looking into this matter, as will all those people be who travel from Putney Bridge Station? For too many years, as I think he will know, passengers have been walking up one row of stairs only to watch a train disappearing from the further platform, and then they have had to walk back again and sometimes watch another train disappear from the original platform as they do so. This has gone on far too long. I understand that the problem can be solved by co-operation between British Rail and London Transport, and if the noble Earl's intervention has resulted in bringing that about, a lot of people will be very grateful to him, including myself.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am told that steps have immediately been taken to correct this deficiency. Perhaps if the noble Lord still finds himself running up and down stairs he will let me know.

NHS: Reciprocal Agreements
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 efforts are being made to increase agreements on reciprocal
336
treatment between the National Health Service and the counterparts in other countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will continue to consider making reciprocal health care agreements when it is practicable to do so. Although the value and convenience of these agreements is generally acknowledged, experience has shown that new agreements are not always mutually beneficial or feasible.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am most grateful for the assurance that he has just given that the Government intend to continue with this principle? Is he further aware that many people believe that if we could increase our fervour for reciprocity in regard to this great principle, which was initiated by this nation, then, particularly in the times in which we live of slaying and maiming, it not only would be of benefit to our nation but could indeed encourage mankind to tread a much saner course than the one it is on at the moment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord is right in ascribing the high-powered results from these agreements which he has described, but I think it is important that people who propose to travel abroad ascertain the arrangements which will apply in the countries which they propose to visit. My department issues a leaflet for that purpose, which perhaps I could make available more widely to your Lordships through the Printed Paper Office, which gives particular guidance to almost every country that people are likely to visit, including, of course, the European Community.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that, with the growth of tourism, not only in the more popular countries such as Spain and Portugal, but in the EFTA countries, such as Iceland, it is very desirable for Her Majesty's Government to liaise with the Governments of these countries to see whether some equitable arrangements along similar lines can be made? Is my noble friend aware that this would boost our own exports?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. We have agreement, of course, with the European Community. We also have agreements with some 15 or 20 countries outside the European Community. My noble friend mentioned Iceland. I am happy to tell him that we are on the point of concluding an agreement with that country.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House some indication as to the endeavours that have been made by Her Majesty's Government to follow up the initiatives which were displayed by the Council of Europe in this regard?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not quite certain which initiative of the Council of Europe the noble Lord is referring to in this matter. If he would like to give me more details, I will certainly look into it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, following up the questions that he has answered, may I ask the

337
Minister whether the national health card plays a significant role in this matter; and, if so, should our nationals going abroad carry these cards with them? Further, do other countries which have reciprocal arrangements issue similar cards, or in what way do we assess that a patient is entitled to reciprocal treatment on arrival in this country or when residing here?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in general, NHS cards do not play a significant role in this matter because they are not a certificate of entitlement to treatment under the National Health Service. They are issued to patients who are included on the list of a particular doctor. As for persons entering this country, again, the card is not, as I say, a certificate of entitlement. That particular matter is determined in other ways.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall, about two weeks ago, answering a Question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, regarding the treatment of foreigners who come to this country, and particularly of foreign students? Is he aware that, quite apart from reciprocal arrangements, there are countries in the world in which British people, and indeed any other foreigners, can go and get some completely free medical treatment—and I am thinking particularly of a country where I spend a lot of time, Zambia—whereas now, under the new Government arrangements, such foreigners and foreign students coming to this country are not given reciprocal arrangements?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the question of the Health Service charges for overseas visitors was, as the noble Lord says, discussed in response to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, a week or so ago. I am not sure that I have anything to add to the Answer that I gave on that occasion. As for the case of Zambia, the country to which the noble Lord is referring, it is the case that we do not have a reciprocal agreement with that country and therefore the overseas charges regulations will apply in that case.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that British people going to Zambia get completely free medical treatment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if there is a case for examining a reciprocal agreement with Zambia, as the noble Lord seems to be suggesting, I shall certainly be willing to do that. Perhaps the noble Lord will be willing to give me more information of the matter he describes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to clarify his answer to me as I did not quite understand when he said that anyone possessing a national health card has no evidence of entitlement to treatment? I understood the reverse; that there may be many more people entitled to treatment than those possessing a national health card. Is he saying that national health cards are issued to people not entitled to treatment? Can he amplify the point as to when they are issued (a) to people who were born here or (b) to people like myself who arrived in this
338
country; and what the situation is for EEC nationals who come here to take up employment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can confirm what I said earlier to my noble friend, that National Health Service cards are not a certificate of entitlement to treatment under the health service. They are normally issued to persons at birth or when they are entered on to a doctor's list. That is not the same thing as determining entitlement to treatment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, if we could brush aside much of the bureacracy that is involved in the principle of reciprocity, we would make a big step forward? Is he aware that I am one of those who happens to believe that if when my fellow countrymen went to another country and people from other countries came here and something happened to them, to their families, to their children or to their relatives, they received the treatment which any human being should be given, and there was no question of asking whence they came but to help them overcome either grief or pain, when such people returned to their countries and our people come back to our country, it would increase the feeling that we are all of one great race and make a contribution to achieving world peace?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that he is pushing at an open door in this matter. We certainly accept the merits of these agreements where arrangements can be made. One of the difficulties is that many other countries do not have the comprehensive health service that we have and therefore a reciprocal agreement is not really possible. It is possible, however, to have a limited reciprocal agreement of some sort—for example, the sort of agreement that we have with some of our dependent territories—where primary health care is really the only thing immediately subject to the agreement. Perhaps that may be a possibility in the case that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, raised.

Air Pollution Convention: Ratification
2.47 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have ratified the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution signed in Geneva under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Government intend to ratify the convention jointly with other member states of the European Community tomorrow, 15th July.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that most gratifying Answer, which seems to give universal pleasure. May I further ask him what replies

339
the Government have given to the persistent complaints of the Scandinavian countries that their crops and property are being damaged by acid rain which they attribute to industrial pollution generated in Britain and carried on the winds to Scandinavia?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the United Kingdom was represented at the conference by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Giles Shaw, who led the United Kingdom delegation. This was in Stockholm. We were represented there by scientists and officials at meetings of experts which took place in the previous week. I do not want to say more about that because my honourable friend is shortly going to make a Statement on this matter in response to a question.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I was under the impression that the majority of the acid rain came from Germany, where vast areas of forest have been destroyed by this pollution.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think my noble friend's comments underline how difficult it is to find out what causes acid rain. The effects are not yet clearly established. As I understand it, it is the forests themselves which are being rained upon by acid rain, the results of which are not yet fully documented.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, although happily we are going to ratify the convention tomorrow, it will not come into effect until most European states have ratified it. Therefore, will the Government, in the meantime, undertake to take action—as they are entitled to—since it is the sulphur emissions horn the chimneys of the power stations in this country which are the principal cause of acid rain in south Scandinavia?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think that perhaps the noble Baroness goes a little far to say that this is the principal cause of what is going on in Scandinavia. Our activities comprise a very small percentage of what is going on there. Perhaps I can say that, although the convention has not yet come into force, action has proceeded on an interim basis. A Europe-wide monitoring programme is under way to determine the extent of acid rainfall in Europe and a group of experts from signatory countries, including the United Kingdom, is reviewing the scientific evidence on the effects of air pollution, including acid rain, on the environment, and the cost, damage and control. The convention itself is likely to come into force later this year once 24 of the 35 signatories have ratified.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, since the acid rain is not labelled, nobody really knows where it comes from? It might just as well come from Russia as from Britain.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, in point of fact one of the sadnesses of the Stockholm Conference was that the Eastern European countries were not represented. Of course, we should very much like to get their evidence as well.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it not possible to resolve this matter once and for all—and following the noble Earl's question—by labelling the flue gases from power stations with other isotopes of sulphur that will enable the fall-out to be identified as coming from a particular origin? Would not the Minister also confirm that the problem with acid rain is now spread not just from Scandinavia but to the entire Northern Hemisphere, and that our own agriculture in this country is threatened in the long term with serious side effects from this cause? Therefore, should it not be the subject of intensive research by the Government, probably in co-operation with other European and North American nations?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think I have said in my reply that the problem is being actively considered and research is progressing alongside the present convention. If I may state one factor, sulphur dioxide emissions, which account for about 70 per cent. of the acidity in rainfall, have reduced very substantially in the United Kingdom in the past decade. The trend will, we hope, continue for the foreseeable future. There are a number of reasons for this and they include the changing industrial patterns, the energy conservation policies and the use of low sulphur fuels and of nuclear power.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question? As we know not from whence it comes, is this not a matter that should be referred to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think that there is a little research that we can do which may perhaps help him.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that we ought first to hear the results of the research to find out what proportion of the atmosphere is acid before jumping to conclusions?
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful for my noble friend's calm reaction.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, what matters is which way the wind blows, and whether the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury could divert the great winds is a matter for conjecture. When the wind blows Nor' Nor' West, terrible consequences result!

UN Second Special Session on Disarmament
2.52 p.m.
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 whether they will make a statement on the conclusions of the Second United Nations Special Session on Disarmament.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, as was stated yesterday in another place, the United Kingdom played a full part in the work of the Special Session which finished on 10th July. Agreement was not possible on the substantive disarmament items on the agenda—namely, a review of progress since the First Special Session in 1978 and a Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament—but we believe that the discussions have been helpful in increasing understanding of the issues. Priority should now be given to making progress on the important negotiations under way elsewhere: on intermediate-range nuclear forces, strategic arms reductions, for mutual and balanced force reductions, and a convention banning chemical weapons.
The Special Session agreed on the guidelines for a World Disarmament Campaign, under the auspices of the United Nations, which we believe will help to ensure that the campaign can operate in all parts of the world.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while I am surprised that the Government have not taken their own initiative about making a Statement on this important subject, may I thank the Minister for what he has stated? Has he seen the Statement of the United Nations Secretary-General expressing deep disappointment and frustration at the decisions taken at New York? Is he aware that that deep disappointment is shared by the 3,000 representatives of non-governmental organisations which were present, and by 76 of the Governments who took part in the session? Is he further aware that those of us who have attended some of the sessions and who had have read the detailed daily reports of the United Nations Association are deeply impressed by the fact that the majority of delegates demanded action, and that that action was obstructed by the representatives of the super-powers? I regret to ask—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Brockway:—was it not mainly by the West, the United States of America and representatives of Britain? Did they not oppose—
Several noble Lords: Speech.
Lord Brockway:—any positive action for a comprehensive programme on the grounds that bilateral negotiations—
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, can bring his supplementary question to a conclusion as soon as possible, that will be a help.
Lord Brockway: But, my Lords, this is a very important subject affecting millions of people. May I ask the Government whether the West did not oppose the comprehensive programme of action relying on bilateral negotiations and the nuclear deterrent, and whether Her Majesty's Government have some very great responsibility for the failure which has occurred at this Assembly?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the fundamental reason that the talks broke down was the different perceptions of security of states. We seek a programme of balanced measures covering nuclear and conventional disarmament, and that is different from the approach of some non-aligned Governments which place undue emphasis on nuclear disarmament. Regarding the position of the United Kingdom Government, we believe that initiatives for measures of arms control and disarmament are best taken where there is a possibility of negotiating specific measures. If I may say so, I do not think that we should be too disappointed with the outcome of the Special Session because I think that it is upon this that delegates will now focus.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that possibly the most promising disarmament negotiations at present are those taking place in Vienna on mutual and balanced force reductions? Would he agree that although these have been going on for a long time, substantial progress has been made, and might it not be that if the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues now took a strong personal interest in these negotiations, success might come?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is able to say that there is progress in the talks on mutually balanced force reductions in Vienna is because the West has taken an initiative in tabling in Vienna on 8th July, in the form of a draft treaty, proposals for replacing the previous two-phase approach with one based on a single stage agreement. The value of this initiative is that it shows to the East that the allies are all serious in agreeing that they wish to combine together in achieving conventional force reductions in the talks in Vienna.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in the light of the disappointing results in the Special Session, will the Government now re-consider their opposition to the working group on general and comprehensive disarmament in the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva which they have been opposed to over the past year or two?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I was not aware that the Government had in any way been opposed to talks in Geneva.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that very many people who are desperately interested in this question recognise many of the difficulties that are involved in making disarmament a reality, and that one of them seems to be that when conventions, conferences and summits are called and they agree to certain decisions on reducing arms, the problem seems to be how can the one side or the other be certain that the others are playing the game and are actually carrying out the decisions of the conference and disarming? Can the Government pay a great deal of attention to that aspect and perhaps find a formula where any agreement could be seen to be implemented?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am more than grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for asking that question, because the noble Lord shrewdly puts his finger

343
on the two main problems which have been outstanding for many years between the West and the Soviet Union: namely, data—that is to say, how many forces, weapons and troops have each side in their possession?—and verification. It is on both of those issues that Soviet Russia has, year in and year out, refused to agree.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we welcomed his rather more positive Answer to my noble friend's original Question? We found it a rather promising and positive approach. But with reference to his last answer to my noble friend Lord Molloy, the Government are surely aware that, for the first time, the Soviet Government has talked about acceptance of on the spot inspection, and what is the Government's response to that? May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that we hope we do not have the usual rather cynical reaction to that kind of offer from the Soviet Union.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is perfectly true that, for the first time, the Soviet Union has mentioned verification. We very much hope that they are genuine in this proposal.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there has been very considerable disappointment at the relative lack of success of the Second United Nations Session, having regard to the unanimity which was achieved at the First Session? In view of this very great disappointment, will the Government see what they can do to take the World Disarmament Campaign very seriously so far as this country is concerned? Perhaps they will even go so far as to work together with my noble friend Lord Brockway who has this cause, as all of us have, very much at heart.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we hope that the guidelines agreed at the Special Session will ensure that the campaign, under the auspices of the United Nations, operates in all parts of the world. We see no call at present for any extra contributions, because we believe that the United Nations has the resources and the outlets that are required. We believe, therefore, that the campaign should be able to go ahead.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, if the Government are going to make a contribution towards the World Disarmament Campaign of the United Nations for educational purposes, is the noble Lord aware that, despite this failure at New York, the peace movement in the world is now becoming so strong that in 10 years, despite this failure, we will succeed in opposition to the militarist Governments of the world?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord represents a point of view which believes in unilaterilist disarmament. What is the point of unilaterally disarming and then expecting the Russians at the conference table to make sensible concessions in negotiation? This would not occur and unilateral disarmament would, in fact, undermine hopes for multilateral disarmament. It is those arguments on which
344
the United Kingdom and the Western Alliance pin all their hopes.
Lord Brockway: But, my Lords, the World Disarmament Campaign is not urging unilateral disarmament. We have urged carrying out the decisions of the First Assembly, and the British Government—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord Brockway:—have been largely responsible for obstructing that at the second meeting.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I said at the beginning of this Question, the Western Alliance has not been instrumental in obstructing the work of the Special Session. The reason why the Special Session, as a general meeting, failed was that there was, from some Governments, undue emphasis on nuclear disarmament and nuclear disarmament alone. The matter goes very much wider than that and, as I have made clear this afternoon, the West have put forward important proposals for reductions in conventional forces. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, does not like hearing that the West is still striving in this way for peace, but the West is, and that is the truth of the matter.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his last remark to my noble friend Lord Brockway was scarcely fair? Is he aware that my noble friend does like to hear about progress?—we all do. Is the noble Lord also aware that, when my noble friend asked whether the Government would back the educational programme on disarmament, I felt he was a little unfair in directing the argument on to unilateral disarmament, when we all want disarmament of every single kind?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I respond to the noble Baroness? The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, believes in unilateral disarmament and in undue emphasis upon disarmament in nuclear weapons. For reasons which I have given on many occasions, other than this afternoon, the Government do not agree. What the Government do agree with the noble Lord on—and I think there is probably wide agreement in your Lordships' House—is that the one success which was achieved in the United Nations Special Session was agreement for the World Disarmament Campaign. We support it and hope that it succeeds.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Bellwin will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on industrial action on the railways.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Committee stage of the Transport Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment the Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure and the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure will be taken.

Transport Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 38 [Notification of court and diet of trial in Scotland]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 43, line 37, leave out ("by which and the diet at which the offence will be tried") and insert ("at which and the date on which the case will first call").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment which seeks to clarify that the date given in a notification of appearance in court under Clause 38 in Scotland is not the date of any trial for the offence, but the date on which the case will first call in court. This has always been our intention but, as presently drafted, the clause could be interpreted to mean that the trial itself will occur on that day and that any witnesses et cetera are required to attend court then. We would, of course, wish to avoid such misunderstandings if at all possible. The date given in the appearance ticket will be the day on which the alleged offender's plea will be taken, and, if he pleads not guilty, a date for trial will be fixed. It will not be possible for the constable at the roadside to fix a day for a trial, because he will have no idea how many of the drivers to whom he gives fixed penalty notices will choose to go to court, and how many of them will plead not guilty. This amendment therefore clarifies what is meant by the clause, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 44, line 3, leave out ("diet of trial of") and insert ("date of first calling of a case concerning").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is consequential upon the amendment which I have just moved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 44, leave out lines 9 to 14 and insert—
("the following provisions of this section shall apply for the purpose of any proceedings in respect of the offence.
(3) The notification of the court and date of first calling shall have effect as if it were a citation to an accused person by virtue of section 315 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 notwithstanding that such notification may not be in the form referred to in subsection (2) of that section.
(4) A copy of the fixed penalty notice given under section 26(1) of this Act shall have effect as if it were a complaint under
346
Part II of the said Act of 1975, and the provisions of that Part of that Act shall accordingly apply—

(a) to the copy fixed penalty notice as if it were a complaint; and

(b) to the fixed penalty notice as if it were a copy complaint served on the accused under that Part of that Act.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) above—

(a) it shall not be necessary for the fixed penalty notice to be signed by the prosecutor or by a solicitor on behalf of a prosecutor other than the public prosecutor of a court;

(b) a copy fixed penalty notice having effect as if it were a complaint shall not be held to be irrelevant by reason only—

(i) that the charge in the fixed penalty notice is not in the form referred to in section 312 of the said Act of 1975; or

(ii) that no further specification is given than the specification required for a fixed penalty notice by section 28(6)(a) of this Act

and without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, paragraphs (a) to (z) of the said section 312 shall apply in respect of the charge referred to in subparagraph (i) above; and

(c) section 311(5) of the said Act of 1975 shall not apply in respect of a fixed penalty notice having effect as if it were a complaint, but there shall be given to the alleged offender along with the fixed penalty notice a notice stating the penalties to which he would be liable in the event of his conviction for the offence.").

The noble and learned Lord said: This rather fearsome-looking amendment is not, as I hope I will be able to show, as complicated as it looks. Its objective is to make what has been called the "appearance ticket" system introduced in the Bill work more smoothly in Scotland. It does two things. First, it runs together two of the clauses in the Bill. If noble Lords examine the amendment closely, they will see that subsections (3), (4) and (5)(a) simply re-state what is already in the Bill—at the end of Clause 38(2) and in Clause 46(1) and 46(2). I will explain in a moment why the Government seek to do this. Secondly, it makes two adjustments which are designed to dovetail the "appearance ticket" provisions with existing Scottish summary criminal procedure. These changes are a little technical, but they will be of practical importance.
It might be helpful if I remind the Committee of the objective of the "appearance ticket", which is contained for Scotland in Clause 38 of the Bill. When the policeman at the roadside gives a driver a fixed penalty notice, he can give him at the same time—and perhaps as part of the notice—notification of when and in what court his case will appear, if he chooses to exercise his right to go to court. This will obviate the need for personal service on the driver at a later date of a citation for a court appearance, saving time and money for all concerned. In an ordinary summary criminal prosecution in Scotland, the accused is always served with a complaint. It is a document setting out exactly what he is charged with, and is served at the same time as the citation to appear in court. Under the appearance ticket system the fixed penalty notice itself is to serve the purpose of the complaint, because it is given to the driver at the same time as the appearance ticket, of course, and it sets out what he is supposed to have done. That is why Clause 46 provides that a fixed penalty notice can have effect as a complaint.
However, Clause 46 is drafted in such a way as to include all fixed penalty notices given to the driver

347
under Clause 26(1) and it is not confined to cases where an appearance ticket has been given. That is not quite right. The fixed penalty notice need only be a complaint when an appearance ticket has been given under Clause 38. That is why we wish to run together Clause 38 and Clause 46. If the amendment is made, a fixed penalty notice will have effect as a complaint only where an appearance ticket has been given, if no appearance ticket has been given, a complaint and a citation to court will be served on the motorist in the normal way if he chooses to exercise his right to go to court.
The amendment also makes two adjustments to Scottish summary criminal procedure to suit the appearance ticket system. They are both designed to make things simpler, both for the police and the motorist, and consequently cheaper. The purpose of these two other changes is to make the complaint for the purposes of a court proceeding following on a fixed penalty notice have as its substitute the fixed penalty notice. The purpose of a complaint, and of a fixed penalty notice which is to have effect as one, is to tell the person accused of the offence which he is alleged to have committed. It is usually expressed, in the ordinary case, in rather technical legal language and can consequently be quite difficult for a lay person quickly to understand. It is certainly not something one could expect a police constable to write out on a rainy day at the side of the road when filling in a fixed penalty notice. What subsection (5)(b) therefore seeks to do is to provide that the charge and the fixed penalty notice need not be in the standard form of complaint and that it need be no more complicated or specific than it needs to be to be a proper fixed penalty notice—that is to say, it must give reasonable information about the offence. It should as a consequence be clearer for the motorist who receives it.
The second adjustment is a question of form rather than substance. At the moment, when a complaint contains a charge of breaching any statute, the accused person must get a notice setting out the penalties to which he would be liable if he were convicted. That notice must be in a specified form. It will be simpler, and easier, when designing the fixed penalty notice, to explain to the driver the maximum penalties to which he would be liable by putting them on the fixed penalty notice itself rather than by giving him a notice of penalties in the traditional form suitable for other cases. What subsection (c), therefore, seeks to do is to provide that notice of the maximum penalties must be given to the alleged offender, but they need not be in the traditional form prescribed under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act. I hope therefore that your Lordships will feel that these amendments, although somewhat technical in character, do make improvements of a practical kind. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: There are one or two points which my noble friend Lord Mishcon wishes to raise on the legal aspect, but may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether we can be assured that although there are differences in Scottish law the treatment for fixed penalty offences does not vary in Scotland compared with the rest of England and Wales. If it does, naturally we should like to see what can be done about it.
348
Could the noble and learned Lord deal with the point which arose on Amendment No. 42, which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that he might be able to deal with this afternoon: That if a driver in Scotland does not have his licence he will not be able to present that licence at any police station in Scotland. The point I made on the earlier occasion was that I frequently go to Scotland for my holidays. If I do not have my licence with me, it means that I have to journey back across the border to present my licence at a police station in England and then go back to continue my holiday. Why is there this difference? Why, in that respect, can citizens of Great Britain not be treated likewise? If that is the position, is it possible for the Government to bring forward an amendment?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I should like to take this opportunity, in answering the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to go somewhat wide of the present amendment in order to try to explain the position in relation to fixed penalties under the Bill for Scotland. I am sorry that I was unable to be here on the last occasion when the question arose. I think that my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve was kind enough to hope that the Lord Advocate would come out of the mist and be able to dispel the fog that seemed to be surrounding the provisions.
As your Lordships know, there are different systems of criminal procedure north and south of the Scottish border. The extended fixed penalty system in the Bill must, like the existing fixed penalty system, fit in with existing criminal procedure because if the motorist disputes his guilt of the allegation it is the criminal court which will have to resolve the matter. Fixed penalty offences remain criminal and can be dealt with, in the absence of admission of guilt, in the criminal courts.
For the purposes of the Bill, the most important difference between the Scottish and the English criminal jurisdictions is that Scotland has a public prosecutor independent of the police. In cases of this kind, the procurator fiscal, who is the local officer responsible to the Lord Advocate, has the responsibility for initiating prosecutions for offences reported to him by the police. In England, on the other hand, the police are responsible generally for initiating prosecutions in cases of this kind. It is natural, therefore, when we consider extending the fixed penalty system, that in Scotland the option of the fixed penalty should be made available also to the procurator fiscal as well as to the police. It is a sensible and logical extension of the fiscal's existing discretion not to prosecute or to proceed, as the case demands.
This question of fixed penalties as an alternative to prosecutions was considered by a committee set up by the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate in a previous administration under the chairmanship of Lord Stewart, a judge of the Court of Session. The Stewart Committee, having considered this aspect of the matter, recommended in accordance with what I have just said. I should like to take this opportunity to thank them for the work they have done. They are fairly unique, in that we are attempting to legislate on their recommendations while they are still sitting

349
to consider whether there are other areas in which alternatives to prosecution can be available.
It is sensible also that the discretion available to the fiscal in offering fixed penalties should be wider than that available to the police. He considers the matter on paper and at his office rather than at the roadside, and he is already expected and trained to exercise a wide discretion in making prosecution decisions. Also, he has security of tenure in his position which is intended to guarantee his independence.
Clause 40 and Schedule 2 to the Bill are therefore intended to give the procurator fiscal the power to offer fixed penalties both for offences in Schedule 1—those are the ones that the police can offer—and the wider range of offences in Schedule 2. This follows the recommendations of the Stewart Committee. The fiscal will have the power to offer fixed penalties for fixed penalty offences in cases where the police have not already done so. It follows therefore that he will be able to issue fixed penalty notices in cases where the police have been unable to do so because the driver has not been carrying his driving licence and the offence concerned is endorsable. Your Lordships know that if an offence is not endorsable the police can offer a fixed penalty, whether or not the driver has his licence.
Those noble Lords who have read the debates in Committee in another place on the Bill will know that there was concern that the driver who happened not to be carrying his licence would be deprived of the opportunity of a fixed penalty. Because of the provisions of Clause 40 of the Bill there was no such concern for Scotland. Where the driver in Scotland was not carrying his driving licence and offended in Scotland, the procurator fiscal was able to offer him the fixed penalty notice without the necessity of him going near any police station. He was able to send the offer to the motorist in the way for which the Bill provides.
Clause 27 of the Bill attempted to meet this concern for England and Wales by allowing a driver, in these circumstances, to get a fixed penalty within five days at a police station. Your Lordships will understand from what I am saying that that provision is not needed for Scotland because the procurator fiscal was able to do what Clause 27 now enables the police to do in England at a police station within five days of the offence. Therefore, it is not necessary that Clause 27 should apply in Scotland.
In the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Avon on, the last occasion on which your Lordships were in Committee, the Government sought to exclude Scotland entirely from the operation of the arrangements under Clause 27 by making it impossible for a motorist stopped by the police in England or Wales for an endorsable offence to nominate a police station in Scotland at which to receive a fixed penalty notice. The object of that change was to ease the administrative burden on the Scottish policy. If the amendment were not made, every Scottish police station would have to be equipped, trained and manned to issue fixed penalty notices in these circumstances, even though they themselves did not have to issue them in similar circumstances. The cost of doing this, as the police saw it, would in the Government's
350
view be disproportionate because only a small number of drivers would need to use this facility. I say a "small number" because the only motorists likely to be affected will be Scottish motorists driving in England or Wales who are stopped by the police for an endorsable fixed penalty offence. Also, they must not wish to dispute their guilt and they must be willing to accept an endorsement—otherwise they will have to go to court, anyway.
We therefore conclude that the number of people likely to be affected by this particular restriction in the amendment moved by my noble friend is not such as to justify placing on the Scottish police the administrative burden of performing this particular job. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that it is extremely important that we do what we can to minimise the administrative burden that is put upon the police. It is very important that their resources should be available for proper police work and that we should do what we can to minimise the administrative burden upon them. It is in that spirit that the provision was made for Scotland; that it was the procurator fiscal whose office was equipped to deal with this kind of matter and who should issue the offer of a fixed penalty in cases where that had not been done at the roadside.
So far as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is concerned, I am extremely glad to hear that he exercises his usual great discretion in his choice of a place to which to go on holiday. I can assure him that if perchance he was to become involved in any kind of road traffic difficulty in Scotland, he would find the arrangements made to accommodate him with the offer of a fixed penalty very smooth indeed. Certainly he would not need to come back to England for the purpose of the 28-day period which is allowed after the fiscal offers the notice, unless his holiday was particularly extensive or he was unable to get his licence from home. I have given, perhaps, a longer explanation than your Lordships would expect in relation to this particular amendment but it may enable your Lordships to appreciate the general background to this matter from a Scottish point of view.
3.25 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate widen his explanation just a little, to explain what happens to the motorist normally resident in Scotland who has left his licence behind in Scotland and who is then convicted in England of a fixed penalty endorsable offence, who is not going to be back in Scotland for a month to rootle out his licence and show it?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I may have misheard the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. Was she speaking about a motorist normally resident in Scotland who is convicted in England?
Lady Saltoun: Yes, I was.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: So far as that is concerned, if anyone is brought to court for an endorsable offence—and that is the situation to which we are referring—there is an obligation to give the licence to the court so that the court may have the licence endorsed.

351
It is necessary at some stage before the court disposes of the matter that the licence is recovered and sent to the court—not necessarily, of course, by the person going home to get it but by making arrangements to have it brought to the court. That, of course, is a standard consequence in such cases.
In respect of the case of a person who is resident in Scotland who transgresses the law in England and who has left his licence at home, the situation there will be that either he gets a fixed penalty by bringing the licence to an English police station or he pleads guilty by letter. If the case goes to court, he would need to do more than write a letter. So the actual disadvantage from the point of view of the individual who wishes to plead guilty—it is only on that assumption that this question arises—is very small in comparison with the administrative difficulty that would be involved for the police if the arrangements were totally different.
Lord Paget of Northampton: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would help me because I am not a Scottish lawyer. Do I understand that the situation would be this: If I forgot my licence and I committed an offence, I will be given five days in which to produce the licence at my own police station. My police station then notifies the prosecuting authority that T have duly produced my licence. When the matter goes to court, if it goes to court, I have to take my licence along with me. In the case of a fixed penalty, presumably the licence just has to be sent to the prosecuting authority. Why should that not equally happen to a Scotsman who commits an offence? When he goes back home, it is very inconvenient for him to come back to England to produce his licence at the police station. Why can he not produce it at a Scottish police station? All the Scottish police station has to do is to send the licence to the prosecuting authority with the notice that has been produced to them. What is the difficulty about that?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I have not made the position sufficiently clear and it is entirely my fault. If a motorist is asked by a policeman to produce his licence and fails to do so, there is an obligation to produce it within five days at a police station. There is nothing being done in this Bill in any way to affect that or make it impossible to perform that obligation in Scotland. In the case which the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, has figured—where the motorist happened to be resident in Scotland at the time when this had occurred, and was asked in England to produce his licence—he could produce it when he got home and that would be perfectly satisfactory. There is no problem.
But this Bill is dealing with the question of getting a fixed penalty, which involves no prosecution. The idea is to have a fixed penalty instead of being prosecuted. In that situation, if one does not have one's driving licence with one, and if it is an endorsable offence, the policeman cannot tell at the roadside whether a fixed penalty is appropriate, or what the fixed penalty should be, until the licence is produced. For all he knows, there may be sufficient endorsements on the licence already to affect greatly what is available in respect of this offence.
352
It is that matter that this Bill is dealing with and the arrangements for England and Wales in respect of this matter are that the police can give—if you have your licence with you—in respect of an endorsable offence, a fixed penalty notice at the roadside. If you do not have your driving licence with you, in England and Wales you can go to a police station within five days and the police at that station, assuming the circumstances are appropriate, will be able to give you a fixed penalty notice in accordance with the English system. But if you are a person who wished to nominate a Scottish police station for that purpose, there would be difficulty that the Scottish police are not equipped to deal with that aspect of English procedure.
The only consequence would be this. Instead of having a fixed penalty in that situation, assuming you were entitled to it, the only difference between your situation in Scotland and your situation in England and Wales is that in Scotland you would write to the court pleading guilty and sending your licence with the letter. The court would then deal with the matter without the restriction necessarily of a fixed penalty: and the penalty the court imposes might be more or less than the fixed penalty. For example, if you were able as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Paget, would be well able to do, to write a very good explanation of why you committed the offence, the court might well consider some figure much lower than a fixed penalty to be appropriate; so it is by no means clear that you would be worse off by writing a letter to the court than having a fixed penalty.
Lord Mishcon: I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Underhill to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his patient and very clear explanation, which we will obviously be studying with great care. It has elucidated a lot of problems that we had and it seems that many of them, if not all, have been ironed out. It seems to me that we are using this discussion rather usefully to cover the whole procedure of the fixed penalty notice, whether in the midst of the fogs that beset the highlands or lowlands of Scotland or whether south of the Border. Therefore, I do not ask for the forgiveness of the Committee if I try to finish off some of the problems regarding the form of the fixed penalty notice, as well as some of the problems we discussed last time in the absence of the noble and learned Lord. That means we can deal with these questions now, so that we need not waste time later.
One of the problems I tried to put to the Committee last time, it now appears fairly unnecessarily, was the case of what I called the "discretionary endorsement". I then said that an injustice might be perpetrated if indeed the fixed penalty notice were given in a case where a motorist would thereupon have the rather unpleasant task of having to go to the police officer and say to him: "I have considered what you have just said and I think I had better take the fixed penalty notice, because in the court itself I might receive an endorsement". That is what I call the discretionary endorsement.
May I say quite frankly that that difficulty has now been ironed out, because I have been told categorically that there are no offences in respect of which a fixed

353
penalty notice can be given where anything but a non-endorsable offence is involved—in other words, it cannot be enforced at all—or the obligatory endorsable offence. If that be so, the particular injustice I was frightened of will not arise under this Bill.
However, one other point arises out of the same problem that I should like to dispose of, if the noble and learned Lord could deal with it for me. It is this. There are certain cases under the Road Traffic Act where there is a mandatory endorsement—what we call the obligatory endorsement—but where, so far as I understand it, the driver can, though perhaps in rare cases, plead special reasons, in which event the court will not endorse, if it accepts the plea. Therefore, this seems to make us concentrate injustice upon what the driver will be informed by the police officer or by very clear wording on the form in the event of his being found to have committed an obligatory endorsable offence, but in circumstances where there might be special reasons which he could advance to a court in order to prevent the endorsement taking place.
Under the procedure we have at the moment, it all appears to be very simple, but possibly carrying this ingredient of injustice. The licence is seen; the offence is an obligatory endorsable one; the fixed penalty notice is issued and the licence is duly endorsed without any question, since it is only the court that can consider this matter of special reasons being considered at all or, if I may use the word, of their being "considerable" at all. What notice is the driver going to be given? Will he be told that he could, if he wanted to, go to the court? One must bear in mind that the driver will not necessarily be an expert on the Road Traffic Act and may not know of this right. What will he be told about the right that he has in regard to the fixed penalty notice, that if he wanted to go to court he might stand the chance of pleading special reasons and not have an endorsement in his case? If we can clear out of the way that last hit of possible injustice, the Committee will be saved a great deal of time on further discussion about this matter. At the moment, it appears to be a very important point.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I should first like to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said: if one accepts the fixed penalty notice in this type of case he has been describing, then the licence will be endorsed. So a driver who commits an endorsable offence, and wishes to argue that there are special reasons in his particular case for non-endorsement, will require not to accept the fixed penalty notice, and go to court. Of course, once a person gets a fixed penalty notice, he has time to consider his position and take advice about it. So far as Scotland is concerned, the amendment which I am dealing with just now provides that the maximum penalties for the offence, apart from the fixed penalty, will be specified in the case to which the amendment relates. So if the motorist reads, he will see the provision about disqualification, unless there are special reasons.
So far as England and Wales are concerned, I do not think there is any statutory provision at the moment which imposes any particular form on the notice which would carry a requirement to have this particular intimation on it. I think this is perhaps a matter
354
that we would like to consider. The option is either to put the whole case law on the notice or to put some cautionary words advising the person who gets the notice before he decides what to do with it to take professional advice.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord and I am especially grateful to him for recognising the difficulty and the possible injustice that might be involved. I am delighted to accept the suggestion that this might be considered by the Government between now and Report stage. I would ask only that those who are particularly interested in my point should receive in good time a copy of any letter which is being issued in regard to this matter so that we can consider whether it would be helpful or otherwise to put down an amendment at Report stage.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Certainly we will do what we can to respond to that.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: May I ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate this question. Is not the assurance that he has just given us a repetition of that assurance which my noble friend Lord Avon gave us when we were discussing Amendment No. 20, that of the police constable having to provide the motorist with a notice of his intention to award a fixed penalty before he proceeded further in the matter? My noble friend at that time said, "At one time we were inclined to accept this kind of amendment, but there are certain legal difficulties", and the department wanted to have another look at it.
Unless something is firmly established in the Bill, either along the lines of Amendment No. 20 or perhaps in the more generalised terms which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is suggesting, we will find that the fixed penalty will be accepted and upon that will be written the rights of the individual, which include that of refusing it within a certain number of days and going to court. If the former does not obtain, the latter most certainly will. So a good deal of the purpose behind the fixed penalty system, that of relieving the courts of responsibilities in this matter, will be lost. So it is not just a question of my noble and learned friend looking at this matter; it is really a question of him, and indeed my noble friend Lord Avon, finding a way to introduce into the Bill this cautionary procedure before the fixed penalty is offered, or it could just fall apart at a later stage.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I would think that the point which was raised on Amendment No. 20, and in respect of which my noble friend Lord Avon gave an undertaking in that discussion, is a slightly different point from the one with which I have just been dealing. So far as I understand the point my noble friend has put to me, the fact that one has an option after one gets the fixed penalty notice is not damaging to the system, because what we are expecting is that the vast majority of people who get a fixed penalty notice will after due consideration make use of it. It is that which eliminates the substantial burden on the courts which we are trying to eliminate. So long as the person has an understanding of what his rights are after he gets the

355
fixed penalty notice and, in the period when he is considering whether or not to accept it, that would appear to be sufficient.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

British Rail: Industrial Dispute
3.43 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the current industrial action on the railways.
"In the face of the continuing strike imposed by the executive of ASLEF against the new work rosters firmly recommended by Lord McCarthy's tribunal, the British Railways Board have within the last two hours announced that they will be forced to close the railway system down from next Wednesday unless there is a substantial return to work by the drivers.
"All those on strike on the previous day will be dismissed. At the same time they will be offered re-employment on the same terms, provided only that they agree to work to the new rosters.
"The decision to which the British Railways Board have been driven are clearly very grave. The strike which has caused them is a pointless one which should never have been called and should and could easily be lifted even now by the ASLEF executive.
"The McCarthy Railway Tribunal has left no doubt that flexible rostering should now be adopted by ASLEF, with no less than 13 safeguards, as it has been by the rest of those working on the railways to their clear benefit. The British Railways Board has all along been willing to discuss details of how the new rosters should be brought in and ways of making the change as easy as possible for engine drivers.
"Their proposals to this end were met with the blunt response by the ASLEF executive of an all-out strike call, although having pulled this trigger the ASLEF executive then suggested further talks, but still with no clear commitment whatsoever to any change in principle.
"The board have informed me that their further offer of constructive ways on which flexible rostering could be applied, once ASLEF have lifted their strike and accepted the principle, has again been rejected by the ASLEF executive in the last 24 hours.
"Mr. Speaker, the path ahead for the railways of this country is now very dark. Vast resources are
356
being bled away. Thousands of jobs could disappear for good. Travellers and holiday makers are being caused much bitter misery and suffering.
"Those who call this unnecessary strike, as well as those who have given comfort and succour to the strike, carry an immense and direct responsibility for all this damage and all this suffering.
"It remains in the hands of the ASLEF executive to call a halt to the destruction. And it is the duty of all those who believe the public should be protected and the railways and those who work in them saved from disaster, to urge the executive of ASLEF to desist from their futile course".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. If allowed to continue, of course, this would be a national disaster, not only the effect on the travelling public, on industry and the future of British Rail, but also the wellbeing of all workers of all unions employed by British Rail. It is a tragedy that it should happen, especially as 18 months ago the British Rail Board and the unions were working in close harmony on the development plan for the years 1981 to 1985.
Does the Minister recognise that men as responsible as locomotive drivers are do not lightly take action of this kind without believing in their own minds that they have a rightful cause? The McCarthy Tribunal Decision 77 clearly recommends rostering, but the tribunal said that there is nothing in the report that should be used to impose things on any people, and I am certain noble Lords will agree that what must be avoided is an embittered workforce for the future. As was said on the last Statement presented to your Lordships, agreement was very near, including experiment rostering as put forward by ASLEF. There was an opportunity, if the Secretary of State had asked both sides to get together, to try to bridge that difference. It would be unwise for any words to be used which, even at this stage, may prevent a possible settlement.
Is the noble Lord aware that Mr. Michael Foot and Mr. Albert Booth, the Opposition spokesman on transport, have this morning been to the ASLEF headquarters, and my information is that they have worked out a formula. My information is that they are now presenting this formula to the chairman of the British Rail Board, and up to the time that I was presented with the Statement they had not returned from that meeting. We can only hope that will be successful.
We would query why the Government and the Secretary of State have stood aside from what could be a national tragedy, and if what I have just reported proves to be correct it is to be hoped that the Secretary of State will not stand aside if a little movement by him could bring a settlement to what otherwise would be a national disaster.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches we should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for repeating the Statement. The situation is, indeed, a grave one, as the Statement says. It is one in which, in our view, the long-term interests of the community must prevail, and to that end we feel bound to support the British Rail Board in their decision to give

357
ASLEF drivers notice of dismissal and other employees notice that the rail system will be closed if there is not now a sufficiently widespread and speedy return to work. Are the Government aware that in our view settlement of this long-running dispute should now be reached only on terms which will ensure that the long overdue improvement in productivity that lies at its heart is actually achieved?
I have only one specific question to ask the Minister and it relates to the suspension of the guaranteed week agreement. Is the period of one week's notice, referred to in the Statement, such that in the light of British Rail's cash position no insurmountable legal obstacles will arise to frustrate the board's decision? Finally, on behalf of my noble friends, I should like to join in entreating the ASLEF executive to authorise the drivers to resume their duties in this essential public service.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for what they have said and for the restrained way in which they have made their comments. I hope that I shall deal with the matter similarly. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether it was recognised that men do not lightly take action of this kind unless there is due cause. This clearly would not be the moment for me to go over the background as to how one comes to this position at present, after so long a period of negotiations. However, I think that the noble Lord would also accept from me that the Board, too, are responsible people who recognise their obligations to the country as a whole, and therefore I trust that that is equally important in this whole unhappy situation.
The noble Lord said that it is important to avoid an embittered workforce, and of course I agree with him. I think he would also agree with me that it is important that at the end of the day there should not be an embittered public who feel that they have been dealt with very badly in this whole matter. What the noble Lord has told me about his honourable friends Mr. Michael Foot and Mr. Albert Booth is something of which I had heard, but on which I have no more information than he does and, therefore, I cannot make any observation on it.
On the last point which he made about the Government standing aside, I think that I ought to repeat what I said yesterday on that matter when I was answering a Question on this subject; namely, that the Government feel very strongly that it would be quite wrong to intervene. It is for British Rail and their workforce together to settle this matter. The fact is that we must recognise that the Board are striving to change outmoded working practices in an effort to create a modern and efficient railway industry that can best serve the needs of the nation, and the Government fully support their efforts.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for his helpful observations. As regards the one question which he put to me concerning the legal aspect of what the board are doing and whether it might frustrate their intentions, all I would say at this moment is that they have obviously considered the matter very carefully. I understand that they are very sensitive to the point. The matter may well come back on to the table in due
358
course, but at the moment I would not be able to comment further without perhaps adversely prejudicing the line that they are taking.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, we on these Benches regret that a Statement of this kind has to be made today. At the same time, we understand and support the decision taken by the British Rail Board in their endeavours to bring the railways system in the United Kingdom up to the modern standards that are observed in most European railways. I support the proposition that was made that we do not want an embittered workforce. Is the Minister aware that no one has done more to build the morale of the workforce in British Railways than their present chairman?
The Select Committee of 1976–1977 identified 40,000 jobs in British Rail that should go. In the five years that have elapsed, only 12,000 of those jobs have been shed. The decision of the British Railways Board today will mean an immediate saving in taxpayers' money of something like £29 million per week: £12 million in wages and £17 million in other costs. While a great deal has been said about the workforce and the public, there is another factor to be borne in mind in this situation; namely, the taxpayer. British Rail this year will lose £165 million on top of the £850 million public sector obligation, which is the payment for the non-economic lines—a total obligation on the taxpayer of £1 billion per year. Is the Minister aware that that represents a very large slice of the available PSBR which must affect the claims of other important services in our community to a share of that cake?
We on these Benches would like to echo the sentiments of the spokesman from the Liberal Benches and very much welcome in the Statement the paragraph which says that once ASLEF have lifted their strike and accepted the principle of flexible rostering, the British Rail Board are ready today and prepared to enter into constructive dialogue.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I would simply like to say that I confirm the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has mentioned. They are figures which I, too, have, and I can only in the main agree with what the noble Lord says. I think that he, too, recognises the grave concern that there is on all sides. We want to see a solution.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, can the Minister give a practical answer to a question without saying that this is not a matter for the Government but a matter for British Rail? In the circumstances of the dismissal of the driver workforce—which is a possibility—and their subsequent re-engagement, can the noble Lord say how this will affect the pension rights of those men and subsequent redundancy agreements should that occur?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I could venture an opinion but frankly, if the noble Marquess will excuse me, I would prefer not to do so at this moment precisely because I think that, if I am right, it might not help the situation generally. I would prefer not to answer the point. Clearly this is one of the legal points which

359
I referred to in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, which the board obviously have in mind. There are implications all round. The noble Lord can be assured that the Board have this well in mind. I am sorry that at this moment I prefer not to try to give him a more detailed answer, and I hope that at present he will accept what I have said.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is a very important point in terms of modern labour relations and an unembittered workforce?
Lord Bellwin: I entirely accept that it is a very important point and that is why I am absolutely certain that the board have it well in mind.
Lord Milford: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the mass media is not playing a fair part in this dispute? Would not there be less embitterment all round if the ASLEF point of view was put fairly at a mass meeting as well as the public's point of view?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the very last thing I shall do is make my own observations on what I think of the way in which the mass media is presenting this, or any other points if it comes to that. I would probably have to disagree with the point that the noble Lord made. I do not think that there is an unfair representation of that point of view, and I would have to say that. Beyond that, there is no way in which I shall enter into the debate.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think that this might be a convenient moment for the House again to resolve itself into a Committee on the Transport Bill.

Transport Bill
4.2 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 62 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Provision for exclusion of fixed penalty procedures where fixed penalty notice mistakenly given.]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 62A:
Page 44, line 42, leave out ("that section") and insert ("section 36 of this Act").
The noble Earl said: This very small amendment corrects a mistaken reference back. Specific reference to" proceedings for enforcing payment" of an enhanced unpaid fixed penalty is to be found in Clause 36, not Clause 35. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment Nos. 63, 64, 65, and 66 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Fixed penalty offences confined to Scotland.]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 75, leave out lines 27 and 28.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I draw the Committee's attention to this second list of fixed penalties in Schedule 2. Lines 27 and 28 set out an offence under the 1972 Act of driving with uncorrected defective eyesight. Whatever one may think about the inclusion of separate fixed penalty offences which are confined purely to Scotland, I should like to ask my noble and learned friend whether there is any justification for the inclusion in this particular list of an endorsable offence, but one which is not regarded as a fixed penalty offence in England and Wales.
The Committee may recall that in June last year, during the Committee stage of the 1981 Act, we spent some time talking about the seriousness of driving with defective eyesight. It is surprising to me that in this comprehensive list of some 30 additional offences for fixed penalty, something which your Lordships thought last year was of a very serious nature is apparently less serious in Scotland in that it warrants an alternative and lesser penalty than it does in England and Wales. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support this amendment, especially with regard to line 28. I know someone who has been asked to produce evidence of his date of birth; in other words, to produce his birth certificate. Over a week ago he wrote to St. Catherine's House for a copy of his birth certificate. There was no reply. He wrote again, and still received no reply. Then he telephoned and a very sleepy girl said: "I do not know much about that, but I will try to find out about it". He had to wait about 20 minutes, adding greatly to the cost of his telephone bill. She then said:" We will make it an urgent case; I will put an urgent' tab on it and you should get your birth certificate within three weeks". If you are suddenly asked to furnish evidence of your date of birth—presumably your word is no good; it has to be a birth certificate as I read this—if the bureaucracy cannot produce it quicker than that, who is to blame? Is the individual to blame, or is the system to blame? It certainly seems to be unfair on the individual.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The amendment which my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has moved is an amendment to delete lines 27 and 28 from Schedule 2, which will have the effect—and the effect only—of deleting the enactment Section 91(1), and the description of the offence of "driving with uncorrected defective eyesight". In other words, he is not seeking to amend the provision dealing with failure to furnish the Secretary of State, when required, with evidence of date of birth.
However, in answer to my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, the effect is that Section 104(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 creates an offence of the kind which is there described, and the mere fact that it is in the schedule dealing with it as a fixed penalty offence does not really affect that. But I

361
can assure my noble friend that the procurator fiscal in Scotland would certainly exercise his discretion if a matter of this kind was reported to him, if the failure was not a failure of the individual himself but some failure on the part of the bureaucracy, to which my noble friend referred. In other words, if someone has a reasonable explanation for what he has done, the fiscal is perhaps the best person to go to, because he is accustomed to dealing with that sort of thing and adjudicating upon it. He has a fairly strong discretion and he is not afraid not to prosecute where he thinks that that is the correct decision to take.
On the amendment, I do not think that it is a correct assumption that because that offence occurs in Schedule 2, it is regarded as less serious in Scotland than it would be in England. As I sought to explain, the reason for Schedule 2 was that in Scotland we have the procurator fiscal, who has experience of exercising discretion at a fairly high level with very considerable protection of independence. An offence of this kind would be reported to him and it would be up to him to decide whether or not to prosecute. He would have the responsibility of conducting the prosecution and deciding about the evidence.
This schedule is constructed on the basis of the recommendations of the Stewart Committee—to which I have already referred—that committee having been set up by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and the then Lord Advocate, to consider the matters which it had in its terms of reference. One of them was to consider for what offences it might be appropriate for the procurator fiscal to have discretion to issue or to offer a fixed penalty. Looking at all the possible offences and having regard to all circumstances of the procurator fiscal's office and so on, the committee concluded that this was a suitable offence to include in the list. It does not mean that in every case of this sort the procurator fiscal will, in fact, offer a fixed penalty. That will depend on all the circumstances—for example, the consequences in the particular case of this particular breach of the law—and so on. Therefore, I think that I can reasonably assure my noble friend Lord Lucas that the fact that this offence is in this schedule will not in any way signify that it is not considered a serious offence and one which requires to be dealt with adequately under the law.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I must say that I do not find that explanation very satisfactory. I might add to my noble and learned friend that I do not propose to go further with this matter—at least not this afternoon. It seems to me that, on the one hand, one is trying to move to a simpler system of penalty enforcement with regard to motoring offences. It might perhaps be fairly useful if I now speak to my later amendments on the schedules so that we do not have to go through the whole thing again.
We have a position here which certainly a year or two ago we thought, as regards defective eyesight, was a very serious offence. We have moved this, by inclusion in Schedule 2, into an area that offers a lesser penalty than hitherto. In other words, by definition the offence is reduced. It need not be, but by its very inclusion it is reduced.
362
I find the whole of Schedule 2 something of a nonsense. Unless we want a lot of divisions between one side of the border and the other—and I do not think that any of us wants that—I cannot see why, since Schedule 1 contains about 40 offences which can be dealt with by fixed penalties common in England Wales and Scotland, but which are going to be dealt with offences. They are the same kind of offences which would arise from a breach of the law in England, Wales and Scotland, but which are going to be dealt with in this way because of the explanation that my noble and learned friend has given.
These two schedules arise because the Stewart Committee reported on alternatives to prosecution in Scotland in 1980, and they suggseted this list. The Inter-Departmental Working Party on Road Traffic Law, which reported in 1981, produced another list, which is Schedule many of the items became Schedule 2 by virtue of this arrangement. No clear reason is given other than it is more convenient for the fiscal to deal with these matters because they do not have the same arrangemnets within the police station itself for dealing with a fixed penalty notice.
It is far better that offenders in England, Scotland and Wales should be given the same opportunities. I understand what my noble and learned friend says; they are not meant to be separated, but it is rather more convenient for the Scots to be separated. On the one hand if the Scots are apprehended transgressing the law in England, they can either plead guilty and hope that the fiscal will deal with them lightly by issuing a fixed penalty, or he might even take them off to court. something which we do not have in England. On the other hand, we get an opportunity of a fixed penalty for certain offences, 40 of them, and the Scots get an additional 30. To me it just does not seem common sense or practical.
It does not seem reasonable, either, that because a particular system is set up one part of a nation should enjoy greater benefits, on the one hand, or fewer, on the other. I do not find that my noble and learned friend's answer is satisfactory, although I have little doubt that it is perfectly accurate. I find it a totally unsatisfactory position.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Underhill: May I briefly support the general tenor of Lord Lucas's remarks, and not necessarily support the deletion of Schedule 2, which is one of his later amendments, because that would bring complications. I appreciate the points that are made about Scots law being different. The last thing I would wish to do is to cause cross-border difficulties. But an issue might be satisfactory if it is something that is being dealt with for the Scots alone, but this will not be for the Scots alone. It will be for the people of England and Wales who may be visiting Scotland. Therefore, it affects people other than Scots. Even though it may not be possible to deal with it in this Bill at this time, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether it is not possible for Ministers to get together, for those responsible for that report to get together, so that on these issues of traffic law and regulations we can at least have some common treatment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: If the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, happened to get involved in one of the offences listed in Schedule 2—and I sincerely hope that he does not on his forthcoming Scottish holiday—he would, because we have the system of a procurator fiscal, be able to have that dealt with without any inconvenience of court. Now why, because we have that system, should we make use of it simply because in the particular arrangements available in England that possibility does not exist? It does not mean any injustice. It just means that if you happen to be in Scotland you can be dealt with in this particular matter more conveniently than happens to be the case in England.
Schedule 1 offences are offences in which the police can give a fixed penalty, and that applies north and south of the border. The reason for Schedule 2—the extra offences so far as Scotland is concerned—is that these offences are of a kind which the Stewart Committee thought the procurator fiscal could reasonably deal with. It does not suggest that they are any less serious, or that the penalty that he gives will be less than it would be if it went to court, as I explained in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton. The penalty in court might be more, or less, depending on the eloquence of the advocate and the circumstances as the court saw them.
It is simply a convenience to avoid the necessity in the appropriate case of the person who happens to transgress in Scotland going through the court procedure. That has the great benefit of saving the court time, occupying the court with matters which should not concern it, because the person who is being dealt with is perfectly satisfied to be dealt with by the fixed penalty that the procurator fiscal has offered him. May I correct one thing. I said earlier that the Stewart Committee was appointed by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. I was giving it slightly too long a parentage. I think it was his right honourable successor, Mr. Millan, who had that particular honour.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am glad to dissociate myself from the parentage of the Stewart Committee, but not from the findings of the Stewart Committee. It must be terrible for English Peers to find that we have an entirely separate, not legal system alone, but way of dealing with the law. Simply because the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is troubled that we have this advantage, that we have somebody who is independent of Government and indeed independent of the judiciary, who is concerned with prosecutions in Scotland, he suggests that we should forget all about that when it comes to traffic offences.
If we can deal with these matter much more expeditiously because of our traditional form of dealing with legal matters in Scotland, then why should we be denied it just to get some uniformity with the primitive English? I am glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate at least stuck up for the Scottish legal system. We are not going to dispense with it.
Noble Lords had the solution to this in their own hands. They decided they wanted to retain control of all Scottish legislation here in England. There was a devolution Bill. Tomorrow this place will be crowded with English Members when we are dealing with a Scottish Local Government and Planning Bill. They
364
will all be here because they can insist that it should be dealt with here in London. I am looking forward to that, and I daresay that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will be here as well to put his point of view and his thoughts on Scottish local government, and the rest of it. But the one thing that makes it possible to have a measure of devolution in Scotland is that we have a different legal system and a different administration of justice and courts administration in Scotland. Long may that continue, and it is about time people in England realised that unlike English areas—unlike even Wales—we have had it for centuries and we intend to continue it.
It was one matter that was in the Act of Settlement; the treaty said that the Scottish legal system should continue, and it has. To suit the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the desire of my noble friend Lord Underhill for uniformity there is no reason why we should in this case be denied the benefit of dealing much more expeditiously with the 30 listed offences.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I assure the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that I have no wish whatever to impose my will on the Scots, in lawful or any other matters, and I said at the outset that I was not proposing to take the amendment further. I moved it because I wanted an explanation, which is surely not an unreasonable request to make of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. I admire some of the differences that obtain in Scotland, particularly in regard to property transactions—they have a far more sensible way of dealing with such matters—but, having heard the explanation given by my noble and learned friend, I assure Lord Ross that I have no intention of raising the matter again tomorrow.
One of those people who examine Bills and amendments has suggested to me, however, that my noble and learned friend's explanation may not be correct if one considered a rather absurd case, that of a straying dog wandering without a lead on a designated road in Berwick on Tweed. That could result in the owner being in trouble under the 1972 Act as reflected in Schedule 2 of this measure. If it were on the Scottish side of Berwick on Tweed, it could be dealt with by way of a fixed penalty.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It might be.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am obliged to the noble Lord; it might be dealt with in that way, and most probably it would be. However, if it happened on the English side, it could not be so dealt with. It would have to go to court. I find that odd, but perhaps I had better just leave it there, regarding it as being odd, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No.68:
Page 76, line 42, at end insert ("which is, by virtue of section 26 or 40 of this Act, a fixed penalty offence").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to this. I bee to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 agreed to.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 69:
After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Transport Act 1981.
Speeding Offences
. In Part II of Schedule 7 to the Transport Act 1981, the following words are deleted:

"Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 s. 78A.

Exceeding a speed limit

3"

and the following words are substituted:

"Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 s. 78A(1).

Speeding offences under the 1967 Act and other Acts except those dealt with by fixed penalty notice.

2–3"

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 s. 78A.

Speeding offences under the 1967 Act and other Acts dealt with by payment of a fixed penalty.

2"")

The noble Lord said: I return to matters we have discussed on innumerable occasions, notably last year and earlier in this Bill's Committee stage. This amendment is another and further attempt to move to a simplification of the system of penalties—to move further towards a system of differentiating between the serious and less serious offence, or between the more serious and what I have been pleased to call in previous debates the technical offence.
As your Lordships will see, I have suggested that we remove the penalty for exceeding a speed limit, which carries endorsable penalty points of an obligatory nature (three of them) and transfer that into two groups. One is of speeding offences other than those dealt with by a fixed penalty notice, giving an obligatory points endorsement of either two or three; if they are not dealt with under a fixed penalty notice they will go to court, where the magistrates will determine the seriousness or otherwise of the offence and the seriousness of the penalty that should be awarded. On the other hand, there is an inclusion in the amendment that where speeding offences will be dealt with by a fixed penalty, there should be a lesser obligatory endorsement, that of two points. The new clause, if accepted, would represent a halfway house towards the ideal system of a two-tier fixed penalty offence system. From our discussions recently, the Government are disinclined to remove a number of offences totally from the endorsable points system, letting them rest, alternatively on a fixed penalty, or court proceedings—a normal prosecution—with all the panoply of penalty that might result.
I believe there has been, last year and in the proceedings on this measure, a general feeling that there should be a differential punishment for what one might call the technical offence—that offence which is not desperately serious, dangerous or reckless—the kind of offence that a policeman at the roadside or when apprehending an alleged offender would decide there and then, "This is obviously not a court matter". We know in practice that that happens already. Somebody may be stopped and the policeman asks if he is in a hurry, where is he going, why and so on, and at the end of all that he may just say, Let this be a warning to you. Take more care and go rather more slowly in future". We know that happens, and it is very good. It reminds one of the 1930s "courtesy cops who did so much good.
Why cannot we accept something of that nature, which is the halfway house? That is all it is. In any event, there is power in the 1981 Act to alter the point system, to add and remove offences, and my amendment goes some way towards jogging some activity under that provision. I do not think I need say more, except that I believe that where we are having to step up the enforcement of the law in regard to traffic offences, it is no bad thing—I said this on Friday morning—to offer a carrot as well as thumping the motorist with a stick. I suggest that my amendment carries an element of carrot with the stick attached. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth for explaining his amendment with such clarity. His proposal is that instead of three penalty points being given for a speeding offence, whether it is dealt with by fixed penalty or in court, two points should be given if it is dealt with by fixed penalty and two or three points if it is a court case. As such, the proposal is a much less radical departure from our own proposals than was the noble Lord's amendment to Clause 26.
On the one hand, it has the attraction of providing a further incentive to the motorist to accept a fixed penalty, and not take his case to court. But, on the other hand, it represents a further relaxation of the effect of endorsement for this particular group of offences. Your Lordships' Committee will recall that at present a person is liable to be disqualified after three speeding offences. When the new points scheme is introduced he will, with three points for the offence, be able to commit four offences before being liable; and that is already a relaxation. Under my noble friend's proposal it will be possible for him to commit six offences at two points per time before that happened. I must ask the Committee to consider whether we are not in danger of carrying relaxation a little too far, and perhaps too fast.
I should also draw the Committee's attention to the argument that if a court can award two or three points, people will surely want to take the opportunity to argue that they should be awarded two, rather than three, points. As the noble Lord is aware, that would not make the system much simpler. Furthermore, I have a slight feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, might not like it very much, since surely a motorist would be tempted to accept a two points penalty fixed fine straight away, since if he went to court he could risk being awarded three points. As was mentioned in discussion on earlier amendments, we should want to avoid that kind of situation.
I think that my noble friend is trying to introduce into the points system a degree of fine tuning which, quite frankly, is too complicated. He has to convince your Lordships' Committee that the present legislation is wrong; in fact that the legislation which your Lordships passed last year is wrong. I feel that he must find that rather difficult to do, since the points system does not come into effect until this October, and I believe that we really should give the 1981 Act a fair trial before we start tinkering with the details in the way proposed. My noble friend said, I think, that he would like to jog my right honourable friend's

367
memory on the point that under a provision of the 1981 Act he is able to change the points count, but I believe that we must give the system a chance to come into effect before we start trying to change it.
Lord Gisborough: I wish very briefly to support the amendment. Undoubtedly, in regard to speeding offences there is a significant difference between the motorist who drives at high speed and the motorist who is just over the speed limit, and obviously that point is not recognised with the single three-points penalty system. There are also considerable differences among the attitudes of both police forces and individual officers in them as to whether to insist on imposing penalty points or an on-the-spot fine, or, as often happens, to let off the motorist with only a warning. I believe that there is a very good argument for the variable penalty points system. There is no argument against it. If there were to be an argument against it, it must also apply to variations that are accepted in other parts of the Bill.
The Earl of Avon: I wonder whether my noble friend has really studied the penalty points system which your Lordships passed last year.
Lord Underhill: I, too, wish briefly to support the amendment. I supported the principle of it last year, and I also spoke on it on the second day of the Committee stage, in relation to another amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. So, obviously, I do not intend to change my attitude within a short period. It is not so much a question of waiting to see how the points system works. Rather, it is a question of whether or not all speeding offences deserve three points. We know that there are a number of types of speeding offence that are very serious, but there are other types that are purely technical. I do not suppose that there is a noble Lord in the Chamber who does not share that view. A motorist might build up four or five sets of points, yet each set might arise from a mere technical offence that has caused no danger at all to anyone.
Noble Lords have given examples of occasions when they have been pulled up. I remind the Committee of what I said 12 months ago. I have had only one speeding offence. It occurred at half an hour past midnight, on a dry road, with a glorious moon shining. There was no one on the road apart from myself. There was a 40 miles-an-hour limit and a de-restriction sign half a mile ahead. I was doing 46 or 47 miles-an-hour, causing no danger to anyone at all. On the other hand, a motorist might do 35 miles-an-hour in an urban area—a really serious offence. Therefore, I believe that there is a sound case for looking at what the amendment proposes. Perhaps the Minister cannot accept it in its present form, but I urge that serious consideration be given to it at sometime.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his continued support for the principle that is underlined by the amendment. I would say to my noble friend Lord Avon that currently, until October of this year, (as he said), the motorist is permitted only three convictions for speeding before disqualification. After October under
368
the three-points system, he will have four chances before disqualification. I do not disagree with that.
My noble friend suggested that if my amendment were accepted, there would be a great degree of relaxation, since a motorist could commit six offences before disqualification. My noble friend stated that the motorist would take the option, but I would point out that he might not even have the option, because the alternative has not yet been offered. What the motorist has is an option to accept an offer of a fixed penalty with, if my amendment were accepted, the lower endorsable points value. However, so far as I understand the position—and I think I understand it—the constable is not obliged to offer a fixed penalty. He might say to the motorist, "You have exceeded the speed limit, and I am going to report you for prosecution. Kindly show me your licence, insurance, and other documents". The motorist goes to court; and so there is not necessarily a relaxation.
The amendment would mean that the policeman would have to make a decision. He would have to ask himself, "Do I go for the heavier course of taking the motorist to court, or do I let him off with a warning, or do I impose a slightly lesser fixed penalty which carries two endorsable points"? I think that that is perfectly reasonable.
My noble friend stated that the 1981 Act is not yet in force, and that we should give it a chance. But why give it a chance if it is no good? I have said repeatedly during discussions on the Bill—and I shall probably say it again today—that the department thinks along the same tram lines all the time; it cannot move outside of them. The amendment might have some imperfections, but I believe that if your Lordships' Committee were to accept it, that would demonstrate to Her Majesty's Government and the department that we want more flexible thinking and a far wider range of options and opportunities. Therefore, I ask your Lordships' Committee whether it will express its view on the matter.
4.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 69) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 66.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Cross, V.

Ampthill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Annan, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ardwick, L.

Denington, B.

Avebury, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Aylestone, L.

Baker, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Balogh, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Banks, L.

Energlyn, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, I

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Beswick, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Bishopston, L.

Gisborough, L.

Blease, L.

Glenamara, L.

Blyton, L.

Gosford, E.

Brockway, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Byers, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Caccia L.

Kimberley, E.

Chitnis, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

369

Kirkhill, L.

Rochester, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Listowel, E.

St. Davids, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Seear, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stone, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.—[Teller.]

Strauss, L.

Tanlaw, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Mais, L.

Teviot, L.—[Teller.]

Milford, L.

Underhill, L.

Milverton, L.

Walston, L.

Monson, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Whaddon, L.

Oram L.

White, B.

Peart, L.

Willis, L.

Plant, L.

Wise, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Kinnaird, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V.—[Teller.]

Alport, L.

Lyell, L.

Auckland, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Avon, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bellwin, L.

Mancroft, L.

Beloff, L.

Margadale, L.

Belstead, L.

Marley, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cathcart, E.

Merrivale, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Mersey, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mills, V.

Daventry, V.

Mishcon, L.

Davidson, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Moyne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Northchurch, B.

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Eccles, V.

Polwarth, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Portland, D.

Faithfull, B.

Rochdale, V.

Fortescue, E.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathspey, L.

Glenusk, L.

Sudeley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Vickers, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Windlesham, L.

Killearn, L.

Wynford, L.

Kilmany, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [False statement in response to notices to owner]:
4.47 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 50, line 40, leave out from ("knowledge") to end of line 42.
The noble and learned Lord said: Perhaps T could speak to these three amendments, Nos. 70 to 72, together. These amendments remove a redundant reference to local authorities in Clause 44. Local authorities will not be involved in the notice to owner procedure under the Bill, and they will not receive
370
any evidence about false statements. I beg to move Amendment No. 70.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 51, line 6, leave out ("or the local authority").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 51, line 8, leave out ("or their").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Evidence in fixed penalty notice cases]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 73 to 76:
Page 51, line 19, leave Out ("sufficient").
Page 51, line 20, leave out ("unless the contrary is proved").
Page 51, line 28, leave out ("sufficient").
Page 51, line 30, leave out ("unless the contrary is proved").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 73 to 76 with Amendment No. 51. With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 73, 74, 75 and 76 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agree to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [Fixed penalty notice in Scotland]:
On Question, Whether Clause 46 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: As I explained, we have amalgamated this clause, and the result is that Clause 46 as printed in the Bill should be deleted. I therefore ask your Lordships not to allow this clause to stand part of the Bill.
On Question, Clause 46 disagreed to.
Clasue 47 [Jurisdiction of the district court in Scotland]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No.77:
Page 53, line 23, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 25 and insert—
("(1A) Nothing in this section shall empower the district court in respect of any offence—

(a) to impose—

(i) a penalty of imprisonment which exceeds sixty days; or

(ii) a fine which exceeds level 4 on the standard scale; or

(b) subject to subsection (1B) below, to impose disqualification within the meaning of the 1972 Act.

(1B) Where a person is convicted in the district court of an offence referred to in subsection (1) above, being an offence involving obligatory endorsement,—

(a) the court shall order that particulars of the conviction shall be endorsed on any licence held by him in accordance with section 101 of the 1972 Act; and

(b) if the penalty points to be taken into account under section 19(3) of the Transport Act 1981 number twelve or more, the court shall order him to be disqualified under section 19(2) of that Act.").

The noble and learned Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amend-

371
ments Nos. 77 and 78 together. This amendment reformulates much of Clause 47(1) of the Bill. The purpose of that clause was to make fixed penalty offences, and offences in Schedule 2 to the Bill, triable, in Scotland, in the district court. The district court is the court which deals with the least serious criminal offences in Scotland, while the sheriff court and the High Court deal with more serious matters. The object of making these offences triable in the district court is to make the extended fixed penalty system in the Bill run as one with the existing parking fixed penalty system, which is operated in the district court.
The clause does not quite achieve its purpose, because, as drafted, it excludes fixed penalty offences which have a maximum fine of more than Level 4 on the standard scale—as introduced in the Criminal Justice Bill which your Lordships' House recently considered, which is intended to be £500. That does not catch all fixed penalty offences because one, breach of construction and use regulations involving a heavy goods vehicle, carries a maximum penalty of £1,000, by virtue of Clause 55 of the Bill. Further, other offences with a penalty greater than Level 4 could be included in Schedule I by order under Clause 28
It is obviously desirable that all fixed penalty offences should be triable in the same court, so that we can have a single unified fixed penalty system, and policemen and motorists do not have to follow one procedure for one offence and a different court procedure for another. The amendment therefore reformulates the clause so as to provide that all fixed penalty offences are triable in the district court; but in so doing it does not give that court any greater powers of punishment than it would otherwise have.
The amendment also seeks out the powers of endorsement and disqualification available to the district court under the Bill. At the moment, the district court has no such powers, and is not competent to deal with endorseable offences. The amendment would allow the court to endorse, and to disqualify on a totting-up basis, but not give it power of discretionary disqualification. This, I understand, is in accordance with the views of the Central Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace, chaired by the noble and learned Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Wheatley of Shettleston. More serious examples of these offences will continue to be prosecuted in the sheriff court, where the power of discretionary disqualification will still be available. As your Lordships will appreciate, it is ihe procurator fiscal who decides into which court the case should be taken. He has the power to discriminate between cases on the basis of the circumstances. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 53, line 28, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [Supplementary provisions]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B:
372
Page 53, line 34, after ("notification") insert ("certificate").
Page 53, line 35, leave out ("(1) or (3)") and insert ("(1A) Or (1B)").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B when I moved Amendment No. 56A. I beg to move them en bloc.
Lord Mishcon: Purely as a matter of interest, if the noble Earl, will look at the clause and the line we are dealing with, the words used are "notice" or "notification". We are now putting in a certificate. Simply for clarity of language, what is the difference between a "notice" and a "notification"?
The Earl of Avon: As this refers back to one which is "pre" my present notes. I cannot satisfy the noble Lord at the moment; but I will find out.
Lord Mishcon: I am sure that I have mentioned one of the most important points in the whole of the Bill. I am perfectly content to have a word with the noble Earl at any time hereafter in order to elucidate this extremely urgent point.
The Earl of Avon: Actually, if we read this back in Hansard we will find it under the description of No. 56.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 54, line 8, at end insert—
("(a) where a corporate body is the registered keeper of a vehicle the owner of that vehicle shall be taken to be the person given responsibility for that vehicle as certified in the prescribed form by an officer of that corporate body; and
(b").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment in connection with a series of other amendments which I withdrew. But I feel that the substance of the present amendment is of some significance and, before deciding how to proceed with the matter, I should like to know the views of the Government. In Clause 48(2) the owner is deemed to be the driver of the vehicle, although there is no doubt that it is the driver himself or herself who must be dealt with. In order to transfer responsibility from the owner to the driver, if they are not the same person, it is necessary for an statutory statement to be made in accordance with Part II of Schedule 3 and countersigned by the actual driver.
In the case of a company car, this should not be necessary. It should be sufficient for the company to indicate the employee responsible whether or not she or he signs a declaration and whether or nor he or she personally defrays the fixed penalty or fine. Unfortunately, a very high proportion of the vehicles which obstruct our highways are owned by corporate bodies and are being used by business purposes. This seems to add a degree of recklessness to the attitude of the drivers and it is this which my amendment seeks to remedy. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My noble friend Lord Teviot spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 23. I do not have any further points here to add. I can, of course, find out the answer to this particular amendment.
Lord Teviot: In that case, I will withdraw the amendment. I suppose that I should have given my noble friend notice a little earlier that I intended to bring this up. It was a separate point that was dealt with very briefly when we dealt with Amendment No. 23 and I think it is an important point. Perhaps I might put it down again on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Interpretation of Part III]:
5 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 79A:
Page 56, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
(""justices' clerk" means a clerk to the justices for a petty sessions area;
"magistrates' court" and "petty sessions area" have the same meanings as in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980; and").
The noble Earl said: This small amendment simplifies the definition of "justices clerk" at present contained in the Bill and adds definitions of "magistrates' court" and "petty sessions area". The second has become necessary because of the changes which have been made already in Clauses 35 and 36. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 56, line 24, at end insert (", but no such order shall prescribe as appropriate for discharge by traffic wardens functions under this Part of this Act which relate to moving traffic offences, nor shall any such order authorise a traffic warden who is in a moving vehicle to discharge functions.").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (3) of this clause reads:
"In so far as an order under Section 81(3) of the 1967 Act authorises the employment of traffic wardens for the purposes of this Part of this Act references in this Part of this Act to a constable or, as the case may be, to a constable in uniform shall include a traffic warden.".
The amendment seeks to provide that any order referred to in this subsection shall not prescribe the use of traffic wardens on functions which relate to moving vehicles nor to a traffic warden who may be in a moving vehicle. As the fixed penalty system is to be extended to include endorsable offences, it is imperative that everything possible be done to preserve police public relations. The amendment wants to ensure that the situation is not aggravated by the use of wardens in relation to offences by moving vehicles. I should like to make it clear that I am not in any way disparaging wardens. They do a difficult job which is not always fully appreciated when one gets parking tickets. It is a difficult and necessary job. But it is a different job from that of a constable.
A similar amendment was brought forward in the Committee in the other place and the Minister rejected the amendment for various reasons. She said—and I am paraphrasing—that a number of offences in the fixed penalty system do not carry points but are moving traffic offences. The current shortage of wardens does not permit an extension of their duties. But, however,
374
she said, this should not shut off a provision which a future Govermnent may think it desirable to introduce and we should do nothing which will bind a successor Government. Also, there is provision for orders affecting the functions of traffic wardens to be scrutinised by both Houses. I am certain that noble Lords will appreciate that the affirmative procedure is useful, but the orders cannot be amended. One accepts them or rejects them. In my view, none of these reasons given by the Minister is sufficient justification for not accepting this amendment.
If a future Government wish to widen the functions of wardens, they should do so by primary legislation, not by a draft order with the affirmative resolution procedure. In support of the amendment, I should like to quote paragraph 38 of the inter-departmental working party on traffic law. It is headed "Police Action". It says:
"We do not consider that persons other than police officers should operate an extension of the fixed penalty system. The procedures involved, including stopping drivers and examining their documents, are suitable only for police officers to undertake especially since most of the offences concerned would be endorsable. There is a further important consideration that only police officers have discretion to caution a driver in lieu of any other action, and it is obviously right for this power to go hand in hand with an extension of fixed penalties".
In further support of that view, and of this amendment, the Minister, Mrs. Chalker, in Committee in another place—and this is from col. 1107 of Hansard for 27th April—said:
"I think that I gained the feeling of the Committee that we would all be against giving traffic wardens the power to issue a fixed penalty notice for endorsable offences".
Later, she said:
"… I shall consider what has been said because I share the natural feelings of any motorist about extending the duties of traffic wardens and would want there to be a full and proper debate before such duties were given to traffic wardens".
A little later she said:
"But I shall consider further what the honourable Member for Westhoughton and his colleagues and my honourable friends have said, although at present I do not wish to accept the amendment until I have reached further conclusions".
So it is pretty clear that the Minister was not averse to the general principle of this amendment. I believe in view of the departmental working party, the Statement by the Minister and the general view held on this, that the Government should feel fit to accept the amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I should like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on this matter. It is wrong that somebody who has not had any correct training should do this. I have looked at Clause 26 which I feel covers this point. I wonder whether my noble friend will be able to assure me on this.
The Earl of Avon: The Committee are no doubt aware, and the noble Lord has said, that this issue was debated at some length in another place and they must forgive me if what I say has a familiar ring. The position in law at the moment is that the functions of traffic wardens are defined in the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970, which is made under Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1967. I must emphasise that nothing in the Government's proposals in the Bill is intended to alter the substance of these provisions.

375
What this amendment is seeking to do however, is circumscribe the discretion of Ministers to add moving traffic offences to the list of offences for which a warden may issue a fixed penalty notice. What I think noble Lords have in mind is that it would be undesirable—and everybody will agree—to allow wardens to issue fixed penalty notices for offences carrying points. I quite agree. Nothing could be further from the Government's intentions.
There are a number of moving traffic offences included in the fixed penalty system which do not carry penalty points. In the past it has been seriously considered whether it would assist the police to include these offences in the range of wardens' duties. These plans had to be shelved when it became apparent that manpower in the traffic warden service was declining, but it may be that in the future Ministers will again be in a position to make such a decision. It would seem unreasonable to prevent this.
By the same token, while it is not our current policy to change the existing constraint in the Functions of Traffic Warden Order on wardens discharging their functions from a moving vehicle, it may be that in the future Ministers might wish to look at this again.
My second reason for hoping that this amendment will not find favour applies to both parts of the amendment, and it is that it seems to me that there are already more than adequate safeguards and parliamentary control on the issue of what duties a warden should perform. The existing provisions ensure that any change to the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedure. I hope this may satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, because it seems to me to get the right balance between allowing Ministers to decide on their policy in the light of current circumstances, and allowing the House to scrutinise, and if need be object to, what is proposed. My noble friend Lady MacLeod asked about Clause 26. In that clause a constable is referred to but a traffic warden may be regarded as a constable for the duties while he is empowered to carry them out. I hope with that explanation the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, may be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I hope very much that my noble friend will not withdraw his amendment. This is an important point which the Committee are now considering. I should like to underline briefly what is involved. The House has been treated in the course of this Bill and in regard to other legislation—and there is no party political argument in this because I should be saying exactly the same, in a very humble way, if this were Government legislation and I happened to be sitting happily on the Government side.
This is the point that is involved: people drive very often as a matter of livelihood. People value their clean driving reputation even if they do not drive for a livelihood because they have a connection which they regard as a very reputable one with their insurers. People in neither of those categories value their driving reputation by virtue of the fact that they regard it as a social duty to be a good and careful driver and that people who are bad drivers with bad driving reputations are anti-social and are not
376
good citizens. So we have been very carful in our legislation to see that those who are in a position to impose a penalty upon a driver, which is one which affects his driving record, are our courts; and our courts are supposed to listen to the evidence, weigh it up carefully and come to a just conclusion, having done so.
Under this Bill we are giving greater powers—and I am glad that we are—to police constables. They are going to be allowed, in regard to matters which previously went before the courts, in respect of moving offences to say, "We think you have committed an offence: we are now in a position, though we were not before, to issue a fixed penalty notice, if you want it. If you do not want it I shall have to consider reporting you for a prosecution".
This is a matter of judicial decision which we are delegating to our police force, believing that they are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said, trained for that purpose, trained to ascertain whether an offence has been committed and trained to be judicial in their approach. Like my noble friend Lord Underhill, I have nothing but admiration—except when they approach me in my personal vehicle—for traffic wardens. Obviously they do a most unwelcome task and very often have to put up with a lot of abuse. Very often they have to take that abuse on the chin, whether it is a male or female chin, and they are fulfilling a very necessary public purpose. But they have neither the training nor the ability very often, and it would be quite unjust to them—and quite unjust to the motorists—to impose upon them the duty of dealing with endorsable offences. It is all very well for Ministers to say, wherever they come from—and I repeat that there is no party argument about this at all—"This Government have got no intention, with this Minister, of giving traffic wardens the power or trying to make an order which would be subject to the affirmative procedure in regard to offences where endorsement is obligatory: there is no such idea in our heads".
I would have been a little more content if the Minister had said, "We are prepared to write into the Bill that no order will be made where any endorsable offence is under review". Not a bit of it: there was no such offer from the Minister at all, and I am not saying I would have been wholly content even with that, because there are quite serious offences which are not endorsable but which from some points of view may be regarded as serious to somebody who values his driving record. It is not good enough to say: "We will never do this except by order which is subject to the affirmative procedure". In this Chamber those words sound glorious, except to those who—I say this with the greatest respect—have become used to that procedure of both Houses of Parliament. There cannot be a debate on an affirmative motion in the other place without the Whips having decided that it is of sufficient importance to find time for debate. If there is no time found for debate, it goes through on the nod and Members of the other place find afterwards, very often to their great disquiet, that something has gone through about which they might have had quite a lot to say, given the opportunity.
In this Chamber the tradition is such that if you counted up the number of affirmative resolution debates in respect of statutory orders and instruments

377
where a Division was taken over the last century, you would be quite amazed to find how few there have been. On a Transport Bill, which those of us who are here think important—let us look round at this moment to see the number of people on all the Benches who are present considering an important clause of this nature—what would the likely attendance be if it were a question of an affirmative order, conferring the power on traffic wardens to enable them to issue penalty notices and adjudicate on moving vehicle offences and where it is not an ordinary "obstruction" matter to be dealt with?
I do ask noble Lords on all sides to see that this power is not given to a Secretary of State, whether it be by means of the affirmative procedure or not. I ask it in the name of justice and in the name of motorists who deserve to be treated fairly and, if I may put it in this way, I also ask it in the name of traffic wardens who I do not think would ever want to have this responsibility thrust upon them.
The Earl of Avon: I take very much to heart the force of the argument put forward by the noble Lord. I would be appreciative if we could look at this again to see whether we can move towards him in some way before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: With the concurrence of my noble friend Lord Underhill, I should like just to thank the noble Earl for his most gracious remark on the suggestion. I hope he will realise that I believe I am right in saying that there is a very definite feeling in all sections of the Committee on this matter. I hope he will be able to make a practical contribution, having heard the arguments put forward today.
Lord Gisborough: Before the noble Earl sits down finally, may I just ask him whether special constables come into the category of traffic wardens or of police regarding this particular aspect?
The Earl of Avon: I would imagine as constables.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Before my noble friend leaves this completely, would he, when giving consideration to this matter, bear in mind that there seems in the country to be a general feeling that we do not want to move anywhere towards a dual force. The police generally are held in high regard. They are the enforcers of the law and it would be quite wrong to give another body equal or similar status.
I should like to mention one other factor. I have noticed in some cities a new group of people who look something like traffic wardens. The only difference that I can see is that, whereas a traffic warden wears a yellow band round the hat, this new group bear a blue band. I do not know what they are but it seems to me that if we are not very careful we are all going to end up—
Lord Mishcon: I do hope the noble Lord will not think me discourteous, but we have in front of us a very heavy agenda in respect of this Bill. The noble Earl has been gracious enough to say that he sees the force of the arguments put to him and that he will consider them if with a view to helping. Would it not be the
378
wish of the Committee—and I hope that I am not being too venturesome in saying this—that, having had that courteous assurance, we should now move on? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 49, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Macleod of Borve: May I make a comment on this clause, because I understand this is the last clause which deals with fixed penalty notices? I should like to ask my noble friend if he will take on board that in future when this Bill is implemented there should be a great deal of publicity given about fixed penalty notices. Those of us who have discussed it perhaps now understand it better than we did previously, but the general public have not had the opportunity of listening to our debate; nor perhaps have they had the opportunity of reading a great deal about them. Would it be possible to draw public attention to the fixed penalty notices fairly vehemently?—because they will not understand it unless the Government take a hand.
The Earl of Avon: I very much appreciate my noble friend's point and, of course, I will make sure that the Secretary of State has it well in mind.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 [Control of operating centres for goods vehicles on environmental grounds]:
5.20 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 58, line 2 at end insert ("and for the purpose of extending the right to object to or make representations against the grant or variation of such licences to certain authorities, other than local authorities, exercising planning functions").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 93. These amendments provide for amendment of Section 63 of the Transport Act 1968, extending the right to object to the grant or variation of operators' licences. Local authorities already have the right to object, by virtue of subsection (3) of Section 63. This amendment extends the right to other bodies, including the Lake District Special Planning Board, the Peak Park Joint Planning Board and Merseyside and London Docklands Development Corporations, who exercise planning functions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendments of Transport Act 1968 relating to operators' licences]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 81, line 20, leave out from ("prescribed") to end of line 31.
The noble Lord said: This amendment takes us into the somewhat emotive area of heavy lorries and where they operate. This amendment, which is to delete a number of lines on page 81 from Section 69C(2), is primarily to ensure that no undue emphasis is

379
placed on the conditions under which an operating centre may receive approval, because the whole question of an operating centre's approval has to be set out in regulations, which will in due course come before the House. In any event, they are subject, as always, to consultation with the various interested parties. It appears to me that it is undesirable, in the light of those regulations, that special emphasis should be put upon those conditions to which a licensing authority should pay regard.
This subject has been discussed on a number of occasions and Section 69 provides for environmental considerations to be taken into account by the licensing authority. I do not think there is anybody who disagrees with that. Certainly, none of the heavy goods vehicle associations, such as the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association, disagrees with that. However, the environmental condition may be one which has not been brought about by the operator or by his choice of centre. It might be an environmental consideration brought about by some other aspect, notably planning.
A haulier or an operator of a heavy goods vehicle may have been operating out of a centre for some years, but planning permission is subsequently given and a new estate surrounds the centre. It could be that the environmental consideration is then brought to bear. This is probably quite a good thing and we shall be dealing with that aspect when I come to my next amendment. Nevertheless, it seems totally undesirable that these three points, which are set out in Section 69C(2)(a), (b) and (c), are singled out for mention in a Bill which, as I have said, will in any circumstances be dependent upon regulations.
As I understand the position, there was a commitment during Report stage in the other place that this part of the Bill would be looked at further. Certainly, the hauliers' interests were of the opinion that the Government might have tabled an amendment to satisfy them. In the event, it appears that they have not, or are unwilling to do so.
To emphasise the point, I should mention lines 30 and 31, which read:
"(c) the hours at which operations of any prescribed description may be carried on at any such centre".
That is a comparatively new one. Normally, the licensing authority has to pay due regard to a number of factors, some of which I mentioned on Second Reading. The licensing authority is now asked to consider the environmental conditions and one of the items which is set down, and which the Government feel is of considerable importance, is the hours at which operations may be carried on. This seems to put a very heavy emphasis on hours. What are reasonable hours? There is no definition of "reasonable"; it is just the hours".
If you have to make a delivery to a ship which is 150 or 200 miles away, it may be necessary to start at four o'clock in the morning. It may be necessary, for example, to make a collection from a farm. We discussed this point last year when my noble friend Lord Stanley talked about the pea harvest, where the big buyers demand picking and delivery, literally, at a few hours' notice. I am not suggesting that the hours should not be one of the many considerations of which
380
a licensing authority will have to take account. But I am suggesting that the inclusion in this Bill of these three conditions is unfair, and sets an unfair bias on what a licensing authority should do. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, the purpose of his amendment is to leave out three conditions which a licensing authority may attach to an operator's licence. We ought to look again at what the three conditions are, and I shall paraphrase them—the number, type and size of vehicles or trailers which may, at any one time, be at an operating centre; the parking arrangements provided at, or in the vicinity of, the operating centre and the hours at which operations may be carried out. I regard these as absolutely essential conditions. Without them, any talk of environmental control appears to make nonsense. I shall not weary the Committee by quoting from the Foster Committee's report on haulage operators' licensing or the Armitage Committee's report on lorries, people and the environment. But both of those reports recognise that environmental difficulties are associated mainly with places from which vehicles are operated. That view was confirmed by the Under-Secretary of State when this matter was dealt with in Committee in the other place.
The three conditions are almost, word for word, those proposed in paragraph 9.18 of the Foster Report. If these conditions are not attached, it could be that the licensing authority's only alternative might be to refuse a licence. I can readily understand the concern of the NFU, particularly where houses have been developed after the operating centre was established. On the other hand, there will be cases where an operator may have extended greatly since he was first established in that area. I can also understand the interests of operators, as reflected by the Freight Transport Association, who wish nothing to impede the essential movement of freight. With that I think we all agree. But I see that in Part II of the schedule, paragraph 4, there is a reference to right of appeal. When one looks at the Notes on Clauses which the department has kindly supplied we see:
"This paragraph extends the right of appeal by licence holders to the transport tribunal".
There is, therefore, an essential right of appeal now written into the Bill. That would be a safeguard for an existing operator. If conditions should affect an existing business, I wonder whether the Minister can tell me whether there would be provision—I presume that the licensing authority would have the opportunity—for a period of adjustment or removal, or even the offer of alternative sites. We must keep in mind that we should not treat an existing operator differently from the way in which a licensing authority would intend to treat a new operator who wishes to come in. This is an essential requirement for which most people have waited for a long time. Those two important reports say that these are essential conditions. If we really want environmental control, to delete these conditions would make nonsense of it.
Baroness Denington: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will not press the amendment. I understand his concern on behalf of the operators, and I am sure that he is not without concern for the people

381
who may be affected. The Government are introducing conditions to protect the environment, which means to protect the living conditions of our citizens. I would draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to the fact that the section with which we are dealing is permissive, not mandatory. The wording is "of such description as may be prescribed". The conditions where the descriptions which we are looking at now will probably be prescribed are those which, though not universal, are to be found in built-up areas.
I used to represent the constituency of Islington. It is a highly built-up area and contains a number of depots of this kind. Because it is an old area, they established their depots wherever they could—generally at the backs of houses where there was a bit of land—before planning control had any teeth. The hours specified in these conditions are very important. Lorries may want to start off at five o'clock in the morning, which means that men will be loading and calling out to one another and that the people round about will be unable to sleep. Therefore, it is vitally important to the people living in built-up areas that those conditions should specify the number of lorries, where they can park in that neighbourhood and the hours during which they can operate. I believe that the Government are absolutely right, therefore, to set this down fairly and squarely in the Bill.
If, however, we are considering a depot which has been developed in modern times on an industrial estate and which is therefore outside a built-up area, nobody will impose unreasonable conditions, for the simple reason that in those cases such conditions are unnecessary. They are necessary to protect people. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that as a GLC representative I have often been approached by constituents who are desperate because of what goes on in a depot at the back of their houses. Therefore, I hope that he will reconsider the matter and withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bellwin: May I emphasise the overall aim of our proposals in Clause 50 and Schedule 4. What, precisely, is it that we are trying to do? It is to strengthen the powers of the licensing authorities and to enable them to take adequate account of environmental considerations in dealing with road haulage operators' licences. At present, the licensing system does not allow this, but we all know of the concern caused by the activities of operators with unsuitable facilities.
Our approach is to redefine the operating centre under a goods vehicle operator's licence as the place at which the vehicle is normally kept. This is in line with the position in regard to public service vehicle licensing. Operating centres will have to be specified in operators' licences and the grounds on which existing statutory objectors may object are extended to include environmental considerations. Owners or occupiers of land in the vicinity of a proposed operating centre are given a new right to make representations against the grant of an application on environmental grounds.
We recognise that existing operators might face difficulties under the new provisions when seeking to renew a time-expired licence if factors, not of their own making and over which they may have no control,
382
have arisen since the licence was first granted. It was therefore precisely to protect the legitimate interests of responsible hauliers that we included in the schedule a provision preventing a licensing authority from refusing an operator a new licence on environmental grounds, if there is no material change in the operations to be covered. The only exception to this rule will be considerations about parking arrangements.
We are proposing that in all cases the licensing authority should be empowered to attach conditions to a licence, for the purposes of preventing or minimising adverse effects on the environment where they arise from the use of the operating centre. These conditions will be prescribed in regulations, on which we shall consult widely, but I hope that noble Lords will agree that it is right that the Bill should give some indication of the most important conditions which would be prescribed. It is this that my noble friend Lord Lucas would remove with this amendment. We believe that the licensing authorities should have a power to attach conditions regulating the number, type and size of motor vehicles or trailers which may at any one time be at an operating centre. We believe that general guidelines can be developed which will be useful for operators contemplating the use of new sites and there may well be circumstances where, for example, small, rigid vehicles would be appropriate and large, articulated vehicles would not.
There is general agreement that parking arrangements can be one of the major problems concerning goods vehicles. It is quite within the capability of licensing authorities to say that, for example, lorries should not be parked down the road from an operating centre every weekend. I am sure the general public and many operators would welcome this sort of control.
So far as hours are concerned, this is an aspect of use of an operating centre which can cause serious difficulties for local residents. I see merit in licensing authorities being able to attach conditions which would help to minimise adverse effects on the environment in this respect, on a best practicable means approach and, not least, in discussions with the operator himself. The other point I wanted to make about hours is that the provision only gives a power. There may be cases where the power may be reasonably exercised as to hours and cases where it could not be so exercised. I believe we have talked that one through and that what we are proposing is right.
We have looked at Section 69(c) again and the commitment given in Committee in another place; this was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised. It has been discussed again with the industry associations. We have explained to them why we do not feel able to amend the section. Although they were disappointed, they were also pleased with the assurances we have given as to how the provisions will not be operated to prejudice existing operators. That is not what we are about; to make life more difficult. Quite to the contrary; we want to be helpful, but we feel that as far as this aspect of the Bill is concerned there is a problem. We believe it is right upon entering the new régime of licensing in this way that we should take into account something which, perhaps, has not always been taken into account in the past; namely, the environmental aspects of the particular type of licensing which we propose.

383
I hope that my noble friend will feel slightly more relaxed about this now, following my explanation and my absolute assurance to him and to others who are concerned about this matter in respect of our intentions. Before I sit down, I will deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, when he asked whether there would be any discretion. As he knows, the situations are very varied and individual cases will be dealt with on their merits. The traffic commissioners have great experience in these matters and I would be confident about the way in which they would work this.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that very detailed and interesting explanation. May I just comment on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Denington. I have no wish whatsoever to impose a heavy goods vehicle operating sector in a situation which is totally and blatantly undesirable. I have no wish—and neither, I am sure, do any of my friends in that business—to operate from a place where we are not wanted; I apologise to the Committee for that appalling grammar.
I believe it is quite right in this day and age that the Government should introduce into a Bill of this kind measures which add some additional control. Where, as in the case mentioned by the noble Baroness, there were lorries in built up areas where no planning existed, one has to be very careful that one does not disturb or perpetuate—disturb the benefits of what are popularly described as "grandfather's rights", nor perpetuate those rights which are patently undesirable. That is perfectly fair. But I have to say to the noble Baroness that from my knowledge of the industry, industrial sites are not always the right answer to an operation of this kind. One cannot just say, "All this should go to an industrial site", or "Any new application for a haulage business shall go to an industrial site".
Turning to the remarks of my noble friend the Minister, I suggested during an earlier stage of this Bill that the cardboard box of licensing was now overfull and split, but that we were now putting more into it. I still hold to that view. That does not mean I do not accept what he was suggesting in regard to this matter. But if the licensing authority paid proper and due regard, according to the likes of this noble Lord, to certain of the conditions which have to be satisfied in regard to an operating sector, or indeed to an operator's licence, then much of what surrounds the need for this particular piece of legislation would not apply.
As my noble friend said, the Bill now prevents an application for renewal—and I take it that renewal means a variation as well as the ordinary five-year renewal—of an operator's licence from being refused on environmental grounds unless there has been a material change. What is a material change? The separate clauses now set down in the Bill allow the licensing authority to impose without any let or hindrance any kind of condition it makes. I feel that this might well be grossly unfair. The planning authority could quite easily abrogate their responsibility, saying, "We would not normally give a planning
384
application approval for building a small estate of 20 or 30 town houses there because of access to the builder's yard and the hauliers' operating sector". But perhaps that could upset other longer-term aspects of the whole planning for the region. What the planning authority could say is, "We will give the planning authority now", and then in two or three years the environmentalists will get hold of it and the licensing authority will have that kind of pressure brought upon them, to impose such conditions that the whole operation falls by the wayside.
About the only comfort I can take from my noble friend the Minister are the words "the best practicable means". I have to tell him that certainly the Freight Transport Association and Road Haulage Association have not gone away from the current series of discussions with assurances which satisfy them. In begging leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, I must say that it is up to those organisations to fight this battle further when it comes to the matter of the regulations. I believe that the Government have stepped a little too heavily in this direction.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 81, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) In the case of an application for an operator's licence concerning the use of any place as an operating centre already in use as an operating centre under an existing licence or an application for variation of a licence in accordance with section 69D of this Act any conditions attached to the licence shall be such as not to materially affect the continuation of the applicant's business.").
The noble Lord said: We follow the same argument. This amendment is set down as an additional clause, to protect the legitimate interests of those people engaged in the haulage industry who have operating sectors upon which a licence application, renewal or variation might have attached to it a number of special conditions. Some of those special conditions are set down and were among those we discussed on the previous amendment. Surely it cannot be right that special conditions should be and can be imposed on the operation of a commercial undertaking whereby that undertaking's very existence is threatened, unless there are compensatory factors? In this Bill there are no compensatory factors for the imposition of special conditions.
I have a shrewd feeling that I understand exactly how this Committee feels towards me at this moment. I think I do, because lorries and Lucas always seem to go together. Lorries seem to evoke the most emotive arguments—they are horrid, they are beastly, they are obtrusive, they should go anywhere, but near where I live, in my street or in my village. It is not just this aspect of it. Your Lordships will see that Lord Stanley's name is on this amendment. I am joined, therefore, by the views of the National Farmer's Union. So it is not just the hauliers, the road transport people, but the farmers as well who are particularly concerned that conditions might be imposed, and particularly one for hours, highly desirable for the neighbourhood, totally detrimental to the existence or continuance of the business. I have spoken about the pea harvest; that is one of them. If you happen to be in the road construction business and concrete or tarmac or whatever the substance it is being laid tomorrow, the

385
gang starts at 7 o'clock in the morning; you have to get to the plant and you may have to leave at 5 o'clock in order to be on site, or the whole thing falls down and costs an enormous amount of money. Those are just two aspects. I think these are really quite important.
If one then sets, as another condition, "Right, you have approval here for the parking of 20 lorries, five rigids, ten articulated and another 10 trailers, and you have your own bunkering facility. You can go on doing that, but you must take your fuel bunker away because we do not like the smell. Somebody's back garden has now arrived up against your back fence. So take that away; that is the special condition we are imposing on renewal". A man might be penalised as much as 3p or 4p per gallon of derv, and derv is a considerable factor in the costing of road transport.
What I am suggesting in this amendment is to secure some fairness, some understanding as between the licensing authority and the operator of what the ground rules are in this new game. It is a new game to them; they have been aware of it for some time but it is going to come right hard into their operating centres quite shortly. So what are the rules. One of the rules should be, I am suggesting, quite simply that the licensing authority shall take into account all these factors and bear in mind that these conditions should not be imposed if they would materially affect the continuation of the applicant's business.
I do not think it is right—grandfather's rights or not—that a man should be run out of business because of a particular condition, hours, bunkering and so on. Some deal might be arrived at. I think this is only fair and only reasonable in the light of all that the Committee have said with regard to my earlier amendment. I do ask the Committee to think of this in terms of fair deals for all, a balance as between the rights of the man in an operating centre to continue in business without heavy penalty, and the rights of those who live near and around to enjoy the benefits of an environment not totally despoiled by a commercial operation. That is all I am asking for in this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My noble friend's second amendment in this little group reflects, as he has said, the concern expressed by the road haulage industry that the conditions which a licensing authority could attach to a licence might prejudice established businesses and circumvent the protection otherwise afforded by our proposals to existing operators. Let me say straightaway that I am not in the slightest unsympathetic to the use of lorries, quite the contrary. I think anyone who does not today recognise that they have an absolutely essential part to play in so many aspects of our everyday life, commercial, even private, really is living in another world entirely. I do not think as far as I am concerned that is so, and I gladly assure my noble friend as to that. I suspect that Members of the Committee would go along with me on that. I think what is of concern here is the question of balance, trying to ensure that while one does cover the points of concern of my noble friend we also look at certain other aspects at this time of change, the new situation, that we take them all into account. That is all we are trying to do.
386
This amendment would introduce into draft Clause 69C, which deals with the attachment of conditions, a provision parallel to that in Clause 69B which deals with refusal of the licence. But the two situations are not the same. Where an operator's business has remained unchanged, it would be wrong to refuse him a new licence, even though developments have taken place around him. As I have indicated on the previous amendment, it may not be unreasonable to attach conditions to a new licence in order to ameliorate the effects of his operation on the surrounding environment, provided that those conditions are not so onerous as seriously to prejudice the running of the business.
We do not believe that the provision in Clause 69C could be used in the way that my noble friend fears. Let me try to explain why. In striking what I referred to as the balance between the legitimate interests of road hauliers and the need for improvements to the environment, the licensing authority will have to form a balanced and lawful judgment in each case when attaching any conditions to a licence. We shall be prescribing the considerations to which the licensing authorities shall have regard when attaching any conditions to a licence. We shall make it clear that the licensing authority shall have regard to the nature of the operator's business and his past record. I believe that our approach is sounder than that suggested by my noble friend. I submit that it would be mistaken to include in the Bill a provision to the effect that conditions attached to a licence shall not materially affect the continuation of the applicant's business.
Apart from the difficulty of defining the phrase, "materially affect", it is well established that a public body invested with statutory powers must take care not to exceed or abuse its powers but must act in good faith and must act reasonably. There are legal limits to every power, and statutory power conferred for public purposes can only be used in the right and proper way. In the planning field, for example, planning conditions have been held invalid unless they fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development and if they attempt to restrict the owner's existing rights in his land. Similarly, conditions attached to an operator's licence would be held to be invalid if they were such as to prevent the operator from using his operating centre as such. These analogies could not be ignored.
My noble friend's proposal would also, if I may use the term, be rather dangerous, because it might suggest a change in the law which, though he surely does not intend it, could possibly be a change detrimental to the operators and which could be resolved only by the courts. It might cast an unintended shadow. The House did not think it appropriate to include such a provision in other comparable legislation, notably Sections 16 and 32 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, which relates to licences for the operation of public service vehicles.
We recognise the concern that has been expressed about the attachment of conditions; I tried to emphasise it when speaking to the last amendment and I meant it very seriously. But I hope that, in view of my explanation, my noble friend will agree that perhaps his concern need not be as great as he had feared. I point out that the bunkering condition which he mentioned would be ultra vires and maybe that will

387
also make him feel a little better about what we are proposing.
We have given firm assurances and I gladly repeat them again today for the record. It is no part of our intention that responsible road haulage operators should—to use the phrase of my noble friend—have their very existence threatened. That is the very last thing that we want to see happen as a result of these new measures. Nor, frankly, do we think that our proposals will have that effect. Without any doubt, if we did think that they might have that effect, then frankly we would not be putting them forward. It is as simple as that. I hope that with those comments my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
6.1 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am still slightly concerned about this point, and I rise to support my noble friend Lord Lucas. Recently one has encountered a number of occasions when the local planning authority has imposed working hour restrictions on industrial sites. That is a growing trend that is causing concern to industrialists. Therefore, one can only expect local authorities—without perhaps meaning to do so—to abuse the law and the good intentions of my noble friend the Minister by putting working hour restrictions on licences. That could be very detrimental, particularly in agricultural cases, where working hours are crucial in order to get fresh produce to markets on time. If one finds oneself in a situation where one's licence has not been renewed or is renewed subject to working hours conditions, it will be an expensive and lengthy process to combat the local authority to prove them wrong. What remedy does the individual have in those circumstances?
Lord Mottistone: I, too, am concerned about this matter, because one has met it in many other areas. I do not question the sincerity of my noble friend Lord Bellwin in saying what the Government mean and do not intend to happen in the sense that they have no intention of upsetting the situation, and that the industrialist, of whatever type he might be, is not a target for anything. The difficulty is that the licensing authority in this case, and other local authority bodies, like planning authorities, do not seem to me to be shackled in the way in which one would like. If there were something written into the statute which put some type of restraint upon them, or if my noble friend could quote another statute which puts restraint upon them, other than the "good intention" remarks, then it would help tremendously to set our minds at rest. If my noble friend cannot do that because it does not exist or because it will take time to find it, then perhaps he could undertake to look at this again before turning down the basic theme of what my noble friend Lord Lucas is putting across in his amendment. However, one wants to have something rather more underpinning than just good intentions.
Lord Underhill: It was not my intention to speak on this amendment, because I thought that I had said what I had to say on the other amendment. I thought
388
that they were both being taken together. While appreciating the argument put forward, it will be fatal to underpin to such an extent that the desire of everyone to deal with the environmental issue plainly falls to the ground. One can picture circumstances where a company may have set up an operating centre and then, with the passage of years, what may have been three vehicles becomes 15 vehicles which are parked all over the place—parked outside the centre; parked in residential areas and a danger to traffic. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, shakes his head. We do not want to mention specific places here, but I could mention places that I pass almost every day. Therefore, one cannot possibly leave it so safeguarded that one does nothing. That is the point.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. That is the kind of emotive talk which appalls me. The noble Lord said that he knew of an operating centre which started with three vehicles and which now has 15. It could not have increased by 12 without the licensing authority granting the appropriate licences. You cannot just buy them and stuff them into a park and operate them: you have to have a licence on them. Therefore, there is a failure further down the line—my split cardboard box argument. I do not see how he can apply that kind of argument to the point which my noble friend Lord Mottistone makes.
Lord Underhill: I think the answer is that the Bill is now giving the licensing authorities power to deal with licensing on environmental grounds, which they have not had up to now. That is the point. I do not think that there is a great deal of argument between us. The difference is that if we try to write in all the safeguards that are wanted then, frankly, the aims of the Foster Committee, the aims of the Armitage Committee, the aims of the Government and, I believe the aims of many noble Lords in this Committee, will be completely and utterly frustrated.
In my remarks on the previous amendment I referred to the right of appeal. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister could emphasise this point because I understand that it is now quite clear that there is the right of appeal by licence holders to the transport tribunal. I believe that that is something that they do not have at the moment, but it is an important factor where the very points which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others are, making surely could be covered.
Lord Bellwin: Perhaps I may comment on one or two of the observations that have been made. Let me deal first with the right of appeal point. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is absolutely right: there is the right of appeal to the transport tribunal. I think I should say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that in fact the local authorities have nothing to do with this at all beyond the fact that they can make objections, if they wish, to the licensing authority. However, they are not the arbiters; they are not the ones who are making the decisions—it is the licensing authority who will do that. Licensing is a quasi-judicial appointment rather like that of a magistrate. That is really

389
what the traffic commissioners are about. I do not think that my noble friend need be too concerned about that.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone acknowledged my good intentions—and they certainly are that—but I would say that we are going beyond that here. The best of intentions must be restricted by the general rules of ultra vires. If my noble friend, in the assiduous way in which he always tackles everything with which he deals, would like to talk to me about that separately or to correspond with me, I should be very happy to do so.
I can only say, as I said before on the previous amendment, that we are trying here to strike a balance; we are trying to get it better than it is at the moment, recognising absolutely the validity of what my noble friend Lord Lucas says about his concern for the industry. He is absolutely right. I think he knows that we would have equal concern for the prosperity of that industry. I think that we have the balance right. I hope that, as a result of what has now been said, my noble friend will feel somewhat assuaged in his concern and perhaps able not to press his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am not assuaged one little bit. My noble friend talks about a balance. Here we are asking quite simply for a balance to be stntck—a balance between the licensing authority being able to impose any conditions upon a new applicant, a renewal of a licence or a variation.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to 15 lorries, saying that it was high time the licensing authority was able to regularise this position. Is he therefore now suggesting retrospective legislation? Because in the past licensing authorities have granted licences which are in what are now termed undesirable operating centres, is he suggesting that they can now say "All right, you can have a renewal of your licence, but from 15 vehicles down to seven"? That is exactly what could happen.
I am no lawyer and I would hesitate to trespass on the law, but I am advised that all those precedents with regard to what is unfair have never applied in this area. I understand that there are many precedents in the planning area, but not in road transportation. Therefore, I do not think that those who speak with me will rest very happy on this.
I do not have the direct quotation, but in looking at my notes I see that during the Report stage in the other place on 24th May the Minister, Mrs. Chalker, said that the Government wanted to enable licensing authorities to impose conditions when there had been no material change. What is the material change? Is it a material change from a Ford lorry to a Scania lorry of perhaps a different horsepower, with perhaps some other differences—three axles instead of two for the tractor unit?
I think that my noble friend the Minister is being harsh and unreasonable in not allowing the operator to have some comfort, if nothing else, but at least the right that the licensing authority must take into account the business. There is nowhere that he need do that. It is no good this operator going off to the courts to sue for what is fair or not fair. The Bill should set down clearly what is fair and what is not fair.
390
Although I still do not detract one bit from what we said earlier, that there is a need for environmental control, I am sufficiently unhappy about this matter to accept the invitation of my noble friend the Minister to talk to him, perhaps to find some form of words in an amendment which would give me the protection I want for a very significant industry, without detracting at all from those who want to pursue a purely environmental benefit argument. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 83, line 7, after ("effects") insert ("on environmental conditions").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment to subsection (6) of new Section 79D of the Transport Act 1968. Persons will be able to make representations under subsection (5) of Section 69D, against the grant of an application for variation of an operator's licence, if there would be adverse effects from the use of the operating centre. This amendment makes clear that these adverse effects shall be those "on environmental conditions", consistent with subsection (4) and with Section 69B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 83, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 11 and insert ("Where any objection or representations are duly made under this section in respect of any application for a variation of an operator's licence").
The noble Lord said: This, too, is a minor drafting amendment to subsection (7) of new Section 69D of the 1968 Act. The licensing authority's power to refuse an application for variation of an operator's licence, on environmental grounds, is to be exercised only if objections or representations have been duly made to him. The amendment makes subsection (7) consistent with Section 69B in this respect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 86 and 87:
Page 84, line 40, leave out ("69D") and insert ("68(4) or 69D(3)").
Page 85, line 18, after ("section") insert ("68,").
The noble Lord said: While moving this amendment, I should also like to move Amendment No. 87, and speak to Amendment No. 90. The first two of these minor drafting amendments are to subsections (2) and (4) of new Section 69G of the 1968 Act, extending these subsections to cover applications made under existing Section 68, consistent with new Section 69D.
The third, and related minor amendment is to paragraph 3 of Part II of Schedule 4. It amends existing Section 68 of the 1968 Act to refer to new Section 69E, which requires publication of applications in newspapers before the licensing authority considers them I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 85, leave out lines 22 to 33.
The noble Lord said: This minor amendment deletes subsection (5) of new Section 69G, which relates to the

391
contents of notices of applications for variation of operators' licences published under Section 69D. Arrangements will be adequate for ensuring that potential objectors know about applications, since applications will have to be published in a local newspaper under Section 69E. The detailed content of notices of applications is a matter best left to the licensing authorities to decide. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 86, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 15.
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 130 and 133. The main purpose of these amendments is to leave intact the requirements concerning suitability of operating centres, inserted in the 1968 Act by the Road Traffic Act 1974. They are not entirely superseded by the new provisions of Clause 50 and Schedule 4. We see merit in retaining these requirements since licensing authorities have found them to be useful in some circumstances. There is also a repeal of Section 64(2)(b), consequential to the repeal of Section 65 of the 1968 Act, concerning transport managers' licences, which is explained by Amendment No. 126. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 86, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 22 and insert ("In section 68 of that Act (variation of operators' licences)—

(a) at the beginning of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to section 69E of this Act"; and

(b) in subsection (4), paragraph (a) shall be omitted, and").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 86, line 26, at end insert—
(". In section 87(3) of that Act (inquiries by licensing authorities as to proposed exercise of powers under section 69), after "69" there shall be inserted the words" or 69F".
. In section 91 of that Act (regulations and orders for purposes of Part V)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "section 69" there shall be substituted the words "sections 69 and 69F"; and

(b) in paragraph (d), after "69" there shall be inserted the words "or 69F".").

The noble Lord said: With this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 134. These are technical amendments to Sections 87 and 91 of the 1968 Act, and to Section 66 of the Transport Act 1980, consequential to the new powers of revocation under Section 69F. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 86, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("(construction") and insert ("In section 92 of that Act—
(a) in subsection (1) (interpretation of particular expressions used in Part V), the following definition shall be inserted at the appropriate point in alphabetical order—
"owner", in relation to any land in England and Wales, means a person, other than a mortgagee not in possession, who, whether in his own right or as trustee for any other person, is entitled to receive the rack rent,
392
of the land or, where the land is not let at a rack rent, would be so entitled if it were so let; and
(b) at the end of subsection (3)").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor technical amendment designed to clarify the definition of "owner", which is used in Schedule 4 in relation to those persons entitled to make representations about operator's licences. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 86, line 31, at end insert—
("6. In section 63 of that Act (objections to grant of operators' licences)—
(a) in subsection (3) (persons entitled to object) the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (c)—
"(d) a planning authority"; and
(b) in subsection (6) the following definitions shall be inserted after the definition of "local authority"—
""planning authority" means any body other than a local authority which by virtue of any statutory provision for the time being in force is—

(a) in England and Wales, the local planning authority for any area for the purpose of determining applications for planning permission under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (general planning control); and

(b) in Scotland, the planning authority for any area for the purpose of determining applications for planning permission under Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (general planning control);

"statutory provision" means a provision contained in an Act or in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978; and".").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 [Immobilisation of vehicles illegally parked, etc.]:
6.20 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 58, line 8, leave out from ("it") to end of line 11.
The noble Lord said: We now come to a series of amendments all concerned with the immobilisation of vehicles. Let me repeat at the outset my profound disgust that the Department of Transport find themselves so bereft of any ideas with regard to motor vehicles parked in such cities as London—or indeed any other idea—that they have to impose upon the motoring public a clamp. I shall have more to say about that later. This amendment—and I think it would be more sensible if we went through the amendments rather than speaking to the whole clause at the outset—
Lord Underhill: I wonder whether we can have guidance on this? The department has given me a form in which the amendments should be grouped, and it seems sensible. To take them all together would seem to me to be an unwise procedure, and I would much prefer, if the noble Lord agrees, to take them in the form that the department has agreed on.
Lord Bellwin: So far as we are concerned, Yes. If we had agreed the groupings, I thought that would be the way to do it.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I do not know about there being an agreement to group. Certainly no proposal has come before the Committee. A suggestion came from the department of which I had a copy, and that was that. I am not prepared for a debate—
Lord Bellwin: Would my noble friend give way? Do I understand from my noble friend that he, having seen this suggested list of groupings, did not agree with it? If so, did he say so?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I saw the suggested grouping. I was neither asked nor did I say whether I agreed or disagreed. If it is the wish of the Committee to deal with Clause 51 and a number of amendments that are down, then let us do that. In which case I do not know what time we are going to go to dinner before we finish this first amendment.
Lord Mottistone: Could we be told what the grouping is, then we would know what is puzzling us?
The Earl of Avon: I think we are getting unduly complicated in this. My understanding of the grouping is that it was suggested by the Department with a telephone number to ring if anybody wanted anything. It is a simple one. I do not think the Committee will be worried. It is not a large one. It is purely that with 94 we thought 98 was appropriate. With 95 I was going to move 99. When we get to the 100s, with 100 we were thinking that 101 would go together, and then 105 with 106, 107, and 121, which fit together very well, I think the Committee will agree when they look at them.
Lord Airedale: Would the Minister say that again?
The Earl of Avon: Indeed. 94 with 98; 95 with 99; 100 with 101; 105 with 106, 107, and 121.
Lord Underhill: Was not 103 going to be the main group? It is a Government amendment, 103, plus 105, 106, 107 and 121.
The Earl of Avon: I will be perfectly happy when I speak to 103 to speak to the others.
Lord Mottistone: Surely my noble friend must now tell us whether he likes this. I do not see why we should be dragooned just because from the Opposition Front Bench they tell us that this is the way we have got to do it.
The Earl of Avon: We were not dragooned at all. We entirely accepted this point. The person I am slightly worried about is whether my noble friend Lord Lucas is happy with that set-up.
Lord Underhill: I am sorry that the reference to dragooning came in. I could go through the list here and tell you what each amendment is going to do and the reasons why they should be as they are.
394
For instance, we do not want disabled badges linked up with other factors. It seems to me logical and sensible, and I am certain noble Lords will agree that if you took the subject matters the grouping is sensible and would make for better debates in the Committee.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I agree, but it was a pity that the department did not let anybody, except perhaps the Opposition Front Bench, have the list.
Lord Mischon: In fairness, because the noble Baroness always wants to be fair, the people responsible for the amendments, as I understand it, were informed of the groupings. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has down a number of amendments. He was informed. The Opposition Front Bench were informed. We were treated with the courtesy of a telephone number if we had any views on it. This is the usual procedure, as I understand it, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who occasionally uses language that he sometimes regrets and apologises for, would wish not to continue using words like "dragooned" when they are quite unnecessary and completely inappropriate.
Lord Mottistone: I have no wish whatsoever to withdraw my remarks on this particular occasion.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I would not wish to prolong this discussion but I wonder whether in terms of the future there can be some arrangement whereby these matters can be posted publicly in some way in the House so that we can all see this. I do not share Lord Mottistone's views on the matter, and I think the use of the term "dragooned" is a rather extreme form of language, to be blunt. There must be a simple way to avoid arguments of this kind in the future, and I hope we can do something along these lines to avoid this difficulty again.
Lord Bellwin: I would just want to say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, so properly put it, there are procedures that one follows in this. Having gone through myself I think some 3,000 amendments in the last three years I am not entirely unfamiliar with what has to be done. We always try hard to observe the courtesies, and I challenge my noble friend Lord Mottistone, or anyone else, to say otherwise. Occasionally one can make a mistake. I frankly do not think a mistake was made on this occasion.
The procedure is known. Of course, we discuss with those who put down an amendment what might be the sensible grouping. If they think not, then that is their prerogative; that is their privilege. We would not dream of trying to dragoon or suggest that it be taken in any way other than the way the proposer of the amendments wishes. Nonetheless, it is often sensible to put them together for obvious reasons. If we can do it it helps the business of the House. It makes for more meaningul debate, and it is helpful. If not, my noble friend Lord Lucas is absolutely within his rights to say, "No, I do not want it this way", and I would want to take it the way he wants. That is up to him. But so far as courtesy and the procedures are concerned, I think we have not stepped one bit any more out of the way with this than we have tried to do in the past.
Lord Tanlaw: May I point out to the Minister that we have had no knowledge of these groupings, and hence our bewilderment on these Benches. This has possibly been overlooked.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: But you have not tabled any amendments.
Lord Tanlaw: I have an amendment to leave out Clause 51.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I believe that all Members of the Committee have rights in this matter whether they have put amendments down or not. I am sure the Minister would agree with that. The question is how we can improve our internal processes of communication. I hope that this can be looked at in future. I do not want to prolong the matter but I think there is general agreement that we should try to avoid this sort of problem in the future if we can.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Perhaps I might remind the Committee that Amendment No. 94 has been called. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, whether he wishes to move the amendment?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: With Amendment No. 94, I would obviously like to deal with Amendment No. 98, to which it is related. If one accepts the power being given to constables—which I do not, but we shall come to that later—by subsection (1)(b), I should like to know precisely what is meant by the wording of the provision, when it says that he may,
"move it from that place to another place on the same or another road and fix an immobilisation device to it in that other place".
I should like to know how far from the original place to another place or another road he can move it. How will the driver know where his vehicle is when he returns to it? And will there be any safeguard that the power to move the vehicle to some other place will be used properly; for example, will it apply to cars on meter bays? The idea apparently is to fix a device—again, we shall come to that later—so that the motorist is suitably embarrassed in that he must find somebody to unlock the device so that he can drive away, having first parted with some money. How is the motorist to know where the vehicle is, if it has been removed and locked up? Will there be proper safeguards so that the unlocking process will be easy, and will the vehicle be moved only a reasonable distance? Later we shall debate a number of amendments—we can discuss them collectively in groups—dealing with the various issues, but meanwhile I suggest that this provision means that a constable will be able to move a vehicle from one place to another simply to enable him to fix an immobilising device. That seems to be a contradiction in terms, and perhaps the Minister can enlighten me.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: It is important that we retain the essence of being able to remove the vehicle. I have spoken on this issue in detail before, and I do not propose to delay the Committee on it now. I oppose Amendment No. 94, and therefore No. 98
396
also, because unless there is a right to move the vehicle, the obstruction or danger being caused by the vehicle being in a certain position will remain. I do not accept my noble friend's argument about people not knowing where their vehicles have been moved to. If at present one's car is towed to the car pound—which is a much further distance than is envisaged under the new system of immobilisation—one usually has to go a great distance and one is caused much greater inconvenience. Drivers usually discover that their vehicles have been taken to the pound by telephoning the police to report their cars stolen. It is then they are informed that they are at the pound. The right to remove the vehicle is a most important part of the immobilisation process.
Lord Underhill: On Second Reading I too voiced criticism of this provision, but the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, converted me with the view she has repeated tonight, and I accept her argument immediately.
The Earl of Avon: It may help if I were to clarify some of our thinking on this matter, particularly as my noble friend Lord Lucas asked a number of questions. The idea as that the police areempowered to remove a vehicle before immobilising it. This brings the more serious and anti-social parking offence within the scope of the clause, and I note in particular that the Metropolitan Police attached great importance to this subsection. They will find it particularly helpful at the times when the means for removing an obstructing or dangerously parked vehicle to the pound are not immediately available. I should perhaps mention that we have power at the moment to move vehicles to the pound, and therefore we can move vehicles.
Anybody parking in a dangerous place will be used to returning to his vehicle and finding it gone; it has been moved to the pound and he must go to the police to find out where it is. If the power to move and then immobilise were deleted, the police would in those cases be unable to deal effectively with the offence. This will allow them to shift the vehicle to a safer or less obstructive position and then apply a sanction by immobilising it. They will be able to do this in a fraction of the time it might take to remove the vehicle to the pound, and to that degree the motorist, if he does not like going to the pound, will be better off because he can look a few yards down the road for his car.
Fears have been expressed that the vehicle will be moved an excessive distance or that the driver will be unable to find it. We do not think that will be the case. If the police have the means and the time to move a vehicle a substantial distance, they are likely to put it in the pound. The driver's position will be no different from that of 80,000 drivers a year who now find that their vehicles have been towed away. Indeed, in many cases the vehicle will have been repositioned only a few yards so that it is in sight of the place where it was left.
An example of the kind of thing we have in mind is that of a car left outside the entrance to a hospital. Obviously, one would not want to clamp it there, but it might be possible to move it five or 10 yards away from the hospital entrance, where a clamp could then be applied. That would save the necessity of taking

397
it to the pound and enable the hospital to have its facility. I hope I have answered at least some of the points my noble friend raised, though others will no doubt arise on later amendments in his name.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am obliged to my noble friend for that explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.37 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 58, line 11, at end insert—
("(1A) Subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to any vehicle on which there is displayed a current disabled person's badge.").
The noble Earl said: This gives effect to an undertaking which my noble friend gave your Lordships on Second Reading to exempt orange badge holders from the immobilisation powers. We are grateful for the representations of the Joint Committee on the Mobility of the Disabled on this point, and I am glad that we have been able to respond positively. The exemption will extend to any vehicle displaying a current badge which is issued, or has effect as if issued, under regulations if force under Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
On Second Reading several noble Lords pointed out that the creation of this exemption will make it all the more urgent that the proposed changes to the orange badge scheme should be implemented without delay. Interested bodies have recently been consulted on a draft circular to accompay the regulations, and their comments are now being considered. We hope that the regulations will be laid before Parliament before the Recess. Changes would not however come into force for a few months after the regulations are made, so that local authorities will have time to acquire stocks of the new badges envisaged in the regulations, and to acquaint themselves with the other measures being introduced. Nevertheless, we expect the changes to come into operation by the end of the year, and this should reduce the risk of abuse of badges in order to avoid immobilisation.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: As the Minister mentioned the orange badge, may I ask whether the other badges he mentioned include the special ones to London, because parts of London do not recognise the orange badge. I am thinking for example, of Camden, Kensington and Westminster; Westminster have a special white badge. While the Minister is obtaining that information, I should like to thank the Government and the Department of Transport for their helpfulness towards disabled people in the matter.
The Earl of Avon: I am advised that if applies only to the national schemes.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 58, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) An immobilisation device may not be applied to a vehicle parked in an authorised parking meter bay unless that
398
vehicle has remained there in contravention of any prohibition or restriction for longer than 2 hours more than the parking time for which payment has been made.").
The noble Lord said: This is more important than my previous amendment, in that I have been worried throughout our debates on this clause, which deals with the immobilisation of vehicles, because we have been talking all the time about reinforcing the law particularly in regard to the persistent offender. I believe that attention has moved away from the persistent offender, because nobody has been able to identify him. We are now left with dealing with non-compliance of the law dealing with the total failure in the past few years of enforcement authorities to enforce parking regulations, in particular in Central London.
In proposing the amendment my worry is that willy-nilly an authority will decide that x area will be policed—and I use the word with a small "p"—in regard to wheel clamps on a particular day or days. I imagine, since no one has told me anything to the contrary, that wheel clamps will be fixed not only where vehicles are parked in dangerous or unauthorised positions, but in any circumstances where the parking laws are being flouted. Presumably that will include an authorised roadway parking bay, with a green or grey meter. If that is so, I feel that it means that we have failed to deal with the real problem. When using a bay with a grey meter an offender might well have intended to park there for only two hours, having paid £1·20, if it is in Central London (60p an hour) but could be delayed. So the amendment suggests that an immobilisation device may not be applied to a vehicle in the type of parking bay that I have described unless it has remained there for longer than two hours beyond the parking time.
I know full well that on a grey meter there is a two-hours paid period, followed by another period of two hours in which the excess charge of £4 arises. After a further hour a penalty fee is applied. In regard to the example that I have given, am I to understand that the immobilisation device could be applied after only five hours?—in which case it would be rather a nonsense; or perhaps the Government accept my view that a motorist might make a mistake, thinking that he has parked at a green meter, which would give him a few more hours. I have suggested a further period of more than two hours before the immobilisation device is affixed. In any event, it seems to me that with a period of five hours the penalty is quite sufficient, bearing in mind that penalties have now been increased. We must also bear in mind the question of parking illegally where there is no parking space, or where there is a danger. Perhaps my noble friend can help me on those points. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: This is one of the occasions when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I come together again, and I think that the principle that he is advancing is the right one. I shall support Clause 51 when we come to the question of whether the clause shall stand part, though of course there might be differences among us on how certain decisions should be taken. One of the arguments for the scheme is based on the element of persistence. The constable will have authority to decide, and I believe that a

399
period of more than two hours after the normal parking time is reasonable. We do not want wheel clamps fitted to vehicles that have over-stayed for, say, only half an hour. We are talking about parking meter bays, not illegal parking on yellow lines or such, which will be considered in relation to the clause as a whole.
I believe that if the Government accept the general principle, the words
"more than the parking time"
in the penultimate line of the amendment should perhaps be altered, so that that part of the amendment would read,
"more than the initial parking period".
That is the important point which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is pursuing, and I believe that the principle here is right.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I, too, should like to comment on the amendment, and like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I tend to support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on it. There are a couple of points that should be raised so that they can be considered by the Government. If the wording,
"an authorised parking meter bay",
is used, I think that it would be important to emphasise that it should be an authorised operational parking meter bay, since sometimes parking meter bays are cordoned off and must not be used, perhaps because of possible danger or obstruction. If the proposed amendment were adopted without covering the point that I have mentioned, it might not be possible to deal with vehicles that are parked in the circumstances that I have described.
The other matter that I want to raise relates to the period of time. Some tidying-up is needed here, since it is quite legal to have an initial period of two hours, or four hours, according to the type of meter, plus another two hours on an excess charge, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned. I think that even after the excess charge period there should be some leeway—possibly another hour. After all, the motorist would be paying a £l0 penalty on top of his earlier expense of buying time on the meter. We must bear in mind that the meters are positioned so as not to cause danger to any person, nor obstruction to traffic, except of course on the rare occasions when their use is banned for a particular period. So I would support the principle of the amendment, though I feel that some adjustment is needed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: The noble Earl the Minister stated that vehicles driven by disabled people are not exempt from wheel clamps when in Central London, because the special London badges are not recognised. Does that mean that the wheels of such vehicles will be clamped? That would be a great worry to disabled people, especially if they were in a building that they were unable to get out of.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to intervene at this point, since I, too, welcome what was said about the disabled badge, though I did not speak on it, so as to save time. I think that some confusion is arising
400
here. Although areas of central London have their own white badges or other types of badges, there is nothing to stop disabled people using in those areas the normal national orange badge as well. They would then be properly covered. They could have both types of badge, surely.
Baroness Denington: I am not unsympathetic to what is being proposed, but it rather worries me, because surely it goes against the whole principle of parking meters. An authorised parking place, which is not obstructive, is intended to be used for only a limited period, so that a number of people can park during the day, and then business can be carried on, and so forth. If we are not very careful, we might be so generous as to destroy the proper principle behind the use of parking meters.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: At the moment it is possible to leave a car on a parking meter for the whole day for £10.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Any noble Lord who believes that Greater London is in any way helpful towards disabled people really needs himself to be disabled to find out that that is not so. The situation is absolutely impossible for disabled people. The orange badge is never recognised, and now the Minister has told us that the other badges for Westminster, Camden, Fulham, and Chelsea will not be recognised, either. So for disabled people life will be even more difficult than it has been in the past—and it has been bad enough.
The Earl of Avon: Perhaps I may intervene at this stage and say that no motorist displaying an orange badge issued under the national scheme would have his car immobilised, whether or not it was parked in a position covered by the exemptions in the national scheme. The national badge is available to eligible disabled people living in London. As the noble Baroness probably realises, she somewhat took me by surprise on the issue that she raised, and so I should like to look into it.
We, too, accept the general principle as to the use of parking meters, but I should like to put before the Committee some of the reasons why we are reluctant to write it into the legislation. I understand that there are some 15,000 parking meters in central London. They are intended to provide a turnover of short-term parking spaces throughout the day, and have the additional function of raising revenue, which is primarily applied to the provision of off-street parking. The GLC's assessment is that the turnover at meters, and hence the vacancy rate and the availability of short-term parking space, is extensively undermined by misuse; and they calculate that 40 per cent. of time used at meters is used illegally.
There are, therefore, substantial potential gains in parking supply if meters are used as intended rather than for longer-term parking. In fact, few things would do more to improve the motorists' lot than a higher vacancy rate at meters, and this will not occur unless the present level of enforcement can be improved. The Government are therefore reluctant to see the effectiveness of wheel clamps as a means of enforcement at meters prejudiced. Having said that, the police do

401
not intend to use wheel clamps to penalise short overstays, any more than they tow away from meter bays except in the rarest circumstances. A vehicle is not parked illegally—this is one of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made—during the excess period, and wheel clamps therefore could not be used during the excess period.
The amendment would create considerable difficulties for the police. The type of parking meter most widely used in London has a display which indicates the passage of time for more than an hour after the penalty period has begun, but it is impossible to tell by looking at the meter whether the penalty flag is displayed because the driver has failed to pay the initial charge or because he has paid the charge and overstayed the time. We believe that, here, the amendment would need some changing, as it would allow immobilisation at meter bays only where a charge has been paid and the parking period has expired by two hours. It would rule out immobilisation for such offences as meter feeding and, of course, failure to pay the initial charge.
I know it is too easy to give examples, but I have around the corner from where I live some meters, and there is a car which persistently parks there throughout the day. I am longing to give the number of that car to someone to deal with, because this is the sort of thing which will be effective. I will bring in the registration number if nobody believes me. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, also produced something we shall obviously have to look into, which is a covering over the meter.
I think that the Committe would agree that the amendment appears to protect meter feeders, and meter feeding is at the heart of the extensive use of meters for long-term parking which should be accommodated off-street. For these reasons I suggest that the amendment would render the wheel clamp less potent as a means of enforcement, and I think would greatly restrict the scope of the proposed experiment. I hope the Committee will agree with me. As they can see, I do not feel particularly strongly but I do feel that we should leave this option open and not close it.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether I may introduce, very shortly, one slightly differing thought on a matter which I know concerns not only the Members of the Committee but all citizens in the metropolis. I introduce the point that I want to make with the feeling that the Committee would always want the utmost consideration to be paid to anybody who is disabled; and the idea of anyone who is disabled having the vehicle upon which they depend immobilised (whether they have a white badge, a red badge or any other badge) I think fills all the Members of the Committee with a sense of abhorrence. I am sure the Minister feels exactly the same way as we all do, when he is looking at it.
What I feel is so unjust is this. The motorist is being very severely criticised for the fact that he has even had the courtesy, which most motorists have not got, to put his car in a parking meter space—he has had that amount of consideration—and he has stayed there (like a villain, it is almost suggested) for something like four or five hours. I put this point very shortly and very simply, so that it is in the correct context,
402
certainly so far as London is concerned. If half the time and half the money that is going to be spent on administering this sort of service of clamping cars that are in fact on parking meters could be put into London Transport itself, so that London Transport was a little more efficient and a little cheaper, it might be a different matter. There are many decent citizens who feel they have to use private cars because of the difficulties in regard to transport that we are at the present moment belabouring.
I think we must have this in context. The citizen is not quite the criminal that we are making him out to be when he parks his car on a parking meter. He is usually a person who is now finding it too expensive to travel on public transport in London, or who finds that transport, unfortunately, not as efficient as it ought to be.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I rather agreed with the general approach of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, though I accept the force of some of the arguments deployed by the noble Earl, Lord Avon. I think there is a real problem here, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Of course we have to encourage responsible use of parking meter bays. Of course that is fight. But I do not think that the department responsible for the implementation of this legislation should have any doubt about the degree of anger that there will be among many law-abiding motorists when they find these immobilisation devices on their cars when they have at least put their car on a parking meter, when there are many other people in the same area who have not troubled to put their cars on parking meters and when the only reason why they find themselves in that position is not for any deliberate desire on their part to ignore the regulations but because (and this is obviously a feature of many people's lives) they have been inadvertently delayed. I believe that there is likely to be a great deal of public indignation about this, and I hope we are not going to be told that it is quite impossible to refine this process.
Quite bluntly, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is extremely tiresome so far as this particular issue is concerned because I believe (if I may repeat the point) that there is a real risk of some deterioration in the relations between the public and the police so far as this matter is concerned when this whole process has begun. I hope very much that the noble Earl will take account of what has been said and will give us some indication that he is prepared to look at this matter again, and will come back at Report stage with some rather more sensible arrangements than, frankly, are in this Bill at the moment.
Lord Feversham: It seems to me, as the noble Earl has himself said, that what we want to try to do is to get motorists, even though they have been parked on a meter for a certain length of time, off that meter once they have overstayed their time, so that somebody else can use it. I would not have thought that putting a wheel clamp on his wheel was a way of speeding up that process.
The Earl of Avon: There is only one point about which I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. Of course, the tow-away

403
enforcement laws at the moment can do just that, so your vehicle might have gone if it had been there too long.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Yes, but I hope the noble Earl is going to respond to the general feeling expressed in the Committee on this particular amendment. I hope he is going to give some clear indication that he is prepared to look at this matter again. Having simply listened to this debate, as he of course has, it appears that a very significant number of Members of this Committee are concerned about the provisions of the Bill as they appear on the face of it. I therefore hope very much that he will give some indication that he is prepared to look at this matter extremely seriously with a view to moving in the general direction set out in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
The Earl of Avon: Indeed (I probably sat down rather too quickly) I was going to say that I would take it back and have a look at it. Perhaps I could discuss it with my noble friend Lord Lucas and see whether we can meet somewhere along the line on it.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am very much obliged to noble Lords for taking part in this debate. It comes as no surprise that such an innovation as this strikes a little deeply into everybody's motoring bosom, so to speak. My noble friend in fact said that there were 15,000 meter spaces in central London. My information is that there are only 10,000 meter spaces in London. This reduction was largely as a result of the Labour GLC policy to cut parking spaces. At the same time, residential parking bay numbers went up so that, on the one hand, we are using the streets as permanent garaging for residents (and there must be something odd about that) while depriving the transient mover the rightful space and the turnover that the noble Lord wants.
I think there is one other point. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned that if certain amounts of money were diverted to public transport and it was improved, then people would use it. I wonder whether my noble friend can tell me what happened to the £19 million surplus on meter fees over the last 11 years up and down the country. One just does not seem to have seen much benefit, although the whole idea was that that money was to go twoards improvement of parking.
The Earl of Avon: I am not speaking to answer that particular question from my noble friend. It is a little wide of the mark. He queried my figure of 15,000 parking meters in Central London. I gather that there are 10,000 in Westminster and 15,000 in Central London.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Those figures make it even more disappointing—10,000 in Westminster and 15.000 in Central London. There is not much hope for Central London. However, in view of what my noble friend Lord Avon has offered, to have further discussions on this matter, I think that the best
404
thing I can do is to withdraw the amendment now and, if necessary, return to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 58, line 31, leave out ("another person") and insert ("a traffic warden").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like my noble friend to tell me whether anybody at all, whom a constable authorises, can clamp a motor car. Can the Commissioner of Police or whoever is responsible engage an entrepreneurial firm of wheel clamp fixers with mobile vans and appliances and entrust them with this job? Are they going to be told, "Go round to everything you see on a double yellow line, half parked on the pavement in Beauchamp Place, or overstaying its welcome on a meter, or which has been on a meter space for more than two hours, fix one on, and bring me the list"? Can he ask a traffic warden to do this job, or can it be done only by a constable?—bearing in mind again Lord Mishcon's remarks with regard to the responsibility of the traffic wardens which my noble friend answered. We really want to know who is going to have the first and ultimate authority for imposing this additional and iniquitous penalty upon an offending motorist. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: I should like to ask the opposite question. Who has authority to unclamp a vehicle; and how do you reconcile subsection (3) with subsection (5) because subsection (3) says that a vehicle can be released from its clamp only by a constable? I emphasise "only". Subsection (5) says:
"A constable may authorise another person to take under his direction any action that the constable has power to take for the purposes of this section".
How do you reconcile those two subsections and how is a lower court—because I take it it will be the lower courts which will have to interpret this clause—to reconcile those two subsections?
If what is meant is that another person besides the constable can be authorised by him to unclamp the vehicle, I hope that that is right, and I question Lord Lucas's attempt to narrow the effect by saying that not "another person" but only "a traffic warden" may unclamp a vehicle. I think this provision may be undesirable because I foresee a situation where a busy surgeon or somebody of that kind, whom it is obviously in the public interest should not be hampered in his movements, commits the offence of parking illegally. His vehicle is clamped; he goes to pay the money to get it unclamped and the police say, "Yes, we will come along and unclamp it when we have the time. You have been very stupid. We cannot just drop everything and come and unclamp your vehicle. You will have to wait. We will do it as soon as we can". And there may not be a traffic warden available.
I should like to see a situation where the constable is allowed to ring up a garage of good repute—and they know them because they are vehicle testing stations' for instance—and say to them, "Please send round a responsible mechanic to unclamp this car because we are too busy to attend to this at the present time".

405
I hope that the intention is that another person under subsection (5) is allowed to unclamp and that the sort of person I have mentioned will be, on occasions, employed to do the job when the police have other duties, more pressing, to carry out.
Lord Gisborough: May I raise a third question? It is the question of damage. In the event of a policeman locking or unlocking, presumably, there must be a liability for damage should he chip paint off, or whatever. What would be the position with regard to damages to the vehicle if he authorised a third person to do it?
The Earl of Avon: It might be helpful if I paint my picture now. I ought to say to the Committee at this stage that the thoughts I am getting are interesting and I should like to take them back after we have had this general debate to see what we can work out. This is a novelty; this will be an experiment and I shall be happy to be guided by the Committee on the way they are thinking. I should like to say at the moment how we are thinking so that I can get the Committee's reactions.
In the initial experimental period of operation, I understand that the Metropolitan Police intend to use their uniformed vehicle-removal officers. I do not know whether that fits in with the noble Lord's idea of somebody who is reliable enough to do it or not. These people at present assist in towing or driving away illegally-parked vehicles and these will be the people who will apply and remove the clamps under the direction of a police officer.
It may be that if immobilisation is successful and the powers are retained, practical experience will dictate changes to these arrangements. The Metropolitan Police civilian staff who assist the police in their duties will not necessarily need the same qualifications currently required by a vehicle-removal officer, for these officers all have heavy goods vehicle drivers' licences for operating "Z" wagons. This will not be necessary when we come to immobilisation.
There is a range of possibilities and this is the reason why the type of people who assist the police is not set out in the clause. Subsection (5) is clear that the persons assisting in immobilisation operations will do so only with the authorisation and under direction of the police constable. It also provides that their actions will be regarded as having been taken by the constable and the police will therefore take full responsibility. It will be for the police to see that unsuitable persons are not employed. My noble friend asked me about damage. I think that we are coming on to that in a later amendment so that I will leave that until later. I hope that I have given the Committee some food for thought.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My noble friend has just said that the holder of a HGV licence is not necessary. If the vehicle is a lorry and the lorry then has to be moved before being clamped in probably another dangerous position, the lorry mover must have an HGV licence.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Underhill: The Notes on Clauses explain in regard to subsection (5) of the clause that work that can be done by another person authorised by a police constable includes immobilisation, release and the collection of charges. Surely, it will be necessary to put into the Bill something different from "another person". "Another person" could be anyone. While the police may decide what they are going to do, surely there ought to be some guidance given as to who "another person" should be, particularly if he is going to have authority to collect charges.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: May I ask about the clamps and the undoing of them? Do they have a universal key? What happens if the clamper goes off-duty for the weekend and the next one coming on duty does not have the key?
The Earl of Avon: I think that the Committee's imagination is enormous. May I show the Committee how I think the system is going to be working at the moment. There will probably be a small vehicle which will have a series of wheel clamps in it with a team of people. They will go round and clamp something, and put the ticket on the vehicle which will show which police station has to be contacted. The car driver will then go to that police station and the keys will be there. Another team will go out and release the wheel clamp. That will probably allay the fears of the noble Baroness. I have not checked this information for the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, but my understanding is that the actual money will be paid at the police station by the car driver when he takes the ticket in there.
Lord Mishcon: We are all expressing a personal point of view, and I am sure that that is understood. Will the noble Lord the Minister not only review some of the points put to him in regard to difficulties on clamping but also consider clamping down on the whole idea? There are so many cases where citizens are going to be furious with the police: where, for example, a car has been left—and we are considering this type of example—on a parking meter because a father has been called back from business because his child is slightly ill. He then finds that he has to wait for the doctor and it is discovered that the child is rather more ill than was first thought. The father goes to his car and sees the clamp on his vehicle. It is bad enough to find that the car has been removed—one goes and collects it; takes a taxi, if one can afford it, or travels on public transport, if it is working.
We are introducing into our transport system under this Bill something that is so dangerous from many points of view in regard to the relationships between the police and the citizen, and there are so many hardship cases that will be caused that I ask the Minister whether all this is worthwhile and should be done.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The more we go into this matter, the more apprehensive one becomes of what is being proposed. I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It is a point which I made earlier. There is a real risk of a very significant

407
deterioration in the relationship between the motorists and the Metropolitan Police as a result of this situation. For example, a woman with two or three small children, experiencing the type of weather that we have today may find that the clamp has been put on her parked car. She then tries to find out who is going to come and remove the clamp. The amount of that is going to be engendered by this process will be astonishingly high. I have no doubt that the matter has been carefully thought through by the Ministers, their advisers and the Metropolitan Police, coping as they do with substantial problems in terms of the traffic management of London. I hope that the other aspects of this problem are going to be looked at because, speaking for myself, the more one listens to the debate the more one becomes concerned about what is being suggested. I believe that there is a real risk of an explosion of public anger when these procedures are introduced. It seems to me self-evident that that will arise.
Baroness Denington: The noble Lord the Minister said a little while ago that the Committee seems full of imagination tonight. I think that the Committee is getting quite carried away on this subject. What is proposed is a limited experiment—limited in area—to try to do something about the people who do flagrantly bad things when they are parking their cars.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I thank the noble Baroness for being kind enough to give way. We are debating a particular amendment; not the general principle. We seem to have slid away. If it is the Committee's wish that we go on to the principle in the hope that my noble friend is going to say, "Forget all about it, I will walk away with it" then, fair enough; but in that case we shall have a two-hour debate and let us get on with it. I do not think that that is what the Committee want nor what my noble friend will accede to. It seems to me we should stick to the amendment, giving my noble friend the ideas that he has asked for regarding this aspect; he can have all the rest later on, and then we can come to the principle on the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Denington: With the leave of the Committee, I was only trying to provide a slight corrective to the idea that this should all be washed out and forgotten. With the leave of the Committee, if I may say a few words: it is to be an experiment. I think that the police will go very, very gingerly with it. I do not think we are going to have a whole host of irate motorists writing to the newspapers and beseeching your Lordships and people in the other House. It is also to be tried, when we come to a future amendment, for a limited period. That is all that Parliament is asked for. I suggest that something like this ought to be tried in order to deal with, and help the police to deal with, some of the flagrant traffic offences that happen in the inner parts of our crowded cities.
Lord Harvington: I should like to intervene to say that I believe that the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Harris, have put their fingers on the right way of looking at this matter. I do not think that we are going
408
to get better feeling with the police. We need more than anything to get good feeling with the police. It is desperate now. One saw it this afternoon in the Mall where the police were being cursed by everybody there for the mess that is going on outside the Palace and so on. We must do everything that we can to help avoid this. In bringing this in I have every sympathy with the police and the Ministry in wanting to stop illegal parking and put the matter right. I do not feel that this particular method is going to be helpful at all. I entirely agree with the noble Lords who have said this.
Lord Denham: May I support my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth? We are getting a little out of order in having a general debate on this rather limited amendment. I know that a lot of these matters will come out in the wash later. Perhaps we may come to some conclusion on my noble friend's amendment. I would not wish to stop anybody on any side of the Committee from talking about the general scheme at the appropriate time.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: May I thank my noble friend for bringing us a little nearer dinner time? It is quite obvious that my noble friend Lord Avon has had an expression of views in particular with who shall clamp and who shall unclamp. It is quite obvious that there is more imagination in the Committee than in the department and parliamentary draftsmen. That does not surprise me since this measure was only put down a very short time ago. It has not been thought out. This particular subsection of the clause has not been thought out. My noble friend has suggested that we should have a talk about it. If nothing else happens tonight, we can have another talk about it another day. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 97.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
Lord Denham: I think this is probably a suitable time at which to resume the House, but before I move that this be done, for the guidance of the Committee perhaps I might suggest that the House will not come back to this particular issue before five minutes past eight.
I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure
7.20 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester The Lord Bishop of Rochester rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the first of the two Measures passed by the General Synod which I have to ask your Lordships' House to agree shall be presented for the Royal Assent is concerned with new

409
developments in the provision of pensions and retirement housing for clergy, deaconesses and licensed lay workers. It is hard to believe that such provision in the Church of England has only become the shared responsibility of the whole Church in the last 60 years, and that before that the only pension payable to a retired priest came out of the stipend of his successor.
In recent years steady progress has been made both in increasing pensions and in providing a variety of ways in which priests who are ready to retire from full-time work can be assisted with housing in their retirement. Many senior clergymen will tell you very gratefully that the anxieties arising from the prospect of retirement have been considerably reduced for them in recent years. As a diocesan bishop, I know at first hand how helpful the partnership between a diocese and the pensions board can he for those who after 40 years or more in the ministry, living in a series of tied cottages, some larger than they could have wished, now look for a house of their own and the opportunity of continuing to exercise their ministry without having to carry the unceasing burden, day in and day out, of the responsibility for a parish, with all that that means.
This present Measure is a further step in a continuing process of providing more adequately for those who serve the Church of England in the full-time ministry, ordained or lay. It will make possible a further increase in the proportion of the Church Commissioners' general fund allocated to pensions. In the 10 years 1971 to 1981, this doubled from 14 per cent. to 28 per cent. of the total. The pension for full service is now £3,060 a year, and the lump sum payable on retirement after 40 years' service is now £4,900.
One consequence of this is that the Commissioners now devote less of their general fund to stipends, which means that many parishes are now responsible for more than half of their incumbent's stipend. It could well be that not many years from now the laity in the parishes will be entirely responsible for the stipend of the clergy on active service, leaving the commissioners to provide for them in retirement. The group from overseas, known as Partners in Mission, who looked critically at the central structures and management of the Church of England a year or two ago, left us in no doubt whatever that such a development in their judgment would be a thoroughly good thing for the life of the Church in this country.
May I now refer very briefly to the six clauses of this short and modest Measure to amend the Clergy Pensions Measure of 1961. Clause 1 seeks to extend the powers of the Church Commissioners, enabling them to make loans out of capital to the pensions board. Clause 2 makes it possible for a person qualifying for a pension to receive a loan within three years prior to his or her retirement. This will be a great help to those who wish to purchase their retirement house ahead of time and to spread the cost over a longer period. Clause 3 ensures that the pension rights of someone who starts as a licensed lay worker and later in life is ordained to the priesthood are not affected by their change of status. The remaining clauses widen the powers of the investments by the pension board, bringing them into line with the powers exercised by most trustees of pension funds.
The final approval of the General Synod was given to this Measure when a total of 254 votes were given by the bishops, clergy and laity in favour, and there were no votes against. Subsequently, the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament expressed the opinion that the Measure is expedient: another place has concurred in that and I now ask your Lordships to do the same. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Rochester.)
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will be grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for the way in which he has detailed the provisions of this Measure. I am pleased, speaking from these Benches, to give a welcome to the Measure because it will facilitate the efforts of the Church of England in providing for clergy pensions.
I must declare an interest as a Church commissioner although, of course, I have no pecuniary interest. With other commissioners, whether appointed (as I am) or elected by General Synod, our pleasure is to administer without payment the Church estates under Acts of Parliament. As your Lordships will know, the commissioners' income is mainly devoted to clergy stipends and pensions, as well as to housing and, of course, with close accountability to Parliament itself.
As the right reverend Prelate has said, the Measure makes provision for clergy pensions by extending the powers of the Church commissioners to make loans to the pensions board and by granting the other facilities which have also been detailed. I am sure there will be widespread pleasure at the proposals contained in the Measure, for it is the Church's recognition of the value of the work done by the clergy and indeed by other Church workers and the laity within our dioceses. It also provides the occasion to review current practice in respect of the pension funds.
The Measure, as the right reverend Prelate has said, has the full support of the General Synod. It is, of course, known and recognised that our clergy perform an important role not only spiritually but in other vital ways within our communities. It is only fitting and proper that they should have the kind of security which this Measure aims to give. It is interesting to note from the annual report of the Church commissioners, recently published, the figures quoted by the right reverend Prelate; and one is pleased to note the increasing amount which has been devoted to clergy pensions—19·7 per cent. of expenditure in 1981; I think the figure was £17·9 million.
I understand that a simplified system of pension differentials approved by the General Synod in November 1980 was brought into operation on 1st April last and that discussions are being held with dioceses on ways to achieve greater uniformity in administration. All this will be helpful in providing the kind of reward for service to which the clergy are entitled. I am very glad also to say that I believe the Measure to be expedient and that it should receive the support of your Lordships.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I thank my fellow Church Commissioner for his support and for the additional information he has given to your Lordships which, I am sure, is helpful to those who wish to understand the way in which the rather complex arrangement between the Church Commissioners, the pensions board and the dioceses operates to provide adequate pensions and housing for the clergy and lay workers.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pastoral (Amendment) Measure
7.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester The Lord Bishop of Rochester rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the second Measure, which I have to ask your Lordships to agree should be presented for the Royal Assent, is also an amendment measure. It is also part of a long, on-going process and, like the previous Measure, it is one that has been laid before Parliament after most careful and detailed consideration by the General Synod, where it received the final approval of the bishops, clergy and laity by a total of 319 votes in favour and none against.
I have no hesitation in saying that this clear and united desire to improve the Pastoral Measure, 1968, is because the prime purpose of that historic and far-reaching Measure was to make better provision for the cure of souls. As the longest serving diocesan Bishop in England, I know that it is the Pastoral Measure which has made it possible for my diocese the better to fulfil its mission to the whole community in West Kent and to use its resources of ministry, money and buildings more effectively. I have probably consecrated more new churches than any of my 103 predecessors in 13 centuries. I have certainly dedicated 21 new places of worship, which is more than double the number that I have seen declared redundant in my diocese.
The Pastoral Measure is concerned with the cure of souls, with a proper regard for our inheritance from the past and with equal concern for our continuing mission. The changes proposed in this amendment Measure by the bishops, acting in Synod with the elected clergy and the elected laity—both, incidentally, elected by proportional representation—are all designed to make better provision for the cure of souls and to provide better machinery for pastoral reorganisation and for dealing with redundant churches. Your Lordships should know that a consolidation Measure is already in hand to facilitate the use of the 1968 Measure and this amendment Measure, as soon as may be. A code of recommended practice was published in 1976 and this, too, will be brought up to date. The Ecclesiastical Committee, in reporting to Parliament that, in their opinion, the present Measure is expedient, noted a number of minor defects in the drafting which they have suggested should be amended
412
on consolidation—a process which they consider highly desirable, in view of the length and complexity of the Measures.
I know that your Lordships would not wish me to go through the 72 clauses and 4 schedules of this Measure, even were I competent to do so, and I stand here alone, like the boy on the burning deck. But your Lordships will expect me to mention those matters which were of concern to the Ecclesiastical Committee in fulfilment of its duty to be watchful for the rights of all our citizens, as well as the considerations which prompted the General Synod to seek to make better provision for the cure of souls.
The title of this Measure states that it makes provision for the 1968 Measure to be extended to the Isle of Man, and also to enable a new body to be established to replace the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches and the Redundant Churches Fund. This is an enabling power given to the Standing Committee of the General Synod, so that it may, if and when it deems appropriate, bring forward, after consultation with the Secretary of State and others, a statutory instrument that will be subject to affirmative resolutions in both Houses of Parliament.
Although the present procedure is thought by some to be unduly complicated, and the Synod is, in fact, on record some years ago as having asked for the Department of the Environment to be consulted about such a merger, it seems unlikely that any move will be made in this direction until a good deal more experience has been gained by both these bodies, each of which is a partnership of the Church and State.
Clause 7 of the Measure provides that the right of appeal to the Privy Council by anyone making written representations against a draft pastoral scheme will, in future, be exercisable only with the prior leave of the Privy Council. The Privy Council has itself made very clear that, in its judgment, the grounds for appeal are very limited. For this reason, the necessity to obtain prior leave should save considerable effort, as well as cost, for all concerned. I should perhaps stress that the average number of appeals heard in any year is three and has never reached double figures in any year. Moreover, I can testify from first-hand experience to the great care taken by the Board of Governors of the Church Commissioners, in their consideration of all representations made against a scheme. The Ecclesiastical Committee was satisfied that this limitation on the right of appeal was acceptable, especially as the Privy Council has itself reaffirmed in a recent judgment that the occasions when an appeal will be allowed are likely to be few, and has itself suggested that such a limitation should be made.
There are two other matters upon which the Ecclesiastical Committee commented at some length. The first is the modification of the 1968 Measure, allowing the final decision regarding the demolition of a church, when it is to be replaced by a new church, to rest with the Church Commissioners as an executive body, rather than with the Advisory Board, which, by its very name and nature, is advisory, and which has no other executive functions under the 1968 Measure. Your Lordships will not be surprised to know that this proposal provoked a closely fought battle between the "conservationists", on the one hand, and the "pastors", on the other. Both parties can, in my judgment,

413
take heart from the fact that one of the safeguards provided by the agreement between Church and State, when State aid for historic churches in use was finally granted after long years of negotiation, is that the Secretary of State can intervene to hold a non-statutory public inquiry in contentious cases before demolition proceeds, though under the law the eventual decision to demolish rests with the Church Commissioners. Although experience of this procedure is limited as yet to only one case, I am sure that the Advisory Board was right in its original judgment in this matter and that the Department of the Environment most certainly regards this as a considerable safeguard.
The other matter of substance to which the Ecclesiastical Committee drew attention are the powers in Clause 61, under which schemes made under the Pastoral Measure will be able to override Private Acts passed before the commencement of this amending Measure. The Ecclesiastical Committee are of the opinion that the proposed provision is a reasonable one, having regard to the fact that representations can be made against any scheme to the Commissioners, with leave to appeal made to the Privy Council.
This is a complex Measure, but it is one which is of importance for the daily life and mission of many parishes for, as I said at the outset, it is concerned to make better provision for the care of souls. The Church of England holds in trust for the nation not only hundreds of historic and beautiful buildings, but also the pastoral care of several million men and women, boys and girls. We fulfil that pastoral care in a growing partnership with our friends in the Roman Catholic and Free Churches. Bishops and clergy rejoice to work increasingly as partners with the laity in both ministry and mission and the Church of England as by law established, has unique delegated powers from Parliament with which it works in partnership in much more than legislation.
As we know full well at the present time, the year 1919 is a hallowed year for others besides the Church of England, but it is under powers granted in that year and powers by which Church and State have acted in partnership for over 60 years that I beg to move this Measure.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure be pre-presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Rochester.)
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I am sure that once again the House is indebted to the right reverend Prelate for the way in which he has detailed the proposals and has explained their need. I should renew my declaration of interest as a Church Commissioner for the last 14 years, including a period when I was Second Church Estates Commissioner in the other place and had the pleasure to present such Measures there. Experience of some of the changing situations with which this Measure seeks to deal has given me a fuller appreciation of the need for the Measure, and it has also given me an awareness of the sensitivities and the anxieties of the wide range of organisations and individuals interested not only in the function of the Church but in the life and concerns of the wider community.
414
As the Bishop has said, the Measures had a long and justifiably detailed examination by many Church bodies: by the General Synod, plus the demanding scrutiny of the Ecclesiastical Committee and of another place. Having read the evidence and studied the questions and assurances given in the Ecclesiastical Committee, I am pleased now, when speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, to say that I welcome also these proposals. I am aware of the concerns expressed by members of both Houses in the Ecclesiastical Committee—particularly, as the right reverend Prelate has pointed out, about churches no longer required—also as a former member of the Redundant Churches Fund from its formation in 1968 until I became a Government Minister in 1974. I am pleased now to see that action is being taken in the Measure about the problems of the care and maintenance of churches—some of them listed and some not. I accept also the need to balance the priorities which include also—and most important—the needs of new and existing churches, to which reference has already been made, and must of course meet the needs of new and existing communities up and down the country. They, like those whom they serve, have to adapt to changing social patterns. I am of the opinion—as, I am sure, your Lordships' House will be—that the new redundancy and pastoral proposals will meet these needs.
The commissioners, as the Bishop has told us, are very much involved and identified with the details of this Measure, so I shall not go into them. The right reverend Prelate has been good enough to do this. I ought to emphasise—as did he—that the Measure had the overwhelming and total support of the General Synod. It follows a long and thorough review of a changing situation. The proposals will, I believe, enable the Church and all who bear national and, indeed, diocesan and local responsibilities, to work more effectively and more harmoniously in partnership, to the advancement of the Church's mission. I believe there has never been a time when there has been a greater need for all that the Church can offer. I believe that the Measure will help the Church to do the job more effectively in future, and I am pleased to commend it to the House.
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Esher: My Lords, as an original member of the advisory board for redundant churches since it was set up in 1969 and its chairman over the last four years or so, I have listened with great interest to the introduction of this subject by the right reverend Prelate. Let me say straight away that my board welcome the whole of the amendment Measure—particularly provisions such as those which allow it to have regard to the condition of churches where a demolition is proposed rather than simply their architectural quality—in particular the provision which allows us to take account of the contents of churches and churchyards which are obviously so vital a part of their ambience and character. But there has been one section of the Measure which, as the right reverend Prelate has indicated, we have not been happy about. In fact, we have never been happy about the loss of the board's veto on demolition in Section 46 cases. Those are cases where the demolition of an old church is proposed in order to make room for

415
a new one. This power to veto such a demolition in a small number of cases is of course anomalous in the sense that it was strange that an advisory body should have executive power at all, but it did enable us to secure a decent alternative use of a fine building as an alternative to demolition in a number of important cases, some of which have been quoted by name in another place.
We also believe that this power has helped to safeguard the ecclesiastical exemption from planning control upon which the Church of England sets so much store, by protecting the Church Commissioners, on occasion, from the very strong diocesan pressures which are bound to exist in cases of this kind where pastoral and architectural considerations are often in direct conflict. When we heard that the loss of this power was mooted, we at once expressed our alarm to all concerned, and particularly to the Department of the Environment. But the department refused to help us because, as a sort of quid pro quo for its financial support of churches in use, it had introduced its new Article 8 non-statutory public inquiry procedure which it believed would be an effective substitute for the board's veto. We therefore—I now think mistakenly—did not pursue our objections. That was what the right reverend Prelate described as our original judgment. It was not a judgment on the merits of the case but was a judgment on how we should proceed. As I said, I believe that in not pressing our objections all the way we not only weakened them but also made rather a nuisance of ourselves.
Then two cases occurred which confirmed our opinion on this matter. Both cases involved mid-Victorian churches by Sir Gilbert Scott. The first was the Church of St. Matthew, Westminster, which is only a few hundred yards from this House and known, I am sure, to many of your Lordships. It has always been a place of worship for Members of both Houses, with a loyal congregation of people from all walks of life. In 1977 the roof of St. Matthew was destroyed by fire and the parish had to do what it could in the ruins to make use of the church, which it did. But a couple of years ago an opportunity occurred which the parish at once saw as an opportunity to rebuild. This was because, on an adjoining site, a commercial developer expected to get permission to put up a block of offices. This project needed a small parcel of church land and this gave the parish an opportunity to raise funds for rebuilding and replacement of the church.
It was a special case with some special urgency because the diocese was well aware that the new GLC was not enamoured of commercial development in principle, and was certainly not enamoured of it in that part of London, and was not likely to be as supportive of this money-making exercise as the previous council might have been. So there was an opportunity and there was a good deal of political urgency to the matter. These are the kind of questions to which I referred earlier.
The diocesan authorities felt so strongly about it that they were prepared to do the job by faculty if the board proved hopelessly obstructive. We did prove obstructive. We were not happy with the demolition of the great part of the church which, apart from being a good Scott church, contained work by Comper and
416
Barclay of considerable interest and beauty. Still less were we happy with the design of the proposed new building. We therefore felt it our duty to press our objections and to refuse a certificate for demolition.
I believe everyone now recognises that the negotiations which ensued were a great success. We recommended the appointment of a consultant who has now been retained to design the restored building in detail. We have saved the whole of the church and we have prevented the building of what many of us felt to be a building of thoroughly unsatisfactory design. None of these things could have been done by public inquiry and it is a recent and excellent example of where the power of veto may make it possible for a good building to be protected and re-used and a bad building avoided. That was the first case which led us to question our decision not to pursue our objections.
The next case was that to which the right reverend Prelate has already referred, which is the Church of Holy Trinity, Rugby. This Scott church was not, in the judgment of the board, of first importance in the very large volume of Scott work which still exists in this country. Therefore, we did not see it as being fund-worthy, but our view was hotly contested by conservation bodies and, as a result, the first of these non-statutory inquiries was held. It was a long, often irrelevant and often entertaining but extremely expensive and time-consuming exercise. At the end of it, the Minister decided that the church ought to be preserved, but, of course, the inquiry being non-statutory, the Minister has no power to ensure that it is, and his decision presented the commissioners with an extremely difficult problem. We felt that this was an illustration of the bluntness of this instrument and the use of a steam hammer to crack what is often a little nut of some complexity but one not susceptible to the simplifications and oratory which take place at such public inquiries.
When we heard, as a result of these two experiences, that the Ecclesiastical Committee itself was unhappy, or at any rate divided, about the loss of the board's veto in cases of this kind we decided to restate our opposition. We did not want to hold up the Pastoral Measure provision which was already much delayed, so we proposed a compromise; either that the Measure be amended or that the Church Commissioners should provide us with an undertaking that there would always be a "cooling-off" period of not less than 12 months to enable the board to go through the kind of exercise which we recently completed so successively with St. Matthew, Westminster. It was this compromise that was so narrowly defeated in the Ecclesiastical Committee.
I would say again that I am not in any sense wishing to question the final judgment or the details of the Pastoral Measure provision. We must all hope that the machinery will indeed work. My board has always had excellent relations with the Church Commissioners. Almost without exception, its London Churches Committee under the chairmanship of Mr William Harris (and of which the right reverend Prelate was himself once a vice-chairman) has taken our advice, even when it was impaled on the horns of the kind of dilemma which I described earlier.
We have very much appreciated this and have been conscious of the courage which this often required.

417
If the Church Commissioners continue to do this, they will be able to avoid the nonsense of a public inquiry and of a Minister's decision which has no binding power and which the Commissioners, with the best will in the world, may not have the financial resources to implement. I am sure that this is the only way in which the commissioners can hope to protect the independence, in planning matters, of the Church of England.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am speaking not for my colleagues who sit on this Bench but as an Anglican layman and as a recent member of the Redundant Churches Fund—to which I should add, by way of sketching in the background, that my wife is a current member of the Redundant Churches Advisory Board. I want to set forth for the record certain surrounding factors which mesh together with the details of the present affair which the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, has set forth with such outstanding clarity, and to make one comment. It may be that what I shall say will be familiar to all your Lordships here present, but I think it should appear in Hansard because Parliament as a whole wants to have on the record all the relevant facts about what is done by any of its Committees, and this is the way to do it.
A church declared redundant by the Church authorities may or may not be preserved as a church in a state of redundancy by being passed to the Redundant Churches Fund, which is jointly funded as to half and half by Church and State. The question whether a given redundant church be preserved is the subject of advice from the Redundant Churches Advisory Board. Until the present Measure came before the Synod and before Parliament that advice was in one circumstance mandatory; that is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, has said, in the circumstance of proposed demolition. If the board did not think a church should be demolished it could veto demolition by refraining from issuing the necessary certificate. That veto power is removed in the Measure at present before this House. Obviously, I am not going to propose that the House should reject the Measure, but we are not merely taking note of the passage of something; we are on this occasion deciding whether or not this House should pass into law the Redundant Churches Measure.
The House of Commons has already passed the Measure, but it is open to this House, if I understand the constitution correctly, to reject it. The Measure has itself been the subject of a close vote—the figures were 11:10—in the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. This is, therefore, a Measure that came from the Synod in need of parliamentary approval in order to become the law of the land, and the Committee of both Houses of Parliament, the Ecclesiastical Committee, on the advice of which the Houses of Parliament themselves are accustomed to act, divided upon it, and the vote was only 11:10 in favour of passing it into law. The reason was precisely as Lord Esher has been pointing out, the removal of this veto power on demolition from the advisory board.
I should say at this point that, of course, I think there is no Member of either House who has any real
418
doubts about any other part of the Measure except this one very minor provision—when you take the Measure as a whole it is a minor part of it. In proposing it to us the right reverend Prelate said that the abolition of the board's veto power gave rise to a closely fought battle between conservationists and pastors. I was rather struck by that phrase, because it did reawaken various misgivings in my mind which had long existed. It seems to presuppose a drawn battle line where on one side there are those who have no care whatever for the pastoral function of the Church or for the cure of souls, the time honoured phrase the right reverend Prelate used in presenting the Measure, and on the other side those who have no care whatever for the preservation of fine old buildings. It suggests the existence on one side of an entrenched army of conservationists who positively wish the Church to stop caring for souls and to care only for old buildings, and, on the other hand, an entrenched army of pastors who positively wish to see expensive funds-consuming space-consuming fine old buildings demolished in order to provide more money for the cure of souls. I think that one ought to reject this vision of a closely fought battle, and if there is a battle at all to look forward to the day when that battle is a thing of the past and when pastors love fine old buildings like other people and when architectural historians love other Christian souls like other people. I do not believe that day is so far away; indeed I believe it exists at this moment.
At any rate, it is the existence of this battle which I think one has to admit gives Parliament, or certain sectors of Parliament, the elected of the people, misgivings about the present frontier in preservation law between Church and state. The Redundant Churches Fund benefits half and half from Church funds and state funds. But we should not for a moment lose sight of the fact that the state provides 15 times as much financial aid to churches in use, in full pastoral use curing souls, as it provides to the Redundant Churches Fund to keep the old ones standing up.
I will conclude, my Lords, only by saying that I do not believe that this measure can be a permanent resting place in the distribution of conservation functions in regard to Churches, whether in use or out of use, and that the statutory inquiry carried out by the Secretary of State, who has no power to do anything about it in these cases once he has considered the results of the inquiry, is, as Lord Esher has pointed out, an unsatisfactory solution. I believe indeed that it will not be many years before the matter must be returned to; whether in the form of another Pastoral (Amendment) Measure or whether in the form of a Town and Country Planning Bill, perhaps of 1985 or 1990, will become clear in time.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I thank my friends who have spoken, if I may be allowed from these Benches to refer to them in that way, and especially thank the noble Viscount Lord Esher and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for explaining some of the background to what I think some will see as the change of view of the advisory board. I think that what I tried to suggest earlier about partnership of the various bodies involved in

419
this very complex and difficult matter is perhaps the greatest guarantee for the future. I share Lord Kennet's view that we are not probably agreeing upon a final arrangement for all time. There are various other matters which are under active discussion at the present time which may well have a bearing on this matter.
What I think one can say with some confidence is that, as a result of the considerable discussion that has taken place about this amendment Measure, all the partners involved, the Synod, the Commissioners the Redundant Churches Fund and the advisory board, will be the more concerned to work together in dealing with some of the more difficult situations that arise; and I hope very much that we shall find that the two parties that I rather unwisely stuck labels on will work happily together both in the cause of extension of the cure of souls and in the maintenance of our historic buildings.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.8 until 8.10 p.m.

Transport Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 51.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 59, line 23, after ("section") insert (""disabled person's badge" means any badge issued, or having effect as if issued, under any regulations for the time being in force under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons); and").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 59, line 23, leave out ("anything") and insert ("a device of a type approved in regulations made by the Secretary of State,").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move amendment No. 100 and for the convenience of the Committee I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 101 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. Indeed, your Lordships will notice that both he and I have our names down to Amendment No. 100.
Subsection (10) of this clause reads:
"In this section 'immobilisation device' means anything designed or adapted to be fixed to a vehicle".
In our view that is far too wide. "Anything" can mean what it says—anything. It could mean a variety of implements or devices which could be designed or adapted for the purpose of preventing the vehicle being driven or put in motion. It may be that there could be found in use some highly undesirable or unsuitable devices. I think that it may be argued that this will be a matter for the separate chief constables. But the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that only those
420
devices which have been specifically approved for the purpose by the Secretary of State, may be used anywhere to immobilise a vehicle under this clause. This would seem to be a most desirable amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I support the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in Amendment No. 100, which is so very similar to Amendment No. 101. The noble Lord has, of course, put the point quite clearly. We want to ensure that we do not get a number of mechanical devices which are patently unsuitable and which, in fact, might be copied. One can think of chains, for example, with a padlock on the end. That is a very simple, rather nonsensical way of looking at the situation. So any device that may ultimately be used in this rather objectionable system would have to be a device that is not going to cause damage; is not going to impede a passer-by or a passing cyclist or somebody of that nature; and is, therefore, going to be subject to some specification approved by the Minister. I can see no reason why my noble friend cannot accept an amendment as simple as this one.
Lord Gisborough: I should like briefly to support the amendment and to say that having the right type of device might save a great deal of money in damages in the long run.
Lord Airedale: I rise to give support from these Benches. I entirely agree with the amendment. When we consider breathalysers, we remember that Parliament was very careful to decide that any old breathalyser that a police force chose to use, would not do; it had to be a very special device, properly approved centrally. With the Bill as it stands, a policeman could use his ingenuity—as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has suggested—by chaining a car to a lamp post, for instance, which might be very enterprising of him, but it would hardly be the type of conduct which Parliament had intended.
The Earl of Avon: I accept that there may be ingenious devices which are less safe. However, I should like to make one point. I understand that the police have demonstrated a device of the type they are considering to the Joint Committee on the Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People, who were concerned about the possibility that it might project beyond the car over the pavement. I am sure that the Committee will welcome the fact that these discussions have taken place, and I believe they indicate the responsible approach which can be expected from the police in matters of public safety.
I note the support of the Committee for the amendment. What I should like to propose is that both noble Lords withdraw their amendments and the Government will put down something on Report which will be slightly more on the lines of the second amendment rather than the first. Will the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, agree to that?
Lord Underhill: Speaking for myself, I welcome the offer of the noble Earl and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 59, line 28, leave out subsection (12) and insert—
("(12) This section shall extend only to the City of Westminster but may be extended to such other areas as the Secretary of State may by order specify.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 102. This is a short amendment, but it is important. When introducing the new clause relating to mobilisation devices during the Report stage in the other place, the Secretary of State said:
"The clause will enable me to authorise the police to use clamps experimentally in certain areas".
He went on to say:
"The intention is to designate only limited areas in the Metropolitan Police district where there is widespread and persistent illegal parking".
However, that is not evident from the clause as drafted.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I—in whose names this amendment is put forward—believe that the area in which the experiment is conducted must be clearly defined in the Bill. The London Borough of Westminster, in our view, satisfies the Secretary of State's criteria and is a suitable area for the experiment. Naturally, if the noble Earl thought that there was another area in London that ought to be designated, we would readily withdraw the wording, of the amendment.
The purpose of the amendment, therefore, is to provide specifically that immobilisation devices may only be used within—we say—the London Borough of Westminster during the experimental period. Any extension of the area to other places would be, by order, made by statutory instrument and a subsequent amendment, which we shall come to later, provides that any such order shall be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
As I said earlier, on another amendment, when we come to deal with the question, Whether the clause shall stand part, it will be seen that I am one of those in favour of the clause in general, but I take the view that it should be made absolutely clear that it is an experimental area for an experimental period. Unless there is something defined on the lines of this amendment, the Secretary of State would be free, if he so desired, to have this experiment over a large number of areas which we think will be undesirable. I beg to move.
8.20 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation because I must confess that I was not quite sure of the reason why this amendment had been tabled. The clause, as introduced, is so drafted that the power of the police to use immobilisation devices shall not have effect in any area, unless an order has been made under subsection (12). My right honourable friend has indicated that for the first designated areas he has in mind an experiment, in limited areas of the Metropolitan Police District, and for a limited period. Whether any further designations follow would depend very much on the outcome of that experiment. No decision has yet been taken on the areas to be used for the experiment and this is a matter which will be discussed between the Department of Transport, the Home Office, the police, the GLC and the boroughs concerned.
422
The police have identified three areas where persistent illegal parking is a particular problem, and where they think an experimental scheme may go ahead. But no decision has yet been taken. It may well be that the first designated area will include part of the Borough of Westminster—and I emphasise the word "part". I understand that the borough is keen that it should. But it may also include parts of other boroughs.
I cannot see an advantage at the moment in taking the decisions in advance of the discussions which have to take place, and writing them into the Bill. I am advised that the amendment may have the effect of making this part of the Bill hybrid.
I can assure the Committee that the case for including all or part of Westminster in the initial designation order will be carefully and sympathetically considered. Indeed Westminster's encouraging initial response to my right honourable friend's inquiries about opportunities for increasing short-term parking supply has made designation all the more likely.
I take the noble Lord's point. Perhaps I can study it and see whether we can come some way to meet him. Equally, I hope he will realise that we are not trying to do anything, as it were, behind the scenes, and that what he has put down might not be the convenient way to go.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My noble friend the Minister unhappily, again, used the phrase "persistent offender". He said that the police had identified three areas where there are persistent offences, which, of course, implies persistent offenders. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and I are seeking to determine here and now where the experiment shall take place. Although my noble friend said: "and a number of other areas"—and these orders will, of course, have to come before Parliament—it would certainly be very much more helpful if we knew exactly where it would happen. Then we would know the authority, which would remove a great number of doubts.
That the City of Westminster appears to be an area where many offences are committed is perhaps not surprising. That this may prove, quite quickly—say, in two years' time—whether or not this system is effective, is again a good thing. So if one proceeds with this matter, the sooner one gets it into a tight-knit area which can be quickly and easily monitored, the better it will be.
Lord Gisborough: This also worries me, because I think that it is the thin end of a wedge which could well be tried elsewhere by other towns. Most other towns have no traffic problems resembling those of London, but they consider that their traffic situation is very bad. If this was successful in Westminster—which it could well be—the next thing to happen would be that on a Friday morning in this House we would have an affirmative resolution which would pop through, and before long we would find every police constable in every large country town trying to introduce it in his area.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I think that the phrase "City of Westminster" may be slightly too limiting, although I, personally, know that the City of West-

423
minster would welcome clamps being available to them and think that it would do a great deal to solve the problems there. But this may be an inner London problem. I understand that the only areas in which meters are financially viable are Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Camden, which means a very small part of inner London. These are the areas with the very great amount of illegal parking.
Although I, personally, would be delighted to see this scheme passed for Westminster, it may well be that there are areas of Kensington and Chelsea which suffer just as badly, and it may simply be that there is not one here to speak up on their behalf.
Baroness Denington: I suggest that we would be wise at this stage not to press this, but that we should wait for the Report stage to see what the Government come back with as slightly amended wording.
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I was about to suggest the same thing. Now I know exactly what the two noble Lords want in this amendment, I shall see whether we can progress towards something in that direction.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I believe he said that any areas would be involved by affirmative resolution procedure. I think that that is what I heard. We are providing for that in our subsequent amendments, which we have not reached. But subsection (12) says:
"This section shall extend only to such areas as the Secretary of State may by order specify".
In the later Clause 58 I cannot see that Clause 51(12) is listed as one of those for the affirmative procedure. We are very anxious that Parliament will be able to take this decision either by writing something into the actual clause or by affirmative resolution. However, as the noble Earl has said that he will take this back and look at it, I am satisfied and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 59, line 29, at end insert ("; but the Secretary of State may not extend this section to an area unless requested to do so by the authority responsible for traffic regulation in that area.
(13) For the purposes of subsection (12) above, the authority responsible for traffic regulation in any area is—

(a) in relation to any area in Greater London, the Greater London Council;

(b) in relation to any area in England and Wales other than an area in Greater London, the council of the county; and

(c) in relation to any area in Scotland, the regional or islands council.

(14) The operation of an order extending this section to any area to which it did not extend immediately before the order comes into force may be limited to a period specified in the order; and any order extending this section to an area for a limited period may be continued in force by another order under this section either for a further limited period or without limit of time.
(15) Subsection (14) above is without prejudice to the power exercisable by virtue of section 14 of the Interpretation Act 1978 to revoke, amend or re-enact any order made under this section.").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to this amendment
424
I shall obviously be trespassing on Amendments Nos. 105, 106 and 107, which we said earlier would be acceptable to the Committee. I shall also be talking to Amendment No. 121. These amendments provide answers to the same questions: in what circumstances will the immobilisation powers be extended to any area? Will the first use of the powers in an area be decided solely by the Secretary of State? Will it be time limited? What provision should be made for extending the powers, or making them permanent if the initial experiment is a success? What follows if the initial experiment is a failure? I shall now try to cover some of these points. The Government answer is, we think, at Amendment No. 103. This fulfils commitments given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in response to the debate in another place.
First, the immobilisation powers will not be extended to any area unless the traffic regulation authority for that area so requests. The traffic regulation authority has been defined consistently with the allocation of powers to make traffic regulation orders in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, as amended by the Local Government Act 1972. Secondly, the amendment would allow the order introducing them to any area for the first time to incorporate a time limit. The Secretary of State has in mind a 12 months time-limit for the initial order, which will designate limited areas of the Metropolitan Police District. I may add that the GLC and the London boroughs have already indicated their support for the proposed experiment. This has also been supported by many groups representing road users, including London Transport and the London Region Roads and Transportation Committee of the CBI.
I hope these amendments will meet much of the concern expressed about these proposals. In particular they ensure that immobilisation will not be introduced in areas where the traffic regulation authority sees no case for them, and they make clear on the face of the Bill the intention that the first use of the powers will be experimental and limited.
I submit that these amendments are a fair response to the questions that have been raised. They will, through the negative resolution procedure, give the House the opportunity to debate orders made at the various stages of operation of the power. If a debate is needed and requested, it can be held. This will apply when the first orders are laid before the House. It will apply if they are renewed; it will apply if in future years the powers are requested in other areas; and it will apply if designations are revoked.
I believe it would be unnecessary, and potentially a waste of parliamentary time, to require the affirmative resolution procedure for these orders. Imagine, for example, a situation where the powers had been operating successfully in an area, but because of a very localised problem a need arose to extend the boundary of the designated area, perhaps by only a few streets.
Given that the extension would have to be requested by the traffic regulation authority, it hardly seems necessary, as the proposed new subsection (19)(a) would require, to make the steps subject to affirmative resolution. If the initial experiment with wheel clamps is adjudged a failure, the House is unlikely to be troubled with further orders. I shall listen with

425
interest to what noble Lords have to say, but I suggest that 103 would provide all, or more than all, of the opportunities that the Committee may require for further debate on this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I am very pleased that the noble Earl has emphasised the experimental nature of the proposals. When introducing the new clause in the other place the Secretary of State said:
"I am happy to make it clear that there will be a period of about 12 months during which the experiment will run, after which it would be in order for the House to debate whether the order to designate their use in the Metropolitan Police district should be revoked".
We consider it desirable that that should be made clearer in whatever final clause the Committee determines upon.
The clause as drafted does not make it clear that the use of the devices will be for a limited period only. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I believe that the period during which the experiment is to continue should be clearly defined in the new clause, and any extension of the period should be by order made by statutory instrument. That is why we moved 102, but as the noble Earl has said that he will take this back, that position may be clarified at Report stage. If the wording of 103 is to be accepted, that the Secretary of State will not extend the section to an area unless requested by the authority responsible for traffic regulation, I wonder whether the words should not be added "and unless satisfied to do so". In other words, he does not just act upon a request from the traffic regulating authority. The Secretary of State himself must be satisfied that it is desirable that this area should be extended for the experiment.
There should be more control than a request by a traffic regulation authority. Amendment No. 107 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is complementary to our Amendment No. 106 which makes those provisions. Amendment No. 107 provides that any extension of the period, or area of use, will be by order made by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This will ensure that the experiment is not extended without the express approval of both Houses of Parliament after full debate has taken place. We would hope on presentation of a report which would review the experiment. I hope that the report will be successful, but any decision to continue must be based on a review.
The new subsection (14) in the Government Amendment 103 which provides for the extension of the section to additional areas and for an additional period seems to me to be somewhat complicated wording. It may be my own lack of reading it correctly, but it seems rather involved draftsmanship. If we are going to stick to this amendment, 103, I wonder whether that could be improved. Amendments 106 and 107 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and myself, would be more precise and more immediately understandable.
Then we have Amendment 105 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Paragraph (a), I suggest, would appear to be unnecessary as subsection (12) of the clause provides that the first area will be specified by order. Paragraph (b) in Amendment 105 would seem to be covered more effectively by the amendments in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord
426
Lucas—this gets involved—106 and 107. I hope that the Government will accept that the affirmative resolution is required for an extension. It is, in the Secretary of State's own words, "intended to be an experiment".
The new clause was introduced in the other place only at Report, so this has been the first opportunity for either House to consider amendments. There was no opportunity in the other place. Instead of asking the Committee to determine on all these amendments tonight, I wonder whether, in the light of the discussion, the noble Earl would think it better if the Government amendment and all the other amendments, after we have considered them, were all taken back for a complete review, because it would appear to me that there are some good points in most of the amendments, which would be subject to a good review for a firm amendment to come forward on Report.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: I must apologise that I was not here at the beginning of the discussion on this particular clause. The word "experiment" is being used many times, but I cannot find it anywhere in the Bill. Reference has been made to the relationships between the police and the public, and it would help them if it were quite clear that this is an experiment and stated as such in the Bill. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could do that.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: In this collection—if that is the right word—of amendments, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for explaining clearly not only his point of view but also mine, because I do not dissent from him in his enjoining my name with the process of argument. There are two points I want to emphasise. First, the Secretary of State must be satisfied, and a full and proper argument must be put forward, before any authority is given the power to conduct either an experiment or introduce these measures.
Amendment No. 105 really sets down an insurance that details of the proposed experiment must go before Parliament for approval before implementation. It seems to me from our earlier arguments that this is vital. There are so many loose and untidy areas that Parliament in total has to have a look at this. Then I think, as did the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that we have to monitor it. Therefore, it has to be a fairly contained experiment, and a report to come before Parliament.
I have said before that traffic experiments tend to be the forerunners of regulations in perpetuity. This is likely to happen also, unless we have such a provision as is suggested in Amendment No. 105. Taken together, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, suggests, it would seem to me that my noble friend, together with the Government, can pick the bones of it, put the best hits together, and come up with a composite which quite easily might meet almost everybody's requirements in this matter.
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful for the suggestions from both noble Lords and from the noble Baroness. May I take up one or two points from the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and from the noble Lord, Lord

427
Lucas, about being satisfied. The Secretary of State does not have to act on a request, so to that extent the noble Lords would be much happier. I shall try to see whether we can work in some other term along the lines noble Lords have suggested. Obviously, we are going to have to change it a bit, and I take to heart Lord Underhill's point on drafting, and we shall see what we can do.
I also noted my noble friend Lady Platt's remarks about "experiment" not being in the Bill. Again, I shall find out why it is not in the Bill, and if we can put it in the Bill, we shall certainly try to do so. I know we have different periods of terms here for experimental purposes; some have one year and some have two years. I have at the back of my mind a suggestion which I hope might be practical for the noble Lords. Basically, we should look for the affirmative resolution to take place when the experimental period is ended rather than to have to keep it for all the bits after that. If we can get that drafted, I shall try to get it done by Report. I think I have covered most of the points but, if not, I will see what I can do about them when I read Hansard.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: It might help my noble friend when he is considering the experimental point if I remind him that when the Minister moved the clause on 24th May, reported at column 675, he used the word "experimentally" because he said that he had been persuaded to introduce it experimentally.
Lord Mishcon: I intervene only for the benefit of noble Lords who are completely unhappy with the powers in Clause 51, anyway. I wish to make it clear that those of us who feel that way obviously reserve our right, when it comes to the clause stand part, to take the view of the Committee, if that is a sensible course, on the whole question of Clause 51. I should not like the Minister to feel that those who accede to the question of his considering the various amendments and coming forward with a composite, means that those of us who feel very strongly about the clause will be debarred from a discussion on the clause stand part and expressing our views on the clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 59, line 29, at end insert—
("(16) If any vehicle suffers damage whilst immobilised by a device fixed in accordance with this section, the Police Authority shall compensate the owner should there he no opportunity for him to obtain compensation elsewhere.").
The noble Lord said: We here follow to some extent a point made earlier by my noble friend Lord Gisborough. We are really asking who is going to pay, for any damage sustained, to the owner—technically we should call him the keeper—of the vehicle, or any third party, as a result of a vehicle being immobilised by a device fixed in accordance with the regulations. This matter is not as simple as it looks. It seems evident that because a device is being fixed to a car, the owner or keeper—at any rate, the driver—should not suffer any greater penalty than the penalties which the law provides; a fine, court costs and so on. That
428
he should then suffer a further penalty because damage was done to the motor car, perhaps by moving it—about which the insurance company may say: "This damage was caused in furtherance of an offence and therefore you are not covered"—leads one to ask who will be responsible for any compensation.
Whatever the device looks like, and to whichever side of the motor car it is fixed, suppose a pedal cyclist, pedestrian or blind person hits himself against it. If it were, say, a mirror, the owner could say: "It is my responsibility. I am covered by insurance under my public immunity policy". But suppose it is a device fitted by somebody else which causes the injury. Who, then, is likely to pay? It has been suggested to me during the dinner adjournment that we should ask what will happen if a vehicle is immoblised and is illegally parked outside a property which catches fire. What happens if nobody is able to get to the fire—perhaps the fire engines cannot get near enough—and helpers cannot get to the scene? Suppose some tragedy occurs and somebody takes an action against the owner of the motor car, whose vehicle was illegally parked, but who has now had an immobilising device fixed to it, so nobody can push it out of the way. Who will be responsible for that kind of damage? I do not intend proceeding further with the amendment, but I should like to know the answer.
Lord Underhill: I wish to express general approval with the line the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is taking, although the wording of the amendment may need some adjustment. For instance, I am a little concerned with the words:
"should there be no opportunity for him to obtain compensation elsewhere".
I am advised that that could possibly mean that it would limit the motorist's opportunity and right to get compensation elsewhere. On the other hand, if damage occurs as the result of a wheel clamp being fixed—"wheel clamp" is a simpler term to use than "immobilisation device"—by a police authority, it seems only right and proper that the police authority should be liable for compensation for damage that might occur as a result of that device being fixed. Most motorists will be covered by an insurance policy, but in my view that should not cut out compensation which should rightly be paid by the police authority. Therefore, while the wording may require some adjustment, I suggest that the amendment is on the right lines and I hope that the Government will either accept it or themselves consider bringing forward a provision to deal with the matter on Report.
The Earl of Avon: Again, I am grateful to both noble Lords for explaining exactly what they had in mind. In considering the amendment, I think it would be helpful, first, to say that negligent action by the police which leads to damage, either to an immobilised vehicle or to a third party, would be a proper subject for civil action for damages against the police. Indeed, I understand that, when on occasion a vehicle has been damaged in the course of the exercise of vehicle removal powers, the police have been prepared to settle reasonable claims outside the courts.
I cannot of course guarantee the outcome of any civil action arising out of the application of the powers in

429
the present clause. Much would depend upon circumstances. But we have deliberately avoided any provision which would give the police specific protection from action for damages. A clause tabled in another place included a subsection which would have given the police specific indemnity from any liability in respect of the loss of, or damage to, any vehicle immobilised. We do not think it appropriate to give such sweeping indemnity.
The intention of the present amendment is to require the police authority to compensate the vehicle owner in certain specified circumstances. It would, for example, require the police to pay for any damages caused by a third party to an immobilised vehicle, the only qualification being that there should be no opportunity for the vehicle owner to obtain compensation elsewhere. This would presumably oblige the police to compensate in any case where the cause of the damage could not be identified, or had not been witnessed, or in cases where the person had been identified but, for one reason or another, could not be obliged to pay compensation. The amendment, we believe, makes the police responsible whether or not they had been at fault, whether or not they had been negligent in the exercise of the power and whether or not they had used the power in such a way as to lead to damage which could reasonably have been foreseen and avoided. I appreciate that perhaps my noble friend had not intended to go that far, or maybe he had. In any event, I can see the way in which his mind is working.
I believe that these considerations would be relevant in any claim for damages, and it is for this reason that we feel the issue of damages should be left, should it arise, to the courts, rather than dealt with in a predetermined fashion prescribed in the Bill. I have noted what both noble Lords said. I will read their speeches in the Official Report to see whether we can go any further towards my noble friend on the point.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am obliged to my noble friend for that offer to have a farther look to see whether the matter can be clarified. He did not in fact read my mind quite as accurately as he thought, for I had no intention of going as far as I obviously have. I simply wanted to find out the Government's thinking on the matter. The Committee will know that I have some reservations about the kind of insurance most people have. With my noble friend's assurance, I too would like to look at the matter again, and perhaps have a chat with him about it at a later stage, but I do but not wish to pursue the matter further tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 105 to 107 not moved.]
8.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 51 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: We now come to the end of a fairly long debate on Clause 51, a new clause introducing new measures to punish parking offenders. From Second Reading onwards I have made no secret
430
of my total objection to and abhorrence of the clause and its proposals. I have made it abundantly clear that I believe that the Government and the department have for some years failed miserably to tackle the problems of non-compliance with parking regulations in Central London.
I have also made it abundantly clear that I find the clause objectionable in that it does not meet the objective of punishing the persistent offender who fails to meet his obligations under a parking ticket. The number of traffic wardens has been reduced in Central London over the last few years. Indeed, people cannot be found to do the job; it is too difficult. Due to the time factor involved, it is not possible to catch up with persistent offenders. So it is resolved to shame people by the method proposed in the clause. This is compounding the follies of the past, pouring more and more into an old, leaking bucket—and that does nothing towards finding a solution.
I do not want to take a long time in pursuing this part of the debate, and I must say that almost irrespective of what might be said to me in reply, I propose to ask your Lordships' Committee to decide whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill. There are four basic reasons for my action. The clause first appeared in the proceedings in another place at the Committee stage. It was withdrawn, following a very brief discussion, and was reintroduced at Report stage. There have been very few discussions and consultations on the matter. Indeed, there are many gaps in what is proposed, as has been evidenced by contributions from noble Lords on all sides of the Committee. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to what I regard as the very notable contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who has had so much experience in the Home Office in matters concerned with relations between the police and the public.
My noble friend Lord Avon said that he was amazed at the imagination displayed by your Lordships' Committee. I would say that that is only part of the kind of imagination that is running through motoring circles, including the motoring press, and the motoring organisations, with regard to this matter. My noble friend has been generous enough—perhaps even obliged—on a number of occasions to say that he has listened to the argument and will consider it. I do not say this in any bitter spirit at all, but from that it is quite evident that the clause has not been thought out.
Let us consider the reason for introducing the clause—the enforcement failure, the non-compliance. In this regard two very good papers have been published quite recently. One appeared in the Traffic Engineering and Control magazine of June of this year, written by Mr. J. R. Elliot, the principal engineer of traffic planning with Westminster City Council, and Mr. C. C. Wright, the head of school and reader in civil engineering at the Middlesex Polytechnic. The other paper was written by Professor A. D. May, professor of transport engineering at the University of Leeds. Each of those authors said that it pays one to take the risk. The chances of being caught parking illegally are about one in 10. Having been caught, the average cost is about £16. It might go up to £51, if the car is towed away. Nevertheless, one is still quids in.

431
If one considers the parking time, the walking time, the convenience time, and the penalty time, and convert them all into money, it is cheap to take the risk. The risk is taken because of the basic failure of local authorities to provide adequate parking spaces.
A car park in, I think, Spring Gardens, near Trafalgar Square, and run, I believe, by Avis, charges £4.40 for five hours', parking. My goodness! that car park is near enough to Trafalgar Square and the lower end of Piccadilly. There should be more such car parks. For example, there is no reason why alongside the Thames there should not be a number of car parks similar to that constructed in the House of Commons a few years ago. This is what should happen; more parking spaces should be provided. I do not want to hear arguments to the effect that it would cost too much, because the cost of non-compliance, the cost of the entire city grinding to a halt in 20 years' time, would be so enormous that today's expenditure would be so relatively small.
Those are my basic objections to the clause. We should find better ways to deal with the problem. There are better ways to deal with it. If the department wants to know some of them, I should be happy to tell it. Of course, it is perfectly true that I do not have the responsibility of enforcing the measures. The bankruptcy of ideas worries me enormously. The reluctance to surge forward, to recognise the era of the car, worries me—and it is the car, not the lorry, that causes this kind of problem.
I do not think that we should accept the clause until other enforcement ideas which are part of the Bill—the new penalty scheme and so on—and other avenues have been more fully explored. The answers that we have had this afternoon do not encourage me to go forward with this experiment in its present form, and I would not wish the clause to stand part of the Bill.
Lord Tanlaw: I should like very much to support what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, for the same reasons as he advanced. The noble Earl will recall that on Second Reading of the Bill I was not happy with the present clause for technical reasons, and I am still not happy with it, since I have heard nothing to convince me that the clause can work. I also believe, in regard to the experimental aspect, that a period of even up to two years will not provide the information that is required, for the reason that I am about to give.
The noble Earl may recall that I previously mentioned the question of the electronic lock, and since the Second Reading I have had discussions with the police engineering section. The situation is exactly the same as it was two years ago. The police have no method of entering a vehicle that is fitted with an electronic or electro-magnetic lock system.
In answering the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on his Amendment No. 94, the noble Earl said that the police must have the means and the time to move the vehicle from one place to another. Some Continental manufacturers are advertising a type of lock, about which I am concerned, which has 59,000 combinations. I contend that in two years' time many vehicles will be fitted with such locks. The police have been so keen on using the "Chicago boot" and the "Boston shoe", as I believe they are called among policemen, and I
432
cannot understand why there has been no consultation or liaison between the technical department of the police—that department has been worried for two years about this particular aspect—and those who want to introduce the system that we are now considering of putting a vehicle in stocks.
I believe that the clause is altogether unsound. I do not think that the technical side of it has been worked out. The situation already is that the police cannot enter and move expensive vehicles, to put it crudely. They cannot move the Rolls-Royces of this world; they cannot gain entry to them because even the mechanical lock system is too complicated. They cannot move certain large Continental vehicles. If they are going to move cars, are they going to be only the ones belonging to those in the lower income bracket? At the moment that is the position, that the vehicle removal officers cannot move large cars without damaging them. They certainly cannot work the steering locks of the more expensive vehicles.
I do not believe the police have thought this out. I do not believe that, as this clause stands, it is at all fair, because it is the small man in the small car who is going to get these clamps put on his car. The large car, or the car with electronic locks—these locks are already available today, and they will be multifarious in the years to come—will be safe, for the simple reason that the police method of entry into a vehicle is exactly the same as that of criminal entry into a vehicle for theft. They use the same tools and the same method. So if you protect a vehicle against theft you also successfully, as I believe an electronic lock does, protect that vehicle against entry by the police. I have heard nothing this afternoon or this evening which convinces me that the police can enter the vehicles and drive them away in order to make this clause workable.
Lord Underhill: We have had such an airing of this that I need be only very brief. I can understand all the problems. That is why it is that, among other noble Lords, I have been so insistent that we should treat this as of an experimental nature—and that should remain quite clear right through the piece. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that there has been a bankruptcy of ideas, but I know (and the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, will be able to confirm what I am saying) that the GLC, through its transportation department, has been considering (this is completely non-political; there are no politics in this) the problem of London's congestion. Over a period of years it has been considering all sorts of ways to tackle it. I have been told that 70,000 cars were towed away in one year.
The police have four options, or they will have: removal, the fixed penalty ticket, prosecution or immobilisation. This will be an additional option for them. The GLC, through its detailed investigations, reviews and policy documents, has come down in favour of an experiment of this kind with an immobilisation device. The Metropolitan Police are really keen about it. They believe this is essential to assist in the solution of the traffic problem in London. London Transport are heartily in favour of it as a way to help clear clearways; and lots of responsible bodies in London believe we ought to have this experiment. I think it must be an experiment; that is why I want it to be so

433
carefully made out to be an experiment. But it is one which has been really thought out; and for all the reasons that my noble friend Lady Denington put forward in her earlier speech, which I hope she will amplify, I hope your Lordships will support this clause.
Lord Mishcon: I rise as an indication of the fact that there is no question of politics in this at all. Therefore, my appeal is to all sections of the Committee. Indeed, I am even trying by this speech to convert (such an optimist am I) my noble friend Lord Underhill to take a different view from the one he has just taken. If I may summarise my reasons for saying that, and the reasons given by other people in the course of the debates on the various amendments, I will do it as follows.
First, this clause does not even provide that where there is a danger found as a result of the parking of a vehicle there should be given to the police the rather special power to fasten this piece of mechanism to a vehicle so that it is clamped and cannot be moved, with it being an offence for anybody to try to move it other than an authorised person, or to interfere with the clamp—that applies to the owner of the vehicle and to the driver of the vehicle—with a fine of up to £200 if he tries to do it. Therefore, one has to wait for the police to arrive—one may think a great waste of police time and energy, and so on—in order that the vehicle can he unclamped.
It is not a question, under this clause, of the vehicle having to be in a dangerous situation. The clause reads as follows:
"Where a constable finds a vehicle on a road which has been permitted to remain at rest there"—
if I may pause there, "at rest there includes, as we know from other discussions, even if it is parked on a meter but is over its time on a meter—
"in contravention of any prohibition or restriction imposed by or under any enactment",
he may do all the things that we have been learning about by way of immobilisation.
Not only is this unjust, and can be seen to be unjust; not only does it impose a discretion on the police which I think is far too wide: as has been said on previous debates, even as an experiment it will create such hostility between the public and the police force as to make this provison in this section an absolute menace to that relationship. That is what worries me more than anything.
If, as has been said so properly, this had been considered very carefully in another place, if it had been properly debated and as a result of it all had come forward in a way which had regarded all the mechanical points which have just been made and all the points made in the various amendments which the noble Lord the Minister said he would very kindly consider, we might have said to ourselves, "Maybe our judgment is wrong". We are the judges of this clause, because it has not been properly considered anywhere else and the amendments that we have been discussing today have not been properly considered. So your Lordships may think that this one of the many cases where the value of this Chamber is exhibited, and where that value ought to be utilised in a constructive way.
There is no way of properly amending this clause.
434
This clause should not stand part of this Bill; and I personally hope (because this is purely a personal view, as has been made obvious by all the speakers) that the Committee will say that this is an intrusion upon rights; this is an example of too much discretion being given to police constables, who are but human; and this is an invitation to so many hardship cases, as your Lordships heard—doctors who suddenly find themselves in this position; people who have been called to an invalid, to a bedside; priests who have been called to people who are dying; then finding their cars immobilised in this way because of some minor contravention of a traffic or parking regulation. I ask the Committee to throw this clause out.
9.8 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: Before the noble Lord sits down might I ask a question, because I regret that some of us were not in the Committee during the earlier part of the debate. If a car has been clamped, the driver has to go to find someone to take the clamp off. If the car had been taken away, surely a space would have been left for another car to come. If the clamp is on, then that immobilises the car in the space for another car. Is that correct?
Lord Mishcon: I should love to claim originality for my reply to the noble Baroness. But this was a point raised from the Cross-Benches on one of the amendments and the answer has to be that it is absolutely right. Although this is supposed to relieve the parking problem, and especially the overstay on the parking meters, the vehicle, immobilised, must occupy that space until the police arrive with an authorised person to unclamp.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: May I say a few words on safety? We live in an era, unfortunately, of terrorist bombs. What could be worse for the police, for the fire services and for the ambulances if a bomb were to go off demolishing a building and clamped cars obstruct those services which come in to help people who may be in dire need? I should like to ask the Government whether they have considered this fact.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: May I intervene briefly? I am aware that the hour is getting late. But I have not declared, as I was unable to be here at the Second Reading, my deep-rooted objection to the whole of this clause. I will not be long, but it is important. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, directed us (as did the noble Lord, Lord Lucas) to make your Lordships aware that the other place did not consider this point at all. In fact, this discussion this evening would have been an eye-opener to the other place as to the ways in which it is very likely that this clause, if it is implemented, will not work. The AA and the RAC, as many noble Lords will be aware, are deeply against the implementation of Clause 51.
My principal reasons are that I do not think it is practicable. If one is causing a nuisance, somebody has to come along and remove the car. If we follow the route that my noble friend has suggested, and Westminster is the first place where an experimental area will be sited for the implementation of this clause, then I suggest that if you try to take a vehicle—and it may be a lorry or a small or a large car—from a place

435
where it is thought to be a danger or to be in the wrong place, and try to put it somewhere else within the Royal Borough of Westminster, I doubt whether anybody will in fact be able to find anywhere else to put it. Then one comes to where it should be put. Should it he taken to a pound or to somewhere outside the Borough of Westminster?—where the owner of the car would have a great deal of trouble in finding it.
I must lay the blame for this clause fairly and squarely on the Greater London Council. If it were not for the fact that they have not provided parking spaces, parking areas and garaging, however high they might be, for the traffic that they know is coming into this great city of ours, this clause would not be necessary. I feel very strongly about the citizens who in good faith bring a car into the City of London (I do not live here but in Buckinghamshire but I travel here every day) and are then fined and clamped. I think that this is taking away the rights not only of the citizen but of the motorist as well.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I make no apology for speaking at some length on this. I have listened, absolutely dumbfounded, to the most amazing emotional outbursts on the subject. I loved the golden words flowing from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He almost converts me until I stop and listen to what he is saying. He is really saying no more sense than anyone else is saying on this topic. I must take up a number of issues. Such a number of inaccurate statements have been made and alarmist issues raised. Let me take the bomb scare and the terrible fires—
Lord Brougham and Vaux: Will the noble Baroness support what we are all saying: that this is not a Government clause but a Greater London Council clause? The noble Baroness knows more about it than the Government.
A noble Lord: A member of the GLC!
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I would not claim that but I claim to know as much about it as those who have been speaking at length. I know a little about the fire brigade system, for I have, until a short time ago, served on the Fire Brigade Committee for this capital. In the event of all these fires and bomb scares, the fire brigade are well equipped with keys to either special fire gates or other types of entry. I have no doubt that they would be equipped in the same way with a key to unlock this type of device if it was a problem.
I also know that where there is no other answer, the fire brigade manhandle vehicles out of any obstructing position. They could easily do so whether or not there was a clamp on the vehicle. They could simply lift the car up if the situation was that desperate. This is the kind of approach that is being made, sometimes it is dealt with by manhandling; sometimes it is by a mechanical device. The whole element of the bomb scare and the fire is a red herring.
To take the point made by the noble Lord from the Liberal Benches, he cannot have understood that clause at all. It was a clause about immobilising the vehicle where it stood or moving it. His total argument was directed to the matter of electronic locks and
436
whether or not the police could move a vehicle. We are not talking about moving vehicles except in a very small proportion of cases. In such cases they would be in a dangerously obstructive position and would otherwise be liable to be removed to the car pound.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: If you are not going to move a vehicle when it is in a place that might be dangerous or might be an obstruction, what on earth is the point of clamping it down in that place?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Apparently people have not followed this debate from the previous discussion that we had on it, because I explained all this on that occasion. I shall do so again if people have missed the point. The reason why I feel it essential to have the double part of the clause in—one which enabled you to immobilise the vehicle in the position that it was in; another to move it—is that there may be circumstances where it is wished to move it. At the present time, if a car has to be moved for any reason those same electronic lock problems occur whether the car has to be moved to the car pound or anywhere else. That situation is no different in either case. Indeed, you would be more pleased to find that your car had only been moved just around the corner rather than to a remote car pound. I have no doubt of that.
Lord Tanlaw: I am well aware that you can move the car to the car pound; but the police will be unable to move cars fitted with electronic locks. This is not the point I was making. The point that I was making was that there has been an apparent lack of liaison between the Metropolitan Police engineering division, the Metropolitan Police and the GLC on this technical matter which has not been raised by the Government.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am sorry but we seem to be at cross purposes. The cars now moved to the pound are not opened in order to move them; they are simply hoisted and taken on a large vehicle to the pound. They are not opened and driven there except in a very small number of cases where the police would happen to have a key. The vast majority of cars now are mechanically hoisted and taken away. But parked cars in certain positions are great offenders. It takes time and a lot of expense to bring the vehicle to take a car away.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Will the noble Baroness—
Several Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Macleod of Borve:—say how many cars are taken each year in Greater London?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: No, I am afraid that I cannot give those figures. I can tell the Committee from my experience sitting in court that the only people who are at all concerned about parking offences are those who have had the personal inconvenience of having had their vehicle removed or immobilised; and the immobilisation would work in the same way to great personal inconvenience.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made the point that it has become such a game not to pay the fine at all and only

437
something like one quarter of the people ever pay at all; it has become a great sport to escape the £10 parking fine. But for even those who have to pay £10 today it is not much inconvenience. But the personal inconvenience of finding your car immobilised or gone is great, and you think twice before you park illegally again.
It is also clear from the debates, and the great emotions that have been aroused, that everyone is talking as if these people were honest, respectable people parking where they should be parking. I was pleased to hear the noble Earl say he would take back the matter of the parking meters. I think it would be wrong if on a parking meter you found your car immobilised. These other people that we are speaking about are illegal parkers. They are the people who are completely fouling up the traffic in London today—particularly in Central London. This is one solution that may solve the problem. I do not say that it will, and that is why it is to be an experiment.
Why is everyone so frightened of it? As someone said to me at dinner, "I am frightened of it because it might happen to my car". There are too many of us here tonight who are seeing the problem purely from that point of view: that you might happen to get your car caught. That just is not good enough.
The point was also made that the City of Westminster does not provide adequate off-street car parking. Again, nothing could be less accurate. There are ample off-street car parking spaces. They are disliked by people; people do not want to use them. Earlier in the afternoon the point was brought out: why could not the parking meter revenue go to pay to reduce London Transport costs? But by law it cannot be applied to anything except other parking matters, and it is for that reason that the multi-millions of pounds from parking meters have been poured into building multi-million-pound off-street car parks which, frankly, people do not like.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned the doctors; these tragic doctors. If he makes inquiries, I think he will find that at present a doctor displaying a BMA badge or a "doctor visiting" sign, rarely gets a parking ticket. If they come up in the magistrates' court, they are usually let off. It is an extraordinary thing to get a ticket and if they do it is usually because they have changed their hospital and did not receive the notice, but eventually it has come. The BMA have an arrangement with the police and the wardens that certain badges may be displayed—for example, by visiting district nurses, health visitors and other people. There is also the question of car parking for an unexpected, sudden emergency, or there might be something as simple as somebody having to make a visit to a public convenience or perhaps in connection with the death that was talked about. People display a little notice on the windscreen, and on the whole the wardens and the police accept that.
I believe that a whole lot of completely false emotional issues have been brought up on this matter and that no real thought has been given to the fact that this would be an experiment which might prove to be the answer to parking problems in Central London. I agree that it may not solve everything and that it could prove to be a failure, but why are we frightened to try it? Why are we not willing, along with the Greater London Council
438
and the City of Westminster, to try this for a trial period? The Minister has said that it would be for a limited period and cover a limited area. Why are we frightened to try it? We should definitely agree that this clause remains in the Bill.
Viscount Cross: A number of your Lordships have spoken on the question of fire in London and, I should like to say a word or two on that subject. As your Lordships know, many London streets are narrow and they are certainly all congested. I think it would be very tragic if a fire engine was delayed or obstructed in reaching a fire. When a fire breaks out speed, of course, is absolutely essential, and if the fire engine has to stop to unclamp cars, its journey is delayed. No one can tell in which house, building or factory a fire may break out, and when the fire engine has reached the site of the fire it still might not be able to rescue the people in the building because there may be clamped cars that would have to be removed. A similar case can occur when people are trapped in a building with locked and bolted doors, so that they cannot get out. In such a case, the fire engine might be prevented from rescuing the people in the building because of locked and clamped cars. I think that Clause 51 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Baroness spoke, if I may say so, with great sincerity, and in spite of the fact that part of her speech was directed at me, I assure her that I accepted it with great relish. She mentioned fire engines and said that she was a member of the Fire Brigade Committee of the Metropolis. I am sure, therefore, that she will not mind my telling her that I was chairman of that committee for just over five years and thus can claim, as she does, to know a little about the Fire Brigade, for which, I am sure, both of us have a great admiration. I can only tell her that, as chairman of that committee for over five years, any question of having to waste even one minute—and it would be longer than that—in trying to unlock a car that had been clamped in this way, from the point of view of the fire brigade would be a great disadvantage. Unlike the noble Baroness, I have used moderate language in saying, "a great disadvantage".
9.25 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: I do not like Clause 51 and started with the firm view that I would oppose it. I feel that it is designed to clobber the foreigners, who have no intention of paying their parking fines. They collect parking tickets by the thousand, but never pay them. But in order to clobber the foreigners, we end up by clobbering all the "Brits" instead. I believe that the point about the fire engine is misjudged. It makes no difference whether vehicles are clamped, unclamped or locked up. They can be easily moved out of the way in an emergency. If there is this clamping system, there will probably be so much discouragement of had parking that it may be better for the proverbial fire engine. Finally, if this is to be an experiment, then, in principle, it is a good thing. There are so many laws introduced for the whole country and we all have to experiment with a new law. But if we can establish the principle of experimenting with a new law, in a small area to start with, and see how it works, then I am all for it.
Lord Mottistone: I should just like to add, briefly, that there is much too much that has been claimed for the clamp in clearing the streets, and much too much has been claimed for its disadvantages. I see it as not being something that we should have in this clause, because it is clear to me from the earlier debates that the Government have not had time to think it out and, therefore, the clause itself is being accelerated too fast. It is something which the Government should think about and introduce in later legislation. We have had a Transport Bill pretty well once a year for the last three years, so there will be one coming along and the Government can catch up.
But, above all, I am desperately concerned about the relationship between the public and the police. I did not like the seat belt legislation, because the law cannot be applied fairly. You will find yourself in a street with a clamp on your motor car. I shall have a car in the same street, but will get away with it because the police have only one clamp to spare, which they will put on your car and not on mine. That is not fair, because we shall both be on yellow lines. The answer is that it will not do enough to clear the streets, because it will leave cars lying about where they otherwise would not have been, but it will create increased "aggro" between the ordinary people and the police. We have far too many of these things happening now, and I implore the Government to recognise that their clause is not perfect, to wait for it and to try it out in a provincial city. But I ask them not to make relationships worse between the Metropolitan Police and the citizens of London. I ask them not to try to do something just for the sake of it, without thinking about the human relationships which will be destroyed by this and other similar practices.
Baroness Denington: The Government have had plenty of time to think about it. To my knowledge, it has been pressed on the Government for the last 10 years and, at last, they have screwed up their courage to bring it forward, because they know that some measures, however unpopular, have to be taken to try to deal with the London situation. My noble friend Lord Mishcon, for whom I have great respect—I have known him for many years—says "Do not vote for it. It is an intrusion into people's rights". Whose rights? I am glad if it is an intrusion into the rights of those who defy the traffic regulations, leave their cars in the wrong places and do not care how long they are left or what obstruction they cause. They are not citizens whom we in this House should be supporting. We should not be telling them that we are not concerned about their conduct, and giving them a green light to go on doing it. That is not our responsibility in this House. Our responsibility here is to face up to a serious situation. We are talking now about London. We are not talking about other cities in this country. For one year we want to try this experiment in a few limited areas in our capital city. To take the case of Soho, its little, narrow streets are jammed up. It is no good talking about fire brigades, doctors, nurses and everybody else because they just cannot get down those little, narrow streets. Something has got to be done to allow the fire brigades, the doctors, the nurses and the other essential services to get down those streets. Those are the problems we are really talking about.
440
There was some feeling against the authority, the GLC, for not having done something to cure the traffic problems of London. Wardens were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The Government have never allowed enough money to be spent on wardens. The authorities cannot recruit wardens because the pay is so appalling. If noble Lords, or the country, or anybody else want more wardens, let us see that more wardens can be recruited because they are properly remunerated.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, talked also about undergound car parks. I agree with him. I wish we had many more underground car parks. As he has told me only this evening, there are plenty of places where they could be provided. But who is to provide them? The local authorities cannot provide them because of the cost. We in this Chamber all know that local authority monies are very closely controlled by the Government. It costs millions to build one underground car park which houses a few hundred cars. What is really wanted are underground car parks all over the place to house thousands and thousands of cars. Then we should be in a very different situation.
I have said repeatedly to your Lordships that this is an old city with an old pattern of streets which we cannot and do not wish to destroy and that we have modern traffic flows trying to get through them. I pay tribute to those who devise traffic management schemes and to the police who keep London's traffic moving—but only just. It is a very narrow margin. All we are doing is asking for a one year experiment, with the Secretary of State agreeing which areas it is to be in. It is a very limited, small effort to try to cure an enormous problem that we have not managed to cure in any other way up to the present time.
I would end by saying that the decision which we take here will be a very important one for this capital city of ours. We are taking a small step to try to improve the commercial health of this city of ours. As your Lordships know, the on-cost on commerce and industry of delays—by badly parked cars, very often—is simply enormous. I beg your Lordships not to be swayed by emotion. I beg your Lordships to take this vote. I wish there were so many more of us here to take a very important decision for this capital city of our country.
Lord Airedale: Everybody is having their say in this debate. I shall try to be not more than 45 seconds. If you said to an intelligent, small child, "If you came across a car which was parked where it was not allowed to be parked, what would be the right thing to do?" the child would say, "Move it away If the police are going to come and fix it in its illegal position and go away, and if, five minutes later, the owner is going to return and attempt to remove his car from this illegal spot and is unable to do so, the intelligent child will tell you that you have now achieved a situation which is the exact opposite of that which you were trying to achieve, and Parliament really ought to be able to do better than that.
The Earl of Avon: Perhaps it would be a good moment for me to say my piece. I hope the Committee will

441
allow me to speak a little longer than I might otherwise have done because I have during the debate on this clause stuck to the amendments and have not actually taken a broader brush. My noble friend started by listing what he feels to be the disadvantages of this clause. What I should like to do, supported by the two noble Baronesses, is to list what I see as the potential advantages. These have yet to be proved by the experimental and limited trial which the clause will allow, but we believe that the case is substantial. I know the whole Committee will agree with me that the problem of illegal parking in London is real and urgent. To underline that, we have had debates in this House on London congestion specifically, and during those debates one of the solutions put forward was the wheel clamp. This was a solution which we realised would not make the problem go away but would be another step forward in solving the problems of London parking. It is certainly regarded as such by the traffic regulation authorities and the GLC. In fact the case for wheel clamps was supported quite as urgently by the Conservative GLC Administration as it has been by their successors. I suspect it is the only transport issue on which there is a real bipartisan approach at County Hall.
The primary reason why this clause is being put to the Committee is that the case for it has been strongly and persistently put to the Government by the Metropolitan Police. The immobilisation clause will give the police new powers for use in areas where they are most under pressure. It provides a cost-effective means of enforcement which is very much less labour intensive than vehicle removal. That is one reason why this clause has the enthusiastic support of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. It makes sense in terms of the hard-pressed police force, which has many other things to do than pursue the hundreds of thousands of parking offences which are committed daily in Central London.
One indication of the extent to which police time is wasted by illegal parking is the fact that only one fixed penalty in ten is paid on time. This failure of the motorist to co-operate imposes extra work on the police. It is not surprising that in these circumstances the police are pressing for an additional means of enforcement which would take direct effect on the person who is the driver of the illegally-parked car.
The police believe that wheel clamps will prove an acceptable and effective addition to their enforcement options. The police do not believe that wheel clamps will damage their relations with the motoring public; much has been made of this today, backed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in an earlier amendment. I believe that any bad feeling must be more than counter-balanced by the deterrent effect of seeing that the police are doing something. I understand that, when the consultation papers went out, a lot more letters said what a good thing it was that parking was being treated in this way, and there were very few letters against the wheel clamps. Having consulted widely, they have found great concern about illegal parking and support for a new remedy. It is also right that for a period these devices should be on trial, so that the claims which are made both for and against them should be fully assessed in practice before there is any question of making them permanent
442
or extending them to other areas where they may be needed and requested.
The second leg of the case for wheel clamps is that they are likely to be effective in a number of respects in which the fixed penalty system is inherently weak. The improvements to the fixed penalty system in this Bill will substantially strengthen the enforcement of unpaid fixed penalties; but it will not be effective for vehicles registered abroad or driven by diplomats, and the effectiveness of the fixed penalty system as a deterrent will always be limited where many offences are committed by drivers who simply absorb the cost as a business expense. The wheel clamp promises to be an effective enforcement aid in areas where there is a persistent problem of illegal parking by foreign visitors. Fixed penalties cannot be enforced against people resident abroad or using a foreign-registered vehicle.
Looking beyond the initial experiment in the Metropolitan Police district, I suspect that, if these powers are requested elsewhere, it will probably be in areas where illegal parking by foreigners has proved uncontrollable. The problem of persistent illegal parking by diplomats is largely confined to central London. These offences are also immune to fixed penalties. It will be open to the police to clamp vehicles with diplomatic registrations. Depending on the circumstances, a diplomat may be able to claim immunity from the charge for removing clamps. But, as with towing away, he will have been seriously inconvenienced and this is the deterrent.
Finally, there is the problem of the business motorist. Some people feel that illegal parking is an unavoidable part of their job. One does not envy those who have to use their cars on business in Central London, but they may themselves under-estimate the extent to which they are, or should be, helped by parking regulations. It cannot help those who need to make calls at different premises during the course of the day when parking meters and single yellow lines are widely abused. Improved enforcement would itself improve conditions for the business motorist, and my right honourable friend has also asked the GLC and the boroughs to see what additional meters and short-term parking spaces can be provided.
But the business cannot expect to benefit from the advantages of better enforcement unless they recognise that they too must take some trouble to abide by the rules; to pay for parking off-street rather than try to park freely on-street, to be content to park legally a little distance from the premises to be visited, to load and unload only as the regulations permit. Because wheel clamps will cost offenders time and inconvenience as well as money, they deprive illegal parkers of exactly those gains which they seek to achieve at the expense of law abiding road users.
Other noble Lords have spoken of the need to deter illegal parking, particularly in London. The Committee will be aware of the problems of bus services, which on some routes are so seriously affected that 15 per cent. of scheduled milage cannot be run, costs are increased, and the service is disrupted and diverted to the inconvenience and delay of passengers. Illegal parking can inconvience and disturb pedestrians; it can impede cyclists. It slows down traffic at a

443
resource cost possibly of hundreds of millions of pounds.
There were one or two specific comments on which I should like to make some observations. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned the emergency services, as did my noble friend Lord Cross. An answer was given by my noble friend Lady Gardner and a counter-riposte from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. There is already a threat to the access of services because of illegal parking which is on such an enormous scale. The police will always take care not to immobilise vehicles so that street or fire access is disrupted. People who park illegally do not always take such care, and deaths have been caused by illegal parking delaying fire engines.
I think I should remind your Lordships that the clause gives exactly the same discretion as the removal powers do at the moment. Any illegally parked vehicle may be removed. Finally, on vehicle removal, I should like to confirm that some cars are hoisted, some towed and some driven, and some cannot be removed. For those which cannot be removed, wheel clamps will provide one of the many ways of dealing with this offence. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, suggested that in some way a Rolls-Royce might be exempt. Personally, I do not see why they should not put a wheel clamp on a Rolls-Royce parked outside one of those big hotels; I would rather like to do so.
We are not offering wheel clamps as a panacea. They are not magic, and other measures, such as the towing away of vehicles causing serious obstruction, will still have to be used. In appraising their results, we shall have to be realistic about the difficulties of measuring their effect and reaching a balanced view of the public response to them. But if the clause is rejected, their effectiveness will never be assessed, and we shall be forgoing a chance of improving traffic conditions; we should be backing away from the problem. I undertake between now and Report to look carefully at all the comments made today on the details of the scheme, but I hope sincerely that the Committee will pass the clause so that we can undertake this imaginative idea. I commend the clause.
9.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 51, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53, Not-Contents, 22.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Glanusk, L.

Auckland, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Avon, E.

Harvington, L.

Bellwin, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Bishopston, L.

Kilmany, L.

Blease, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lyell, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Margadale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Moyne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

David, B.

Peart, L.

Davidson, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

De Freyne, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Denington, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Donegall, M.

Segal, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Sharples, B.

Elles, B.

Simon, V.

Elton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Trumpington, B.

Faithfull, B.

Underhill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Gainford, L.

Windlesham, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Wynford, L.

Gisborough, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L. [Teller.]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Mishcon, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cross, V.

Seear, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Fortescue, E.

Tanlaw, L.

Greenway, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

White, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 51, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw Lord Tanlaw moved Amendment No. 108:
After Clause 51, insert the following new clause:
("Bikeways.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by construction or by regulations create permanent or temporary bikeways designated for use only by the following categories of vehicles—

(a) mopeds (up to 49 cc) and bicycles; and

(b) powered invalid carriages and electrically-powered and pedal-operated tricycles.

(2) All vehicles in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) shall conform to the regulations contained in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, the Transport Act 1968 and the Road Traffic Act 1979.
(3) The following speed limits will apply to vehicles designated in subsection (1) making use of any road or part of a road designated by the Secretary of State as a bikeway—

(a) vehicles covered by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) may not exceed 30 miles per hour; and

(b) vehicles covered by paragraph (b) of subsection (1) may not exceed 10 miles per hour.").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee and with the agreement of the noble Earl, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 122, which is obviously connected. If the noble Lord agrees that I can speak on Amendment No. 122 at the same time—which is the descriptive amendment on what is a "bikeway "—it may be helpful if I speak to that first.
It may seem rather odd that I use the term "bikeway" rather than "cycleway" or "cycle path" for this particular amendment, but I did so with some reason: perhaps partly with my tongue in my cheek, because the noble Earl will recall that the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment told us to get on our bikes, and not on our cycles. I think that it may be in response to his exhortation for the bike that this amendment has come forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. Reginald Eyre, on 1st July attended London's first bicycle crossing at the Albert Gate, when he said that:
"Cyclists are particularly vulnerable to traffic and this has been particularly evident this week"—
this week being the week of 28th June—
"when many people have been taking to bicycles in an effort to beat the rail and tube strikes. Motorists should always give cyclists space to manoeuvre and this applies as much in heavily congested conditions as when they are overtaken on the open road".
On 28th June—the day in question—600,000 to 750,000 vehicles came into London. How many of those vehicles would have remained in the garage if there were safe and adequate bikeways on which to cycle into London and into work anything up to 20 miles? When I bicycled into the City that day I was amazed at the distances that fellow cyclists had come. Some had come 20 miles and some even further.
Everything was done to encourage the vehicle—the car—to come to London. Hyde Park was open and the double yellow lines and parking meters were suspended. Everything was done to encourage the car. I think that there should be some method to encourage people to use the bike more often.
In the transport policy consultation document 1976 the Government of the day accepted that pedal cycles are cheap personal transport. Unlike motor-bikes they do not cause pollution, and so on. I feel that there are not the adequate facilities to use a bicycle safely in our cities. This is what is so depressing. Urban cycling is no longer a healthy activity. It can seriously damage your health, indeed shorten your life. The present statistics produced by the BMA say that the Government should stop their delaying tactics and provide cycle paths because accidents to cyclists were up 6 per cent. in the third quarter of last year compared with the year before, and deaths up 10 per cent.
What is sad is that it is the 10 to l4-year-olds who experience seven times as many cyclist casualties as those over 30. It is this factor perhaps more than any other which has induced me to put the amendment before the Committee. It is perhaps not in the best form of drafting but it emphasises things that are missing in the law and in a Bill of this kind today. The highest number of accidents are among cyclists and the younger age groups. I have not got the statistics but I suspect that they are the same kind of statistics for the small mopeds which are often the first vehicle a young boy or girl is given, or some elderly people use, in what I believe is the mistaken belief that they are safer than a more powerful machine.
I have also taken care that powered invalid carriages and electrically operated pedal cycles are included. These are the vulnerable areas of traffic. As in these days when traffic increases to incredible proportions, so the cities burst at the seams with the kind of transport disruption which we have at this time. Where is the protection for the most vulnerable of all travellers? It is not apparent at the moment. I have brought it up in this Bill because this is a Government matter in terms of definition; in definition of the type of vehicle and type of bikeway, cycle path, carriageway, call it what you like. It is not clearly defined in the statute book at this moment.
I would refer the noble Earl to the Local Government Act 1888 which states:
"bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines are hereby declared to be carriages within the meaning of the Highway Acts".
This may not sound important, but it means that since 1888 the bicycle is treated as a carriage in law, and it has to adhere to all the laws for all other types of vehicles. These laws for vehicles place strict controls on their use in an attempt to make an efficient use of road space. I should like the noble Earl to look at this and see whether or not there are better legal procedures available to make improved provisions for the bicyclist and for better definitions of a bicycle and tricycle in terms of the law, because it is clearly wrong to classify a bicycle or a tricycle as a motor vehicle, or to give it the same rights.
Could the noble Earl also look at the difference between footpaths and footways? In urban areas there are many footpaths dedicated by the highway authority which in doing so takes on certain responsibilities for the care of the footpath. Bicycles are allowed to run along footpaths, but the difference is that they are not allowed to run along footways. Under the Highway Act 1835 it is an offence to ride or

447
drive a bicycle along a footway which does not run alongside a road. However, local authorities have the power to make by-laws or local traffic orders to make it an offence in particular places for vehicles to go, except bicycles. Alternatively, "No cycling" signs would be put up to conform to these ancient laws.
What I am asking the Government to do—and this is the Bill in which to do it—is to bring the bicyclist up to date. I have quoted two laws from the last century which are clearly "anti-cyclist", in the sense that they are no longer to their benefit. Whether it is called a bikeway, a cycleway or whatever, I am asking the Government to give the cyclist a better chance in an urban situation in an overcrowded city. I also think the Secretary of State should have an opportunity to create, if he so wishes, temporary bikeways in the middle of a great city like London.
In the last debate there were many references to narrow, winding, historic streets, or words to that effect, which were jam-packed with cars. Many of these streets are not suitable for the motor vehicle, coach or heavy lorry. Why cannot they, in times of transport difficulty like we are experiencing now, be made into temporary bikeways for use by mopeds up to 49 cc, powered invalid carriages and bicyclists, so there would be one route going across London from east to west and one from north to south? That would at least allow people to go unmolested and unterrified along those routes and possibly get near their places of work. In other words, let us encourage people to take their bicycles out and leave their cars in the garage.
What I propose is not an earth-shattering amendment. I want to know why the Government have ignored the bicyclist and cycleway in all their efforts to improve car parking, to hammer the motorist and worry about the congestion in our great cities. Why do they not do something positive to encourage cycling, by people of all ages, by providing facilities which are suitable for the purpose? I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: I must first declare an interest by saying that I never go anywhere in London other than on my bicycle, and I only hope it has not been "nicked" so I can go home on it tonight. The bicycle is an enormous space-saver and is extremely quick on which to get around; one can get to the City in 10 minutes and not face a parking problem, and so on. There is, however, the problem of such places as Hyde Park Corner, which is difficult to get round although it is an extremely sporting exercise trying to get round it. I would ask one question of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, in relation to his excellent amendment. I am not quite clear how he intends to check bicyclists' speeds. Does he intend to have policeman mounted on bicycles with blue flashing beacons checking them at 10 pph!
Lord Airedale: I am thankful that my noble friend had his tongue in his cheek in seeking to put on to the statute book the hideous slang term "bike". A bike has to be a bicycle, and whether or not the Ancient Greeks had bicycles, a bicycle must be a two-wheeled
448
vehicle. My noble friend says in subsection (1)(b) that it would include tricycles, but there is no way that tricycles could be included in a provision to create bikeways.
Lord Underhill: I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has tabled this amendment. It may be that the criticism of the word "bikeways" is valid, but I can see what the noble Lord is trying to achieve; he is trying to go beyond what we used to call cycle paths. I can no longer declare an interest; I could have done many years ago, when I was a cycle club captain. In those days, I cycled 10 miles each way to West-minister. Frankly, I would think twice about doing it today, not because of my age but because there are now 13 to 14 million cars on the roads compared with about ¾ million when I used to cycle. Unless there is some provision of special bikeways, it is dangerous for people to journey by cycle.
Towns like Peterborough have conducted some excellent experiments, about which we have read, and if the amendment results in the Government giving more encouragement to such schemes, that would be most useful.
In addition, there is the problem of providing proper cycle paths, bikeways (call them what you will), in the country. Noble Lords who have been to Holland will have seen the cycle paths which cut across the country, and, in the towns, run alongside the roads. That is the way to handle the matter. Whenever there are new road developments or road repairs in this country, thought should be given to providing a cycle path or bikeway alongside. But a problem would arise, because the noble Lord wants to cater for not only bicycles and tricycles, but also invalid carriages. The problem of using an invalid carriage on an ordinary main road must be fairly frightening, and unless a bikeway were sufficiently wide, there would be difficulty in accommodating at the same time an invalid carriage and two or three cycles.
The other problem to be considered concerns the varying speed limits. The limits could be only a guide. I cannot see any possibility of enforcing them. However, I consider that the noble Lord has done the Committee a service in bringing forward the amendment. It might not finish up in this form, but I hope that the Government have some practical ideas to bring forward.
10.6 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: It is obvious from the appearance of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble friend Lord Gisborough that cycling keeps one trim. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for bringing forward the amendment and for drawing attention to the recently-opened cycle route near the Albert Gate. The Government fully recognise the dangers faced by vulnerable vehicles, such as bicycles or mopeds, and invalid carriages, in mixed traffic. There is a case for segregation when it can be achieved, and highway authorities have powers to introduce segregated facilities for cyclists. There is nothing to prevent these being shared by the other categories of vehicle mentioned in the amendment, though that would usually be a matter for local decision.

449
The powers under which highway authorities, including the Secretary of State, may construct cycle tracks, both within the boundaries of existing highways, or as highways in their own right, are in Sections 24 and 65 of the Highways Act 1980. They may use traffic regulation orders to exclude motor vehicles from such highways.
The Department of Transport has consulted on a proposal to make it an offence to drive a motor vehicle on a cycle track. It would avoid the need for separate traffic regulation orders in every case. It is not always desirable to mix cycles and mopeds, and decisions on this would be left as far as possible to local discretion.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, mentioned the 1888 Act. It is open to local authorities to treat bicycles differently from motor vehicles in their traffic orders. The department is committed to improving its advice to local authorities, including better information on the law. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and in fact your Lordships' Committee, might like to know that my right honourable friend is very much aware of the growing interest in cycling, and he is keen to encourage local authorities to respond by providing improved facilities. He has invited them to include proposals in their transport policies and programmes, and he has announced an expanded programme of experimental and innovatory projects to demonstrate what can be achieved. He has also appointed a senior engineer to look after the interests of cyclists in each of the department's regional offices.
I hope that in view of what I have said, the noble Lord will accept that we very much have at heart the interests of cyclists. I hope he will also accept that his amendment would at the moment add very little to the powers already available to provide segregated facilities. I trust that, judging from what I have said, he will agree that we are going on the right track.
Lord Tanlaw: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his response to the amendment, and I was pleased to hear about the activity that is taking place in looking at how bikeways, cycle paths, cycle tracks, can be created by local authorities. I hope that while there is enthusiasm towards the creation of bikeways (as I like to call them) information will be given to local authorities to enable them to make decisions. There are worrying factors about the category of vehicle and the category of path, on which the local authorities might like help from the Department of Transport, and I hope that that will be forthcoming.
The noble Lord opposite asked about bike speeds. I can tell him that a friend of mine has been taken to court for speeding at over 30 miles an hour on a bicycle in a built-up area. So obviously the police have methods of catching people cycling at such speeds. The other reason why I mentioned speed limits was that this is a part of the transport department's regulations that I look forward to seeing about electrically-powered tricycles and invalid carriages. The position is still not clear on these. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his interest, and I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Alteration of procedure governing the Highway Code]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 63, line 7, leave out from first ("on") to ("he") in line 9 and insert ("the passing, amendment or repeal of any statutory provision").
The noble Lord said: The intention in putting down this amendment is to ensure that Clause 53 is not open to misinterpretation. The purpose of this power is partly to provide a more efficient means of reviewing the Highway Code—we still allow changes to be fully debated—and partly to ensure that changes in statute law can be reflected in the Code at an early opportunity, rather than, as at present, waiting until it is practicable to undertake a full-scale revision. I am sure your Lordships will agree that where Parliament has recently enacted, having naturally debated, a piece of road safety legislation, the Code should be amended to reflect it as soon as possible. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 64, line 5, at end insert ("(and the reference to the passing or repeal of any such provision accordingly includes the making or revocation of any such provision)").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Denham: After consultation through the usual channels, I think it is generally agreed that it would be the wish of the Committee not to go much further tonight, after the long sitting last night. For the information of the Committee perhaps I may say that it is intended to put down the remainder of this Committee stage tomorrow afternoon, and we will finish it then.
I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

  PRISONERS: NEXT-OF-KIN IN THE SOUTH-EAST
  PRISONERS: NEXT-OF-KIN IN THE SOUTH-EAST
  ALCOHOLIC PSYCHOSIS: MENTAL HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS
  ALCOHOLIC PSYCHOSIS: MENTAL HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS
  FARM ANIMAL WELFARE COUNCIL: COMPOSITION AND WORK
  FARM ANIMAL WELFARE COUNCIL: COMPOSITION AND WORK
  BADGERS: COMPOSITION OF ADVISORY PANEL
  BADGERS: COMPOSITION OF ADVISORY PANEL
  BADGERS: GASSING PROGRAMME
  BADGERS: GASSING PROGRAMME
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS: 6TH REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS: 6TH REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
  PAKISTAN: POLITICAL PRISONERS
  PAKISTAN: POLITICAL PRISONERS
  WEST BEIRUT: ACCESS FOR RELIEF SUPPLIES
  WEST BEIRUT: ACCESS FOR RELIEF SUPPLIES
  MILITARY EQUIPMENT CONTRACTS
  MILITARY EQUIPMENT CONTRACTS
  ARGENTINA: SUPPLY OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT
  ARGENTINA: SUPPLY OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT
  ARGENTINA: BRITISH AIRCRAFT
  ARGENTINA: BRITISH AIRCRAFT